Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/01/26 - Agenda Packet. 1: ... Ir- k'. Y'; �� J �j 4tA-A'. C[TY OF RANCHO CLr-ANIONTGA ]PLANNING COTTYMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 26, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION' S PARK COMM=T_Y CE..ITFR 9161 SASS' LINE, RANCEO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A C T I O N L Pledge of allegiance EL Roll Call Commissioner Barker X Commissioner King -� Commissioner McNie1 ILL Approval of Minutes APPROVED 5 -0 November 229 1982 IV. Council Referrals Referred item back A. REVIEW OF to City Council with SUBAREA 1 recommendation that amendment not to initiated. V. Public Hearings r Commissioner Rernpel X Commissior.%r Stout �— The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the miated project. Please wait to be recogn'.zed by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such visions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. APPROVED 5 -0 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AYD PARCEL MAP 3383 - as amended BANKS - The division o 5 acres of land into 4 lots within the R -1 zone located approximately FSO feet west of East Avenue - APN 227- 131 -29. (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 1982.) Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 2 WITHDP..AWN BY APPLICANT C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -03 - INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED - A Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map rom Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial on approximately 8.9 acres of land located on + the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077-621-31. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1982.) CONTINUED to 2 -23 -83 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME,'lT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-01 A - KArd:2KVT?l'14A1rAWT— A rn alto to Residential (4-14 dwelling units /acre) to ,Medium -high Residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) a-h approximately 15.5 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - A-PX 227491 -45. CONTINUED to 2 -17 -83 E. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL -.0-PACT' REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDM i- T 83-0-1 B - ETIWANDA PECIFIC PLAN - An amendment to the Land L'se and Development Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to modify the circulation, tails, and land use plain in the Etiwanda area. APPROVED WILSON 5 -0 F. DEFERRED BANYAN to next General Plan Amendment cycle. APPROVED TT 12320 5 -0 G. with inclusion of tot lot. APPROVED PD 82 -06 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 with a H. recom tided change of park requirement to be 42.6 acres or 77% whichever is larger. the City of Rancho Cucamonga concerning t .e continuity of Banyan Street and Wilson Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12320 - L do G - A change of zone R -3-T Multiple Family Residential) to R -3/PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -07. ..vmraiv z aveview am imai conslo0.'aiion oi. Ene terra Vista Planned Community text and foal Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of approximately 1300 acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foot`dll Boulevard on the north and south, and by Rochester and haven on the east and west. ' Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Pk.ge 3 r 'R L Direct CONSENSUS to forward L HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW PROCESS RESOLUTIOL. , City ity council. to it RECEIVED J. RE6riEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOARS HEAD REPORT RECEIVED A. AFFORDABLE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING VII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. Adjournment 10:40 P.M. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that tune, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I i. 1' t •�`.. = �..' MAP ::` iii}. i � w 'L• w CWTAXIO lK fEKKIfiOKII 111MOKr -t &-A > •^-j" :. '.w CrrV OF ' RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 26, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE, RANC110 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA s L Pledge of Allegiance 1L iloL Call Commissioner Barker _ Commissioner King Commissioner McNiel_ ffi. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Rempel _ Commissioner Stout November 22, 1982 �'� ,� „ "1 Q'r�►'"' D TV. Council Referrals A. REVIEW OF V. Public Hesrings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related prOicet. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission ty stating your name and address. Ali such opinions elaIl be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. g, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 - BANKS - The division of 5 acres of land into 4 lots within Lie R -1 zone located approximately 660 feet west of East Avenue - APN 227 - 131 -29. (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of November 109 1982.) C. Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 2 Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial on approxim.itely 8.9 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077 - 621 -31. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 109 1982.) 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-01 A - KANOKVECHAYANT - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling units /acre) to Medium -High Residential 114 -24 dwelling units /acre) on approximately 15.5 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN 227- 091 -45. E. .7YLC.lr 1V rLHn — Hdl i1111CI1UUlclll w u.c uo.w vx aau Development Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to modify the circulation, trails, and land use puns in the Etiwanda area. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN G. 9N1IIINIJ ILIN "1" 153 -U'-/ - t:11.1 Ur lrHAro.nv a.va.Hixlvl�vH - H revision of the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga concerning the continuity of Banyan Street and Wilson Avenue. 12320 - L & U - A change of Zone lrom lc -a-► :.rlulelple Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Ar^1Sbald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -07. H. PLANNED COMMUNITY 81 -01 - ',U!Vlr HP11 — i UV1CW tLUU 1111W 9=11J1UC1'auva. . z u.c ac..a Vista Planned Community text and final Environmental Impa:: Report. The project consists of approximately 1300 acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and south, and by Rochester and Haven on the east and west. Planning Commission Agenda January 2E, 1983 Page 3 VL Director's Reports L HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW PROCESS RESOLUTION 3 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - B HEAD K. AFFORDABLE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING VIL Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to addresa the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. V13L Adjournment The Plap,Ling Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that scat an 11 p.m. adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. OM1ARM IMi(RMM?'*MAL A�Vr 3. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMo"" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 19, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission c FROM: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner i SUBJECT: TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY STAFF REPORT Attacheu please find a copy of the Staff Report for Terra Vista Planned Community which is part of the January 26, 1983 Planning Commission Agenda. This report is being distributed prior to distribution of the agenda packet to allow you enough time to adequately review the material and should be brought to the meeting with your agenda packet. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at any time. MJ:jr Attachment: Planning Comission Staff Report . 7 C-rff OF RANCHO CLJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission .ROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PLANNED COMMUNITY 81 -01 - LtwiJ utvtwrmtN1 wrir„ns Review and final consideration of the Terra Vista P armed Community text and final Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of approximately 1300 acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and south, and by Rochester and Haven on the east and west. SUMMARY: After many public hearings, workshops, and months of work by the Planning Commission, staff and applicant, the final Terra Vista Planned Community text and Environmental Impact. Report have been completed for your final review and consideration. it is intended that this meeting will provide a forum fcr receiving final comments on the Planned Community text for the purpose of making a final recommendation to the City Council. During the General Plan preparations, it was determined that the land contained within the Terra Vista Planned Community, as well as the Victoria Planned Community area, should be planned for the development of a comprehensively planned community that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. As a result, a planned community ordinance was developed which is oriented around the theme of superior development was adopted by the City Council. During the development of the Terra Vista Planned Community it has been the intent of all parties involved to establish a document which would provide the.recessary regulations and guidelines for the development of a superior community. °his report is formated into three basic sections: 1. A summary of past Commisssion actions as it relates to the new plan; 2. an analysis and review of Lhv revised 4CA4 u u uicua staff is recommending further consideration by the Planning Commission; and, 3. a summary review of the final Environmental Impact Report. Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 2 Staff has prepared this report and reconenendations in a style that would allow the Planning Commission to take action, this evening by making appropriate recommendations to the City Council. Staff has provided a Resolution recommending certification of the final Environmental Impact Report and approval of the Planned Community text with conditions. SUMMARY OF PAST COMMISSION ACTIONS: In a review of the work the Commission has been doing over the last several months, we have provided the following summary of the major topics that the Planning Commission has discussed and asked the applicant to resolve. 1. Organization of text and use of graphics - Early in the review process, the Planning Commission requested the applicant to reorganize some of the sections in the plan which would more full, describe each of the elements and provide a clear progression of the concepts. In addition, the Commission stressed the use of graphics wherever possible to indicate themes and concepts to support the written descriptions. The applicant has accomplished this through the revised text. 2. Residential Density - Originally, the applicant's draft plan indicated approximately 8,700 dwelling units within the Planned Community area. The Commission reduced the amount of dw ?llings to 8,000 maximum with a potential for a 1,000 unit density bonus as an incentive to provide affordable housing. The applicant has revised the land use plan to conform with the Commission's decision on the residential maximum Oensity and has prepared a density distribution plan which indicates the potential distribution of those units. 3. Residential Design Guidelines - The Planning Commission expressed Touch coicern over the development of detailed design guidelines for residential development. The Commission asked for more detail with regard to solar, wall treatments, fencing, and other details regarding buffering and transition between densities, as well as guidelines on various design techniques that can be used for residential development. The revised text was substantially changed to incorporate guidelines for design techniques that will create variation and superior development. 4. Commercial Land Use - The Planning Commission spent a considerable amount 0 time wit renard to the 7= cation of ..c � hbvriNvVU Centers and the mix of uses that will be permitted within each of the commercial designations. The latest revised land use plan, as well as the text, incorporates the Planning Comrission's desires for the location of neightorhood centers and contains a rigid list of land uses which are permitted within each of the commercial categories. Planned Community 81 -01/Lewis Planning Commission Agenda .ianuary 26, 1983 Page 3 5. Foothill Boulevard Design Concept - The Planning Commission's main concern for the Foothill Boulevard frontage of the Terra V. --- Planned Commlan ity was to create an image that would not promote a strip commercial at",., but rather groups of uses which would provide a functional -)nship to one another and which would promote center develo; Also, the Commission was concerned with the physical developmt. the corridor as it relates to the Foothill Boulevard scene and the design goals of the General Plan. In response to the Commission's concerns, the applicant has developed additional graphics for the Foothill Boulevard corridor and a rigid set of land uses that will be permitted within each of the land use categories of that corridor. Part of that physical development relates to the development standards which are developed within the text. The setback regulations as they are presently shown in the text are less than that which the Commission has been requiring o,s other places along Foothill Boulevard. A more detailed analysis ar,d recommendation on this matter is found in the next section under commercial setbacks on Special Boulevards. 6. Greenway Design Concept _ The Commission's major concern for the greenway was its implementation as well as the development of conceptual design guidelines for the actual pathway design, plant materials, and other design features as they relate to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. The text has been revised to respond to these issues by providing additional graphics showing design techniques for the various types of trails provided throughout the plan. In addition, the implementation section of the planned community discusses the concepts for the implementation of the greenway along with the open spaces. 7. Park Plan - The major issues of the park plan centered around private open space credit, the park /detention credit and design, and park implementation. Previously, the Planning Commission decided upon a split between private and public open space. As the Commission is aware, new State legislation has been adopted which requires less park dedication than previously used in the development of the original plan. Therefore, the park plan has been redesigned to accommodate the new law. The Commission also decided that the joint use of some of the parks for a flood detention facility could receive 100 percent credit based upon the data provided which showed a nominal use of the park for flood detention purposes. The method of park implementation is discussed within thn :rrle�eatat'ca Cwt::" .c tl` r1M...e.t rnmm+�nity tcvi. Tn ari(litinn to the concepts outlined in the tent, the applicant has proposed the development of a detailed implementation plan that would be developed as an addendum to the planned community u:-c after adoption of the text and prior to approval of the first final maps within the planned community. Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1583 Page 4 8. Landscape Guidelines - The Planning Commission requested that landscape guidelines be developed which would comprehensively discuss the landscaping design guidelines and techniques that will occur throughout the community. Some cf the design solutions, as well as setback requirements that were listed in the draft text, were not acceptable to the Planning Commission and the Coaunission requested tha*_ they be revised to be consistent with General Plan standards. In particular, the Commission asked for more details on the Milliken Avenue corridor, the use of six foot walls be explained more fully, and other aiternatives be discussed such as berming, side on cul -de -sacs and increased setbacks. While the applicant has made revisions to the landscape guidelines, there are still areas where staff feels revisions would be needed to remain consistent with General Plan standards and address the concerns that the Planning Commission originally addressed. These are discussed in both items one and two under the analysis section. ANALYSIS OF REVISED TEXT: Based upon review of the Planning Commission's actions and directions, staff has reviewed the proposed text and has outlined the following a -eas which warrant further discussion on potential changes for final adoption. 1. Commercial Setbacks on Spe -ial Boulevards - The setback standards proposed within the text for commercial and office uses are not consistent with the General Plan standards and guidelines. This was previously discussed by the Planning Commission and they requested the standards b,t revised to be in substantial compliance with the General Plan stT-idards. This is particularly important along the Haven, Base Line, Milliken, and Foothill Boulevard corridors in order to maintain consistency with development throughout the rest of the City. The planned community text_ pages IV -4 and 5, indicate the parking will be set back from the curb a minimum of 19 feet with an average setback of 30 feet, and buildings will be set hack from the curl) a minimum of 30 feet and an average of 45. The General Plan requires a minimum 30 foot building setback from the street right -of -way on both sides of any Special Boulevard and an average minimum depth of landscaping of 30 feet from the ultimate street right -of -way and in no case less than 15 feet from the ultimate street right -of -way. The planned community standards are measured from the face of curb wh4ch includes a 13 to 15 foot parkway area. Therefore, buildings will be located to within 15 feet of the oroperty line, which ig 5n pc ----- ie» mi Uldn the General Plan standards. Likewise, the nimum 19 foot parking setback would oe as close as 4 to 6 feet from the property line, which leaves little area for berming and landscaping. Since the General Plan, requires a minimum average depth of 30 feet of landscaping from the street right -of -way line and in no case less than 15 feet, staff would suggest that the planned community standards be revised as follows: Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 5 1. Parking Area - Parking areas shoull be set back an average minimum depth of 43± feet from tte face of the curb, ano in no case shall be located clos >r than 28± feet to the face of the curb. 2. Building Setback - Buildings s'iall be set back at a minimum average of 43 feet from he face of the curb and shall be no closer than 38 feet f •om the face of the curb. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended tha the commercial setback standards on Special Boulevards throughout the planned cc=unity be revised to the above dimensions. COMMISSION ACTION: 2. Residential Setbacks on Special Boulevards - Section IV, pages 4, 5, 6, and 7, of the planned community tex. discusses setbacks for residential developments along major and special boulevards. The setbacks discussed in the text set standards for the location of 6 foot walls and the location of buildings based upon detached or attached units. Again, the Terra 'vista standard is inconsistent with the General Play standard for setbacks on Special Boulevards. The General Plan polices in the Design Element for the roadway system discusses that setback and landscape requirements develop the character which is needed to identify the function for eazh of the designated streets. The Special Boulevards have been desi .1nated as Special Boulevards to create a major statement with regarC to the scale of the street versus the scale )f buildings and their setbacks. Staff's concern is that many ;treets throughout Terra Vista will be faced with wail conditions :et back a minimum of 13 feet from the face of the curi,. Homes would only be placed a minimum --f 20 feet from the property lire in a detached situation and 24 feet in a multiple family development. It was not the intent of the General plan to create a differentiation between setbacks on multiple units tersus single family units. A series of single family units on small lots of approximately 30 to 35 feet wide would create as much building bulk as rlustered multiple family units, which usually have greater separation and setbacks. Therefore, it is as important to create a setback for single family detached units as it is for clustered multiple family unit:.. In Section IV page 7 of the planned - ommunity text, the graphic: indicates :solid walls will only be used in a few locations. However, this can be misleading as single family detached units can also be built within the medium category, which would then require some solid walls. It has beer. the Commission's policy to date tta discourage the use of solid walls along the right -of -ways through the use of side on cul -de -sacs or by creating greater setbacks '.o the walls. Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION: Given the above analysis, staff recommends that the following setbacks for Special Boulevards be adopted for the Terra Vista Planned Community. 1. Building Setbacks - Buildings shall be set back at an average M4 nimum depth of 43 feet from the face of the curb and no less than 38 feet from the face of the curb. 2. Walls - The use of walls shall be discouraged wherever possible through the use of side on cul -de -sacs, berming, landscaping, or building setbacks or orientation. Where walls are needed for single family detached units, they shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the face of the curb. Where walls are needed for clustered multiple family units, they shall be set Sack a minimum of 28 feet from the face of the curb. COMMISSION ACTION: 3. Residential Development Standards and Format - The residential standards are contained within Section V, beginning on page 3 and continuing to page 19. It is important that these standards be easily understood for ease of implementation during the review of tentative tract maps. Staff asked the applicant to develop land use and setback matrixes for the residential categories and eliminate the mass of verbage which only tends to confuse the matter. The applicant has developed a matrix for these categories, but a significant amount of verbage still exist which is a repetitious. The present format makes it cumbersome to read in order to determine which requirments may apply in a given circumstance. Reformating of this section will assist in making the provisions more clearly understood. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission request the applicant reformat the standards into a use matrix for all of the residential categories and two site development standard matrixes; one for the low medil1^m and meditrn ratponr_v and another for the medium high to high category. COMMISSION ACTION: Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 7 4. Park ? mplementation - The parks ang open space implementation sections begin in Section VI, page 2 and continues to page 9• This section contains a discussion on the applicable law, the provi:.ions for meeting the park requirements, credit for private open space, and the objectives of the park implementation system. While the text within the first section under Applicable Law and Park Plan" is informative and discusses the history on the development of the parks, it is not essential or applicable as part of the implementation plan. As such, it should be removed from the text. It would be more effective to begin the park section with the section labeled "Provisions for Meeting Park Requirements" and the use of the chart on page VI -3 The park plan has been developed under the new State law park bill, and would require a minimum park requirement of 55.8 acres based on the population projections of Terra Vista. The Terra Vista park plan proposes to provide 42.6 acres of that amount within public parks, greenways, and trails. It is intended that the remaining 13.2 acres would be reserved for potential credit for the develovinenr of private open space iii accordance with the guidelines for private open space credit. Of the total park requirement, approximately 77 percent is being provided in public open space areas with the potential for the remainder being giver. towards private credit open space. Previously, the Commission had discussed with the applicant approximately a 60/40 split between public and private open space. In light of the significant reduction of the pub=ic open space from the previous plan, the Commissior may want to consider whether the present ratio of public versus private is an appropriate amount. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the text beginning in Section VI page 2 through page 4 unaer the seci �u�� e.titied "Applicable Law and Park Plan" be eliminated in its entirety. COMMISSION ACTION: Affordable Housing - in Section VI beginning on page 11 and continuing through page 15, the affordable housing criteria and guidelines are discussed. The goal of the plan is to provide 15 percent or more of the dwellings within Terra Vista at affordable levels to low and moderate income families. Further, to provide one -third each of the dwellings to be within each of the affordable ranges. Staff has a concern that some of the l nguage affordable thin the text indicates that the applicant can only provide Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 8 housing in the event that the City entities them to certain programs. While it is obvious that housing programs and grants assist in providing affordable housing, it is not essential that every affordable project which Terra Vista provides has to be granted one of these programs. Therefore, some of the language should be amended to merely discuss the availability of these programs and the potential for density bonuses. Staff would also like to see a clear statement in the text which indicates a goal of providing at least a minimum of 15 percent affordable units within each one of the four major neighborhoods in the planned community. This helps accomplish General Plan housing goals for distribution of affordable housing. At the end of this section, the plan discusses inequitable subsidies and how they may be avoided. The plan is trying to show that such windfall profits can be avoided simply through private means without involvement by local government through resale programs. Rancho Cucamonga has not yet developed its entire housing program, nor has there been decisions made to what kind of controls may be established for eliminating windfall profits on the resale of affordable units. The text is precluding what Rancho Cucamonga may do in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, the following is recommended: 1. That the language discussing available affordable programs and their entitlements be partially amended and eliminated. 2. That a statement be included that it is the goal of the plan to provide at least fifteen (15) percent affordable housing to each of the four major neighborhoods of the planned community. 3. That the discussion on control of windfall profits be eliminated. COMMISSION ACTION: Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Paoe 4 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW: The final Environmental Impact Report, including an addendum which provides responses to comments and changes in potential mitigation measures and impacts, has been completed and has been out for public review for several months. The Executive Summary of the report lists the potential impacts as a result of full build out of Terra Vista, as well as a summary of mitigation measures and the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts. In review of the potential impacts listed in the report, many have been reduced to insignificant levels based on redesign of the project itself. The areas of hydrology and circulation were the two most significant issues within the report. The hydrology issues have been resolved through the completion of the Deer Creek Channel and with the conceptual design of the drainage system of Terra Vista. The original transportation study indicated a significant increase in vehicle trips per day as a result of the Terra Vista Planned Community. After further review of this secticn, it was found that the General Plan figures that were used were significantly lower than what wa: actually proposed by the General Plan. Therefore, it was discovered that Terra Vista was not proposing a significant difference in traffic generation than that which was adopted by the General Plan. The EIR contains standards for street intersection designs and signal progression along Milliken, which will assist in the overall circulation system and which can be required durina each phase of development in Terra Vista. The significance of the unavoidable adverse impacts listed in the Summary have been reduced substantially as a result of project design measures and conditions that will be imposed on the Planned Community. However, by law, the City is required to adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" if unavoidable impacts are identified in the final EIR. Such a statement is included in the Resolution. In review of this document and the comments and responses received, staff finds that the document has been adequately prepared and addresses all issues. As required by State law, a recommendation of certification on the adequacy of this report is required from the Planning Commission to the City Council. FINAL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a pub is hearing to receive final input from the public. If the Commission concurs with the findings and analysis as provided by the staff, it would be appropriate to adopt the attached Resolution which recommends approval of the planned community text with conditions and certification of the final Environmental Impact Report to t'ie City Council. tted, ity Planner G:MV:jr RESOLUTION NO. x A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE NO. 81 -C1 AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, an application and supporting documents have been filed for the establishment of a Planned Community Zone for approximately 1321 acres generally located between Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and south, and Rochester and Heven on the east and west; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held several duly advertised public hearings parsuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered all elements of the proposed Planned Community and the associated Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission recommends certification of adequacy for the final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council based on the following findings: 1. The final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in acc rdance with '_he California Environmental Quality Act, tnc S zte, and local EIR guidelines. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained within the EIR prior to recomnending approval of the project. SECTION 2: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of this statement of overriding considerations to the City Council: To the extent that the Planned Comnunity allows the occurrence of significant effects identified in the final EIR without full mitigation the City Council has identified specific economic, ecological, and social reasons to support its action which make infeasible the project alternatives described in the final EIR or additional mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that `acts supporting this finding are contained in the final EIR and the Planned Community text. Mitigation measures have been made a condition of approval of the Planned Community and are intended to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the Resolution No. Page 2 final EIR. The Planned Community itself is a mitigation measure which is intended to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of development which could otherwise occur without a planned comprehensive approach such as the planned Community standards, guidelines and regulations. SECTION 3: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of Planned Community ho. 8 -01 to the City Council based on the following findings and recommended conditions; FINDINGS: 1. Changes and alterations have been incorporated into the project which mitigates significant environmental effects to an acceptable level. 2. The Planned Community provides for the deveiopment of a comprehensively planned urban community within the zone that is superior to development otherwise allowed under alternate regulations. 3. The Planned Community provides for development within the zone in a iranner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City. 4. The Planned Community provides for construction, improvements, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required by development within the zone. CONDITIONS 1. Prior to final approval of the first tract map in Terra Vista, a detailed parks and open space implementation plan shall be prepared by the applicant ana approved by the City Council. 2. Prior to consideration and approval of any development in Terra Vista, mitigation measures outlined in the final Environmental Impact Report shall be reviewed and considered. Resolution Flo. Page 3 3. All flood control and drainage structures needed for each individual development shall be constructed by the developer. Adequate plans showing that each phase can be safely and properly drained shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for that phase. 4. All traffic and circulation improvements shall be designed and installed by the developer at the direction of the City Engineer and as needed for each development phase. 5. Prior to final approval of any residential development, adequate capacity shall exist or will be provided at the time of development for public services such as schools, sewer treatment capacity, water availability, and police and fire protection and utilities. 5. Prior to final approval of the first tract map, a landscape and lighting maintenance district shall be established for Terra Vista. 7. The developer shall encourage and facilitate bus service and transit routes throughout Terra Vista as development occurs. Programs such as ride sharing, provisions for park and ride facilities, bicycle lanes, vanpooi programs, shall be considered. 8. As development phases occur, appropriate physical improvements shall be made by the developer for pedestrian and bicycle routes and transit facilities such as bus pullouts and waiting areas. 9. As each development phase occurs, berms, wails, building attenuation shall be provided to adequately mitigate any potential noise impacts. 10. The following standards and sections of the Planned Community text_ shall be revised as follows: A. Commercial setbacks on Special Boulevards: 1. Parking Area — Parking areas sho•'; be setback an average minimum depth — 43 feet from the face of curb and in no case shall be located closer than 28 feet to the face of curb. Resolution No. Page 4 2. Building Setback - Buildings shall be setback at a minimum average of 43 feet from the face of curb and shall be no closer than 38 feet from the face of curb. B. Residential Setbacks on Special Boulevards: 1. Building Setbacks - Buildings shall be setback at an average minimum depth of 43 feet from the face of the curb and no less than 38 feet from the face of curb. 2. Walls - The use of walls shall be discouraged wherever possible through the use of side on cul -de -sacs, berming, landscapit.q or building setbacks and orientation. Where walls are needed for single family detached units, they shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the face of the curb. Where wails are needed for clustered multiple family units, they shall be setback a minimum of 28 feet from the face of curb. C. The format of the residential development standard section shall be revised to eliminate repitition and shall use matrixes for uses and standards. 0. The text beginning in Section VI, page 2 through 4, under the subtitle "Applicable Law and Park Plan" shall be eliminated in its entirety. E. The Affordable Housing provisions contained in Section VI, shall be revised as follows: 1. The language discussing the use of affordable programs and entitlements, shall be partially eliminated and amended. 2. A statement shall be included that it is the goal to provide at least fifteen percent (15 %) affordable housing in each of the four major neighborhoods of the Planned Community. Resolution No. Page 5 3. The discussion on control of windfall profits shall be eliminated. 11. The above required revisions shall be submitted to the City Planner in draft form for review and approval within 30 days from the adoption by the City Council. The final adopted revised text shall be printed and submitted to the City Planner within 60 days from City Council approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26Th DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plannino Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: :r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r PLANNING C0141MISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 22, 1982 Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Herman Rempel, Jeff King Larry :VScNiel, Dennis Stout, ASSENT: CONTNISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -18 - HMARD - The development of a church facility including two buildings which total 4,200 square feet on 5.5 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN 201 - 831 -01. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Lawrence Howard, 9540 Ironwood, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that the church did not feel it should be required to dedicate street right -of -way in conjunction with the adjacent private development to the east. Planning Commission Minutes -1 -• November 22, 1982 lI Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it would a private development, however, the street Mr. Howard referred to would be a public street. Chairman King explained that it is normal policy to require two property owners who would share a street to each dedicate a portion of land that, which when combined would total the given amount to construct a street. Mr. Howard stated that this access would be approximately 25 feet frum the back of the building and the church was concerned that this would be easy access to encourage vandalism. Pat Guerra, 8218 Kirkwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating his concern that a precident was being established that a project was being made to conform with a project that is not even in planning stages. Mr. Guerra suggested that when the tentative tract to the east comes before the Commission, it could be redesigned so that dedication from the church would not be required. There were iin further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker asked if the project Mr. Guerra referred to, Tentative Tract 1004 7, was approved by the City. Mr. Johnston replied that it was approved in 1980. Commissioner Eempel as <ed if it would be coming up for extension. Mr. Johnston replied that it had already been before the Commission for one extension_, and the current expiration date is May of 1983. Commissioner Rempel asked if the church could be conditioned that if the tentative tract is not finaled, the offer of dedication could be recended. Mr. Hopson replied that since this project is a conditional use permit, it could be done, Dut questioned whether the Commission would want to do this. Commissioner Rempel stated that the street may not encourage vandelism, rather be a deterrent since there would be homes across the street. Also, that this street would create a second point of access for the church property. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 22, 1982 .t Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82 -18. AYES: CAIMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, McNiel, Rempel, King NOES: CON1MI SS IONERS: None a s a s B. CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 82 -25 - GLEASON - The use of a 4,800 square foot portion of an existing industrial building in the General Industrial category (Subarea 4) for Inland Empire Turf Supply, a wholesale and retail landscape and irrigation supply business, to be located at 9223 Archibald Avenue, Suites D, E, F, and G - APN 209 - 211 -32. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Bing opened the public hearing. Pat B °own, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he agreed with the conditions of approval for this project and would answer questions the Commissioners might have. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Brown if he could explain the type of plant materia' to be stored at the site. Mr. Brown replied that these plant materials would be on special order only and not stored at the site on a permanent basis. There were no further questions, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82 -25. AYES: CCWMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, Barker, McNiel, King NOES: COMI4ISSIONERS: None Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 22, 1982 DIRECTORS REPORTS C. SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Senior Citizen Housing report to the Commission and explained that public hearings are anticipated to begin early in 1983 to finalize the Commission's recommendations on Senior Citizen housing to the City Council. Coamissionioner Barker stated that he appreciated the time and effort staff put into the preparation of the Senior Citizen tour. D. CHAFEEY VOCATIONAL, SKILLS CENTER Rick Gomez, advised the Commission that staff had met with members of the Chaffey Cellege staff and sherrif's department concerning the parking situation at the Vocational Skills Center. Mr. Gomez stated that the college was advised that is order for them to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it would be necessary for them to purchase an additional site to provide an additional 70 parking spaces, as well as additional spaces that may be needed for expanded enrollment. Also, students would be required to purchase a parking decal by the commencement of winter quarter on January 3, 1983. Mr. Gomez further advised that the sherrif's department would be composing a memorandum outling the implementation options available to the City to enforce the decal program on private property. r Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 7:35 - Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 22, 1982 ;, e T i l S E mremanf 246 NORTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD, CLAREMONT. CALIFORNIA 91711 [7141 624.9637 January 25, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 9329 Baseline Road Alta Loma, California 41 %01 ke: Conditional Use Peinit Boats Read Restaurant Alta Loma, California Gentlemen: This letter is concerning the last meeting that was held by the Planning Commission regarding complaints of noise near. the Boars Read on the north east corner of 19th Street and Carnelian Avenue. As of Tharsday, January 20, 1983, we have had acoustic paneling applied to the rear exit door leading into the a31ey behind the restaurant. This should greatly reduce any noise f1.l'ering out in tbai: area. Following a memo to our employees regarding reducing the sound level (see enclosed), we have put on our payroll an additional doorman to make certain the door is kept closed at all times after the morning deliveries have been made. There is a monitor on the rear door which flashes a large green_ light if the door is open, and all bands performing have beer. instructed to cease playing if this light comes on. A decibel meter haz been installed in the bar and is monitored by an employee to make certain the sound level of the band is not excessive. This sound meter can also be seen by any band perfor- ming on the premises so that they know to reduce their volume if a red light appears on the meter_ We are planning to start serving dinners the latter part of Feb- ruary and are in the process of training personnel. Attached for your review is a menu that we will be using. The owners of the center have built a wall behind the property of adjoining neighbors who have complained about the noise and this bar greatly alleviated the problem. I personally have spoken to three of th -a neighbors who have informed me that our steps have 'r City of rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Page Two January 25, 1983 reduced the noise level eighty to ninety percent. The last time I saw ?ors. 'Futrell, she stated the disturbances fx = the parking area have definitely abated ani she has not heard any music from the restaurant. Respectfully Submitted, D S Robert, Inc. dba ars Read-III .L i e " Vice Pres een Secretary RLA /sb Enclosures Mot Mj C /�D U d � (..Caremdel� 1714) ¢244)637 246 N0. Indan Hill Owwn nt, adornu 91711 To: All Alta Loma Boars Head Employees Re: Noise control Date: October 6, 1982 Complaints from neighbors hav: beer. received r�ba. ding the amount of noise in the parking loc anc exits of the Boars Head. Please co- operate in enforcing tighter control to eliminate this problem by the following: 1. Employee cars are to be parked on the east side of the building. Please leave as quietly as possible at the end of your shift; 2. The back exit door is to remain closed at all times. The only exceptions are emergen- cies or for the daytime deliveries; 3. All doormen, especially on Friday and Satur- day nights, zre to make a parking lot check to discourage any partying in the cars parked outside; 4. As we've always done in the past, we must maintain our vigil in checking I.D.'s as proof of age. Only a valid driver's license, state I.D. or federal I.D. are to be accepted as proof of age. Verbal confirmation is not acceptable under anY circumstances; 5. Continue enforcing the dress code policy. Thank you for your cooperation and help! The Management Boars Head III /sb f Y h gou,A -� �� 4C, Z A6� ............. �s 9�s .................. ?a9 t� y ................... �;pc5 ....... ................cy so 5 ....................: 45%Y s 1 S � 3ti Y � <'>+�.• '. �. � �P j� � -. . � �^ _ � _ � .. J- -� �v�A� .�+T "s.ti Y �- wP�'Yn� w . T✓ ice_ -,-_ " .. ' .............. r . >.s' Ycel ��'� ......................... >. >�s 40 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 26, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner ST FOR SUBAREA 16 - A request to a the area between 6th and Heilman Avenue (Subarea 16 - MENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE - end the zone oesignatior. for 4th Streets, Archibald nd Industrial Specific Plan). ABSTRACT: This report presents a request from adjoining property owners to modify the land use and zoning designations on the property located within the area known as Subarea 16 of the Industrial Specific Plan south of 6th Street to resio_..tial land use (Exhibit "A "). This report reviews the history of the matter and the options available for the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: The area shown as Subarea 16 on the Industrial Specific Plan is I orated south of 6th Street, north of 4th, west of Archibald and east of Hell+jan Avenue. The area consists of approximately 145 acres of relatively undeveloped land and eight older residential dwellings scattered on the site. The entire site is shown on the General Plan, and the Industrial Specific Plan as Industrial Park designation. Permitted uses in this category include light wholesale, light manufacturing, office and businesses, service commercial, hotel /motel, and eating establishments (Exhibit "B" General Plan Map, and Exhibit ":" Industrial Specific Plan Subarea 16). In designating this area as Industrial Park catego-.'y, the Planning Commission established the lowest level of industrial activity permitted within the Industrial Specific Plan. Further, the building setback along 6th and 4th Streets and Archibald is 45 feet from the face of the curb; the most stringent permitted in the Plan. The area also has a three to five acre park designation. along 6th Street. This park will be completed at the time development occurs in the area. Surrounding uses to the north of the area include an existing low density single family residential development. To the east are Subareas 4 and 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, both planned for General Industrial uses. South and west of the site is the city of Ontario, where there are existing and proposed medium density residential uses medium density residential on the west, including an e;cisting trailer (Exhibit "D" Surrounding Uses). ITEM A General Plan Amendment Request /Subarea 16 Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 2 PROJECT HISTORY: During review and consideration of shatters concerning this site in the last few years, considerable discussion has occurred both before the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding land use designations. Briefly, the following is a summary of the matters chronologically as they were considered. General Plan: During the Planning Commission consideration of the adoption of the General Plan, they specifically addressee; alternative land use scenarios for Subarea 16. Attached to this report are the Staff Reports, exhibits, and Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1981 regarding -this matter. Initally, the draft plan proposed the area to be designated medium density residential with a master plan requirement. Property owners within the site requested the City consider an option to encourage industrial and commercial development along the borders of 4th Street and Archibald. Staff was directed to bring forward alternatives to the Planning Commission which looked at several matters including the provision of a light industrial and commercial center to attract the tourist commercial activities of the airport, a residential designation adjacent to the existing residence north of 6th Street, appropriate interface between residential and the adjacent industrial uses, and a park site to be used by the area residence. Essentially, alternative one provided for comercial and industrial park designations over the entire site_ Alternative two provided for a graduated residential density with low medium along 6th Street, medium high residential within *he interior portion of the site, and industrial park and commercial adjacent to 4th Street and Archibald. The uses and the activities are further described in the memo by staff January 28, 1981. During this hearing the residents north of 6th Street expressed the following concerns: o traffic and noise impacts; o loss of property value; o land use compatibility; and, o becoming and isolated residential tract. The Commission considered these alterntives and after much discussion approved the reclassification of the site as industrial park with a master plan requirement (vote was 3:2). Attached to this report as Exhibit "F" are Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1981. El E 11 General Plan Amendment Request /Subarea 16 Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 3 0 City Council Consideration: The City Council reviewed the General Plan at t eir meeting of March 30, 1981 and heard similar discussion by the public regarding this matter. City Council agreed with the Commission's decision and voted for the designation of industrial park as a master plan with a 4 to 5 acre park located along 6th Street (Exhibit "G"). Master Plan: The land use designation on this site requires that the master plan be completed which covers drainage, circulation, and phasing of development. As a result, the property owners of this site forwarded to the City a master plan for their consideration. On November 10, 1981, the Planning Commission considered the approval of a master pian. This was an advertised public hearing and notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project boundary. The master plan looked at overall drainage patterns and directed it away from the north end towards the south end of the property. The Master Plan also provided an internal circulation system which directed traffic away from both 6th Street and Archibald (Exhibits "H" & "I "). During their public hearing the Planning Commission heard considerable discussion from oroperty owners adjacent to the site reqarding their concerns. The Planning :ommission approved the master plan as presented and issued a Negative Declaration on the environmental assessment (vote ® 4 :1). OPTIONS: The City received a request from property owners located north of the subarea to reconsider the land use designation in Subarea '6. The City Council has directed that this matter be considered by the Planning Commission with a report back to the City Council on their action. Essentially there are two options: 1. No action be taken by the City in regards to changing land use designations, in which case the property can be developed in accordance with the Specific Plan and Master Plan requirements, or 2. the Planning Commission could consider recommending to the City Council that City initiated General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan amendments be considered. If this option is followed, it is recommended that the Planning Commission consider recommending alternative two which was presented to the Pianning Commission during the General Plan hearings on January 28, 1981. U General Plan Amendment Request /Subarea 16 Planning Commission Agenda January 25, 1983 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider options one and two and forward a recommendation to the City Council. l ly ,5ubmitted, RICK GOMEZ City Planner RG:TJB:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Residents Exhibit "B" - General Plan Land Use Plan Exhibit "C" - Industrial Specific Plan Map Exhibit "D" - Surrounding Uses Exhibit "E" - January 28, 1981 Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "F" - January 28, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "G" - March 30, 1981 City Council Minutes Exhibit "H" - Master Plan Drainage Exhibit "I" - Master Plan Circulation 0 1] 11 EXHIBIT d December 12, 1982 Mayor Jon Mikels City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mayor Mikels: Our committee met with Rick Gomez on December 7, 1982, regarding Sub -area 16, and we appreciated his time and assistance in answering some of our questions. However, we are hereby-making a formal request to you and the City Council, to c"nge the present industrial park designation back to its:-original zoning of low density single family residential. Our residential area has been referred to as a "mistake ", but, it doesn't have to be. We feel that it is imperative to begin this change now, and place this matter on the City Council agenda for the second meeting in January. The approximately 1,000 residents just North of Sixth St. would be adversely affected by any additional industrial park type development. We are already bordered on two sides by businesses and totally enclosing us would only segregate us mere from the rest of the city. It seems that we are not included in the area covered by the new high school, possibly due to cur isolation from the rest of the city. We are concerned about safety for our children and traffic, since industrial parks typically have a large number of employees per acre. We are also concerned about property values, and with residential property expanding South along Hellman Avenue in Ontario, and along Fourth Street, we feel that residential development is the only logical designation for this undeveloped parcel. Many things have changed since the Master Plan meetings; The split vote-on this industrial park zoning by both the Planning Commission and City Council also indicates that they were not sure that industrial park was the best answer. 1. C c- Page 2. Mayor Jon Mikels City of Rancho Cucamonga Therefore, we ask for your help in - changing this back to some low density residential along Sixth, possibly tran- sitioning to higher density toward Fourth Street, and a small industrial park strip along Archibald and Fourth. This arrangement would be fair for us, since we all pur- chased our homes with the understanding that other homes would be built to the 00uth. New home buyers South of Sixth Street would then know what will be built next to them. Thank you for your assistance. We will be glad to meet with you personally to discuss this further. Sincerely yours, ° MI! -I& Al, Lt� �XV A /dk cc: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager Rick Gomez, City Planner E L J • .: MAN alma / ' hrmam x IL N / { 0 § us 2 2 E % Z k US ( L k o § SU. ® * ® o &2 �! �t |i { }! § || |!; }�} ■!! � «a -j cc § k2 Mk § � @ -c 12 § § ct §s §f = w ■ a § 2� 2■ §2 S� IUL 2 2 E % Z k US ( L k o § SU. ® * ® o &2 �! �t |i { }! § || |!; }�} ■!! � «a - _ • ' • _ -' • Sb eb3 V daca EXHIBIT D Ll jGolf ibourse ,� - - .':. `•' :;_ :rte'_ } >' - :'_:._ -- � •. ...s _.� ._... - _ ■ _ :�= :�-'- _:�- -'.+L" -_ :(� -:: -�: �-: .�i-'. •'ram. �.: .n� -. �. � . - _ - `.may'. `a^�..�.�.r � - .L. � �:.�•� —.1 = • � _ - `4� t <.'v, -.. .v.12 y9ty� � ��.._ _iT _-...... �J �1- s� � a a.+:.�.:: � / �t:.•t"- _.. `- �:,.,....... ": 4 +�-' '- '� ��.CCC..��lllll;;;= --•-777 tS '` ,a._- ;, „. ;•:::: :� N'.., O-1�j�i/,� —1 '._.... • >/ .� �, yy� / / ,1 ��,I( /� { % / / / / { / / / / / / / / /// /ice /J / // /�� / / / /� //�j�1 ��.� ss� - •r.:.'. FF s n 0 °l r ON T Ar�e H. ., •_ -I 1 u C sm - - _G�:: � _ - =� -air • -'b�_T�_N;�: - :q a 9 i CITY OF RANCizv CUL%VIONGA M1C TMORc NDT TM DATE: January 28, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner SUBJECT: FOURTH AND AtRCHIBALD - NORTHWEST CORNER EXHIBIT E ABSTRACT: Contained within this m eno and its attachments are staff's suggestions for the 120 + acres of land located at the northwest cor- ner of Archibald and 4th Street. Action on this item is requested. DISCUSSION: As the Planning Commission is aware, considerable dis- cussion occurred at the last meeting on the General Plan on January 19 relative to the above - referenced item. There were various options ari plans presented by owners and people concerned with the property in question. While the staff still feels that medium density resi- dential is appropriate for the above- referenced property, the Commis- sion may wish to consider the following options: 1. Designate the northwest corner of Archibald and 4th Street as a 10 -acre commercial site for a neighborhood shopping center. This shopping center could service future residential and existing residential in the area of ianchc Cucamonga and Ontario to the west, and the pro- posed Ontario Internationai Centre. Continuing along 4th and along Archibald, a designation of industrial park 500 feet in depth may be considered. The remainder of said property should be left in the 5 -14 du /ac designation of medium density residential. The designation would be con- sistent with adjacent land use in the City of Ontario at a 5 -15 du /ac density. Additionally, there should be a park designation within the area as was the case on the John' Blayney plan. (See exhibits.) 2. At the northwest corner a 10 -acre commercial site should be indicated and the renainder of the property should be in- dustrial park. In both of the two above - mentioned options, the text should be amended to include the following para- graph. "The City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the im- portance of the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street and its significance as an entry to the City and its potential to provide for uses complimentary to the airport and nearby industrial and residential property. The specific related uses that might occupy sites on 4th Street and Archibald Avenue would be hotels, motels, res- taurants, offices, and related anciliary commercial uses. 0 C IC Fourth and Archibald - Northwest Corner January 28, 1981 Page Twc Additionally, because of the significance of the northwest corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue, the 120 acres must be master planned as a single unit. Any property ow- ner wishing to develop a por-:ion of the property would be required to provide a concepival master plan for the re- maining acreage:" RECCF.IENDATION: It is recommended that if the Planning ro mission does not wish to de- signate the northwest corner of Archibald and Fourth Street as medium density residential with a park site, that the Planning Commission con- sider the two options indicated above. Respectfully submitted, ;l -$�SRRY /HO AN' � CITY LAME R BKH :jk Attach. l ALTERNATIVE ONE ALTERNATIVE TWO LXSFr✓ VERY LON -2 DU /AC LOW 2-4 2 -� DU /AC LO:d- "EDIU'1 5 -3 DU /AC 5-14 Ufl DU/AC MED. HIGH 15 -24 DU /AC .:.;.. ;. HIGH -• 25 -30 DU/AC COMMERCIAL CONi•1UNITY COi•L "•tERCIAL =t NEIGHBOl T COitiSERC Cc ",MEP.0 IAL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARE: GENERAL 1NDUSTRIAL CEP.ERAL INDUS RAIL SERVED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE _ FLOOD CO w L UTILITY . w 0 E T E c cz LZ PF fik 14?77 OGVZ I YCE coNIM VLA -Tl. cl �l w L ' J J ch t PF fik 14?77 OGVZ I YCE coNIM VLA -Tl. cl �l w ' J J t t Al - PF fik 14?77 OGVZ I YCE coNIM VLA -Tl. cl �l w ' J J Al PF fik 14?77 OGVZ I YCE coNIM VLA -Tl. cl �l w FOURTI? STREET AND APCHIBALD AVENUE SITE Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report, providing the options relative to this parcel and stating that option No. 3 would be the one that is favored. Commissioner Scera.ka asked if a determination had been made b ?ark and Recreation Department that a park would be required on this property. Mr. Hogan replied that staff would suggest that it be considered as it was shown on the John blayney plan to be a five -acre park. Commissioner Sceranka asked if staff realized the close proximity of the Cucamonga Guasti Park to tais site. Mr. Beedle replied that staff had discussed this with Mr. Holley and he indicated that a park is needed on that particular site. Commissioner Sceranka replied that it is difficult to know ranat you ,,,ean by Defining a conceptual plan for the remaining acreage. Mr. Hogan replied that the applicant will be coming in with a plan telling what he wants to do in so_cific terms. Further, that what they are trying to do is have some thought given to the remaining project and how it will fit. He did not mean detai;'*xg in setback and sizes, but in concept. It would be similar to Daon projecu qnd its types of uses. Mr. Lam stated that in _ae past we have had a public hear=ng and people want the best use possible for the area. Further, that there is desire on the is Planning Commission's part to come up and plan this area and have the property owners have some voice. From the City's perspective, he stated that there was concern They want adeeuate commercial possibility and that they have a proposal that will take in as many considerations as possible for that land ase. The other issue, he stated is how much. agreement there is on a master plan for that site. If everyone has a conflicting idea, it will not wor:c. Chairman Dahl asked if it would be possible to also consider a certain amount of use of this property. Mr. Lam replied that the Commission will have to consider this tonight and that they can get into the issue of master planning. Further, there is also the possibility of morp precise designation. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission will have to d >_sigr:atc general uses on the plan. Mr. Bill Patton, ZIO Santiago, Newport Beach, provided the Commission with a report dnd map and indicated that he had contacted as any property owners as possible relative to his plar for the area. He indicated that 92^ of taose he had contacted were in agreement and read a letter from the Lust: Company, which had been included in the Planning Commission's pactiet. He showed a map as to prcparty owners who were represented by it. Planning Commission Minutes -I3- January 28, 1981 Alm He indicated that the Lusk Company was requesting medium -2nd high land use and asked that this be read into the record. He stated that in another letter he had requested commercial at the bottom of the map. Mr. Patton stated that because the Planning Commission asked for a meeting between the property owners they had to consider not only the land use but the long-range uses of the property. He indicated that his family was in farming and was not thinking about relocating at this tine. Further, that he was only a representative for this group, but he felt that there is a need to buffer the existing properties from any new residential. He spoke of his thoughts relative to landscaping this area to act as buffering. Mr. Paul Burns, representing Marlborough Homes, 7-029 Century Fark East, Los Angeles, stated that they are residential developers and would like to see as much of this area as possible designated for the medium aad high residential land use. He further stated that he felt that hev can provide the best opportunity to represent the nee: for the area and the City. Additionally, that they would be willing =o work further in coordination of certain development. He felt that there were a majority of property owners that can and will work together. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Burns thought there should be any residential on Archibald itself. Mr. Bu -ns replied that the only way to handle residential wcald be with some very effective noise buffering as this is a very busy street. There was considerable discussion on the type of commercial and how the plan would be developed using the Patton concept_ for t`is area. Cor=issioner Sceranka asked if what Mr. Patton was stating was that he was not opposed to master plannii:g as long as the land uses are as they should be. Mr. Patton stated that he considered what they proposed a master plan. Mr. Burns stated that he felt the plans were similar and felt that they will hold on to their property because of the time feasibility from a cor._•rercial standpoint. Chairman Dahl stated that they have a design to have hotel, motel and dinner houses coming in. He thought they will be needed much sooner than what the owners are willing to come in. He felt that the services wiil be needed and was not sure that they were ever. considering them. Mr. Burns stated that their marketing people did not think coumiercial was feasible on this property on any large scale. 10 Planning Commission Minutes -'_4- January 23, 1931 Commissioner Sceranka responded by saying that *_here are two problems with Mr. Bu=ns' plan: one has a park and no residential and the other plan has no park. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission was starting to get into areas and scone beyond the General Plan. Chairran Dahl asked Mr. Lam if the present designation along Archibald and Fourth carries hotels and motels being allowable. Mr. Lam reDli.ed that it did. Conrissioner Sceranka asked for a brief break 10:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Aotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolttoy, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11:00 p.m, curfew. Chairman Dahl asked if these were any f-T ther co=nents and there being none, the public hearing pertion was closed. C =.issioner Sceranka stated that he did not want to see a 7 -11 store or neighborhood shooping center on this site. Further, .hat he has been working on industrial and thinks that is what they wan*_ to see on that intersection. Mr. Sceranka felt that the entire area around the border should be designated industrial park and the area directly adjacent to the SEC of 6th and Hellman be residential. Cormissicner Rempel s .;.tet: :.e felt that residential designation in this area is wrong and that ar industrial park designation is what this should be throughout. He stated further that he suggested two changes: 1. That the industrial park directly follow the property line of any property that abuts Archibald and come across as shown on 4th Street. 2. Change the residential designation leaving the park to the r.;edium density designation. All the infield and Hell.an Avenue have medium density. ro =issioner King asked for clarification of uses under ` :he industrial park- designation. Mr. Lam replied thar restaurants, banker and land uses you would fine in a professional sertin„ and supportive co_r.,rzial, would be the types of uses. vr. T.p,- stated that this desi^ ^,nation would preclude a 7 -11 type store and general retail uses. Planning Co =,issic n ?Minutes -15- January 28, 1981 0 LJ 1 O L'J Commissioner King stated that he was in agreement with the comments of Commissioners Sceranka and Rempel of the types of uses along Fourth and Archibald and also the industrial park designation. He further stated that he was not thinking of a park line the Vanguard Center, but in terms of what he would consider supporting uses like bank, and restaurants. Mr. King continued that he would like to see that block be a rcgionally- oriented type of use by businesses who use the airport. F%.rther, that he did rot think residential appropriate anywhere within the block. For the rest, he felt that it should be more along the lines of office and believed that some sort of master plan would be nice in getting what the Commission wants in developing the 120 acres. Chairman Dahl stated that along 4th there needs to be some commercial. Furthei, that the City is losing dollars every day by commercial going into 4th and Vineyard. He stated that if that were in here, he would be for iz 7uu7. He is for light industrial business park along Archibald and 4th. commercial stated he would move the corercial over to the western - most portion of 4th instead of the intersection. Mr. Dahl stated that he would like to see medium or low- medium density as buffering for the tract across the way. The rest of the area he would like to see industrial park of office type application and it must be master planned. He felt that some commercial was needed along the way. Co- ^3issioner Tolstoy stated that he has a problem with comm=ercial on the corner only because he doesn't know what you will. get. He stated that he would like to see industrial park and office designation because you can then have the kind of commercial that you want. That would preclude the 7 -11 type commercial. He stated that he is for industrial park all the way around the site and that he has a real problem with residential. He stated that it is unfortunate that it is there and did not want to pe_petuate it. He felt that it might be possible to have residential above 6th with buffering. He felt that if residential goes across 6th, it must be special. He felt that the entire project should be planted all at once and for the center section he would like an industrial ise of some tvpe. Chairman Dahl stated that he had to agree with what Cormlissioner Tolst y said and that this site should have emprasis within the General Plan text that this is a special area. Motion: Moved by Secranka, to take the area of Sixth Street directly to the northeast point of the park straight down to the tip of the industrial park designation and everything to the right. industrial park with commercial on the corner. The property to the west of this would be medium density residential with planned d lopment. Chairman Dahl said he would second the motion text to include motel, hotel and restaurant as the City. Planning Commission Minutes -16- if something were pu: in the this would be des, rable for January 28, 1981 E Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would ?refer not to in in the motion. clude that Cormissioner Rempel stated that he would Second the motion because it will go to the high end. Commissioner King stated he thought it would be appropriate for commercial industrial at Hell=an and Fourth and around Sixth. He felt that it needs Office and perhdps some type of resident he site. ial on the northwest quadrant of t -AY-ES: CO }CMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Rempel NOES: C0:^.ISSIONERS: King, Tolstoy, Dahl ABSENT: CO�-^4ISSIOhFRq- - _failed- Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, to make the whole thing an industrial park designation. AYES: co,�ISSIONERS: NOES: CO:-- %IISSIO.NERS: Rempel, Sceranka, Tolstov King, Dahl ABSENT: COM2VISSIONERS: None z SOUTH OF BASE LIti� Barry Hogan, Citr Planner, - carried- reviewed the staff report ara recommendation. Chairmar. Dahl opened the public hearing portion. Mr. Roland Sanchez, property owner, spoke of area. alternative housing in the There being no further comments, the public hearing portion was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously alone with a medium density designation of 5 -8 , to go dwelling units per acre and that a requirement of the circulation following the staff recomrendation be followed for this site. AYES: CO`-;ISSIO? _RS: NOES: CO�N-ISSIG \ERS: ABSENT: C0:2- TISSIO, ;ERS: Sceranka, King, Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahl None None - carriec:- Planning Co=issien Minutes -17- January 28, 1981 11 u 0 C � ;Sty council Minutes March 10. l?dl page Eight EXHIBI o G • t..zy Nolfa, ° tar ani Wolfe, discuzred t_. ?lanai. ^.g Conn_ :s -on reGpype. datiou a, d c cp".md h.la G,,mr l about ci- Ciliation. f:C nOCCd - that LM affect of the perlstez between avlti- frmi.ly and -- -iaglo faaily is significant. s • (`larief Sack Stated =fa van N-. AlexandCr'S Pa_ttor. He 111diGattd they the Council far a getter G'onmunity, who had advimd then bad ,no they htd no object =% to their Plats. He stated they feel they nave addressed aL' of the pcohl,,n they objected to in the project which - has b[+bn approved to the north. :x mpm,,,,eC the Hanwwncr's Association Of c`w _ • Willi I land statN Centennial Home Tract. ne stated tr<y found the proposed dewlopoent to Council re the nor,h of them totally offensive and m0ucsted that rovaiuite thla developmaat. He stated that if the proposed dcvolopaent to the =' =rtb w eliminated. mr dent5 would be in fawr of allwi LY 1gtCr density coo -rig to the aidea of th-i tract. However, he stated that the residents did cut want to be coe,.letely blocked in by high density. c >' _ Council disee. -xd u< Parse 1 in question, as well as the adjacnnt parcels. iAfter ,,,,.,-w discunsion. the following nation wan 'do'- S Motion: wooed by Jon M)kels to Change Portal ntmber / to create • transition use and desi9aate the law- mediiID (1-8) rather sin low dt^ -sity Seconded by PalDmbe_ t discussion regarding circulation and traffic Prior to voting oa the mtion continued with Put11C input. - • Million s yaed stated *.hey had asked the Planing Camiaaian to Provide them with another uay out of their tract and referred tc aoa'a of the 4- problems during beady rains. o- �- • Terry Wolfe, °-t'*•ki'^ anu Molfe, related Gone o2 the Pzobil2ls that could _ occur when a parcel_is split. • -toaya that by drtgpin+ it down to 4-8, you bane really _ lt:. A casmented split the pertela and hanpe -rvd devalopxnt to say reduce and stated tbey • �... 1-I. -..ream connected thet its aery _. are trying to ptavidc affordable housing. There being co further ZesPonsa. Lis public bearing ws closed. , After fu --Char discussion, the YePious motion and second Were wit -hdmWo and ditcuzS4_ o of this item was continued aatil l,-zil 6. 1981. Mayor Schlosser called a Yief r4eess at t" : Point. (11:55 p.m.). fhe meat -in9 was called back to ordor at 12:10 a.m. with all City Council - be= present. 71-1 %_K T10M• App'oxia t ly 160 acres located be� 4th Street. 6th Street. a- ^Ghibald :.ye_-eue a-r1 Mel'. XwMue. Tim Seedle Zev+_eww the Pla line CO=iaSiv -'s recaeexndatiar. for a a ' -Odus- rial park ftoating on 4th Scant aid archibald with medium density z'Zi denial south of 6th Street with a 212 acre Patti site located w th'n the Medium Density residential. .uyoz Schlosser opened the meting for public nearing: related hoaecwnai'3 objections to the • Garry yoski, resident on Tayton street. the presented which is Planning Coanassion decision. ) stated proposal sisilaz to ]alternate 2 rwld be mst favorable to the residents- )m Stated that they had pcenented a Petition which asked the Council to devel- consider Mtn zesidnntlal in that erect to continua the residential opment that is north of 6th Street. I i 4 Y' t. Y C C City Council :.:.notes March lo. 1981 Page Nine • Don nagar related his ebjec'ims to the Planning Commission recom- mendation and z.atod he felt an industrial development would tape away from their Property �aluea. • frank hberke dlacusted his reasms for oppotinq 'nd:mtrial development_ • Collis Keith dla Sued his ohjecticn And sated that their somay.ity already felt isolated from the rest of = __:mnga. He also noted the Sack of parts 1L their area. • Al Blossant stated that he felt that propro -'y landscaped Industrial Would be bettc than sin5ls family. • Doug gone stated that an industrial developsont With good design Standards and proper buffering could be very attractive. • Foy n^adeliff stated be w five of fi of the tors: acres W=— of Al slegsant's property and indicated that either Way m the =ni"g Was Wrtb his. Therb Mybq for f L%etbar respnse, "yor Schlo -wr c'osed the Public Near=q. CgrnWralma.^. Bridge statd he had visated the arbor and felt that industrial developmenz would be a Basch more desiroble use than nigher density resi- dmstial and cited some of the advantages. He said that staff would lesure that the iad'ast:ial devmlC? t mould be Properly designed and lardsgapud. Council -rn fiikel3 agreed and related My he felt that indurt_xSal Would be the best Possible use fc the area. Barry Nogac deacibad the type of develoymot, lavdscapiuq and design control the City wcum require. cation: laved by'idge that the emtite area be deeignated as fs>shlSeriai vita a park site designated on the p1,,. Seconded by niicels. Ayes: Bridge. Mike's. Palanbo. Scblotser Kaxs: Proat l ,U= Car=ried. 11 _s for —cant S acres located at ern. =beast corner of Church Street and A b Ibald T= Beadle discussed the a_^ea and the Pl &,,un. nom!-.,,cm recommendation to designate the Property for office Sae. Nnyor Schlosser opened the meeting far Public HeaerX9: • Annt Calx=Zrequested that the Council C.any the Plaeurfng Comeiarion •recoemndatian for the reasoas she be stated prbvicusly. • Bob twills discussed Why he felt the CDCMiI should uphold the Planning Ccesdssim reeosaendatloa noting they d nct feel that office use is inecpati:le w -th medium density. • Lloyd Michael asked the Council to uphold Planning (ORYiSSiOn reco® datiffi_ • Brute Chun& questioned Whether there Was any Local oppositioo- 0 •n .. I i r fD 6th STREET -----. ----- ----- --- ..-- ._..._... -_..E _ _.._. �.. -------------------- _. - -- - - -- -- -- - - -- 1 - - -- - - --------------------------------- ## - - - 1 £Ec ..............._...--....:.:__...._.._:. 1._ __._- __.- .__.x- ..___.- .___ - -_ -: Y 7 m r- 4th STREET LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA 1 STOMA DRAIN _ nan�ar CONCRETE SWALE _ DIRECTION OF FLOW DRAINAGE AREA 4 EXISTING CATCH BASA7 L PROPOSED CATCH BASH O O STREET FLOW �� _ Al U j DRAINAGE AREA 1 t i DRAINAGE AREA 2 F77 DRAINAGE AREA 3 DRAINAGE AREA 4 t••- -� DRAINAGE AREA S Sassd on 100 yew storm pal /rlk\ 115N\Ilal MASTER P 8-AREA 1E cITY of RANcHo CUCAMONGA TO DEER CREEK 1 L� L I �` El HIM 4 AND j,'. LEGEND NAME DESIGNATION R.O.W. ®� PROPOSED STREET LOCAL STREET 64' SthSTREET and ® HELLMAN AVENUE SECONDARY ARTERIAL SS' ARCHIBALD AVENUE UNDIVIDED MAJOR ARTERIAL 100' 4th STREET DIVIDED MAJOR ARTERIAL 120' PROPOSED POINT OF ACCESS i PROJECT ENTRY 0 Ll 16 �� EXHIBIT 3 El CITY Of- RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 - BANKS The division of 5 acres of land into ots within the R -1 zone located approximately 660; west of East Avenue - APN 227- 131 -29 (continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1982) PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The above described parcel map is being re- submitted Dy Mr. Jazies Banks, to divided five acres of land into 4 lots, the smallest being .71 acre. Approval was previously given by the City Engineer on May 12, 1980. This approval expired on November 12, 1981. This site is presently undeveloped. To the west is an existing residence; to the north and east is vacant land and to the south is an existing nursery. The land is zone R -1 with a Genera! Flan designation of 2 -4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Etiwanda Specific Flan shows the area as !ow- medium (4 -8 dwelling units per acre). The same plan places the site outside of an equestrian area, but a community trail is proposed along the Southern Pacific Railroad. PREVIOUS PROJECT: The subdivision proposed lies considerably removed from the nearest puo is street. When this is the case, Planning Commission policy requires that a dedicated and partially improved public street be provided between the property anc an existing public street (see attached resolution). The parcel map covering this property was originally approved in 1980, under the discretion given the City Engineer, due to the requirement placed on that map -0 improve a drainage course to Base Line. It was felt that the improvements necessary for the drainage would also have provided an acceptable access until further development in the area provided a more suitable street pattern. A Negative Declaration was granted in April 1980. At that time, the Interim General Plan designation was "Windrow Residential ", 0.1 to 3 units per acre. ANALYSIS: The Commission is now considering resubmission of this map under a proposed Specific Plan which has designated the area with a land use of Low - Medium (4 -8 units per acre) and which has further developed its future circulation, needs. The attached vicinity map shows a backbone street pattern which best addresses the constraints existing in the area but it is not intended as a "master plan". ITEM 8 Tianning commission. Staff Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANC PARCEL MAP 330 January 26, 1983 Page 2 The prcposed subdivision conflicts with the pending Specific Plan in two respects: First, the designated land use is entirely different; secondly, the existing access and drainage paths do not coincide with the best locations for a future street. Physically and environmentally, the proposal could be acceptabl^ with an access as provided in the recommended conditions of approval. Such an access would be temporary, however, and would be vacated in the future when a street system in the proper location becomes available. With respect to planning, the proposal should be carefully considered because the conflict with the Specific Plan 'and use is significant, but the recent subdivison to the west is a duplicate of the one being proposed and provides a balanced neighboftood centered on the cul -de -sac street. Tice possibiiity remains, however, that any of the existing or proposed lots could be further subdivided on an individual basis with no opportunity for master planning. It appears that this potential problem is limited to the 10 acres accessed by the cul -de -sac. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision.. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding Property owners and placed in the Daily Report: Ni:wspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission consider the information given in the foregoing report together with public input during this and previous hearings and take one of the following ac *.ioas: 1. Approve the tentative map as submitted, which calls for a 40' public road dedication to Base Line, understanding that the road would have to be superseded in the future. La. Same, with a 30'offer of dedication. 2. Approve the tentative map with the condition that only a private paved access easement to the property will be sufficient until the future streets are available. 3. Deny the map if conflict with the pending Specific P1 -n is found to be unmitigated by the neighboring similar subdivision Resp tfully submi ted, LB ja Attachments: Map w City Engineer's Report Initial Study Resolution 11 SURVEYOR , t IRCEL 11*44P AVr .� -583 OWNER DANIEL D. FRANCIS JAMES SAWS .W. 4315 F1FTY- EIGHTH ST. /N THE CITY OF RANCHO G71G4/'iIONGA 13Jei V /CT(,v� /A SAN DIEGO, CA. 92/15 MARCH, 1980 ET/6YANDA, CA. 91739 (714) 981 -0931 J �I p SOUTHERN PAC/F'C R.R. TRACKS NORTH LANE O = LOT 10 202881 333.03 y IL 3 = E FEi1RCEJ UC TRH tr Qti i R= 50 '\,_ BLDG ' /2 c�11EM Rrn / L= 110.7L / �` l S ' EX /ST. 2 o£S /DEJiA^E� 1 L= ►=,I '� S�'30 EIiC h' �1 p w l a. ' Z 3 e to r UN /.cfalPOVEO 060 /CA TiON /.71 AC. OtSHED =ER OF DED/C47.181V AC SHEDS 2 0.92 Tf= 2G L=3 4�8 -T= 20176 OAAC �-S007HLINEcFL0T /O OFFER OF GENERAL (MFORMAi(ON iale _ � rXiT/ES GAS WATER, TELEPHONE AND ELECTR /CITY NOW S£R&E THE RECENTLY Ct-NST C,Ta� --�-' rOAiE /MFDUiTELY TO THE WEST ANO CAN BE EX EYOED 70 SERVE TH /S PRO�RTY AS NECESSARY SEW GE DISPOSAL lO BE BY CESSPOOL A!{O S£PT7C TANK. 'FEES SEV£J7AL LARGE E=C TM TREES ARE ON PROPOSED PARCEL 4 AND ROWS O{ MEDILM TO LARGE £UC ARE ALONG THE NORTH AND So4frH 807DERS OF THE PROpD47,Y DRAW' DRA /NAG£ SLOPE IS APPROX. 2% ALMQST DVE SOUTH /N O /R,CMON WITH -HE RAILROAD CN THE NORTH STOPPING WA R RLCW/NG SOUTH FROM EN7L-R 11VG THE PROPERTY LAND U.W. ELENTUAL CONSMUCnov OF SINGLE FAMILY A£S/DEWXS. BUIL -DNC SET- Q BACKS 70 BE A NIMMtM OF 25'Fi,YR/ Tiz PROPOSED FAST STREET DEDCA770V S /7FS LINE. Zsi 1 Jti h S )I Izowl V /C/A07Y MAP NO SCALE �� .�.� �G• 1 yJ•I � w.,�l ... nl ,.. i.Y W�� allj t ' O © f. ` I •••« I µ_ms_ P.M. SW P40.�EC'i rg I _ Y TY OF :tANCHO CUCAiIO EGA title; PARCEL MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION T VICINITY MAP page Z N c, ' a 1 \ — lsv= ; 1 I � I I - I I �r —1 h. a Y I •; Ii'A IM I I, a, 1 � T —I I I • ! i 1 � jnNiA9 V(.jj 1 . I •. r w � A 4' rtG� 1 i i v 06 G <z V c Z z C � � U z � � J � i U E FILED BY: James Banks,Jr. LOCATION: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT North of Base Line, between East and Etiwanda Avenues LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Port;or, of Lot 10, Blk "K" of Etiwanda Colony Lands TENTATIVE MAP NO. PM 3383 DATE FILEii: resubmitted 8/82 NUMBER OF LOTS: RECEIPT NJMBER: FEE: S2: -0.00 ZONE: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * w * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: 7ohnson & Mosl_ ev _ GROSS AC2EAGE: 4 acres ADDRESS: 1033 E. Rosemead Ct. MINIM04 -OT AREA: Ontario, CA 91764 MINIMUM .OT FRONTAGE RECORD 0WNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE James Banks, Jr. 13181 Victoria, Rancho Cucamorga 91739 981 -0931 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications I. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights • of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: 'in, additional feet on Pgran Avenue _ in, additional feet on Oak Street a (), sO�ttjo% lj feet on reoi.ired ro_adwav from site to nearest maintained _ Gtlkii�iFXRx�Xi��ii lXiS�Sxit�i��ixit8�xb11 up b I i c street Other 3. Rights cf vehicular access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: _ _ 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignm!nt as follows: ® — RCE 20 TENTH -:VE MAP 7,0. 3383 Page 2 improvements (Bonding is required prior to M Recording fo. Pecar. Ave and* *26' pavement to public stre`jtBuilding permit r"or iia tree } 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter. A.C. p;rement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on ail X interior streets. 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the followino streets: *includino land C[;ininn anti irrinn +inn nn CUB & ; A.C. SIDE -1 DRIVE STREET STREET t?EDIAN STREET NAME GJTTER ; PVT-TT. WALK 1APPR. TREES LIGHTS ISLAND *1 OTHER �, x X X t time x Oak St. X x 40' dedication 126'wide i _X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. y_ 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X_ 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca -- ,.ions ano types approved by the City Engineer. 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet appruval of the City Engineer. _ X 14. Sanitary sewer a-id water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County `„later District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 16. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southeri California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative po les with under .;round service. 16. The followinj existing streets being torn up by ne•i services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. Th —o� outing specific dimensions, i.e., cu - de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The of owing existing streets are substandard: They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of 'San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities ties involved. Approval of the final man will be that nay be received from them. RCE 20 approval from CALTRANS/ and other interested agen- subject to any requirement® TENTATIVE MAP N0. 33P,3 Page 3 9- Y 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: A. Caltrans, for: S. City:__ X C. County Dust Abatement District: D. D.I.S. Trenching Pemit if any trenches are over 5' deep: �_ E. Cucamonga County Watar Di .trict: F. Otter: Mao Control _ 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adJustments shall be made to pro- vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. _ 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: _ 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right -cf -way line ir accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first tease subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Mop needs clarification as follows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centeriire of existing perimeter streets, or title expiana` ion required. Parcel Mao 1.4aiver _ 28. Information, submitted at the time of application is /_ is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. nr3SS M 1rMX (Bonding is require,! prior to DRecarding UX' DRAINAGE E &JIRffi?Ik14X4 §)FiEA ) 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- - ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. 30. A drainage channel anal /or flood protection perty line may be required to divert sheet Such -Iloti: may be required to go under 31. if water surface is above top of curb, 30" back of the sidewaik at ail downstream car 32. Culverts required to be constructed across wail along the entire north pro - runoff to streets. sidewalks through culverts. walls shall be required at the D return_. streets at foilowing locations: 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies !hill, be required to assess impact or increased runoff. X 34. Dedicate drainage easement and instail proper drainage facilities to drain ;itz to Base Line Read di-.d eliminate existing flooding situation on Base line Road. RCE 20 TENTATIVE 14AP NO. 3383, Page 4 Miscellaneous 9 X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition Of issuance of the grading permit for this project. 36. Noise on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. _ 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. _ 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is net shown as re- quires: X 39. Freer grading and erosior.. control, inciud� at ng the prevention of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the fcllow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report f:rnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. X 41. The filing of the tentative map or approvai of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision. Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any pub ,c entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and #.e siona lure of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted frim the finao map unless =he City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the speci;ed time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final hap submittal, the following shall be submittea: Traverse .calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference ar;d/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting c,n a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. Local and master planned equestrian trails shall be provided in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopas, physical conditions, fencing and weed control in accordance with the City Equestrian Trail Standards, shall be submitted *_o and approved by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCA,''gONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART 1 - PROJECT INFOf14ATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fe.:: $87.00 For all projects requiring en::-inmentai review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made_ Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten . (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make cne of three deterninations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be suprlied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. 0 PROJECT TITLE: SoLth Hi ^pard Ranch r APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: fames Banks. Jr 786 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Ji.-aes Banks Jr. , POE LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 650' -1320' PT. of Baseline 660' -990' 4i_Of East Ave., U" a., ^ti ;» 1 '; _ area 131, oarcel 25 in Ta:: Code Area 7011 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL. AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: No. I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCPIPTION OF PROJECT: ne —acre Lot lots Split of one five —acre rya ePi into three o .__ ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED , IF ANY. F� a �ress acres large houses but will ultimately DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE' INCLUDING INFORNlgTION 0, ANIh1ALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTCRIWHY, PLr:NTS (TREES), OF SURROUNDING PROPEP,TIES OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEjRD „IrE DESCRIPTION OF ANY Pacific Electric Faiiway S� (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS Of .,,..�,-_ -. rar7eo .._ __ .. O� that ove. Is this project, of cumulative Part of a Ich larger Project, one of a serves m2Y as a whole have significant ervir-on enta3,ampact ?ill' No. pro' -__-- T�� sect W i -2 E U WILL THIS PkOJECT: YES NO _ X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial chance in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? Innrease by four houses. X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? None, unless recuired by the City for road purposes. X b. Create the need for use or disposal of - potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flamnables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: There are no "Yes" answers above. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complet! the form or the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development / Review Committee. Y Date 5 July 1982 Signatur !t�E + 'w "" 7a1,4 I -3 Title Gwner RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the Fzaty of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Divisio -I in order to aid in assessing the at'iiity of the school district to accommodate the proposed resideni -bal development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract Jr_ Location 0, Project: Iv. of Baseiine, h -rpf East Avenu -` Specific There are no current building plans. _- PHASE 4 TOTAL PHASE- I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 1. Nur ber of single One One One Four famil; units: One _ 2. Number of multiple None None None None family units: None — 3_ Date proposed to 1984 1g85 1986 1987 N/A Legir. construction: — 4. Earliest date of 1985 1986 1987 1988 N/A occupancy: Model and # of Tentative > 5. Bedrooms _Price Ge _ —__— 140,000 150,000 160 ,000 170,000 3 -5 _ e I -4 I 1 U QXV r-wvfler sa,Ct7 poolley REsOLLMON NO. 79 -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF TEE qW CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING SUBDIVISION ACCESS IMPROVEMENT POLICY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to discourage the proliferation of private unimproved streets; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish firm policy guideline to inform property owners of the City goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED AND ESTAB11SHrED, that as a condition of approval of any Parcel Map, Parcel Map Waiver, Tract Map or Lot Line Adjustment an applicant shall have access to a fully dedicated and maintained City street. Where dedications and improvements do not exist, the applicant shall obtain a minimum of forty (40) feet of dedication and improve with twenty -six (255 feet of pavement needed street frontage to reach the nearest maintained City street. Variations from this policy will require approval of the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga subject to appeals to the P-,anninb Commission. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24-IS DAY OF JANUARY, 1979_ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: 24 =� erman LRZ�e l, Cnairmarr ATTES� Uk — Secretary of the Planning Commission I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga:, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a -regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January., 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: CO_*MISSIONERS: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COM13SIONERS: DAHL Ll 0 that a developer must notify adjacent property owners when a street being designed to only benefit him and he mast also have E the approval of the other property owners. Commissioner Rempel further st the streeth for 1 he other $ that should never have happened in the design piece of property and the dedication should have show." on the ed. Chairman King reopened the public hearing. a -Ur a representing the appli an stated that Mr. pat Guerra, 827 ..._,cwco.•+ p his before the during the four months of preparation prior to beinot Commission for a conditional use permit they were not Cher, that the piece to do with their property rther, that the only in questi.or. had a!rything p y' g er ty information they received is that they would be ded ."tin apart of prop on Archibald and Wilson and his underssdiscovered m dhe representative a Working with the church was that this map information that they had over the four -month Pe hod. Mr. �:erra n up p that this discovery will create p :emblems because the have already drain up Plans for use of the facilities on the eastern sect- n of their property and might involve the movement of a building which the had not planned for. V,r. Guerra stated that this was a 5-acre ece of property when they bought it and with the dedications involved, it is etting to be more like a 4-acre piece of property. Mr. Guerra stated t at inasmuch as the property to the east has not developed nor has plans t develop he feels that any consideration would be consideration o the — luecfrom1thei property- Mr. organization and will not rliio would be taxed for any consideraticn of t Guerra stated that the Gong a- the property to the east. ged that in meeting with the City's Engineering iyuation, it has been concluded that the building will the church be responsible for any o exception of a minor 4-foot offer of plans of at it appears that the actual physical be altered. Mr. Yairin; Senior planner, ^epa ^tment to resolve this will not have to be moved r street improvements with ti dedication. He indicated the church will not hav- A-4 if the City can require a developer to put reed for and is not a through street, but a of property. Commissioner Rempel ; street that there is street for another 7 Mr. Hopson, City approved tract.y in a service , replied by asking if this is for the existing W. Rempel relied affirmatively. Commission Minutes -1- November 10, 1982 +y nopson stated that the problem with the approved tract, assuming original- is that you can °t add more conditions or requiresents %;that ,hat was ffiP- F`srther, yp,1 are stucec with whatever you asked �P e3 by the County, 6e indicated that it is abundan r or You cannot go Nt add more tEe Y clear that enough in the �s if You discover you ha not asked for arrangement if It is always possible, he stat =3, make some does not have to acce t e some red %sign that would be P offer of dedication, but e Cater and the City any more than has ahead y cannot require 9 be done. Commissioner Rempel stated that property. dedication from the church 14-"- - iopsen : eplied that you coul if that wa dedication_, cin to be a g full street before Mr, Guerra stated that a question is rot wt the t that but whether th ity has a moral Y has a r' right to d,) at, fight to do Chairman losed the put is hearing. °t��•+ moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, .tarried unanimously thi item to the November 22 Plarsiing Commission meeti -sg. , to a urn C. ENYIRON- VENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL acres of ARCE. MAp g _ gAS _ ::ne division of 5 land into 4 lots within the R�1 zone, located a� north of Base Fine and 660' west of East Avenue _ A_nN 2 ?Nprox�.tely 660' (Continued from the Planning Commission meet 131 -29. me=ting of September 8, 1982.) Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the 'staff repnrt. Commissioner Barker asked if this has been reviewed by the Traf,ls Co �� and whether they have any concern regarding impact on mmi,,,,ee this property. Mr. Rougeau replied that it has been reviewed e.-id no impacts have been ford, Chairman King opened the public hearing. con James Ban!cs, applicant, stated that he has problems with four or floe conditions. he indicated that the reouaremnnt to provide sewers would be difficult because there are none for miles and miles. Further, that there is a requirement to provide natural gas as well as cable television indicated that the latter is not realistic. lines, He Planning Commission Minutes '4- November 10, 7982 L, J E- m-. Banks stated that he wished to mainiy focus on the 40 -foot dedication and 26 feet of paving. Mr. Hanks stated that this would be a problem because the nursery is not inclined to ;4ve 40 feet of easement. He further stated that what he has is a 30 -foot easement for ingress and egress. ;fir. Banks indicated that in January of 1979 the City adopted a Resolution which was a statement of policy -hat there should be these 40 -foot dedications and 26 -foot areas of paver^ He further indicated that he was unaware of this as he was probably out of town and stated thF_t he would let the Commission know when he wa; Informed of this. Mr. Banks stated that he knows the Planning Commission car vary requirements if a variation is c...11ed for. Mr. Banks gave the Commission details of why the final map has not been fi!.ed on this property and that the previous map was approved without the requirements that are now being imposed. Mr. Banks stated that ne has difficulty in understanding why the map would have beer. acceptable prev -ously an,-' is unacceptable now as nothing has changed except the policy of the City. Further, that the City's Engineering Division does not make the final approval. Mr. Banks stated that his application has been on file for 32 months and he was just notified of the reqirements last month. He further stated -hat he has made a number of changes in the map at the City's request and has ;omplied with all kinds of studies regarding the drainage. He indicated that he has paid the Engineer for all of these things and spent a fair amount of time in resolving any problems. He further indicated that if these r -luirements were going to be imposed on him, 32 months is a rather long time c _sidering his financial investment to tell him about it. Mr. Banks stated *__'±at his only request has been that he become a mirror image of the parcel to the west of this. Further, there would be more problems involved in not apprc,•:ng this map than if it is approved because ha will have LJ solve the street and drainage problems. M^. 3anks stated that the requiremeu' for 40 feet for a street is only a temporary req "irement inasmuch as the City does not have a street master plan for this area. He felt that Ultimately the road would be 330 feet to the west. Mx. Banks stated that he is willing to minimize the traffic on this street by putting in F- deed restriction restricting the number of dwelling units on the 5 acres if the person who is developing the adjacent 5 acres will do the same. He indicated ti:at these would then ba all the properties feeding in on this lane. Commissioner 14--Niel asked if M.^. Banks has had any discussion with the adjacent property owner. Planninng comet issiOl" -5- November 10, 1982 Mr. Banks replied That he has not had in some time. He indicated that the adjacent property owner has several pieces of property up Acr sale and he is tells those people who call and ask about the street and drainage that they do not have to worry about these problems because the guy to the east will have to take care of them. Chairman Ring asked if it is correct that at the present time there is no paved access to any portion of this property. Mr. Banks replied that this is correct. Chairman Ring asked Mr. Banks if he sells his lots, does he expect people to get to them through the present easement. F"r. Banks replied affirmatively, adding that this would be the case until the other streets are built. Mr. Louis Mora, part owner of the tract of lard that tie street is proposed to go through stated that the street would be cal'_ed Oak Street and if what Mr. Banks is saving is correct, Oak Street would literally be going through their back yard. M^. Mora further stated that this land is not developed and they have no plans at the present time to develop the land. Further, that any discussion about a road 330 feet to the west is premature and Mr. Banks Las no ingress or egress to his property. Commissioner Mb Niel asked if Oak Street is proposed to go the entire length of what is shown on the map. mr. Rougeau replied that it is conceptual and somewhat to the west and south along the narrc: piece of property. Further, that it is not a master planned street. Mr. Lauren Fritz, 10863 Beechwood Drive, nursery owner who owns land to the south, stated that he has never complained about the lot split but the only thing he is worried about is the drainage problem, which is significant. Mr. Fritz stated that ever since Caltra<is realigned Base Lire Avenue and widened the ditch along the north side of the street they have had a significant problem with water- He further stated that he has taken his tractor and graded the right - ),'-way because the - egress and egress has passed through his property to allow the people to get into that property and stop the water from running into their fr-.nt yard and into their homes. Mr. Fritz said that he had a study done by Linville- Sanderson -Horn in March of 1980 which he gave to Mr. Banks and Mr. Mosely. He indicated that he did not know whether this was considered by the City, but tul, flooding is a major problem. Mr. Fritz stated that the 20 acres north of the tracts also drains along the westerly portion of his property and indicated :hat this too would be a major problem. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 10, 1982 e I _U Alice Flocker, property owner to the west, stated that since drainage is a problem, the lot split should wait until the Etiwanda Specific Plan is adopted. Sha felt that Mr. Banks should be bound by it because it would be best for everyone. Mr. Flocker indicated that there is no access to the middle part of the property, and that the estate type residential is not suitable for this location. Mrs. ?:lineman, property owner, asked if Mr. Banks has any eucalyptus trees on his property and if any will be displaced. Mr. Banks replied that none will be displaced. I,sr. Fritz stated that since he has already dedicated 40 feet, he is not interested in dedicating another 10 feet. He further stated that if the dedication goes through, the u4..i_!_j ties will have to be moved, fencing and some of his outdoor material will have to be eliminated. He indicated that currently there is just a dirt road to travel on and he maintains it somewhat on the north /south passing lane. He does not maintain it on the east /west. He reiterated that he is not about to give up any more land. Miere being no further comments, the puclic hearing was closed. Commissione: Rempel asked Mr. Banks if he trees on the south side are in the right- of -kaY. K-. Banks replied that he thought they are, but in discussing this with staff said that he would move the boundary lane on the south lot ten feet to the north. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not think this f4-asible. Mr. Banks replied that there was a lot of discussion on this and staff was not sure what they wanted to do about the street. He indicated that they did rot impose a condition that the street be build because they did net kncw what they wanted to do with it. Mr. Banks stated that he is willing to give up another ten ;eet if it can be saved. Chairman °irg asked if, as in item D on this agenda, the applicant is required al cone in with some sore ciruclation and andadevelops. also permanent type imp "- Mr. Rougeau replied that this i.: the case in larger stated thatithdoes not have a allow direct reimbursement to be g circulation map that =tows pops: ,le access. Planning Commission Si,iutes -7- November 10, 1982 ", Chairman King stated that if the road to Base Line is not going to be a per's. ^.e. ^.t r03d � wO.ad zee= Z If .T�•• ^°_, t0 `t i *_ i. ^. and r f:0]1Q wee= that at some point in time it is imperative that some access be provided to get into this area if it is going to be used for residential. Mr. Pnugeau stated that is why in 1980 the Planning Commission policy gave the City Engineer the ability to vary that. He indicated the t now maps must be approved by the Planning Commission after public hearing. Therefore, it would oe the Planning Commission that would approve a variance if there is any. Chairman icing asked how we can say that this will be the road when the surrounding area has rot been looked at and further, what kind of precedent would be set. Mr. Rougeau indicated that an all weather rcad of some type is needed for this area and it could be vacated in the future if some future circulation pattern developed. Chairman :ling stated that if the Commission is saying this will to temporary and only regire 26 feet of paving, it doesn't matter if the City has 40 feet or 26 feet. Mr. Pougeau stated that the 40 feet is in the resolution because it could not be maintained by gas tax funds unless it is that wide. Otherwise it would be considered a rrivate drive and the responsibility of the homeowner to fix up. Commissioner Rempel statea that if the City is going to ge that r _t_, tr_en there must be a homeowners association responsible for paying for it. Mr. Hopson stated there is a procedure set up by law where by if there is one Private street and one of the cwners cannot agree he may file an action and the judge will order the various people to pay for the cost of the road in proportion to its use. Commissioner Rempel stated t:,at it is not r'-gnt to ha-re to go to court oz this matter. Further, that this is sirilar to tLe item on the agenda two weeks ago with the property ot, Wilson. Commissioner Rempel stated that it bothered him to set up roans without having final plans for t1nese roads and that the Commission must know whether Oak street will go or not go. He indicated tha` the Cjty will have to require dedication to put the street in and the Et_ »-anda Specific Plan should show these items. Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner Rempel is saying that part of the design is growing by accident instead of along specific design, which is frustrating. Planning Commission- Minutes —8— November 10, 1982 0, ReMID I r= ++.rd.^.d with the Kort =peter project a complicated issue; the policy if there is no proper access, the of the difficulty they encounter +:d year ago. Further, that that was a far more described t Mr. Rougeau grew out of it so tha: it would be provided. Chairman_ King stated he was uncemforLabl4: iZ approving anything in terms of the access as it relates to this and fel. that this item sh -ould be ^ontinued. Further, that the applicant Ln conjunction with this should supply the Commission with some conceptual plan showing circulation in the immediat: vicinity; or, in the alternative, shown in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chair.an King stated it seems senseless to put in 26 feet of pavement with a curb and gutter and have it torn up. 27r. Rougeau stated t`at it would not be an elaborate street as it would only be paving without r.urbs and gutters if temporary access is to be provided. Chairman King asked Mr. Fritz if the paring would bother him. !-Ir. Fritz replied that he would not objsct to it. Chairman King stated that whichever way the road goes will have an affect or the drainage. Mr. . Rougeau replied that the reason tha, Oak Street was not required at thi: time is that they do not know what the iltimate circulaticn will be. Further, that it is known that Pecan is needed f:r access to 8 lots and t!,at the Is Planning Commission policy since 1979 his required dedicated and paved all weather access to this subdivision. Mr. Rougeau stated that the circulation plan does have value but the Fngineerin3 Division has found that wherever a circulation pattern is set, 'he first thing that happens is that the ne)t person whc comes in needs a change. Further, that what the ^ity must not do is establish permanent streets that will rot work in the future and the question becomes one of putting in a street that may someday be vacated. Mr. Rougeau stated that ^:k Street was never a factor and the develcper will reeve: as required to eut Q X Street in until something happens ro the lets on the south end. Mr. Rougea. stated that somedav the nursery may be sDid to a developer and everything w.11 fall into plane. Commissioner Re=el asked if this would )e done through a lien agreement. M-. Rougeau repliee Lnul Jv - rev y.+-­..... s . -, --- -- - Line access which is part of Oak Street. Commissioner Rempel stated that Mr. 3ank.+ had said that he would give 40 fe >t of his property in order to save the euc,.lyptus trees; he asked if there wiLl be a :0 -foc.t. jog. 41 Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 10, 1982 save the trees' was put there to where the *,�,, Rougeau stated that it d asked oner '_jempel stated that it doesn't make sense an �:,mmiss� where drainage will go- drainage courses and exhibit sh w Y a drainage ditch along the o lied that the second ex uires 1 Rougeau r -P �rther, that there is alr that condition 3u reQdrain`6e . Rougeau str.ted department to the tY.e water willt go- Fine. the engineering property line tisfaction of improVement to the sa problem- will drain to- Commissioner ommissioner Rempel asked where Pecan and Oak Rougeau replied that it would be to the west. to death. fly3ther, it Mr - being beaten Line and to allow that this issue is required to Base stated avement will be Went access to the property Chairman King that P . until perms may be better tO nt which would exis� the 26 -foot easement is Know"- f Sewage can be addressed. the issue o_ which might be Commissioner Stout asked if sewage system h o uires a lots in the . F.ougeau replied that gas and cable TV is required on all yr ;urtt�r septic tan.cs. ed in at City - the intent that utilities be plugg Co�issioner Stout asked if it Base Lane. over, but not on gas or TV. Rougeau replied affirmatively on electrical p roviding an Rout i,-i terms of P Mr. Rougeau stated furtthenotrbe torn up easement order o get to them• easement so that it need line would be required' Mr- Hopson asked ii a dry a reQuired• was not sure what will b is that natural gas will not be rL ^. Rougeau replied thai, he Rempe1 asked if what , I Rougeau is saying they use butane or bottled 3as• as is nearby - required if informed that natural B yr. banks stated that he had just been Commissioner :iempel stated that there are no water services in that area either. Planning C m=i$sion yinutes z _10- November 10, 1982 0 Commissioner Stout stated that cable TV should be taken to the nearest telephone so that the trenching used for telephone installation could be uses for the cable TV. Mr. Coleman stated that the policy statement from the Commission which resulted from a study done last year is that the developer will not be required to do this. 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Baker stated that he is uncomfortable because he does not know what access will be and what the road will be and the Commission would in effect be approving something in the middle of nowhere. Commissioner Stout stated that he agrees with that and he would also feel uncomfortable with a roadway that does not have permanent access. Commissioner MoNiel asked how long it would take to develop a conceptual plan. m-. Rougeau replied that it would only be a short time and could be done in two weeks. Commissioner Barker stated that he does not know the position of the rest of the Commission, but he needs something like that. chairman King asked that if we taxe that approach would it be advisable to wait until after the Etiwanda Specific Plan is approves so that the Commission can determine what land use changes in that area are and have a better feeling for what the layout will be. Commissioner Rempel stated that he questions whether this can be done in a couple of hours because when you start Lo lay out a street it should be a public hearing item. He indicated that is way he brought up having the the streets laid out on the Etiwanda Specific Plan and it must come up during hearing proces3. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, to de:.ay this map until the layout of the streets can be determined througn the Etiwanda Specific Plan. hearing. Chairman King asked how long that would be as it could take as long as two years by the time it goes to the Council. He indicated that the C,o:,lvission is not now dealing with that kind of detail and if it goes to the City Council it may not be dealt with. planning Commission Minutes -11- November 10, 1982 Commissioner Mc Niel stated that the Commission is dealing with dangerous turf and perhaps if this land use C3e3ro_ ^2ti ?^ : C. ^C ir. di: ect conflict with the General Plan or the proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan then it might be wise. He stated, however, that there is no conflict because the designation is less than what is shown and not more. He indicated that this might cause other prohlems down the line. Mr. Hopson stated that there is an ancillary problem to this in that there are some problems with that in regard to time requirements within which the City must act. If Mr. Banks joins in requesting that the matter be postponed until a decision is reached on the Etiwanda Specific Plan or until the Commission is more comfortable with a decision then obviously there is not a problem. However, if he does not join in the request and the Commission continues the matter beyond a certain time period, the map may be deemed approved by failure to take action. Mr. Hopson stated that either the Commission pushes ,'he action tonight and is uncomfortable, or it votes to disapprove this. He indicated that if the Commission is uncomfortable, then the next question is a_idressed to Mr. Barks to concur or you will vote tonight. Mr. Banks stated that he doesn't mind if this matter is postponed to reso!7 :e some circulation concerns. Further, that he does not wish to wait until approval of the Etiwanda Specific Plan because it does not say anything about this level of street. He indicated that he has no problem with the street so long as the City does not cut him off at the end and make him pay all the fees over again. Chairman King asked if it is possible to dell with this and bring this item back to the Commission at a meeting in January. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be continued to the second meeting i.-r January. The Commission then completed its voting on the motion made by Rempel and seconded by Stout, that this item be continued to January 26, 1953. iF # f fi i U�Ltv�1_ ^.Vtvf'L:.IViHL AJJCJJIM:NT ANll DzYI�LUPMENT REFIEW 82 -16 - SUBAREA PLA. - z-EWAY - Conceptual review of the proposed Master c nor Subarea 16 of the Ineu Area Specific Plan which is ed between 4th and 6th Streets, and be we n and Arc Avenues. Associate Planner, Barr Cole reviewed the s eaort. Commissior< out asked for an explanation of Exhibit 3, the pro Dints cess or. Archibald and Sixth Streets. Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 10, 1982 40 J 0 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 3383 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 3383), LOCATED AT THE SGUTH SIDE OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD; NEST OF EAST AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 3383, submitted by James Banks, Jr. and consisting of 4 parcels, located at the south side of Southern Pacific Railroad, west of East Avenue, being a division of a portion of Lot 1G, Block "K" of the preliminary map of the Etiwanda Colony lands per map recorded in Book 2, page 24 of Maps of the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 1982, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on January 26, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 3383 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C� Resolution No. Page 2 BY. Zeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning 5wossion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning ConGrission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of January, 1983, ty the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 :J 0 11 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 0' RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 3383 {TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 3383), LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, WEST OF EAST AVEMI-E WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 3383, submitted by James Banks, Jr. and consisting of 4 parcels, located at the south side of Southern Pacific Railroad, west of East Avenue, being a division of portion of Lot 10, Block "K" of the preliminary map of the Etiwanda Colony Lands per map recorded in Book 2, page 24 of Maps of the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, on Jane 7, 1982, a formal application was sub-mitted requesting review, of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the map is not consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That the Tentative Parcel leap 3383 is not approved. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Com...issien of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 40 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I] E Lj CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -03 - INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED - A request tc amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Meaium Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial, on approximately 8.9 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077- 621 -31. BACKGROUND: The public hearing on this item has been continued by the Planning Commission on several occasions in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to prepare the necessary environmental studiFs required by the Planning Commission. Staff has been in contact with the applicant and he has requested withdrawal of the General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the Commission needs only to accept that withdrawal and close the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission accept the applicant's withdrawal of the application and to instruct staff to return any unused application fees. l ly,,,submitted, P 1 arner :MV-jr ITEM C 0 11 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -01 A - KANOKVECHAYANT - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use P 1 an from Medium Residential (4 -14 dwelling units /acre) to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) on approximately 15.5 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN 227 - 091 -45. BACKGROUND: ".he application material for this request was recently completed by the applicant and was not submitted in time for staff to prepare a full report on this matter. Therefore, staff would merely like to introduce the request and open the public hearing at tonight's meeting and continue review of the amendment to a future Commission meeting when a full analysis can be completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the public hearing for General Plan Amendment 83 -01 A be continued to the regular Planning Commission meeting for public hearing on February 23, 1983. Attachment: Location Map ITEM D RANCHO N ANA' G RANCHO CUCAMONGA, OA ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 227 - 082 -45 /-•�" � .�0�2F1Ef.N FLGIPIG Fs.��Kaov _,,,,�.,..� J 'CdFD oK'Y... x .LUNbt.F 9'DfAli1- AAG���G�• j �`� / QavEy�ali �j�OFPIGE Su1L.DINl� IY1� A , � . �G.L PEA ��. core. �. G.Jji t � (yam) � �•�. :A��� � ��� - ,� P.C. PR PE '%gCTORIA° 1 15.628 ACRES ,T1 \\ M. ul p1RS *mWw-s cRPA VISTA I, A 44- 0 '--1-- -= —� - 1' -500 El E. DATE: TG: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CI•TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 26, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner AND GENERAL YI`:CfY VI•IGl \1 u.l -v L` - nu auo •�.wa.•• •.v .•••.. •••.. -••- Development Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to modify the circulation, trails, and land use plans in the Etiwanda area. ABSTRACT: This General Plan amendment and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report are necessary as a result of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. process. The amendment is to modify the Lard Use, Trails, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan as it relates to Ftiwanda. The purpose of this meeting is to open the public hearing on this topic; however, final action on this matter should be taken at the time the Commission acts on adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: This General Plan amendment is the result of the Etiwanda specific Plan process, and is closely tied to the Etiwanda Plan. Approval cf this amendment is necessary prior to the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Specific plans are designed to implement general plans, and as such are based on, and must be consistent with, the General Plan. The Etiwanda Specific Plan is based on the broad directional policies of the City's General Plan. However, as a result of the formulation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, it became apparent that a General Plan amendment would be necessary. The reasons for the amendment are described below. 1. iled land use are in the 'Etiwanda Specific Plan. As an example, the broad iano use category or 4 -14 uu -sick has been refined into two categories: 4 -8 and 8 -14 du's /ac. The Gereral Plan map should reflect these requirements to avoid confusion. 2. New information is now available. This includes specific commercial locations that are called for but not depicted in the current r•eneral Plan. The amendment should indicate the new ilm ormatior. for consistency reasons. ITEM E General Plan Amendment 83 -01 8 Planning Commission Agenda January 25, 1983 Page 2 3. Substantive revisions as a result of new and more detailed information generated during the formulation and review of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; revisions are required for internal consistency reasons. This includes changes in land use from Residential t:, Industrial Park south of Foothill Boulevard. The proposed amendment changes in Land Use, Circulation, and Trails Plans of the City's General Plan. The proposed changes, as well as the reasons, are outlined in the foliowing sections. LAND USE: Commercial and Office Designations The current General Plan text calls for future commercial uses in Etiwandd without identifying specific locations and types. The draft Specific Plan identifies these uses and their specific locations (see Figure 1). For clarity and consistency reasons, the General Plan Land Use Map should be amended in accordance with Figure 1 to include the following designations: General Plan Designation Location Neighborhood Commmercial a. South side of Base Line, west of I -15 b. At the northwest _corner of East and Foothill Commercial c. At the southeast corner of 24th and East d. On west side of Cherry, north of .,-15. Office e. On north side of Foothill, east of I -15 Residential Gesignatiuns The Etiwanda Specific P12n process identified areas where current land use boundaries needed shifting, and where density adjustments needed to be made, both upwards and downwards, to meet specific community goals. In light of these adjustments, the General Plan Land Use Map should be modified as follows: (See Figure 2) L J 13 1 General Plan Amendment 83 -01 B Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 3 Area North of Route 30 South of Route 30, North of I -15 South of I -15 Industrial Designations Chanqe a. Dense land use boundaries to reflect flood control and CAL -RANS ownership - elirinate (4 -14) designation adjz.cent to I- 15 /Rt. 30 intl2rchange, lower density east of Cherry to VL (1 -2 du /ac) (See Figure 2). b. Reduce density along and east of Etiwanda Avenue, north of �.P.R..R. from L (2 -4 du /ac) to VL (.1 -2 du /ac) on about 170 acres (See Figure 2). C. Increase density alono Etiwanda and Base Line from L (2 -4 du /ac) to LM (4 -8 du /ac) on about 130 acres (See Figure 2). Increase side of sides of (2 -4 du /i on about 2), density on north Base Line, on both East Avenue, from L 1c) to M (4 -14 du /ac) 35 acres (See Figure e. Reduce density southwest of I- 15 /Rt. 30 interchange frog, M (4 -14 du /ac) to L (2 -4 du /ac) on about 18 acres (See Figure 2). f. Modifv nnrtinnc nf' exi$t'en- ri `J (4 -14 du /ac) designation to 2). (4 -8 du /ac). (See Figure At a previous meeting, the Commission expressed a desire not to designate the area south of Foothill Boulevard for residential uses, due to potential conflicts with existing and future industrial uses. General Plan Amendment 83 -01 B Planning COmmission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 4 L11 The area, shown in Figure 3, is curren.ly designated as Medium (4 -14 du /ac) residential on the General Plan, and borders an industrial Park i General Industrial designation on the east and south. Fontana's eral Plan designation, on the east, calls for Low density residential Eased on the Commission's comments to date, this area should be redesignated for Industrial Park uses, and included in the Industrial Specific Plan for the development of appropriate development, standards. Circulation: A separate report by the City Engineer will be forwarded at a later date. Trails: The current General Plan indicates a number of Communtiy Trail adjustments in the Etiwanda area, Because of the level of oetail now available under the draft Specific Plan, the trail system is being refined. As a result, the General Plan Master Plan of Trails should be modified in accordance with Figure 4. Revisions im.lude: 1. New trail along East Avenue, between 24th Street and S.P.R,R. 2. New trail along Victoria Avenue, from Victoria Park Lane to east City Limits. 3. Continuation of trail along East Etiwanda Avenue to S.P.R.R. and beyond. cNVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Amendments to the City', General Plan require environmental review under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). However, since this amendment and the Etiwanda Specific Plan are the result of the same planning, public review, and decision making process, one Environmental impact Report is all that is required for both, provided that the concerns resulting from both the Amendment and the Specific Plan are adequately addressed. Because of relatively recent P'.,,iing Commission action and comment; received to date, the Draft EIR is undergoing revisions. However, t;,e public review period did not end until January 25, 1983 anei there may be additional comments arriving from various public agencies witKl the next few days. Staff will address all these comments, and all response- and proposed changes will be presented to you at a future date. General Plan Amendment 83 -01 B Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 5 Attached you will find revisions to the Draft EIR; however, no action is necessary at this time. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission review the report and consider public comments on both the General Plan Pmendment ana the Draft EIR. Rgspectfully s bmitted, I PICK GOMEZ d City Planner i RG:OK:jr Attachments: Figure 1 - Commercial Designations Figure 2 - Residential Pesionations Figure 3 - Industrial Designations ® Draft EIR Revisions I] 30 �� bGi7.fila AVE r�ROVfE � f LEGEND o Neighborhood - A Commercial Commercial �- - — vMce COMMERCIAL j DESIGNATIONS fig' 1 X . E 2s TH i I r u L-4VL e -� 1 PARK LA { IF f FOarHU BLVD. _ u; !i l I' 7111-" <� t gj' o. 3' U i ILI ! L // LEGEND /'/ V < 2 L 2 -4 LM 4 -8 m 4-14 FC Flood Control change to RESIDENTIAL figs DESIGNATIONS 2,/ 24 TI Ilr,n�- r i �J LEGEND ® Industrial Park INDUSTRIAL fig.3 DESIGNATIONS E SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST ._._ .._.- _..._. -._. catir.� tnu_o ncr �.� e aA ?Htii - I '._. '- °t JJH147' - Fc� +_h�fi�Free'rway�_C o 00. 0 .O O.QO V QO+U.00 O O +`0.00 O.ON O -� 0 �`��•�`` 1 i Fa M y�nJUQ P� c V3 0 e. ryJJ nama^.... O .00000 o O - NW 1 V/ `H i 6". O a 4 ry .O. O O p 0.' O O ' ° . O . . N J {lJt7ryjlglYl411tl4W. f !8 O 0 p00000000000 . -. ' 1 HO O HHHHH -. Q - O 4nyJJylrJryhrryy�gAlq .� I O - �Y' t 7D 0 � II Oj p t o; Bi Or.�• � y O•. cm cj � a p a b000 o ns °' �+OO4 o �QSnLla2f3Qfl0O Q9'i�00flR? Wflj}1Q� Q D O LuSr7�J �Op ll o n d O a d a � o o O: 0 0000000 - 0 0 -., = D.0pb'00000.0'OOOD` .0 - Fc� +_h�fi�Free'rway�_C o a i 0 .O O.QO V QO+U.00 O O +`0.00 O.ON O -� 0 O 1 i J i c V3 0 e. ° .00000 o 0 G o. O O. of 0 p 0.' O O. !8 0. 0. 0. .. .. AI F.v_ ; L_; 3.'; { {•: :;i't :i_';; .,. 00 . :00.0 ..'0 ......... .Opl -_:_ t t .a o a 0 �{ Q b Q 770 a q a 0 0' Offi9 2Qffi[1D0OIIO GCnO oar ; Qa a aa a a , o a 0 0 0 a o ° - Fc� +_h�fi�Free'rway�_C o a i 0 .O O.QO V QO+U.00 O O +`0.00 O.ON O -� 0 O 1 i J i c V3 o Oct .00000 o a � 00000000000000p 00000000C m !8 9 t t .a o a 0 �{ Q b Q 770 a q a 0 0' Offi9 2Qffi[1D0OIIO GCnO oar ; Qa a aa a a , o a 0 0 0 a 00°0°3 • 0 002 0000° at>mttttt�x,;>;a s 00( 111'" h H m 0i Of 01 01 a, 0 A COMMUNITY TRAILS .•••»»•• Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 Current 'MASTER PLAN OF TRAILS fig. 4 o ° 0 o a i 0 .O O.QO V QO+U.00 O O +`0.00 O.ON O -� 0 O 1 i O o o a � 00000000000000p 00000000C 00°0°3 • 0 002 0000° at>mttttt�x,;>;a s 00( 111'" h H m 0i Of 01 01 a, 0 A COMMUNITY TRAILS .•••»»•• Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 Current 'MASTER PLAN OF TRAILS fig. 4 SUMMARY Introduction The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Report is to provide an objective assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Etiwanda Specific Pian, and with the General Plan Amendment being proposed as a result of recommendations within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. it is also the purpose of this report to identify possible mitigation measures to any impacts, and to discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. The following section =mmarizes the potential impacts and mitigation measures described in the body of this report. Measures recommended for incorporation into the Specific Plan are identified in bold pdW" in addition, the alternatives to the proposed plan are also presented ir. summary form. For more detailed information please refer to the appropriate section of the document, as indicated in the summary. E 0 E El IXTERNATIVES It is required that Environmental Impact to the proposed project. The following described in the Report: Alternative 1: No Project Reports describe other reasonable alternatives is a brief summary of the project alternatives Assumes the implementation of the General Plan through the use of existing City zoning regulations. Alternative 1 consists primarily of very low or low density residential within the Etiwanda Core area and medium residential densities south of the I -15 corridor. This would contemplate Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue &s secondary arterials. Due to the broad nature of the use designations and its implementation using conventional zoning regulations this alternative would not have the ability to deal with the unique characteristics of Etiwanda. Failure to address such issues as community character and identity resulted in the preparation of the Specific Plan. Alternative 2: Specific Plan, without Bypass Road This alternative represents a plan similar to the Specific Plan, with the exception of the East Avenue Bypass Road. Transportation systems include both Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue acting as secondary traffic arterials. This alternative was rejected primarily because it does not meet the overall objectives of maintaining character of the areas along East Avenue. Alternative 3: Lower Intensity Land Uses Alternative 3 represents the lowering of residential densities throughout the Etiwanda area, from what is shown on the General Plan Land Use Map. North of I -15 residential densities are either very low or estate residential. South of I -15 residential densities are low residential. Both Etiwanda and East Avenues could remain as 2 -lane collector roads. Alternative 3 would not be consistent with the General Plan nor would it provide for a realistic integration of land uses and development potential with the surrounding higher intensity land uses around the planning area. Alternative 4: Higher Intensity Land Uses This alternative increases the density in the Etiwanda Core areas to low or low- medium in selected areas. It also increases the areas of commercial designation primarily adjacent to I -15 and around Route 36. Higher densities would significantly increase traffic volumes along collector and arterial streets. This would not be consistent with the General Plan band Use densities and would be incompatible with many Specific Plan objectives. INTRODUCTION Purpose of this report This report is intended to produce information usable by the layman and technician alike. It has the specific purpose of providing answers of a factual nature to local decision - makers about the environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. it presents information about probable events which could or would occur if the proposed actions were taker.. This report is intended as a tool, to be utilized by local decision - makers assisting them in making a more informed decision than could have been made without the information contained within it. Authority and scope Environmental Impact Reports are authorized and requited by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended. These reports must follow the regulations set out in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 1, Sections 15000- 15203. The California Environmental Quality Act defines the adoption of a Specific Plan or a General Plan Amendment as projects subject to the guidelines and directives of the Act. If an Initial Study indicates that the project has the potential to significantly affect the environment, it must be subjected to environmental assessment and public review and On May 26, 1952, the Planning Commission of the City of Faneho Cucamonga held a public hearing to review the potential adverse effects the proposed plan may have on the environment. Daring the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the initial study and made a determination that an environmental impact report, focused on the topics of soils and geology, hydrology, biota, population and socio/ economics, land use, transportation, cultural resources, health, safety and nuisance factors, aesthetics and utilities, and public services, would be required. The Initial Study, enclosed in the appendix of this report outlines the topical issues in greater E This report presents an analysis of the environment of the area within the Specific Plan boundaries. The report considers impacts two different ways: Individually and cumulatively. Individual impacts are listed and desc6bed in detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting and Assessment. Cumulative impacts, diseu.°.sed in Chapter 4 are those events, actions, or problems which might or would occur as a result of one or more individual impacts. It is important when reading this report to bear in mind that the General Plan of the City set the basic parameters for the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, including total population, basic housing densities, land uses, amenities, circulation, features and areas of necessary environmental protection. These features were part of the General Plan and as such were themselves the subject of environmental scrutiny as part of the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (1983). The Etiwanda Specific Plan uses the City's General Plan and its supporting documents as its starting point. It takes direction in key areas from the General Plan and uses that direction to shape basic development and growth policies. However, during the plan formation and public hearing process, it became apparent that as a result of indepth analysis of issues and the General Plan would heed to be amended in the areas of circulation trails and land use as new information became available. This Environmental Impact Report addresses environmental effects of the following areas: 1. Impacts atributable to the General Plan Amendments in the areas of circula=tion and land use. 2. impacts directly atritatable to the Etiwanda Specific Plan in those areas where the Specific Plan offers information and development criteria more detailed than the General Plan. 3. Impacts that were not, due to the lack of available information, adequately addressed by the General Fian EIR (1981). 1 -2 E The Etiwanda Specific Plan was conceived out of the concern to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing community. The plan contains detailed regulatory provisions tailored to Etiwanda and meant to replace current citywide zoning regulations that could not deal effectively with Etiwanda's unique qualities and problems. Cnsequently, the plan is mostly a regulatory rather than an action -oriented document. 'Mis EIR addresses only those actions and consequences attributable to the Specific Plan process, including the General Plan Amendments. It is not the purpose of this document to assess those environmental effets which have already been addressed in the General Plan EIR (1981) and which would ir any event occur had the city opted not to prepare or adopt the Specific Plan. LI 1 -3 L � L OmS °30 N q ' WCC,o�C Y O q 4) °4 y C p r c U W � $ C E C m q U s r � OU O Vy� y a �.. c 67g y �c a� (D 0:6 = o ff 91 `3 p Ci oy� C o g ai« a _ -� °° 0= O O E vi C o.. 0, v C to > O _ C c> C ° 9 _ O � t7 4 � Y y>0/ i O .wE CO _Cyai >t'�•O t-c4 C r �a CT c z cr.0 O g �„O„N W rz e o `d c.C°•"w E m Z D o o c E c O a s m0 v D U m 0 v d p q Z.0 ma A d L cl OmS °30 WqN uWy q ' WCC,o�C Y 4) °4 y C p r c U W � $ C E V 0 m G G l�S N s r � OU O Vy� a �.. c 67g y �c a� (D 0:6 = o ff 91 `3 p oy� C g ai« aYsS� _ -� °° 0= O O E vi C o.. 0, v C to ycoayiE y «E x O y y>0/ i O .wE CO _Cyai >t'�•O t-c4 C r Y CT c N O g �„O„N W rz e o `d c.C°•"w E m Z c o c O a e ca QDw « CY 4 C G 1 a C Y C� O E y, E e O -'u E � rz E �O Ey r o E y CL ca 0 GO O ti >C my 0m °o O O 47 00 Od'oomEy > m t a-° a E 0. rOO Y ° vY vw�CC� 9 o � W G _ a w q 'i O C H Q3 �av� 4tw E 4s O W e M c o C « o o a a U C «O y� C ^ v� E 75^ T� o ° c dOC.o. o y c`yC co m o z o a -4)MQ ^E5 00 wtc a ca °a rn ° V° p � GE &M-0 O Cj 4f cti O w O O Q1 «�a`r = °E fi�o a) a Q. y 'C 'OC G1 «° ° C Co CD p O c Lc = cp O Qi y y C G c O> U E- c`nC Q.E 0 Qvv «v v L O e °4 S� V 0 m G G l�S !h Nf s r �L r� C 6. a C D O C z D Xi i 0 C. tz t'^ C U C F a C z Ri O G z O r U rs m �--- O^' C) ki L C CL 0 dam. E N L ^.7 ma .. y b m .. o c r. m O m 00 z=; T L -O L O L y LD y w 3 C Y o m 3�� •„noi3 Q � > m .�.. -. y d O O E V V '•' v 'O -'• m p W I C V w, ° V cN c h mlm .°. _ ca'" C 0 � o ^� c 3 e o cz 3 m `c ° b m e,Oi E = q!ato' E m^ C3 CJ j T w 0 C v.• m V .... > >�'m d Ojai C 0'-O ai�L;m w O = 7s- O •:. ¢f V C. V o d� E ^_ cN d Y r > T ma CD r m C "' m m y w m C m M d 00 z=� _G C G vO � � O m = o :v E C N O O L r o ? '70 C C c c y o m m d Y d 7 V .a mmc O O p LD y w O 3 C Y o m yr Q � > m � c E L = E >,•a V ^ w O p W rn C — C V w, ° V V C m m E w mlm .°. O a cU cow ca'" C 0 � o ^� c 0'00. a E c `c ° V =' °V' L. cJ 00 C O y E m^ C3 CJ j T N m 3 V 0 > > ^ c C .O. fyl =+ " C � w ..., CZ a tz •+mm m � co a � CC) L y O r m pp�o`E�d co m 3Y fs. r: +�Qy 0 m m F; -=o t= M� m = 3 O M5 w a� L 0 C C7 , O U C. r. L, d ^M+ O. E E O d dN W OW C L Uv ccCCwe`n0�'m _G C G vO � � O m = o :v E C N O O L r o ? '70 C C c c y o m m d Y d 7 V .a mmc O O p LD y w O 3 C Y o yr Q � > m C�L p W rn C — C .rte m •°• C m m E w dE' -,�E c N L ca'" C 0 � o ^� c 0'00. tr c `c ° V =' C C 00 C O y E m^ CL w j T N m d > > ^ c C U " C � w ..., CZ a tz •+mm r. e mco co a � CC) L y O r m pp�o`E�d co m U fs. r: O H c d v Y C C w O . o O y�O L y =�Om co r O yr VS U O C as of O O O V C y d v C m m E w dE' -,�E .. N L E O' O C 0 � o ^� c 0'00. e 0 m w U y E m^ CL w m ` as m C w ..., CZ a tz N oa c c" c r. e mco co a � CC) L y O r m M 0 p °'rmeo tLV ACC. c:0 a Emy Ei F; -=o t= M� ra-30 c* C Q co �M 0 > ,y V C 3 d V $ 1] El. E M �% t+1 w OJ Ci ei C Q co �M 0 > ,y V C 3 d V $ 1] El. E m y V y �7 r v w C p += ^=3 U c .V.• m aC 010 m m� Tcp �m �C m �! Y_ •/ Q m W_ ❑ >+ a E o M- d a O C L0 ° > C w O U « > ` Or L L Fm'v c6m Q° o ° L w •'� Ti C3 m ^_ , W 4v o w to 0 cm Q 0" = c m Lry �V mE -c.. r= 9 CIL CD o'C3 7 C3 W. z?e�m. e°� a s�C o `� �".c' m ro a m F m a� E `aos o a m c E a� do as _T ° >c EE C Osm..umo,y�' m6i yOm.°..ca co O cs'om� cxi° IL _ c m�EE 1C «+m of 3 m ��-:.ym fro. -oL> -0 -+ cm > v1Em° ocY.0 C .E E c C m 2 V . C 'CLw '7 D C ` O C O m C m ` 0 o o ci c E = Q T O w bow > O .°v Y y to - L NEW L a s ba=0 r $� >c•'g' cam W c d cj t. 0 yW u, ^� L G.Q O� V C >+� E� c� C U.D.. C: w ..di w,Z v .:. W CD m e m m L L HO O C L w CJ 5. m (� E D V d.a C> j >� O« O V_ w C O ® c s CQ 3 - 3w D> o a L m L a c ..7 er T C. O m L C 7 'a C ccL-= CD,as ys:.o c� yam c a v- E >,E ° r° > y c- n W o 3 00 V o e m m° C r C O m m C C C C Oc mr3smm..m Ccm `ya3°� L °.3c n•..wm'c -�mo EC� >y�om�ma3 acim7 ° a. cmttm Z c a ..� c> m c g D c Y N o L d ` ca U m Y .-. C ._-. m T� E z, 3 0 L O ..°-. i.:.i C m . hJy C E > c c.0 m >— m y Ow o o^ © m� O�L3a3 c5 o >E°L'm5E co Ea F�a z O U W w iz m Epp fi� D C� 4 C6 p n r, •n od C e+t r U a a w O a 0 O C z P f4 D z O C O E U s G a E Z ra F 0 a z O U N rE 3�>+ 0 u L � > d d At � c C G m�> 3 0 " m E DD O L L' Y C V � O •O — CS L b w-0 D) 4 s v Y t9 w °'`� �O find y ai o E o 5e 'CD cD ,O:: m iv.7 mm .v_D v� m � 3 am V ` E ��nD o 0 p O V O C = C V L L c9 V CS d s7 Y V 47 3 o m i° > d QM Da > c VYV1 .O¢ C O C V a Cu V V Q I r Cc > 00 0 Y •� L = O Gy �CD m L 0 V C � ai L � � L � v ci V �'. o m Y o O V o « c 3 cdw V C w Y % = w Y 00 o Y O bo L O a CL o 0 «o w E U ri •o v Y d R_ v c 0 Cw m bD y to 4) 'h C'� co i E`°° S o° E 8 z'- 5 i eE i V ri C� L o o... D' o V m ° d d o c 3Y G m O. E y 0w QQ� Y Ci�Q,�.SVS CS v c CL 3 '_Y �a 'E E Y Q Y 0-0 Y V ej C3 z U a `0W m or. ovO -0 Y m m cca�c L. V Y .•V. E Y m C5 6 �o -dY E >+rwo« CD .Or 'p .� y CL e� o > a bD 'o c x m•o � Y Y D) m c Y O = O'm w� Gm d v o�w 'O m m m omo�cxi L � L Y ++ L Y E V o V mw�o c E; = S� p = V. t d C °t? moo S m 3 3m r M 0 J E. l d d m a m d .7 x zr d V d d E z M a z v°. C N N N 01 00+ a°+ b O cc•om R C U n' G .0 a a D L V � r5-x 0f d o C% 2 5 W= G' O w wL 0 L bD ate05S 3 L y o 0 en -O m 0 L: E O = O V C �y C(y •q Q1 E c 4 a cU. U U q > L S a) q W DO G « y q Y ° Q i C v v V > c U 0 d i o z •cV S tt� � a7 V cd xoSz«; C 7 CO'J:3 �« 9�° oa v CC 0 If O CS 0 p7 �y T O O CMD a0..mi co o RY `° a R O c, R c 'Cv C O_ z y yr C > Y ER o0^ LJ L ° ru C c°Ji. d O• R 01 y ]D a r Q V d U O •A Y.. w O G a 0 U r C _ _ « CO E a1 ° a1 :, � U C U � C7 y U « C R iL N L O L a �DD L O Y a c ° d C H .Y y o of C-- Ly cz cs .- C C C = y of D z z v°. C N N N 01 00+ a°+ b O cc•om R C U n' G .0 a a D L V � r5-x 0f d o C% 2 5 W= G' O w wL 0 L bD ate05S 3 L y o 0 en -O m 0 L: E O = O V C �y C(y •q Q1 E c 4 a cU. U U q > L S a) q W DO G « y q Y ° Q i C v v V > c U 0 d i o z •cV S tt� � a7 V cd xoSz«; C 7 CO'J:3 �« 9�° oa v CC 0 If O CS 0 p7 �y T O O CMD a0..mi co o RY `° a R O c°Vw W° mY° — R c 'Cv C O_ z y yr C > Y ER o0^ >YE �Y3 =R >o' E L ° ru °? 0ay c°Ji. d O• d 01 y ]D E C« L O V L g j C W r C>1 y0` V d U O •A Y.. w O G a 0 C 'O 7 C w a1 c� ` w 07 r C EO W _ _ « CO E a1 ° a1 :, � 7 C U O c rn y R 60 L> R o- R x m R« r R U « C R iL N L O L a �DD L GyOe•u W iL 1 . R d R y V °O O C O xO V ow � V & 01 R L^O C O > .Y y o of C-- Ly cz cs .- C d o CO R ° .-0 P2 0 ci r ° .. c0• p'+ 'G O U m C = y of D •L•• hO C :3 C « O ++ L o�d °' V «°y Ve �S� q 0 CZ dn+ 0 W> a C15 R m V 01 d an d N �' C- O '— y « �' d U UWr- dc5arc5uY<CdtSg0 vhoc R O Cc R « U 61 L N y yr C > Y � co L ° ru °? 0ay d C: O1 r CIO r L O U O O . G O bo r C EO W E 7 C awn ..� C of > x m R« r R U « C R d cis E GyOe•u W iL 1 ° 0 V °O y C o o ��S'X «R p O = y of D d > °u :3 6 r%a 'O C U 6 V G O G. q X L C) U d C L U c C7 7 q a Ea c� Y U y U Cl ;� m R C N O O «_ L y C O C. Z° m is w W R O L 7 co d N .+ � co L ° ru y 9 C c�LY r C E E 7 C > C 0.2 R ° mt V L = C O v NFL w ad m r. - R « Y C C X E ci L 3 L d q «3� � L o y W O1 U R Or 3 .0 q > _ R -- Q y `? cs c >Sa 0 0 ca cu O N L Y a = Y Q ZUU ai co y O ci M 0) E Rd V d d C] d A d 7 a e W z C C7 F a a 4 F z ra F O C+ c v0 4 m & g .O +.. a: o O� j a cG�C a m ` a d v_ a c > a 3 Q) S a! Q C ` a) 1� L ^yy{ E l9 to V y o m o C � 3�4)c5 oms. c!m G L V U!° O�MZ L "7 m m 4 = a 3 m m G V q ✓ O G � N L `o ` m L� rNR C V aC4 «°• EC�� cp V d G E m O ej � U 'O T p C L +mj m a) T a7 •O W U ZP,w00 ID O r+ CO 0 [ si U C 5 rQ m ..L°. G � m E C Q'� � O C3 -0 XY7 o �`- X t0.. 4 L C X ca.. m m v L c Z o m m o m a m �pOd3ca`w)a mp G 2•i W m L.0 O.; L N V G G r C V Ea `� mC7 Ea ar 'o G �' o �_ c as m d da a) V v V •O v a) V >. N V C) a+ o Jap d ... C v .r G o U c•`•o•.�a _ v G o CL ci ^ O d U9a h.v ai co > V _ O y roCf > O 7 z = z+=p• mu �w U° z c v0 4 m & g .O +.. a: o O� j a cG�C a m ` a d v_ a c > a 3 Q) S a! Q C ` a) 1� L ^yy{ E l9 to V y o m o C � 3�4)c5 oms. c!m G L V U!° O�MZ L "7 m m 4 = a 3 m m G V q ✓ O G � N L `o ` m L� rNR C V aC4 «°• EC�� cp V d G E m O ej � U 'O T p C L +mj m a) T a7 •O W U ZP,w00 ID O r+ CO 0 [ si U C 5 rQ m ..L°. G � m E C Q'� � O C3 -0 XY7 o �`- cc m C np �pOd3ca`w)a mp G 2•i o O to L. ... T 0 W C G y d m~ ° 3 ° E L G ,a `c cCnmo O C) mco %'v C Jap d ... C U'o o U c•`•o•.�a v tm O C w C x S o +' ^ N m _ m mw.p o p a+ C v 0 'A M 4A L a �v E a' > d c... Ew a _ 0 3 O c°.. V C 4 0 .i- U Chi � c d r+ F m e 3 � U � m E m baY o, 3 Z a r.. W.2 Wi ~ n v �I d 0 8 s m w d P � � d m m E.M cis c. L NGY > � -3oa m�G �z o_ w ` crnmm Y G c >, cnumv°1� 5 � N C G o u U CL m d 3 v M "' 3 G ° C c C 0 Ci b0 O s Lr V w m m R? cf, z > 3 O L +.• w caw 0-0 O C a tQ•- m c CC a=iQ i g, 3 •p m c m h >1 E > o«:° m U 'm o M CA m > m C cs w a Q) G m ca O C c m ;n a: rl 0 v m Ce M u 0 u E E. � CITY OF RANCHG (UCAMONGA STE AFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 10: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engincer- BY: Paul A. Raugeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A revision of the Circulation Element of the General f the City of Ranch) Cucamonga concerning the continuity of Banyan Street and Wilson ?venue SUMMARY This proposed amendment is for the purpose of establishing the continuity of Wilson 'lvem!e between Carnelian Street and Ame .hyst Street and breaKing the continuity of Banyan Street between Archibalt Avenue and Hermosa Avenue. Currently, the General Plan, shows Wilson Avenue is a secondary arterial begin- ning at Archibald Avenue and continuing east to Milliken Avenue. Banyan Street is shown as a collector street running froca S'.pphire Street east to Deer Creek. BANYAN STREET Banyan Street exists p`Arsically from west of Sapzhire Street to slightly east of Archibald Avenue, although s.ime portions have not been fully widened due to lack of fronting development. Where fully improied, it is a 44 -foot wide, 2- lane collector street. Banyan also exists frilm Alta Loma Creek, to Haven Avenue as a 2 -lane, 44 -foot wide street, fully mproved except for the south side i"nediately west of Haven Avenue. While street width is now, or is planned to be, tie same for both of the above segments of Banyan, the character of the street is entirely different in each. West of Alta Loma Creek, most house lots do not front onto Banyan and those which do are mostly 1/2 acre lots. There are about 10 lots of 10,000 s.f. or less fronting the south side and 35 1/2 ..re lots along the north side in this two mile length. This portion of Banyai has served as a cross -town collector for quite some time and has attaitied a -table level of traffic. All future development along it will be designed with lots fronting away from direct access to Banyan. East of Alta Loma Creek, there is a total of 63 tots, all of about 7,200 s.f. size and thus small setback, fronting banyan Streit in less than a mile. The lack of continuity of Banyan has kept cir:ulatier local in nature:, even with the recent connection to Haven Avenue. Development of property on this po- tion is complete. Because of the numerous, shallow lots in this area, it would be inadvisable to connect it witn the wester!y segment and encourage its use by non -local traffic nov, having adecaate circu!ation via Archibald Avenue. ITEM F Planning Commission Staff Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -02 Page 2 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT RIGHT -OF -WAY Continuation of Banyan to Haven feasible due to the presence of c Haven end of the strip and the alingment by a new church. Such local streets along this route. WILSON AVENUE via the MWD pipeline right -of -way is not omplex metering and control equipment at the bint1:4ny of a connection back to existing an alignment would also serve no additional Wilson Avenue currently exists as a Secondary Arterial from Carneiian Street to 1/4 mile east as a completed section and from Amethyst Street to Milliken. Avenue as a iargel.- undeveloped roadway planned for improvement to Secondary standards. While its terminus at Archibald Avenue, as currently shown, would provide a valuable aitert; ate viz ;raven and Milliken to Archibald Avenue, further westerly extension would greatly increase its service to the City. Between the west City Limits and Archibald, only Carnelian Street will provide significant capacity for traffic bound south to get to east -west arterials. Beryl, Hellman and Amethyst have all developed with many lots fronting them and causing friction with the "collector" character of the traffic using them now and in the future. Continuing the development of Wilson Avenue as an east -west arterial from Amethyst west to Carnelian will relieve the smaller north -south collectors of much of the increased traffic the future. The alignment of this extension is across undeveloped property except for a house at its connection with Amethyst Street. The alignment was part of the county master plan, of streets and some right -of -way offers e/.ist. The exis- tence of one house on the alignment is not seen as a serious obstacle since the ultimate connection will be many years away. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has completed an environmental assessment of the proposed amendment and has determined that there will be no significant environmental impact. Part I of the initial study is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Commission receive public input regarding this proposal and, if deemed appropriate, recommend approval of the amendment to the City Ccuncil. The amendment would add Wilson Avenue to Figures III -3, the Circulation Plan, as shown on Exhibit A anj delete Banyan Street between Archibald Avenue and Haven Avenue because its function would be reduced to that of a local street between these limits. A resolution is attached providing for such a recommendation. �ecttu ;ly sub tted, cw4n � Qn -------------- L9 ci C2=— 1 o. 47— Qn -------------- L9 ci C2=— 1 o. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY by ,ON PART PROJECT INFORMAssessment1Re Review Fee�mplet$37.000zPplicart For all projects requiring environmental review, this fora must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Coam;ittee through the department ece where this project application is made. Jpo application, the Enviro_ al Analysis staff will prepare nme: Part II of the initial Study. The Development Review Co- Mittee will meet and take action at which than me the (30) days be' =ore the P�1 Co�-ittee will make one of project is to be heard. ra. t will have no signi- three determinations: 1) The p �ive Declaration ficant environmentalhimppa ect Nehavga a significant will be fled, 2, environmental impact and An additional infor:aatioxlrP =tr` will be prepared, by 3the applicant giving further Lnfoi'na- should be supplied tion concerning the proposed project. ® PROJECT TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 p APPLICANT'S . 0. NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. SOX 807, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA yi NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE F PERSON TOUBE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AN ASSESSOR PARCEL NO N/A LIST OTHER eERMITS NECESSARY FROM LO-AL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES A-M THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NONE 0 I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND concern son ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: N/A DESCRIBE THE EW;TRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR. USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): N/A Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No 0 1-2 0 0 WILL THIS PROTECT: YES NO X 1, Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing -- noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous ;materials such as toxic substances, fla- ,=ables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: or I�RTANT: If aleunits,�ocomplethe the 1�Lpr the next page. rERTIFIC,,%TION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date 0 M Signature _.... lj� Title- 1-3 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following infornation should be provided to the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the abi lity of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: _ Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PRASE 3 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date orcnosed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range 1 -4 PHASE 4 TOTAL El c� J RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAPONGA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council has activated the optional General Plan Amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissicn has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comrtw_nts on the proposed General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recc:mnend that the City Council approve the following amendment to the circulation element of the General Plan. SECTION 1: Figure I1I -3 shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. SECTION 2: It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for this General Plan amendment, based upon the completion and findings of the Initial Study. ® APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of tre City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC',tS title; ENGINEERING DIVISION �T 83 NJ L VICINITY &MAP 1 page 0 E CITY OF RANCHO CUCA4MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commnissioa FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12320 - L & G - A change of zone from R -3 T Multiple Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -07. Related File: Tentative Tract 11608- L &G PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The appl9cant is requesting approval of a planned development in the R -3 zone (R -3 /PD pending) for 116 condominiums located on the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria (Exhibit "A'). The p-op9rty is presently an aband ^.ned citrus grove and slopes to the southeast at approximately a 5 percent grade. A previous project, Tentative Tract 11608, for 120 condominium units was approved by the Planning Commission on March 30, 1981. The project is bounded on the north, south, and east by vacant land as shown on the Site Utilization Map, Exhibit "C ". On the west are existing single family residences and an approved condominium project. Th3 proposed project density is approximately 13.4 dwelling units per acre, and is therefore consistent with the General Plan designation. of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). ANALYSIS: The project nas been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth Management, and Grading Committees. All the issues and concerns of these Committees have been reflected on the Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit 'B'), development plans and recommer:dea conditions of approval. This planned development will have a single public access to Victoria Street, with emergency access only on Archibald Avenue, as shown on the Detailed Site Plan (Exhibit "D "). The prnnosed driveway on Victoria Street will align with the approved driveway 3ocation to the north. As shown on the Grading Plan, Exhibit "r'', the project drzirs to the east property line and south to the southeast corner. Conditions of approval Will require installation cf a '1;'d'1na- ,c structure from Victoria along the eastern toundary and pit onto Ramona Avenue (Exhibit "K ", Off -Site Drainage). Further, a storm drain will be required on Archibald, from 19th Street south to the railroad tracks. The storm drain is intended to significantly reduce the amount of water that is carried in the existing natural charnel on the east side of Archibald that presently floods Victoria and Ramona and properties to the south. ITEM G Tentative Tract 12320/L & G Planning Commission Agenda January 2b, 1383 Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Design Review Committee has worked with the applicant to resolve concerns relative to the site plan configuration, recreational space, and the relationship of buildings to the streetscape. The site plan has been redesigned to provide a large open space /recreation area in the center of the project with a pool and tot lot. Therefore, the Design Review Committee recommends approval of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore staff recomrfenus issuance of a Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING: The subdivision map has been prepared in accordance with City standards and policies and the project site is suitable for the proposed subdivision. The project design is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was placed in The Daily Report newspaper and approximately 32 public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. ly submitted, Planner DC:jr Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibits "G 1 -2" - Elevations Exhibits "H 1 -2" - Floor Plans Exhibit "I" - Archibald Streetscape Exhibit "J" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "K" - Off -Site Drainage Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions 6 11 -rte -= iVictoria T— ----- �sifC.t' 71 27 28 1 { r I / / • _ r" -iw �/ 111 T ' - LOT A ir A5^ Va IJ tom a 22 t+ f �.....�..; 1 1. % ./I..... i :24 r vw ac i :23 '" 95' ���; t fi�r,• •,,,. is ) '�,. -� ,'t8 / >wa. J • `era �•.�. , 't�:i ' � 9'�� - �';. I tiORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUC<Ai:� Tox� s.,k TITLE -i�Q ��iL�i� f PLANNING DIVOON ExmBr, -- V� sckLE- 0 d s I i i II gl r? �I G� NORTH CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMUNGA TITLE: « U'11MZAn4Q AAA P PLANNING DIVLSI0,1 EXHIBIT: _ `�_ SCAMP.: - wU.' l ,��0 lulr Y.Y 14eE► tCM OLIVr�NN O.L1 JC1[(4 ART 1aO C[V' I.1! IIJtGf L�liItL.K lnT►. w•a lfe. w.'aM !C[ .14 ✓rls UNf lle wY 5Rl Tai Teat L f 111T SNGLL 9tOIT � r 1 �1i Lluu.+c naernni n et f r>,, svo.o.leo!!uT n c c lo.f wln.cnwalelt f+ VIn►ITI Il4ICw bt: It•9 nwyri:•1- s ►1rlfaf /uwh Si1Mm! Lore�slu- dne..w•. T� tfnyT.R n.M: I► anln lnea Ipf Mtirgli- J41I O[. us rely nef rwlvu• r.iwN N1►fev.fr4 rTwf Y[1FM .111wf 6RLrrr !IM ulwa l.►e•nr Ir,f 1wr. rMnr. If tlI 1111Mi Or41 MKC. lwaaln IM rsN!, new +cl "Ow, Vrta. •1Tif1 r14►ri>I./Y4 11Mf R:M+c fnna ow 9OY. M Mt rO1M1L Vit fl a101 u o.uw rIRIU11 91 fly CIiYOFF RA \CHO CUCA, ,Nlo \OA PLANNING DIVISION ne.►R Afb MGt .r{rytl. �l.eeT Ifer'r !tea R� IavRr.rl. w2 mc.rTe w •.. -,., V FORTH 11 ITEM: Ir l Z ma Z TTT taffmAft � o EXHIBIT: -n SCALE: "!--- _ Y ° �L �wAri" YiA,. Fiii' H ,` i • r is 1 1� . 'f� �� 1.1',Uµ' tMTn r•(]1 ��•:;/� =3` pi. j .A It AII M It 1� IIL.AUU s►�;�adr t l' ' ` '' It7' �1 1 rl 1 I• f' '..! I ! ° � ,� R c , �a. f) G r , �T i 14 .VCw� r O IreN4! l'ut'a �. -eer. CITY OF RANCHO CUC- kN,10. Goa PUNNING DIVISON 0 W. rm"VI- — TITLE- _ E.XI TiBr -- • r. rrc .• .rc�+ ✓ V NORTH SCALE: oo"� .d SIT 0 11 CITY Or RANCHO CUCANNIONGA PLAN LNG DIVISION tan' ..� T' I 1 I i i 1 I i I s I 1 I I f_ . . 22 ��u? 'I 9 Ie N,j LEI tl CIT`i' OF rrE�,: _ RANCHO CUCANIONGA TM-E: PLANNING DIVLSION EXHIBIT: I -W: ��1671 1 I i I �� II SCALE- C V � N'CRT.4 f" . �r E -:_' . ��.,.� t `: i ,o.. a .. _ �.� e. . .�. -R v �-. `' _ .� r. .w �: �. � <J.� is :'' � � +.: ` ,; `, f• �' o. • :r,.y �,:` s ; ... e'.� 'a;. ":: �. '�:: ,� :� :.•0. �, .� 25 ' >7RLLT �T, CITY C' RANCHO CUGkXl O\GA P INNI tiG L�':1S�v\T / ��� \ \ NORTH / / V,/-�� H TITLE- EXHiBrr - - SCALE° ••-' .n I; I I •:s .. '!,�' 4 . >�:; . y, ;C; �' �;' .. �... � . , 7. ..� '. _ . . o,.. �r.:..� ..... u . `, T...,. �_ `� '. �L y a ,; b • '} -. �I �. �� Y •V 'a% 'f : a . �. ..4. �� ±. CITY OF RANCHO CUCPAlONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Azsessment Review Fee: $87.09 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project appl.Lca.ti.on is made. Upon_ receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no s�.gni- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, Z) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental I,-=act Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by e.he applicant giving further informa- tion coacrrning the proposed project. 0 PROJECT TITLE: ffUNTIH(61UN VILLAS 7E E APPLIULN' C' S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: &F "-r (?t(� 41 &p 5 =. 736 U T W-�ZON 3F$-:A -CA 4247 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE. OF PERSON TO BE COI%'TACT%T) CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: 19RF;M EWRR'NSS. PAT MI( LO ATION OF PROJECT (STRsT ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.1 LIST OTh£R PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCI-L, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISOUING SUCH P=P_V1ITS: I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: ME F90J6r1" RPR At DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONY1ENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATICN ON TOPCGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMIALS, ANY CULTUBaL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURPOUNDING"PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ;.NY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project part of a I -arger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? R01 1{x}9 i7ftEr-T i5 NQT FAr-T pF i" qTt� c4445wE natd. I -2 ® WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial chan-e in ground contours? 2. create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand" for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create charges in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? iiSilRiyfAn6f�NE. 6. Cro_ate the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flemmables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction_ of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CER•lIFICATION. i hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached e--`iibits present_ the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information ;resented are true and correct to the best of :iy knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitt-1 before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Developmen. eview Comm3.ttee. Date c7z�yz-j5g i5 Signature , Title /PcT" UR�4t1 pJ�l(1S 1-3 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to a:commodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: wtirmwg4t.7WrAT74ETKAcT Specific Location of Project: SQ046457- CL'W99 AVV t, MA 5i1 T 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range i'HASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 �Z 62 %�&46163 15FRWII184 1-4 PHASE 4 TOTAL, 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12320 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12320, hereinafter "Map" submitted Dy L & G Limited I1, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a subdivision for a total planned development of 116 condominium units on 8.89 acres in the R-3 -T zone (R -3 /PD pending), located at the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria Avenues, into 31 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action, on January 26, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Plannine Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12320 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed genera! and specific pl ars; (b) The design or 4mprovements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause sabsta^t;al enT,ironmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract_ is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of re.:.ord, for access tht,. .4h or us, of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 123320, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Meandering sidewalks shall be redesigned per City Standard 304. 2. A letter requesting withdrawal of Tentative Tract 11608 shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The emergency access lanes shall be constructed with a decomposed granite sub -hose overlain with topsoil and grass, 4. Existing Eucalyptus windrows shall be removed and replaced with Eucalyptus Maculata, 5- 9allon size, spaced 8 feet on center, with adequate provisions for deep irrigation. BUILDING & SAFET Y DIVISION 5. That evidence of recorded drainage easement be provided for disposition of water to adjacent easterly property. 6. That cisposal to easterly property be accomplished in a manner so as to preclude erosion or damage to adjacent property. 7. That easements, satisfactory to the Building Official be recorded guaranteeing cross -lot drainage rights within site. 8. That evidence be submitted that water drainage from the north will not enter subject property, or that construction be undertaken to preclude entry. 11 `J E Resolution 140. Page 3 ENGINEERING DIVISION 9. Installation of a portion Gf raster planned storm drains in Archibald Avenue from its current terminus at 19th Street to Southern Pac.fic Railroad, shall be required. The Developer shad be responsible for 50% of the cost of this work. 'he cost of the storm drain will be credited to he storm drain fees and a reimbursement agreement will to executed to cover the remaining contributions. 10. The drive epproach along Victoria Street shall Le aligned With Tract 9369. 11. Installation of drainage strtcture Tong existing dirt channel from Victoria to Lamena Avenue shall be required. All necessary to -site and off -site drainage easements for the -mprovements shall be dedication to the City. Applirant should coordinate this work with that of the approved Tracts 104S1 and 11614. 12. The requirements of dedicatior for Victoria Avenue may be reduced t°i 22 -feet wide provided the applicant obtains the. addition.3 18 -feet rights -of- way from the northerly property owners. 13. The sidewalk design on Archibald Avenue shall be revised to conform to City stanlards. 14. The drainage plan as shown on the Tentative Tract Map shall be rE..sed to conform to these conditions. 15. All interior private streets <_hall be designed to c�kty standLrds and plan checked and inspected by the City. APPROVED ANC ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLr;NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA4ONGA BY: Jeffret King, Chairman ATTEST: -- Secretary cf the Planning Commission Resolution No. Face 4 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify thAt the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26 +.h day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMISSIONERS: F3ES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 0 P^ OCn •✓ �dv Y90 N dC GF .+TC C� A VG N��•••C O C C °f L O �. ` C ^ a V 7 S O✓ .� T N A A O d b_ V A O 'J C • O V V� V^ Y �✓ d 6_L: N ^, Nd✓ yp p O S O✓ V d NV e9 O.TC C U V C 6> L C m u co.N^Y"- 4 9 C N C A VLV AGO t O.C� =wAO c NCO of pqE ✓N> _p _ O o N d� • N O V• ~ 9 W Ac y^ Q Wcr a f i > �^ '. y y T ^o E V^ �� ado.? d A� T ,,,pa c�i ^m ouc✓ ^_ C Z •a.. C O L 0 En 9 N �pC ..El ^�V 'coa � yV 9u Gyo uL C N ^G?AUN NVq E Od T^ n_E X79^ O ^i ^O ��6 LA`^ O� ^•w wNG W aq6 ✓ V ^V r dE d� LPq Oi N = W �d`p CO L N ^A^ JV PCC C O yd C �,Y � O J _ Y V O 1 6_ ~ PO a ° i JJ ✓ P^ YE V^ p V V 4 Q✓ O t A u p L ^ A�}N' Q� p 0A Vin• 6q C J6 u L �• o g1A0A E N u A u VLOG •0 G Y W V q• Cy ✓ `•) a V AS6 ^i A O C C 'n NOU d d ✓V g N d C� �P l •n r. C _it0 A V_ � T L A LdM •nGq O A ✓L d V JC �^ 9Nj a VY� C V CP N O. d O NO V 9 E O A •J •L.• P A � 2 CON Y oL9 C Z q q�.^ a ^ =`^ C AJN �C Qq CTCO✓ a6 > A� du Q =C S N O �P� moo, D F8 -a E O.A A y.^ �C✓ 7.0 ^LW NCB CL d0 PY� dVA L ^9 N^ LVN V1.. ^PC ^6 I •n i GO4C L^ `•qu. O3O PiOLY � o CA ✓O •nN c q�A AC pS < dAy a L yC c• OAM J ^_AO !� c �— y Je 00~ LVa ✓O ^� �iW E Ly.Le N•'. ^O. Lip. ^_A O dy✓ d udiC� �y0•p i�yc ^< NZA d< d q N LL_y 9 Nu^ L d✓ U p^ AT `L ✓AA OTNE RACY PC COL �` �C Ty PO O'Cw '.NEE <y r T y CY d0 TW AYC U^ 9r O ✓Aq E^ wCA d O'O - CCs O AL_dAYA Lq Oy •�U6 POD E VdgC O. ^ Vr't> �'E A� Y AN ✓ AY✓ CC O.^ r. �. NG LVN O dLL a9 ^�_ CtL t. CN q�N`IL� VLU V 9ipi �O ^_L 6^ ^ KOA ALC�A> iVC ^� T06WV VLO pq�t FO ^TOA•� J O ^d V G ENO G r — „^ 0 •.. C NI(9V ^ 6V OL Jw0 d Q d VL 6AWm GL L \6V'ApL6\6 \N6a `1V16N \ \r O Y C] O r C C O O 0 V O C O r N m N 6 6 El O 6 A C C V i O d Y V L V66 O ^ y6 � C+ J U' daO q^ d9� N �T C��L Cdr C C r 9 •� C A L Y d • N b_ ado aq0 C 6_L: �O c6�t Nd✓ yp •00^ V d NV e9 O.TC C U V C 6> L C m u C 4 9 C N C A VLV AGO t O.C� =wAO c NCO of pqE ✓N> _p y C > V d `Z L G N T ^_ C Z •a.. C O L 0 En 9 N Y W dE d� •� f� 9 q�b CO L t ^ p PCC C O � . C � O J _ Y V O 1 Ott- f q• Cy ✓ p O q N P V N 6 4 d z�� �P 6 N �q4� C _it0 A V_ AP d- NAG ACgC j46G I•L 6. G O. .0 �.Oi. d O y W.N� Z =i V9 AO ^ q.u�N LJ ^N W L e a6 > A� du Q =C - CTO �P� moo, D F8 -a E _ E ~ NCG !yN N^ I GO4C �^/f O3O V � L� WO (L U•+ 6M�Oa� N ✓ ml � y G m T .L 4 y L y V � O N d L r q cay� yr N v v? _ q V- N Y �l ��i igl�rq 'a0 °Sq r N< d C y ¢ N c O a oLE a a. L O d E�q�a„`�gd q 4jC V °.y Eq O g 6 S= G a V �rD V 4 V ° ° — yOI a E •L+ yNi c y O c c Q6yGV y. C u �Sf��a E'°a•gA °r0 CC 9Ny GJ'US '.+qC �C �y O.r L 6'U G j y V a O y C q a y °'= °Nay °A_ cofc ti N y ^ •.°,c° ° o a r r U O °!V` p.. Ml c O Sy L'f c,r C.r LUgi ,� TaN N �O y) ` o v c V O T .L 4 q C �J q v c � a' N p C L �yFa c F � E CV EST GL P Dyc ° ° n N�q i oL' y o o ° N `€� a�L c u L 6 L � d 6Cy C 9 9 9 a V r N D q d v p P. C O ° P P O ° 6 � y 9 �+ d >oti Ln q a� a a n c2 O � • p! 1 a D OO dv., a •• N y V C dL w y z y a c E� v c— Z N y C ,� V 4 °� d �• L q L r J d° =..a �-'9a — nL so _ � — C L •� d qC V � ° 7 v crycu a� �y y— .a y O u E L2 r� ° O O Q O C Y ° n ao V O i d rTGc e' L c N � V � O q � m L V N r O O c N c o y = Nq° N a r c y V O o— ny LJL'CNO= u d > a L N C H — q C 'J P O G H C A > . O c n — P� a c O C.• Pn� C S � d - e c i E q O L 9 N C py O LSD N a�q ° q � N `qga� �Ny^ y •°_'ao e e a " v —o Yo — 3 C n e� W 4NE m:.c n y 7 a q \.L CY °6 q C•l Y�� of �= E. S y L d y^ pCy^ O v L C y L y n G = c C r m` ima iyCC m � - -J y EE qyr q.� E�r��Ln q L g Y 7 P P aE O Y C —Or iy = N = J c a L m O y .°rte L O yyy6e.!C � a L q eE C ^ q � � 3 C Vq J C N m l L °oo i rL CO 66 GI 1] d Q ` p O IG'J ^ YO r q y S V a e y r � _ Ec C .gym ^ o e L aM yo ^ ^ S y s d y^ 3D L a dL�N °S =n qy L 9 d ty ^ a•'ror� o u r L L y L C 2 4 a c N yy `pr ppu yu ^ ^ D O W d w O n 2 R e .dr aN younc o0 i 07;- G y= T E N n^ M5V9_o O��L eLLe`p� L r 00 C r C N d q— Wq0 —Oy rro d.e r.cLN v) O0 — u x d � y a C SN V — r NY u ' i c �FF W g o 8 c N V p ^6gay ft�E T qy gral�ya n� O a� i d a Y e y U _ CGrq r � D v > > 6�2MgNL �� a i N e y L y V � O N d L r q cay� yr N v v? V C Y c ° N Y N° � n C ^ C y ^ O r N< d C y ¢ N c O a oLE a a. L O V P V °.y O g 6 S= G a V �rD V a G V L — yOI Q6yGV y. C u q C �J q v c � a' N p C L �yFa c F � E CV EST GL P Dyc ° ° n N�q i oL' y o o ° N `€� a�L c u L 6 L � d 6Cy C 9 9 9 a V r N D q d v p P. C O ° P P O ° 6 � y 9 �+ d >oti Ln q a� a a n c2 O � • p! 1 a D OO dv., a •• N y V C dL w y z y a c E� v c— Z N y C ,� V 4 °� d �• L q L r J d° =..a �-'9a — nL so _ � — C L •� d qC V � ° 7 v crycu a� �y y— .a y O u E L2 r� ° O O Q O C Y ° n ao V O i d rTGc e' L c N � V � O q � m L V N r O O c N c o y = Nq° N a r c y V O o— ny LJL'CNO= u d > a L N C H — q C 'J P O G H C A > . O c n — P� a c O C.• Pn� C S � d - e c i E q O L 9 N C py O LSD N a�q ° q � N `qga� �Ny^ y •°_'ao e e a " v —o Yo — 3 C n e� W 4NE m:.c n y 7 a q \.L CY °6 q C•l Y�� of �= E. S y L d y^ pCy^ O v L C y L y n G = c C r m` ima iyCC m � - -J y EE qyr q.� E�r��Ln q L g Y 7 P P aE O Y C —Or iy = N = J c a L m O y .°rte L O yyy6e.!C � a L q eE C ^ q � � 3 C Vq J C N m l L °oo i rL CO 66 GI 1] d Q ` p O IG'J ^ YO r q y S V a e y r � _ Ec C .gym ^ o e L aM yo ^ ^ S y s d y^ 3D L a dL�N °S =n qy L 9 d ty ^ a•'ror� o u r L L y L C 2 4 a c N yy `pr ppu yu ^ ^ D O W d w O n 2 R e .dr aN younc o0 i 07;- G y= T E N n^ M5V9_o O��L eLLe`p� L r 00 C r C N d q— Wq0 —Oy rro d.e r.cLN v) O0 — u x d � y a C SN V — r NY u ' i c �FF W g o 8 c N V p ^6gay ft�E T qy gral�ya n� O a� i d a Y e y U _ CGrq r � D v > > 6�2MgNL �� a i N e i t p U C A P V A i d 9 �Pu°e� �O C •I � ^_ .' yob `• �r _ d � y •I s� G = < q O i r A N V 9 N L • � G Tu �C N U q U V t✓ O O p� C j✓ I N� V C � y O T LI d C J N � ` �• (y GrN q Y V qC O� N C N Q 0 p W 9 C ..+ d n ° .° ✓ P r 1r u r ✓� � L L r'n � ' u Y9 °✓ Apo da ° o v as Gu9✓ �� „N ^E1 ��1 9✓ �� 6Y�� -JE CVV {y r N P ✓ � V u N N U Q u n ✓ mi l V° �¢ ^' m ° Y . n a J F_ \• � U V .� L L L O c V � „ Y_ V! ^ d am m „� O r L C .. ✓ C O 'OV N e L N O r � A✓ N Z O O «� _ O T t y q C O C • E° d' u 9 0 N Y^ e a i m M D r � l r 9� C u .. ^Td 9 p CND Cqi J ¢d• H Vdi l N. r„ O G✓ y °^ • O - AL E'er N06 '�° N C °O f•.� TO.L.. O TO ^� 0✓ .0 r •LAS EPO, TC 9 E qi C..- CE` ✓U9✓ pd 6NVP ✓ 4m VO p19 ` Z v O 00• OlY T y c i m Q` O ^6 ' O O _ rO V RN JN^ YC y f 66 � �i O C✓ L9 YO � C6M i 1 t'pm O V G 9 Y \\ ^ < • N V ^T \` }� �I{ COI N.INC, ° Y• C V P V _P . t O^ C� 9 L ✓ a09C C° ^ Y.Y �L ACS 9� C99 �P• j iY FdY �O r A9EdJ ' �a,� i n AC �C g6gti .^L Y VV✓ ✓ l �C rC JC' V9 p d N p Y V V O C q O° ✓ O � .� b T ra .0 St L -yNNO ELy9y C n d V m O 0 O ✓ �✓ - n L• ✓ e . V LZ�tGv lr m 9d9PLC M =LVr+ ✓ 9 �t� 'JP 0 C^ ^y�L O.. � c¢QUC »6m9 V PG �y >y G:L Ll `.Liles pL. 4 N L > T° y P ✓ v T q_ •An 9 u G° O A P ^ �✓ el O L L m•.- u E O Z C u COY �OJ j T � O1�G L yd L ✓ Ar c i G} O C 9 ✓ 1 N C 9 T Y_ _ ✓^ N C O V� Cq 9 q d9YP90 Tu�� �L OA yJ° J>O J •V L QJ VJ Vf P6 �y T✓_ 9 9 LPO• Ot� _PN m f1 V_V q O V� S �� n d~ 9 N C a m � 4 9 O � L � F• O J y V p 9 L 9 N n O V M V C y N ^- t� •^CP mC'N O Cu CQ fi1 Aq_ yEy9 �'� MN T C9 .NnCGC pLJf w ^C'J9q ✓C °qJ dL v^ °C6 Z ^r Cm �✓ NL,V 0900 y �• O ^� O E .” � PO >- r ✓ V U O x N N N 9 y N N N 9 V > �` 9 ° C^ _ q l Y EyyY .L. Ln= �L ��`G °p c ✓� °c y9� oi.• can oo^ T✓,°� ey ^ L+ y^ d CCP \AIu y1Ny�u ✓O_✓ m T P ^O AyyC P C gL.OTN• V` � a V l Ih Y � S >. � 9 9 � d l 9 a • d 9 0 N E .. C L A d 9 T a S O ti _ N u � 11 Q j L� A� L T V m✓ _ � d L E 2 O- 6 1[ C Y dm 4' p ..Q d ^q NV YC C J9 gCm u =�S Emw � GP�ONO ^O q9 e� p i ^V C T emu q9l iV Nu✓✓ N .LY N ✓ -9L ��C O.r •. �. ✓ V C N N N E N V> 6 C ^- �� ~ d M V N d V d 9 C L C O d q d C r r O L < S O - w 9^ ✓ �w a fEwi E �•�.r uL aL.r .. t=.�^ .. c m my d ° ✓ Ni c JL{t- y1-N9N <N- <a <N ZNYY 69 -06 <V L✓ 1� a VfN9 i `N^ n O � t _y ° °- =r= ° .. °c WO q ✓e cd .T. o.°. m a, s° o� gono c�� .1. V D 6P TOi N AVO d� Z.�TSO i O gPa`n0 _^ 2 d O VNO CC� roy� a�q •• S]u9 �G� ✓dj ,q J L � L ✓ y, P _d i. O. ° C J d✓ q L� O d C N p� ✓ C O— �' L� ^ d _ CI V 'C f`3 J ✓ ',JV � G O I L >'� � i V Y —� .� 9 4 L 1r 9 .L r aE pr 00—y � Nor n��i aLi =T ` yEO v 9r �y du L�� r pr ✓L piYO y °�Vd N =E Of Ny �r .✓� O. y — 9 q C d O ✓ O� r N L m t> n° G W O r V O O F°= Oi � G a — D V O ✓ O A p' q N T d f b a L M C ^ V EN gip` L 6�b� O L ° NO✓ C �Yy nyY Nq PaU N� VI OV iV iO ^ L A6 NC C> ::Oy a p,o �l Q96 dA =N 9✓ ` M T ' C a N —4_9P V Na r d O V = 2 N N nY .r E 6 LI Z: L: J c J 9 a r V U W OY —_ ^J VaN 69gp S`p N E^ m � 60 OP9 O r' C O� L O QY 6PV 6U.r0 4 9 y V C d T Q 00 C O O N t1 Q 11'1 p V W J ✓ V 2 a qr0 d C J J _ 01,C`` e� d ` E c ao o or u _ ✓= boo° i � n°NW c u °'c > � nN Yo ^� � � ad°i^ aNiFF 9 ^VW <N�1i �? gNNT �N Y d 9 C•NN ^dN LOW W m 4 C S• O t G d J C• O a V Y L^ �✓ � m q` V N ` A L e u 4 w V r EO N� 4. r _ C � V f ✓ O' u E O' C N O _ C^ y ✓yaa L C 9 C ` 9 G ` iJ 6 l q N �1c.� o ^qq a�✓y >ca ° � ti Nr —^ u -P a°1 41L C r'C V O� N'_ =GG ^ _N ' ' � q O V N N E QY a N a � ^ � ` C V O � � O ✓ ✓ _ � 6 a C L L c o O� _✓n w o c v � W u. j y o c E p m J o L— ° ^ dNW iq q 4 iI dVP '.T`� 01✓ ON d Y CI G �✓ — L ra 9 O L N V E C d J' 9 i= J C� O A = L rOi O dV'J OY �O �C N ` q N N a_ q j TIWNn �� � rVWi 6J6d1rN 6 ^o�C] Y. J KOE q0 C— iCL^ ✓ ✓� 6UL WNa WUV �6 {J�6i I 1 W M v 6 0 El v O 1 h Z 1 ' P C 2 1 1 r c c c O O O w a v u W 9 L q N E a II q d I N ys Y 0 o ^ IO .Or 1 V v v n N r V L L L d a L c W ° 0 o� P L C i a V C d q O 9 a a q Er O c C O r� r T L ` c N IO may^ . c.rs u a LL u a a x ac° y o. iDxl 3 I T ✓ _ _> N r yr_a w c A < _ N 1 X V u ` G O I I °aJ ��Ix�xl I I S-py . o C JLJ A C Q l� qnL w C V_ • 1 �W \l V fJ z ` S ._ O` L a � .qi. �• L �� � 'n w a g .0.. _ v O 1 h Z 1 ' P C 2 1 1 r c c c O O O w a v u W 9 L q N E a II q d I N ys Y 0 o ^ IO .Or 1 V v v n N r V L L L d a L c W ° 0 o� P L C i a V C d q O 9 a a q Er O c C O r� r T L ` c N a O 9 Q y O r ` gv L V � M D 9 C q ^ V L S N n C G s y V P q= N V S V d V T � a _ c E � C d C � > N EO L C V n ^+^ E M q .Lir N n�yo mogo C ✓6V N n e 7 ^ O CJ C O = O P C O N i n i= d c d N C � L � O N O r °• V G L �^ W i O C L C 0 n � ^ N ^x o° cq �a N ✓ � cqc > O O O G i u� ✓v q O X02 aid 6 VL•• I C V a M Afi q V L C v ` O °• .L.• � O io uv V V O_ r L C O 0 ry V qa n• e^ a = C q N v a N v 4 q V N G i v y r S W U y 2 ^ � u 0 L Or� L O. iE � V C 0 P h y ^ v .N. b c� �y S V O P ' N V G E o y ^ 6OL T V d •L.• O V 9 9 d � a y r.. L q O M 4 N O V q A a a L J O• 6 � O L x 6' m � s v v ^ Y N` C N os W Z r G V L Z j O TC^ O S a ✓ q n N v N � C N .✓i. C C ✓ of cu � a'o¢� • N L q Z C L V 6 ^ 9 f S 6 V Y N O ✓ O C L � Y✓ N a _ O1NLO °L E O � G V L ✓ V ^ N ^ Nui w •°,� a P t V •L L✓ O. E f ✓M Ey�i � ✓ L a m, k o `v wPte• m cev^ Epl cE E V^ INIJ lA may^ . c.rs a LL u a a x ac° y ✓ _ _> N r yr_a w c A ✓ _ N i °aJ S-py C JLJ A l� qnL w C V_ ._ O` L o q N d E .qi. �• L �� � 'n w a g .0.. _ M uDO dT °q`.. vAS °• ca r�'°ic u. � aLE �qJ " CVL." C D ^L "CJ ✓r N pN.L+ � PO rp. au � . a. Q✓ =✓T i °��` aTC✓ d N= V� p J Cq JEq iarv°c� L �%NW� ci9� � cc� Yv �� ^ .� G n d G � 7 l O •.. ✓ °. G P C✓ C J C O C ` � L C w E E � � °• � o y y � � d e v O C •C api L ✓t �.g.. �W°. °a. i e� rN v �ca-5 :a�• �a L •^ o a o � v c _G NWT iC•+p G9. Gil` ✓ C E6' � -OIEJU e✓v. O g q q �} J R. V V V R N� •O N L V P M L � C L d V V ••• V^ y V P J q W ✓ C T y a ✓ W �£y V N _'• V V a 3 6 O L V C y N V N g W /• O N O O 6 V 6^ W✓ N L G c 1 a O 9 Q y O r ` gv L V � M D 9 C q ^ V L S N n C G s y V P q= N V S V d V T � a _ c E � C d C � > N EO L C V n ^+^ E M q .Lir N n�yo mogo C ✓6V N n e 7 ^ O CJ C O = O P C O N i n i= d c d N C � L � O N O r °• V G L �^ W i O C L C 0 n � ^ N ^x o° cq �a N ✓ � cqc > O O O G i u� ✓v q O X02 aid 6 VL•• I C V a M Afi q V L C v ` O °• .L.• � O io uv V V O_ r L C O 0 ry V qa n• e^ a = C q N v a N v 4 q V N G i v y r S W U y 2 ^ � u 0 L Or� L O. iE � V C 0 P h y ^ v .N. b c� �y S V O P ' N V G E o y ^ 6OL T V d •L.• O V 9 9 d � a y r.. L q O M 4 N O V q A a a L J O• 6 � O L x 6' m � s v v ^ Y N` C N os W Z r G V L Z j O TC^ O S a ✓ q n N v N � C N .✓i. C C ✓ of cu � a'o¢� • N L q Z C L V 6 ^ 9 f S 6 V Y N O ✓ O C L � Y✓ N a _ O1NLO °L E O � G V L ✓ V ^ N ^ Nui w •°,� a P t V •L L✓ O. E f ✓M Ey�i � ✓ L a m, k o `v wPte• m cev^ Epl cE E V^ INIJ lA a `ate 4 O O d G ✓u s — C d T L �EGy W O O rJ 9 A — C L_ W_ L A ` V d c a u rU I1 Vf l r a a _ p N 9 L L N U O 9 6 V L ^V q q 9 V C U! C w L� N J D O — O 1 9 6 6 E y— w �C✓ V O V � L 9 A O V F^ � � q acq V6E V q N _ 9 c- V O G D L C V l v C i P T t q q N�✓ f V V O t V cv+ a 6 C N6 — \I \� V C q C j L i y N C � O W V v= V v V N .T oD a °1 L j V V D ^I i_ O — _1 C V A C� r9 9 V A 9 9 b N r 2 E v U A n E CI A ✓ Oy W 9 c n vc V V v' A � � l J ° N a VI L C 9 .j LN 6 L y N u q ° 6 va 9 ry o c ao L � V L D j q O L c N p y6 q e � — V V y V O q V 6 y 6 d u L c w c L p 9� y O q v P. FAO L Ld V O ^_ ` � N O V � ^ a = c u ^ C q i N O p N� p V �yy p N o Y O V A C i P. Y C L 6 C— W^ g P�> 9 J P9 aqL D L N V 4 C 9 C D — ' 7 6 JfjD N \I I 0 I 1 E V O O N C C T{V✓V p L P Y d O q e p w O l T jt ✓�E• M 1] J QL V§ O O. y U —e A pl OA ^•n 2 =pT M � m v! O q N A _ O O •_� A^ � 4 N F. O _ O V N V •� O_ w Or ✓ y J A ✓ C L IG L M ^ 4 V L —C y O C 'u C � V V O 6 C 2 L y Q� V T✓ C V l• ^ 9 V � N O N ✓ q N O 9 G ✓ j C O — � O V N C— �_ O 9 L E O� t L 9 q _ _ �✓ W Ln� ° q ° ✓ °N L •V � qi C mP c —.L.. . V - r � V g -� C Y t � L u �Y ' A O L L a C a � ✓ N E I v " Y 2 M •Lr• O O c 2 am° n'L•' q` .ira_°.O Ic i ° r � I vw =° . .N.r I G9`0 O DON qrG•` >� =l UN PW q .� G O �✓^ � U O L i t q —�' P VV IN �KJ1Ijj V O U 9 O j 9 n_ r�.r ✓Tn^ .0 ✓ •iOr✓ >> O o 0 I 1 E E RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF TFE -ANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING MYISSION RECOKA'rNDTMG APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 82 -06 REQUFSTING A CHANGE IN THE ZO%INu FROM P -3 -T TO R- 3 /P.D. FOR 8.98 ACH —S, LOC IE'u ON THE SOUTiiEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD ANO VICTORIA, - APN 202 - 181 -07 WHEREAS. on the 30th day r,1 November, 1982, and accepted on the ai;ove••Cescribed project; and WHEREAS, on the 26th day of january, 1983, held a duly advertised public hearing rursaant t Cal;fornia Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rzr:cho Cucamonga PlanninG following findings: an application was filed the Planing Commission o Section 65854 f�f the Commission has made the 1. that the subject property is SU:� .dble for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of acce_s, sic2, and cocoatibility w?th existing land use in the surroundirg area. 2. That the proposed Zone Change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. 1-h4t the proposed Zone Chaage is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commi-isiorl has fount that. this project will not create a significant adverse impact an the environment and recommends to city Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration en January 26, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVM: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 6585= of the California GovernnTe7t Coee, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 26th day of January, 1983, Planned Development ado. 82 -06. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Coisaci? approve and adopt Planned Development Nc. 82 -06. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution end relsted material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarced to b =.e City Council Reseiul ior. No. Paae 2 4. All Conditions of Apprcva: applicable to Tentative Tract No. 12320 shall apply to this Planned Development. APPPOUED AND ADOPT2D "THIS 26TH DAY CF JANUARY, 1983. PLANN =Nn COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RPNCHO CUCAMONGA BY: :,ef: ^ey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK. LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wa: duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning CommisLi ^n held on the 26th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NGES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS- i LI Cr `� OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Coommissinn FROM: Rick Gomez, city Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ADDEND'U'M TO TERRA VISTA STAF7 REPORT Planning staff has met with the applicant to d'scuss the fi•!e major points of the Planing Colmlission staff report or T.Erra Vista. Through that discussion, w, have come to some resolutions of the issues that were raised in the staff report. Following is a brief summary of the applicant's position on each one cf the fire areas. 1. C3=nerciai Setbacks on Special Boulevards - The appl zant concurs with staff's racorfa=dation. 2. Residential Setbacks on S ecial Boulevards - The applicant 'gas genera �y agree wit __r as Setbacks with a slight modification for single family detached deval ^pments. They have suggested using a. 20 foot average setback from ,:he face of the curb with a minimum 18 foot setback in order to create some variations in the wall. Staff agrees that this would sill accomplish the goal of the General Plan and would provide more variety jr, the design of the wal1... he applicant agrees in concept witP the building setback requirement, however, feels that the setbacks stated in the Gererai Plan are based on scale. Tiierefore, they have suggested that the setbacks recommended by staff be applied to buildings which are two story in height and that single story units ccui back Stiff (5) feet less than the setbacks for two story buildings. agrees that this wound meet the goal of the General Plan an: can support this change. 3. Residential Development Standard a ^d Format - fie applicant has agreed to change tjis format and arrangement. 4. Park I . lementW on - The applicant has agreed to eliminate the wording suggested by staff. Addendum to PD 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 25, 1983 Page 2 5. Affordable Housin - The applicant agrees with recommendations one an two 2. of the staff reFart, The applicant suggests that the wording of the windfall profits not be totally eliminated, but reworded so as not to appear that these guidelines would prevent the City from doing some other programs in the future. Staff would agree with this recommended change and would recommend to the Commission that this section be reworded rather than eliminated. Within the Resolution of Approval, st ?ff recommeded the formulation of a maintenance district for landscape and lighting. Since maintenance districts are presently be reviewed by the courts and *hat we a problem in the future, we suggest, and the applicant agrees, condition to indicate "the creation of a maintenance district or other alternative ". byl t' eh applicant cant asthwas reported toaus inc ur `meet meeting ofeJanua acceptable y20, 1933. espect`ull ubmitted, I, RICJ6 City Planner R6:Mu:jr 11 I] G CPI'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONvA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner 1977 SUBJECT: PLANNED COMMUNITY 81 -01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT UUMPANY - Review and final consideration of the Terra 0 sta Planned Community text and final Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of approximately 1300 acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and south, and by Rochester and Haven on the east and west. SUMMARY: After many public hearings, workshops, and months of work by the Planning Commission, staff and applicant, the final Terra Vista Planned Conamunity text and Environmental Impact Report have been completed for your final review and consideration. It is intended that this meeting will provide a forum for receiving final comments on the Planned Community text for the purpose of making a final recommendation to the City Council. During the General Plan preparations, it was determined that the land contained within the Terra Vista Planned Community, as we'll as the Victoria Planned Community area, should be planned for the development of a comprehensively planned community that is superior to development otherwise allowable under altercate regulations. As a result, a planned community ordinance was developed which 's orient--,d around the theme of superior development was adopted by the City Council. During the development of the Terra Vista Planned Community it has been the inte-it of all parties involved to establish a. doc-.,.,-ant which wou'd provide the necessary regulations and guidelines for the development of a superior community. This report is formated into three basic sections: 1. A summary of past Commisssion actions as it relates to the new plan; 2. an analysis aid review of the revised text and areas which staff is —commending further consideration by the Planning C.:mmission; and, 3. a summary review of the final Environmental Impact Report. ITEM H Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1383 Page 2 1J Staff has prepared this report and recommendations in a style that would allow the Planning Commission to take action this evening by making appropriate recommendations to the City Council. Staff has provided a Resolution recommending certification of the final Environmental Impact Report and approval of the Planned Community tent with conditions. SUMMARY OF PAST COMMISSION ACTIONS: In a review of the work the Commission has been doing over the last sever7i months, we have provided the following summary of the major topics that the Planning Commission has discussed and asked the applicant to resolve. 1. Organization of text and use of graphics - Early in the review process, the Planning. Commission requested the applicant to reorganize some of the sections in the plan which would more fully describe each of tyre elements and provide a clear progression of the concepts. In addition, the Commission stressed the ase of graphics wherever possible to indicate the,nes and concepts to support the written descriptions. The applicant has accomplished this through Vie revised text. 2. Fesidential Densit - Or:yinally, the applicant's draft plan =ndicated approximate y F,700 dwelling units within the Planned Community area. The Commission reduced the amount of dwellings to 8,000 maximum with a pote.ntial for a 1,000 unit density bonus as an incentive to provide affordable housing. The applicant has revised the land use plan to conform with the Commission's decision on the residential maximum density and has prepared a density distribution plan which indicates the potential distribution of those units. 3. Residential Design Guidelines - The Planning Commission expressed much concern over the development of detailed design guidelines for residential development. The Corrrrissien asked for more detail with regard to solar. wall treatment:, fencing, and other details regarJing buffering and transition between densities, as well as guidelines on various design techniques that can be used for residentia'- development. The revised text was substantially changed to incorporate guidelines for design techniques that will create variation and superior development. 4. Commercial Land Use - The Planning Commission spent a considerable amount of time with regard to the location of neihborhood centers and the mix of uses that will be permitted wit-hi;- each of the commercial designations. The latest revised 'and use plan, as well as the text, incorporates the Planning Commission's desires for the location of neighborhood centers and contains a rigid list of land uses which are permitted within each of the commercial categories. 11 Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 3 5. Foothiii Boulevard Design Concept - The Planning Commission's main concern for the Foothill Boulevard frontage of the Terra Vista Planned Community was to create an image that would not promote a strip commercial atmosphere, but rather groups of uses which would provide a functional relationship to one another and which would promote center development. Also, the Commission was concerned with the physical development of the corridor as it relates to the Foothill Boulevard scene and the design goal-, of the Gcnerai Plan. In re >ponse to the Commission's concerns, the applicant has devel;,F,;-md additional graphics For the Foothill Boulevard corridor and a rinid set of land uses that will be permitted within each of the land use categories of that corridor. Part of that physical development relates to the development standards which are developed within the text. The setback regula`-icns as they are presently shows: in the text are less than that which the Commission has been requiring on other places along Foothili Boulevard. A more detailed analysis dnd recommendation on this matter is found in the next section under commercial setbacks on Special Boulevards. 6. Greenway Design Concept - The Commission's major concern for the greenway was its implementation as well as the development of conceptual design guidelines for the actual pathway design, plant materials, and other design features as they relate to adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. The text has been revised to respond to these issues by providing additional graphics showing design techniques for the various types of trails provided throughout the plan. In addition, the implementation section of the planned commLn,ity discusses the concepts for the implementation of the greenway along with the open spaces. 7. Park Plan - ThE major issues of the park plan centered around private open space credit, the park /detention credit and design, and park implementation. Previously, the Planning Corm. ission decided upon a split between private and public open space. As the Commission is aware, new State legislation has been adopted which requires less park, dedication than previously used in the development of the original plan. Therefore, the pares plan has been redesigned to accommodate the new law. The Commission also decided that :IlP -;o`at use of some of the parks for a flood deterlicn faci:ity could receive M per. ^.ent credit based upon the data provi4,d which showed a nominal use of the park for flood detention purpose • The method of park imp,ementation is discussed within the implementation section of the panned community text. In addition to the concepts outlined in the text, the applicant has proposed the development of a detailed implementation plan that would be developed as an addandum to the planned community text after adoption of the text and prior to approval of the first final maps within the planned community. Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 4 �J 8. Landscape Guidelines - The Planning Commission requested that landscape guidelines be developed which would compreheasiveiy discuss the landscaping iesign guidelines and techniques that will occur throughout the community. Some of the design solutions, as well as setback requirer?nts that were listed in the draft text, were not acceptable to the Planning Commissior and the Comrission requested that they be revised to be ccnsistent with Gener; l Plan standards. In particular, the Commission asked for more detiils on the Milliken Avenue corridor, the use of six foot walls be exilained more fully, and other alternatives be discussed such as 6!rminQ, side on cul -de -sacs and increased setbacks. While the appiic.rnt has made revisions to the landscape guidelines, there are still areas where staff feels revisions would be needed to r3main core istent with General Plan stanlards and address the concerns that the Planning Commission oricinally addressed, These are discussed in both items one and two u!der the analysis section. ANALYSIS OF REVISED TEXT: Based upon review of the P 'anning Coremmssmon's actions and di-ections, staff has reviewed the proposed text and has outlined the following areas which warrant further discussion on potential changes for final adoption. 1. Commercial Setbacks on �:lecial Boulevards - The setback standards proposed within the tex+ for commercial and office uses a-e not consistent with the General Plan standards and guidelines. Ttis was previously discussed by the Planning Commission and they recuested the standards be revised tc be in substantial compliance wi :h the General Plan standards. This is particularly important aloig the Haven, Base Line, Milliken. and Foothill Boulevard corridors in order to maintain consistency with development throughout tame rest of the City. The planned :ommunity toxt, pages IV -4 and 5, iniicate the parkino will be set ba :k from 'ne curb a minimum of 19 feet with an aYer?ge setback of 30 Feet, and buildings will be set bac: from the curb a minimum cf 30 feet and an average of 45. The General Plan requires a minimum E) foot building setback from the :tree;. right -of -way on both sides of any Special Eoulevard and an a rerage minimum depth of landscaping of 30 feet from the ultimate ;treet right -of -way and in no case less than 15 feet from the u i :imate street right -of -way. The planned community standards are amuisured from the face of curb whicm includes a 13 to 15 foot parkway area. Therefore, buildings will be located to within 15 feet e' the property line, which is !0 percent less than the General Plan standards. Likewise, the rinimuni 19 foot parking setback world be as close as 4 to 6 feEt frump the property line, which leaves ittle area for berming and lardscaping. Since the General Plan requ res a minimum average depth of :3 feet of landscaping from the treet iaht -of -way line ana in n) case less than 15 feet, staff would suggest that the planner community standards be revised as foi ows: Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 5 1. Parking Area - Parking areas should be set back an average minimuM depth of 43t feet from the face of the curb, and in no case shall be located closer than 28t feet to the face of the curb. 2. Building Setback - Buildings shall be set back at a minimum average of 43 feet from the face of the curb and shall be no closer than 38 feet from the fare of the curb. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended tha the commercial setback standards on Special Boulevards throughout the planned community be revised to the above dimensions. COMMISSION ACTION: 2. Residential Setbacks on Special Boulevards - Section IV, pages 4, 5, ® 5, and 7, of the planned community text discusses setbacks for residential developmentz, along major and special boulevards. The setbacks discussed in the text set standards for the location of 6 foot :walls and the location of buildings based upon detached or attached units. Again, the Terra Vista standard is inconsistent with the General Plan standard for setbacks on Special Boulevards. The General Plan polices in the Design Element for the roadway system discusses that setback and landscape requirements develop the character which_ is needed to identify the function for each of the designated streets. The Special Boulevards have been designated as Special Boulevards to create a major statement with regard to the scale of the street versus the scale of buildings and their setbacks. Staff's concern is that many streets throughout Terra Vista will be faced with wall conditions set back a minimum of 13 feet from the face of the curb. Homes would only be placed a minimum of 20 feet from the property line in a detached situation and 24 feet in a multiple family development. It was not the intent of the P= :neral plan to create a differentiation between setbacks on multiple units versus single family units. A series of single family units on small lots of approximateie 30 to 35 feet wide wo-ild create as much building bulk as clustered multiple family units, which usually have greater separation and setbacks. Therefore, it is as important to create a setback for single family detached units as it is for clustered rultiple family units. In Section IV page 7 of the planned community text, the graphic indicates solid walls will only be used in a few locations. however, this can be misleading as single family detached units can also be built within the medium category, which would then require some solid walls. It has beer the Commission's policy to date to discourage the use of solid walls along the right -of -ways through that use of side on cul -de -sacs or by creating greater setbacks to the walls. Planned Community 81- 01iLewis Planning Corlmission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 6 RECOMM4ENDATION: Given the above analysis, staff recommends that the following setbacks for Special Boulevards be adopted for the Terra Vista Planned Community. 1. Building Setbacks - Buildings shall be set back at an average minimum depth of 43 feet from the face of the curb and no less than 38 feet from the face of the curb. 2. Walls - The use of walls shall bi discouraged wherever possible through the use of side on cul -de -sacs, bermir:g, landscaping, or building setbacks or orientation. Where walls are needed for single family detached units, they shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the face of the curb. Where walls ar - needed for clustered multiple family units, thew shall be set back a minimum of 29 feet from the face of the curb. COMMISSION ACTION: 3. Residential Development Standards and Format - The residential standards are contained within Section V, beginning on page 3 and continuing to page 19. It is ieoortant that these standards be easily understood for ease of implementation during the review of tentative tract maps. Staff asked the applicant to develop land use and setback matrixes for the residential categories and eliminate the mass of verbage which only tends to confuse the matter. The applicant has developed a matrix for these categories, but a significant amount of verbage still exist which is a repetitious. The present format makes it cumbersome to read in order to determine which requirrrents may apple in a given circumstance. Peformating of this section will assist in making the provisions more clearly understood. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission request the applicant reformat the standards into a use matrix for all of the residential categories and two _site development standard matrixes; one for the low medium and medium category and another for the mediun high to high category. COMMISSION ACTION: E 11 Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 7 4. Park Implementation - The parks and open space implementation sections begin in Section VI, page 2 and continues to page 9. This section contains a discussion on the applicable law, the provisions for meeting the park requirements, credit for private open space, and the objectives of the park implementation system. While the text within the first section under "Applicable Law and Park Plan" is informative and discusses the history on the development of the parks, it is not essential or applicable as part of the implementation plan. As such, it should be removed from the text. It would be more effective to begin the park section with the section labeled "Provisions for Meeting Park Requirements" and the use of the chart on page VI -3 The park plan has been developed under the new State law park bill, and would' require a minimum park requirement of 55.8 acres based on the population projections of Terra Vista. The Terra Vista park plan proFcb_s to provide 42.6 acres of that amount within public parks, g--eenways, and trails. It is intended that the remaining 13.2 acres would be reserved for potential credit fer the development of private open space in accordance with the guidelines for private open space credit. Of the total park requirement, approximately 77 percent is being provided in public open space areas with the potential for the remainder being given towards private credit open space. Previously, the Commission had discussed with thz applicant: approximately d 60/40 split between public aid private open space. In light of the significant reduction of the public open space from the previous plan, the Commission may want to consider whether the present ratio of public versus private is an appropriate amount. RECOMMFNOATION: It is recommended that the text beginning in Section VI page 2 through page 4 under the section entitled "Applicable Law and Park Plan" be eliminated in its entirety. COMMISSION ACTION: 5. Affordable Housing - In Section VI beginning on page 11 and continuing through page 15, the affordable housing criteria and guidelines are discussed. The goal of the plan is to provide 15 percent or more of the dwellings within Terra Vista at affordable levels to low and moderate income families. Further, to provide one -third each of the dwellings to be within each of the affordable ranges. Staff has a concern that some of the language within the text indicates that the applicant can only provide affordable Planned Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 8 housing in the event that the City entitles them to certain programs. While i'c is obvious that housing programs and grants assist in providing affordable housing, it is not essential that every affordable project which Terra Vista prGvides has to be granted one of these programs. Therefore, some of the language should be amended to merely discuss the availability of these programs and the potential for density bonuses. Staff would also like to see a clear statement in the text which indicates a goal of providing at least a minimum of 15 percent affordable units within each one of the four major neighborhoods in the planned community. This helps accomplish General Plan housing goals for distribution of affordable housing. At the end of this section, the plan discusses inequitable subsidies and how they may be avoided. The plan is trying to show that such windfall profits can be avoided simply "through private means without involvement by local government through resale programs. Rancho Cucamonga has not yet developed its entire housing program, nor has here been decisions made tc what kind of controls may be established for eliminating windfall profits on the resale of affordable urits. The text is F-scluding what Rancho Cucamorga may do in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, the following is recommended: I. That the language discussing available affordable programs and their entitlements be partially amended and eliminated. 2. That a statement be included that it is the goal of the plan to provide at least fifteen (15) percent affordable housing to each of the four major neighborhoods of the planned community. 3. That the discussion on control e windfall profits be eiiminated. COMMISSION ACTION: C Plan -ed Community 81 -01 /Lewis Planning Comnission Agenda January = ^, 19 83 "age 9 FINAL Er1VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW: The final Environmental Impact Report, including an addendum which provides responses to comments and changes in potential mitigation measures and impacts, has been completed and has been out for public review for several months. The Executive Summary of the report lists the potential impacts as a result of full build out of Terra Vista, as well as a summary of mitigation measures and the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts. In review of the potential impacts listed in the report, many have been reduced to insignificant levels based on redesign of the project itself. The areas of hydrology and circulation were the two most significant issues within the report. The hydrology issues have been resolved through the completion of the Deer Creek Channel and with the conceptual design of the drainage system of Terra Vista. The original transportation study indicated a significant increase in vehicle trips per day as a result of the Terra Vista Planned Community. After further review of this section, it was found that the General Plan figures that were used were significantly lower than what was actually proposed by the General Plan. Therefore, it was discovered that Terra Vista was not prcposing a significant difference in traffic generation than that which was adopted by the General Plan. The EIR contains standards for street intersection designs and signal progression along Milliken, which will assist in the overall circulation system and which can be required during each phase of development in Terra Vista. ® The significance of the unavoidable adverse impacts listed in the Summary have been reduced substantially as a result of project design measures and conditions that will be imposed on the Planned Community. However, by law, the City is required to adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" if unavoidable impacts are identified in the final EIR. Such a statement -is included in the Resolution. [- J in review of this document and the comments and responses received, staff finds that the document has been adequately prepared and addresses all issues. As required by State law, a recommendation of certification on the adequacy of this report is required from the Planning Commission to the City Council. FINAL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to receive final input from the public. If the Commission concurs with the findings and dnaiysis as provided by the staff, it would be appropriate to adopt the attached Resolution which recormends approval of the planned community text with conditions and certification of the final Environmental Impact Reper*_ to the City 0 RESOLUTION N0. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE NO. 81 -01 AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, an application and supporting documents have been filed for the establishment of a Planned Community Zone for approximately 1321 acres generally located between Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and south, and Rochester and Haven on the east and west; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held several duly advertised public hearings pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered ali elements of the proposed Planned Community and the associated Environmental impart Report. NOW, THEREFORE, the P;ai-iii„g Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission recommends certification of adequacy for the final Environmental Impact. Report to the City Council based on the following findings: 1. The final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared_ it accordance with the California Environmental. Quality Act, the State, and local EIR guidelines. 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained within the EIR prior to recommending approval of the project. SECTION 2: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of this statement of overriding considerations to the City Council: To the extent that the Planned Community allows the occurrence of significant effects identified in the final EIR without full mitigation the City Council has identified specific economic, ecological, and social reasons to support its action which make infeasible the project alternatives described in the final EIR or additional mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that facts supporting this finding are contained in the final EIR and the Planned Community text. Mitigation measures have been made a condition of approval of the Planned Community and are intended to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the Resolution No. Page 2 El final EIR. The Planned Community itself is a mitigation oid the measure which is intended to mitigate or av significant environmental effects of- d planned lopme ehensich could otherwise occur without a approach such as the Planned Community standards, guidelines and regulations. SECTION 3: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of Planned Community No-61-M to the City Council based on the following findings and recommended conditions; FINDINGS: I. Chances rojectterawhich have mitigatescorPsignificant the A ter le level. environmental effects to an ac can- -h 2. The Planned Community planned urban for he development of a comprehensively p allowedeundert aiternateiregulat regulations- 3. otherwise 3, The Planned Community Provides for development within the zone in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management Policies of the City. 4. The Planned Community provides for construction, improvements,, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required by development within the zone. CONDITIONS I, Prior to final approval of the first tract map in Terra Vista, a detailed parks and open space implementation plan roved by the bety Councprepared . by the applicant and app 2. Prior to consideration and approval of any development in Terra Vista, mitigation measures outlined in the final Environmental Impact Report shall be reviewed and considered. U 11 Resolution No. Page 3 3. All flood control and drainag3 structures needed for each individual development shall be corstructad by the developer. Adequate plans showing that each phase can be safely and properly drained shall be sub,.,itted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for that phase. 4. All traffic and circulation improvements shall be designed and installed by the developer at the direction of the City Engineer -and as needed for each development phase. 5. Prior to final approval of any residential development, adequate capacity shall exist or will be provided at the time of development for public services such as schools, sewer treatment capacity, water availability, and police and fire protection and utilities. 6. Prior to final ap,-)roval of the first tract map, a landscape and lighting maintenance district shall be established for Terra Vista. 7. The developer shall encourage and faciiitote bus service and transit routes throughout Terra Vista as development occurs. Programs such as ride sh- -ring, provisions for park cmd ride facilities, bicycle lanes, vanpool programs, shall be considered. S. As development phases Occur, appropriate physical improvements shall be iiade by the developer for pedestrian and bicycle ro,ites and transit facilities such as bus pullouts and waiting areas. 9. As each development phase occurs, berms, walls, building attenuation shall be provided to adequately mitigate any potential noise impacts. 10. The following standards and sections of the Planned Community text shall be revised as follows: A. Commercial setbacks on ipecial Boulevards: 1. Parking Area - Parking areas should be setback an averac.e minimum depth of 43 feet from the face of curb and in no case shall be located closer than 28 feet to 0 the face of curb. Resolution No. Page 4 2. Building Setback - Buildings shall be setback at a minimum average o` 43 feet from the face of curb and shall be no closer than :R feet from the face of curb. B. Residential Setbacks on Special Boulevards: 1. Building Setbacks - Buildings shall be setback at an average minimum depth of 43 feet from the face of the curb and no less than 38 feet from the face of curb. 2. Walls - The use of galls shall be discouraged wherever possible through the use of side on cul -de -sacs, berming. landscaping or building setbacks and orientation. Where walls are needed for single family detached units, they shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the face of the curb. Where walls are needed for clustered multiple family units, they shall be setback a minimum of 28 feet from the face of curb. C. The format of the residential development standard section shall be revised to eliminate repitition and shall use matrixes for uses and standards. D. The text beginning in Section VI, page 2 through 4, under the subtitle "Applicable 'law and Park Plan" shall be eliminated in its entirety. The Affordable housing provisions contained in Section VI, shall be revised as follows: 1. The le-iguage discussing the use of affordable programs and entitlements, shall be partially eliminated and amended. 2. A statement shall be included that it is the goal to provide at least fifteen percent (15 %) affordable housing in each of the four major neighborhoods of the Planned Community. Resolution No. Page 5 3. The discussion on control of windfall profits shall be eliminated. 11. The above required revisions shall be submitted to the City Planner in draft form for review and approval within 30 days from the adoption by the City Council. The final adopted revised text shall be printed and submitted to the City Planner within 60 days from City Council approval. APPRCVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLANNING COVMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey ping, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission 11 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 11 L J DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 26, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Pick Gomez_ City Planner Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner ri �m F �L_ !9 BACKGROUND: California Planning Law requires that every local agency prepare w°th their General Plan a Housing Element addressing housing needs, goals and programs for providing housing in their community. California Law Article 10.6 of the Government Code provides the legal requirements of the Housing Element and that California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are responsible to review the housing element for its consistency with these legal requirements. The experience with HCD by local jurisdictions have been less than successful (a chronology of our own experience is attached). A Resolution is being rrroposed by cities within the west end area to ask the California Statt Legislature to remove the review authority of Housing Elements from HCD and to deligate that review authority with the Regional Council of Governments, in our case Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Attached to this report is a draft Resolution which was prepared by the City of Upland and it is essentially being reviewed for approval by all cities within the area. ANALYSIS: Our experience with HCD has been no different than other cities who have forwarded their Draft Housing Element for review. After numerous conversations, letters and changes to the Draft Housing Element, NCD is yet to accept our Housing Element as consistent with the State Law. In general we have had considerable problems with their staff and their process in the following areas: 1. The review process has continued with them over several months and was subject to change in the review staff who often time reflected different outlooks on the interpretation of the Housing Element Law. 2. Often times staff received inconsistent interpretations on various aspects within our draft Housing Element policies and objectives. ITEM I AUTHORITY TO REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION January 26, 1983 Page 2 LOCAL HOUSING ELEMENTS AGENDA Poor communication occurred during the long period of time during the review process on the part of HCD. Often times there would be months without hearing a word from the review staff. 4. HCD staff at times did not exhibit adequate comprehension of other materials in the General Plan nor their use Fulness in the implementation of overall housing policies. In general, their lack of comprehension tended to narrow their focus to the intention solely of Housing Policies. 5. HCO staff exhibits a lack of realistic local government operation and the unrealistic goals and objectives to be for implementing Housing Policies. feature tended to shade the attitude staff. attitudes or perceptions of ;refore tended to portray utiiized at the local level This mera than any other and perception of the HCD If passed, the Resolution wiil be forwarded to the State Legislative Representative and will be timely in several ways. It tells the State that cities are having a difficulty with HCD in effectively administrating the laws dealing with Housing Elements. This request may reach a sympathetic ear by either the Govenor or State Legislature during the budgetary process and reexamination of the role of State Agencies. By vesting the review authority to the Local R =gional Government, SCAG would be an appropriate review authority because as part of their overall function to project growth trends and regional needs at the local leveT they prepare for the city's consideration estimates of local housing needs. This char-g^_ would provide a greater opportunity for a more direct working relationship between the local staff and t:,e review authority. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider a recommeodation to the City Council of adoption of the attached Resolution.. spectfull�bmitted, RICK GOMEZ CITY PLANNER RG /TJB /kep Attachement: Draft City Council Resolution Chronology of Events on Rancho Cucamonga Housing Element E C `r RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMNDING TO THE LEGISLATURE OF SAID STATE THAT RESPONFT.. -' TTY AND AUTHORITY FOR THE REVIEW OF LOCAL HOUSING BE DELEGATED TO REGIONAL COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS EXISTING WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has mandated all local jurisdictions to adopt Housing Elements to their General Plans which are consistent with State Housing Goals and Policies; and WHEREAS, State Legislature policy pertaining to Housing Elements, as set forth in Article 10.6 of the Government Code, recognizes that, in carrying out their responsibilities to facilitate the improvement and development of housing, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, fiscal factors and community goals set forth in their General Plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional Housing needs; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has also noted that it is their intent to recognize that each locality is best capable of determing what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the State Housing goal ® (ref.: Sec. 66481(c), Art. 10.6 of the Government Code); and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has also acknowledged their awareness that the capacity of cities and counties to respond to State planning laws varies due to differences of population size and density, fiscal and administrative capabilities, and legal differences (ref.: Art. 7.5 of the Government Code); and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has delegated the authority and responsibility for the review of local Housing Elements to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); the stated legislative purpose for such reviews being to assist local governments in preparing Housing Elements which are consistent with State Housing goals and policies; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has mandated said Department of HCD to review draft amendments to adopted Housing Elements submitted to it and to report their findings thereon to the affected jurisdiction within forty -five (45) days of their receipt of such draft for their review in order to facilitate the local jurisdiction's adoption and implementation of effective Housing programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has diligently pursued the preparation of the Housing Element in conformance with the California State Law Article 10.6 of the State Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City met and discussed on several occasions with staff of HCD matters concerning our revisions to the Housing Element; and Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the City changed the Housing Element prior to its adoption in order to address coi=ents as expressed by HCD. WHEREAS, Drafts of such amendment were duly submitted to said Department of HOD for its review and comment in strict pursuance to requirements for such reviews; and WHEREAS, said Department of HCD continues to find the City's Housing Elem >nt to be not in conformity with State Housing Element requirements, as said Department has also found the Housing Elements of more than three hundred and fifty (350) of the nearly five hundred (50G) total jurisdiction in California to be ,lot in conformity with State Housing Element requirements; and WHEREAS, reasons set forth by said Department of HCD for findings of inadequary of local :lousing Elements in meeting such requirements are perce ;ved by a substantial number of the affected jurisdictions to be more reflective of the subjective opinion and administrative policies of said State Department of HCD than of the stated intent and purpose of the State Legislature pertaining to the content and content of local Housing EiemPnts; and WHEREAS, said Department of HCD has continuously failed to provide positile guidance to the majority of local jurisdiction to assist them in their- preparation of Housing Elements and /or appropriate amendments thereto as so charged by tho State Legislature; and WHEREAS, the staff of said Department of HCD appears to lack the capacity and /or capability of reviewing local Housing Eiements in context with other regional and /or local social, economic, political and environmental factors which influence the housing policies and programs of localities; and WHEREAS, Regional Councils of Governments (COGS), where existing, are presently charged with responsibilities for the determination of existing and projected regional housing needs, the development of regional air, water and transportation plan- and program, and a myriad of other comprehensivp planning projects; and WHERLPlS, said Councils of Government have consistently evidenced their capatility to evaivate local plans and programs in context with a broad range and variety of regional and local social, economic, political and environmental factors, and their ability to successfully work with local jurisdictions towards the achievement of regional plans and programs; and L] Ll Resolution No. Page 3 WHEREAS, in light of thi evidence and opinions expressed hereinbefore, it would appear to be ii the best interests of both the State and its localities to enact legislatioi which would transfer responsibilities and authority for the review of Housing Elements and /or amendments thereto, from the State Department of Housing and Community Development to Regional Councils of Government, where such Cc•u;ci'ls of Government exist. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY IESOLVED by the City Council of the (ity of Rancho Cucamonga to recommend to the California State Legislature that responsibility and authority for the review of the Housing Elements of all cities and counties in the State of ( alifornia be transferred from the Siate Department of Housing and Community Development to regional Councils of Governments, where such councils of governments exist, in order to facililate the acoption of Local Housing Elements consistent with State Housing goals and policies, as expressed by the State Legislature. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOFTEC this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: 0 ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M_ Wasserman, City Clerk ,on D. Mikels, Mayor 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAP: BERNARDION ) CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA ) LAUREN M. WASSERMAN, City Clerk in and for the City of Upland, do hereby certify that the foregoing Re°olution No. * was passed at a regular ^eeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the * day of *, 1983, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Robert Dougherty, City Attorney Da 11 Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 7 E CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS REGARDING REVIEW OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENTS CITY OF RANCHO Ci.CAMONGA NOVEtdBER 5, 1980 - City received conditions from UPR indicating the ability to use 1977 housing element guidelines on preparation of housing element. NOVE.1BER 27, 1980 - Screen draft of housing element delivered to H.C.D. Tor prelimirary review. JANUARY 6, 1981 - City staff meets with H.C.D. staff in Sacramento to discuss matter and answer any questions. Discussion during meeting proved tc be uneventful with no indications of any problems and few questions from H.C.D. staff which would provide for opportunity to further clarify matters within the housing element. JANUARY 12, 1981 - Draft of General Plsr, with housing element and draft Envirormer:•=al Impact Report is complete and distributed to all agencies a,�" nutlic for review and comment. FEBRUARY 11, 1981 - H.C.D. completes their comments on draft housing element. Generally their comments request the need to speciFy in more quantitative terms goals for programs and more detailed specific policy and programs associated to those policies. Use of 1977 housing element guidelines were found acceptable by P.C.D. MARCH 11, 1981 - Planning Commission reviews H.C.D. comments and rnakes substantial revisions to the draft housing element based upon their comments. APRIL 6, 1981 - City Council adoption of General Plan with housing element including rece�runendations for revisions based upon H.C.D. comments. AUGUST 3, 1981 - Final General Plan with housing element is returned frc printi.lg. AUGUST 4, 1981 - City forwards to H.C.D. a final copy of General Plan with housing element. Included with this is a letter indicating changes which were made to the housing element as a result of H.C.D. comments per their February 11, 1981 letter. APRIL 19, 1982 - City receives request from H.C.D. staff, who is reviewing Tina copy, to indicate need for additional information regarding imple- mentation of affordable housing in the planned community area. City forwards text of planned communities, indicating affordable housing policies. JUNE 14, 1982 - H.C.D. fcncards comments or final housing element. Comments indicate need for substantial changes including to prepare the housing element under the revised housing element law and not the 1977 housing element guide- lines. Generally, comments from their review indicate additional necessary changes which were not previously mentioned in the February 11, 1981 review memo by H.C.D. JULY 20, 1982 - Planning Ccmmission reviews comments from H.C.D. and decides to consider those at the time it prepares the revision to the housing element in 1984. 0 0 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 27 1982, held a public hearing to consider modification of Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 for bar and entertainment facilities within the Boars Head establishment located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 82 -98 (attached) which added conditions to the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of the establishment. One of the conditions required a performance re;�ort on the accomplishment of these conditions. Staff met with the shopping center owner at the project site to review the installation of physical improvements on the exterior of this establishment. The rear access to the northwest parking area has been blocked off by a chain and by the placement of trees and concrete bumper stops between the parking lot and main driveway. A sound attenuation Nail has been built on the threi adjacent properties as well as the installation and upgrading of landscaping in that area. Additionally, speed bumps have been provided throughout the shopping center. Staff also made contact indicated that a menu f.c that they are projecting Additionally, the owner will be completed with acoustical material to ma with the owner of the establishment and he r evening meals has now been established and to begin that service on February 15, 1983. indicated that improvements to the rear door in the week which will include additional ce it more soundproof. A letter and copy of tonight's agenda have been sent to two of the adjacent property owners and to date we have not received any comments with regard to this matter. Respectfully submitted, RICK GOMEZ City Planner RG:MV:jr Attachments: Commission. Resolution 82 -98 ITEM J RESOLUTION 82 -98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 FOR BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOAR'S HEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA IN THE C -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, the Planning Commission determined the need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and to conduct a Public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 19829 the Planning Cormiission held a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning COMission resolves as fO110W5: SECTION 1: Additional conditions znd changes are found to be needed for Condition— an apse Permit 78 -03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances and bring the use in accord with the intent and purpose of the neighborhood shoPPing district. Therefore, the following conditions are added already in effect per Resolution 78-40: to those 2. Periodic policing of the parking lot by the management of the business should be done on a nightly basis to assist in averting disturbances from patrons. 3- Block access to the northwest parking area from the :gain parking area by placing large trees and Planters in the driveway. Additionally, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be used to block access to this area from the rear driveway during evening hours. 4. A sound attenuation wall shall be built on the three properties adjacent to the northwest Parking area of the center. The precise height, location and construction materials shall be determind through the development of a precise development plan, which shall be prepared by the s::opping center owner and reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Such improvements shall consider the use of sound attenuation material as well as some additional landscaping between the new wall and the existing wall. The plans should be prepared as soon as Possible and installatiion, with the cooperation of all Property owners and before the January 25, 1982 meeting scheduled by the Commission. 5. Speed bumps shall be placed throughout the center. Resolution No. 82` Paae 2 34 6. An analysis of the building shall be conducted to determine the needs for sound insulation. Appropriate insulation shall be installed, if needed. 7. The rear door of the business shall remain closed during evening hours, except in the event of an emergency. 8. The northwest parking area shall not be used by Boar's Head patrons or employees and shall be aDprepriately posted. 9. This Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission on January 26, 1983, for a report or the performance of the establishment. 10. The business shall alter its operation to include restaurant usage and food service durina the eveninq hours. This is required to meet the intent of the original approval and shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of this action. APPROVED AND ADOPTEED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982. P1_ANNING CO I S N OF TH Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA B _rt _ _ 0 ann on I. JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Conn;nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission he ti on the 27th day of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES. COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 McNiei, King, Rempei Barker, Stout None .0 CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Rick Marks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: OR ABSTRACT: This memorandum will briefly review programs designed to provide senior citizen housing, and describe a method that staff is developing to meet these housing needs. It will outline a series of actions and steps that staff Dopes to pursue in the next two weeks in order to seek Planning Commission approval of the concept at its February 9, 1983 meeting. BACKGROUND: In recent weeks the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been contacted by Calmark Development Corporation, a firm specializing in the construction of affordable senior citizen rental housing units. Calmark is interested in constructing a project in Rancho Cucamonga similar to the projects viewed on the Planning Commission tour. However, as the City has yet to develop a clear set of policies and procedures for offering a developer certain development incentivesfor processing this type of project, staff is defining and developing a methodology and strategy to do so which will soon be brought to the Planning Commission for review and approval. RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN - SUPP -IRTING POLICIES: The avrilability and affordability of housing is a primary -concern-7 the City's General Plan. The General Plan recognizes the need for housing tr, be maces more affordable to various income groups in the City and proposes a serves of goals and policies whose thrust is designee; to meet the needs of low - and moderate- income individuals and households. In its effort to `.'ind methods to increase housing opport!•nities for City residents, t;le General Plan finds that a "major cons�,aint to affordable housing is iot Lnly higher construction cost but also the density and types of housing units being built in the City ". The Plan goes on to say that the most critical housing issue in Rancho Cucamonga is the cost of housing and consequently the need to expand the number of lower priced housing units. ITEM K Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Aganda January 26, 1983 Page 2 The following list of policies was gleaned from the General Plan and provides a strong foundation upon which to base a senior citizen - oriented affordable housing strategy: a. The City shall encourage housing opportunities which are within the financial capabilities of low- and moderate- income persons and families (p. 14). b. The City shall promote programs which meet the special housing needs of the elderly, handicapped, and minority groups (pp. 15 & 88). C. The City should encourage a balanced supply of rental and ownership housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households (p. 78)., d. The City shall implement programs which assist low- and moderate - income families, the elderly, handicapped persons, large families, and minorities in renting and buying existing housing (p. 83). e. The City shall investigate the feasibility for special criteria to provide reduced parking requirements for new housing projects. If found feasible, the policy would provide for reduced on -site costs for developers of elderly housing resulting in lower unit cost (p. 89). CITIZEN AFFORDABLE W-11 KiLA : in orac:r to Taci t izate ana encourage the development of affordable senior citizen - housing projects, offer the necessary development incentives required and yet insure City control over the design and construction quality of units produced, staff has developed a Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District. This district is patterned on the new Planned Development District that will soon be brought to the Planning Commission as part of the new Development Code and contains a range of development incentives, overlay district location requirements, and the development requirements which staff believes meets the needs of developers (as expressed directly to staff) and those of the City. The following are key points of the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District. A. Overlay District Location. Requirements: I n order to adequately and satisfactorily serve the targe_ .nation that this District has been created to serve, any proposed project site must demonstrate the following conditions and features: Ll Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 3 1. Appropriate base district zoning. 2. Land uses in the immediate and surrounding area, current and projected, must be compatible with the living environment required by senior citizens. 3. Area infrastructure must be in place or constructed as a part of the project and capable of serving the proposed project including: - streets - sidewalks - traffic /pedestrian signals 4. Proposed site topography must be fairly level and easily transversed by persons of limited mobility. 5. immediate and surrounding area must be free of serious health, sarety, or noise problems. 6. Proposed site must demonstrate close proximity to commercial establishments, service providers, and other amenities including: ® - food shopping - drug stores - banks - medical and dental facilities - public transit (main or frequently served routes) - open space /recreational facilities S. Target Population The primary resident population group that is intended to be served by the units constructed through use of incentives offered as part of the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Develpment /Overlay District are senior citizens who may meet the following criteria: 1. (a) Married couples - head of household aged 55 years or older (b) Individuals - aged 55 years or older 2. Individuals or married couples as above defined - combined anneal income that meets the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 Rental Assistance Program income qualifications. C. Development Incentives ® In order to reduce development costs associated with the construction of housing oriented toward senior citizens of low and moderate income, the city is prepared to offer a developer some or all of the following incentives, depending upon the quality, size, nature, and scope of the project proposed. Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 4 a. Reduction In Reouired On -Site Parking: The current city standard for on -site parking in multiple family projects is 2.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit with one space per dwelling unit being a covered carport or garage. The City will grant a reduction in required on -site parking; the amount of such a reduction is still being analyzed; a range of possibilities will be inserted into the final ordinance. b. _Dwelling Unit Density Bonus: In order to maximize net yield per acre, the City will consider increasing the allowable project density by either granting a 25% density bonus to the project site's existing density category (per California Government Code Section 65915) or by granting a - equest for a change in density range (per the City's General Plan), or both depending upon the size, nature, and scope of the project. C. Fast Track Processing: Projects submitted under the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District will receive priority attention and will not be subject to the normal multiple family project processing schedule; such projects will be deemed a staff, advisory committee, Planning Co:m,ission, and City Council priority in order to quickly review and approve them. d. Fee Waivers /Reductions Projects submitted under the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District may receive, depending upon their size, nature, and scope, a reduction or waiver of some or ail City imposed development submittal and processing fees. Such reductions of waivers may affect the following fee schedule: - Planned Development /Project Submittal Fees - Park Fees Fee reductions or waivers are subject to negotiation between the City and the project developer and will be granted based upon that amount of reduction or waiver necessary to place per unit monthly rental costs in the range affordable to the target population. 11 E. Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 25, 1983 Page 5 City /Developer Agreement Regarding Long Term Affordability of Units Development incentives granted by the City to a developer using the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Deveiop�aent /Overlay District are predicated upon the long term availability and affo dability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to insure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enter into a written agreement with the City. In the staff's prior memorandum to the Planning Commission discussing Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens, a number of general issues were identified and discussed. Those issues included the following list: b. C. d. e. f. 9- financial costs to the City neighborhood character (impacts on neighborhoods) compatibility with existing City goals, polices, and priorities priority to City residents design compatibility (with surrounding area) regulation of user regulation, inspection (of units built) The Senior Citizen Aftordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District is designed to meet all of these potential concerns in a way ® that will not delay a project, meet the needs of developers of senior housing projects and give the City the development control it requires. NEXT STEPS: In the next two weeks staff will be working on the following items in order to bring a complete Overlay District and implementation strategy to the Planning Commission at its February 9, 1983 meeting: o Refine Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District per Planning Commission feedback. • Consult with the City Attorney to determine type and nature of ordinances required to implement the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District. • Consult with the City Attorney to determine whether it is legally possible to give occupancy priority to people who live in Rancho Cucamonga for a minimum of one (1) year prior to applying for residence in units constructed under this program. • Develop any new General Plan /Housing Element policies required in order to support an overlay district. o Consult with interested developers of affordable senior citizen housing and citizens in order to gain their feedback. Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1933 Page 6 1 ILK COMEZ City Planner, 'RG:RM:jr Attachments: November 22, 1982 Planning 'Ommission Memo Parking Survey For Housing For Elderly February lo, 1982 Memo To Transportation Commission Table 1 Sample Fee Reduction /Waiver Agreement �J El w. ,y Ell E Cln,' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 22, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Rick Marks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION TOUR OF SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECTS On Saturday, November 20, 1982, several members of the Planning Commission, three members of the City's V.I.P. Senior Citizen Club, and staff toured three Senior Citizen housing projects located in Ontario, Azusa, and Duarte. The tour was led by Larry Persons, Project Manager for Caimark Development Corporation which specializes in the construction and opera- tion of Senior Citizen housing projects. (Calmark built and operates the Azusa and Duarte Heritage Park projects visited on the tour.) The tour began at 9:00 a.m. at the Planning Division offices and ended at 1:30 p.m. For the tour staff prepared evaluation sheets fcr the Commissioner's use in evaluating and reviewing each site; the members of the V.I.P. Club were also invited to use the sheets and sub- mit their comments to staff. Items of particular concern during the tour included architecture %site design, densi.:y, landscaping, Oren space, recreational facilities, parking areas, safety, and handicapped accessibilitg. The following table provides some comparative information regarding the three sites toured. The Groves Heritage Park (Ontario) (Azusa) # of units 100 145 Acreage 2.4 3.5 Density (Units Per acre) 42 42 of buildings 3* 11* ratio of parking spaces to units .45 .8 Heritage Park (Duarte) 120 2.75 43 9* .5 ® * Ore building per site was for recreational and social purposes only and contained no dwelling units. z Senior Citizen Housing Tour November 22, 1982 Page 2 The Groves was financed by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 New Construction Program (unfortunately there is no more money available under this program). The project contains two 3 -story buildings (living units) and one single story recreational build- ing. Dwelling units are accessed from interior hallways. The Heritage Park projects developed by Cal-mark are two story garden style apartments; there are no interior hallways or common areas within the buildings. Calmark does not use any federal money or programs to construct their projects. Rather, they use private sector financing and rely on city offered developer incentives (density increases, reduced parl�ing requirements, etc.) to make a project financially feasible and to keep rents inexpensive. By and large reaction to the projects as noted in the evaluation sheets and conversation during the tour was favorable. The projects demonstrated that if properly designed higher density senior citizen oriented housing projects can be attractive and contain functional open space and offer a generally pleasant ambiance. Color slides were taken of the three visited sites in order to demonstrate them to Commissioners who were unable to participate in the tour and to help staff and Commissioners determine those aspects of the projects which they would like to see incorporated into similar projects in Rancho Cucamonga. In the next few weeks staff will be developing a follow up paper to the one given the Commission which outlined the basic city issues included i in Senior Citizen housing (October 25, 982). suggest policies and standards for Senior housing projects and Staff eid inc ektives that the City can offer developers of Senior housing. the input of the City's V.I.P. Senior Citizens Club and developers in shaping policies and will also be reviewing the actions of other cities. The paper will be presented to the Planning Commission in late December at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Rc.RM:jr CC: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager jack Lam, Community Development Director Tim Seedle, Senior Planner 11, R U PARKINC'- SURVEY FOR HOUSING FOR ELDERLY Location: Fontana Facility. Oldtimer's Center Size: 150 units �.equired Parking: 150 Prkg. req. after Variance: 77 (.51 sp. per i:nit) Opinion of reduced parking by the city: No nrcble -m. Supplied enough c-�erflow Manager's opinion; Location: Facility: Size: Raquircd Parking: Prkg. rea. after Variance: Opinlo n of reduced parking L y the city: It Manager's opinion: +� Location: Facility: Size: Rcouired Parkino: Prkg, rec. aster Variance: 100pinion of reduced narking by tilc city: Manager's opinion: parking for the balance of the required number of spaces. Never really needed the area_ Does not need the spaces he has; however, could use more handicanged. Redlan-is Citrus Arms 6Ci units 60 30 - -(.50 so. per'unit) No problem. Facility has ample access to public transportation. Sufficient narking area. Ontario Senio= Citizen's Apartment Comr..lex 100 units 150 47 (.47 cD. per unit) Newly cc-strtcted. Not occuuicd. f Location: -- Facility: Size: Required Parking: Prkg. required after Variance: Opinion of reduced parking by the city: Manager's opinion: Location: Pacility: Size: Required parking: Prkg. required after Variance: Or>in:.Qn -f r, parking by t_ie city Manager's opinion: Upla; id Sycamore Terrace 100 %nits 125 74 ( 74 sp. per unit) Parkanc spaces are sufficient, nouaver, wish !d all space_:: were covered. Park inc; S.s sufficient. Rial :o SOUL. i Point Villa _ 100 i nits 150 10- C..02 sp. p,ar unit) landscaped r-cea on -site designated for parkinc , if nei !essarv. r No prcblem. Onlv sixty of ':he people living there Lave cars. WILLIAM DORSKY AND ASSOCIATES: RESUME OF HUD ASSISTED HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED 1141iroject PARKING Associated and 'address Units Parking ROBERT SHARP TOWERS 1;0 55 .50 sp per unit North Dade County, Florida 7 Stories Congregate Facilities National Council of Senior Citizens R.H. MYERS APARTMENTS 207 50 .24 sp per uait Beachwood. Ohio 10 Stories HUD Section 231 with Congregate Facilities Menorah Park Jewish Horne for the Aged COUNCIL TONERS 252 3$ 15 sp per unit Miami reach, Florida Il Stories HUD section 20218 with Congregate Facilities National Counci'. of Senior Citizens STEELWORKERS OLD TIMERS CENTRE 150 75 .50 sp per unit ontana, California Stories HUD Section 20218 with Congregate Facilities Steel Workers Old Timers Foundation National Council of Senior Citizens ELDERLY F.PARTMENTS 150 38 ' .25 sp per unit Lancaster, 'Pennsylvania 11 stories HUD Section 20218 Jaycee Housing Development Corp. MAPLE AVENUE HOUSING 80 28 .35 sp per unit Claremont, New Hampshire 3 stories HUD Section 20218 with Congregate Facilities National. Council of Senior Citizens SENATE APARTMENTS 240 80" .33 sp per unit Chicago, Illinois 4 stories HUD Section 20218 with Congregate Facilities Chicago Catholic Charities ational Council of Senior Citizens a "age 3 Protect and Address Associated ELDERLY HOUS;NG -- Units Parking 0 Fairfax County, Virginia too 79 HUD Section 20218 FRIENDSHIP TOWERS .79 s� i per Arlington Assembly of God Church ISO 150 I space per HJD Sect -on 20218 PARKLAND PLACE lnaependent Order of Odd Fellows Parkersburg, West Virginia 100 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania HUD Section 8 stories 202/8 HUD Section 221;)4 Parkland Place Associates ODD FELLOW - REBEKAH HOUSING Lincoln, Illinois 124 70 56 s 5 stories p per HUD Section 20218 with Congregate Facilities Independent Order of Odd Fellonrs ELDERLY APARTMENTS Bath, New York ISO So S stories .33 sp per i HUD Section 202/8 with Congregate Facilities National Council of Senior Citizens Steuben CoUnty Ecc,romic O Fportuni,y Program FEDERATiON TOWERS 11 Miami Beach, Florida 110 4 stories HUD Section 20218 Jewish Federation of Mi„n9 I ERNEST BOHN TOWERS Cleveland, Ohio 266 22 stories Low -income Public Housing Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority FRIENDSHIP TOWERS Dallas, Texas 8 stories ISO 150 I space per HJD Sect -on 20218 lnaependent Order of Odd Fellows ELDERLY HOUSING Philadelphia, Pennsylvania HUD Section ISO 69 .46 s r p per 202/8 Opportunities Industrialization Centers I 11 I 11 I FEBRUnRY 3v, 1982 TO TRA.SPORTATION COMMISSION - FROM- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LQOR-7,S FOR: TRA'7SPORTATION C0:4NS3SION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 $: SUBJECT: PARKING REDUCTION FOR WOODBRIDGE u.ANOR II ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT RE-O.S.' iNMATION: 1. Reco:mnend to the Plannir.�g Co nmiss:_on that the rovedest fen a parking ratio of .78 spaces per unit be app ISSUE: - Irvine housing Opportunities is requesting a reduction from the City's Parking Ordinance of 1_1 spaces per unit to .76 spaces_._. per unit for the second chase of their elderly housing project.. HISTORY: Phase I of Woodbridge Manor was approved by the Planning Commission on August 16, 1979, with a parking ratio of .5E stalls per unit_ This ratio did not include the spaces available along the internal " driveway of the project. 11-hen these are included, the parking ratio becomes . "e'S spaces per unit. - As the second phase includes a parking reduction as ;cell, staff = determined the need for a parking sti:dy to test the effectiveness ates now operating in Phase Ie The attached of the reduces parking r study prepared by Kurzman and Associat_s has been submitted in response to the staff determination. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is lo,:ated on the northwest corner of Lake Road and the.San Diego Creek Channel in the Village of Woodbridge (see location map). The Project consists of So one lbedroon units of 578 square feet.' The units are designated for low and moderate income senior citizens. Planned with a total of 38 parking spaces, 29 spaces would be assignable to residents and 6 spaces unassigned for guests. 'Three additional unassigned curb spaces are also available along the internal -driveway of the development (refer to site design). , ATTACHMENT 2 Transportation cc :,.•Assion -February 10, 1982 d Page A.7AL °S-TS . evaluated parking study conducted by Kunz-an and Associates for Pt =ase I, evaluated three elderly housing projects. Ass were sanded ka HUD, As shown, in Table 1, p.3rking ratios rAll - from de spaces ,per unit to .497 spaces per unit. Phase I consists of lOG s c'ith a parking ratio of .75. Of these, 57 are cu to residents, two spaces are reserved currently assigned four spaces are reserved for guests temporary for temporary Parkin not cou_ -ited in the on g An additional 12 spaces nd drIvewa• total n parking _atio exist along the internal to 75, y' bri^giZgthe total nu aber of parking spaces for Phase I Both Phase L and the r - _ requires residents t pbepasminimumeage and meet pcertain�econemic/ HUD financial liMitations to qualify for their elderly hcusin Both Phase _1 and _TI consist of the same one-bedroom units. these van . projects, sables head constant, car m- nership patterns in Phase I With car. be assumed to be Therefore similar if not the same in Phase I2. the existing parking situation in Phase I provides a Perfect test case nor Phase II while simultaneously evaluating the effectiveness of the parking reduction app:_oved in Phase I. ` Frequency counts on parked vehicles - were conducted during he (assigned and z1nassigned) and weekends. The parkingpdemandrrI-gedemand Periods 48 weekday s vehicles to a high of 56 parked vehicles. The peak observed Parked aark2ng ratio was _S6 cars per unit. The proposed Woodbridge Manor II provides .76 unit. Phase I of Woodbridge Manor pa2-king spaces per and -S operating well as demonstratedobides .75 spaces per unit study. Correspanderce from the resident the lates,, parking (see attachment). lends further manager of Phase I support to this conclusion. . COI-- C�LSIO-d° . The parking Provided b Woodbridge Manor Phase TI is Y g peak par {2ng de2aard observed in Phase I of the- same Project. While some parking confusion existed in the initial opening of Phase I, parking has established and no ::onger are beostaa experienced_ parking the move -in days for Phase II bvehicles afed to avoid g probleasstemmyn nom families and friends assisting resi3entsetfldsettlea3 into their new apartments. The parking ratio for Woodbridge Phase found to be working g II has been tested and same h _ g successfully in a project that will have the funding unit dimensions, population qualifications, and HDD g program. With this substantial evidence, the parking reduction for Phase 11 should be approved, Transportation Corm, ission February 14, 2982 Pace 3 ® Submitted by, MERRSE WZLENT �- Assistant Engineer MW:kir _. Attachments: 1. Parking Study 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Table I S. Letter from the Resident Manager CC: Leon Napper Bill 7unzman Chris Jones Charles Cle�3•nshaw Debbie Linn +C d d �- 'J< U -111' fill aft oe aces Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering i February 9, 1982 Mr. Christopher Jones W. Christopher Jones and Associates 5951 Canterbury Drive, #8 Culver City, CA 90230 Dear Mr. Jones: On January 26, 1982, at the meeting with the City of Irvir_e concerning Woodbridge Manor II, it was determined that a parking survey of Woodbridge Manor I would be desirable. Woodbridge Manor II is proposed to have 50 dwellings with a total of 38 parking spaces. Of the 38 spaces, 29 would be assigned of which two would be assigned for handicapped persons, and six would be for guests. Additionally, there would be approximately three curb spaces available to quests or residents along the_32 feet wide internal driveway. The question is whether these number of spaces are adequate.. To determine adequacy, Woodbridge Manor I was surveyed at four points in time as summarized in the accompanying table.. Two surveys were designed to determine the maximum parking by persons living there (these two were late at .�- night or early in the morning), and two surveys were de- signed to determine the maximum guest parking (these two surveys were mid -day Saturday and Sunday when visitation would be at a maximum). ; !! i . The accompanying Parking Survey table reveals the following: l.• Maximum vehicles parked - 56 2. Maximum vehicles parked in guest stalls or at the curb on the internal driveway - 13 559 -4231 4804 9arranca Parkway . Irvine. CA X32714. [714) ATTACEDIENT 1 _ _ d r It should be noted that-woodbridge two shandicapped dwelli:.gs, c assignable four guest spaces and approxinately 12 vehicle spaces, _s (avaiiable to guests or residents) ' unzark.ed curb sp along the dri.vewz� run*iing the length o£ the property. Comparing the amount of parking available at Woodbridge Manor T_ to the parking demand reveals following: 1. Maximum vehicles -parked per dwelling = 0.56 2_ Maximum vehicles parked in guest °r 0.13 curb spaces per dwelling = 0.59 '_ Ik 3_ Assignable spaces per dwelling dwelling = 0.16 4". Guest or curb spaces p er = 0.75 5. Total spaces per dwelling assi .able spaces per dwelling and 0.17 The conclusion is that there is ample parking el rieet the demand, and that 0.59 `� are adequate. unassigned spaces per dwelling The proposed co Manor 11 will have 0_58 assign -ed sces per dwelling, 0_i8 guest or curb spaces per parking r dwelling. This dwelling, -for a total of 0_76 spaces per is more than Woodbridge Manor I has and will be clearly adequate. _. The above calculations include curb spaces s alotheolengtheoff tie 32• feet wide internal driveway the property. This driveway e -le Qicularlylparked£vehicles. space which is not opposite P osted or striped to allow Although the driveway is not p reveals that residents parking, in- field -inspection ?rlyalong the driveway and and guests feel comfortable parking Y ,,, problems. The that parking there poses no traffic operation p volume k vehicles entering or exiting the site when Woodbridge Manor I and II are both conelvehicle0every twossninutesDe The maxinura of app'- O= �u°a`ely assina an inbound vehicle probability of an outbound vehicle p adjacent a parked vehicle will occur less than once per day. I£ It has been a pleasure to prepare this analysis for you are questions, or if we can be o= further assistance, there please do not hesitate to call_ Sincerely, yLTDiZiL�+Ll ASSOCIATES /1t,1 t:illiam Eunzman, P•E- cc: Merrie wilent C U r F+ P � i i 1 fJ .i O 'J N N M r7 r- G i M N m rT -.1 O O cl J1 = ^ r) •^� O .ale O [P C :7 � y U G •-� iy N O O L7 O O O C Q. 1 S4 (I G V' St O C 0 •.{ 41 % 41 :J C1 rl fJ G 7'J 1 r� co L �- .t a c O x y V2 F• > N f- O �+ Z 0 . Z _ S-] t0 to z u > � _ p Q > m- to S :4 C en. _ H 0 < to _ _. co. H V2 Sa m O S7 C C 14 O+ as O O� Q to �O x y V O ."i. O -4 0 EQ r- v m " Co It 0% at • O V' >+ Z O tn. 0 UL = w S4 c� c. r m .� 31 Sa . t o U •A 3 n U a O O U � C4 H ca rj .�i u i N m >• o SA o 0, ^3 1A - v $4 >, c p -•, -40 Ct0 _U =r° O i� -0 O u >% 'U = . 4 .-4 04 = '1 x- U` O O -.i C% w 3 Q. ! E�J v O O u L4 A t2 s* zA o q Z Q U 1:6 0 0 rr to C U r F+ P � i i F] 0 I SAMPLE FEE REDUCTION /WAIVER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMZN-T is entered into this - day of _ 1982, by and between a partnership (hereinafter '), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA, CALIFOFNIA, a municipai corporation (hereinafter "City";, and provides as follows: WHEREAS. . is the owner of acres, more or less, of land situated within the city at the more particularly described as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel No. 11981 - 72 assessment roll) (hereinafter the "'property "); and, ; WHEREAS, - intend to build a 1 ' -unit housing project (hereinafter the "project ") or. the property; and, - yTnERr -AS, __ desires to obtain some of the incentives referred to in Section 65915 of the California Government Code` in exchange for constructing at least twenty -five percent (251) of the total units of the project for persons and families who are in the categories defined by Section 50093 of the Califor- nia Health and Safety Code, and maintaining such units available to such persons for not less than thirty (301 years; NOW. THEREFORE, the parties agree as fol'_ows= 1" shall construct at least twenty -five per- cent (255) of the total units of the project for persons and families who are in the categories defined by Section 50093 of the Califcrnia Health and Safety Code. Said units are re- ferred to herein as the "affordable units" - 2" for itself and its successors and assigns, . agrees thLt said affordable units will be maintained conti- nuously available for such persons and families for a period Of not less than thirty (30) years after the dates on which M u r I I each such affordable units, respectively, is first occupied. 3. represents that it has entered or will enter into agreements with the California Housing Financing Authority (hereinafter "CHFA ") to finance the project. . warrants a.-%d represents to the City that the CHFA, pursuant to the finance agreement, has the right and authority to fully control the avail- ability of, and set the rental rates for, the affordable units for a period of forty (40) years commencing from the date of com- pletion of said affordable units. The rental rates shall be set Pursuant to schedules published in the Federal Register by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 4. In the event rental rates for the affordable units cease to be set in the manner above stated, and in the further event that rental rates for the affordable units are not set by CHFA, then the City may, by resolution of the City Council, es- tablish from time to tine rental rates for the affordable nits, and , for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees to cor..ply with the rental rates established by the City. Any rental rate set by City hereunder shall not be lower than the last rental rates which were published in the Federal Register by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. S. in consideration of the foregoing, City shall (a) Waive City beautification fees applicable to the project. (b) Freeze the City fee schedule as it applies to the Project to the schedule in effect for the 1980 -81 fiscal year. A copy of said schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. (c) Establish a due date for any applicable project �- encineering fees as the date upon which the first occupant moves into one of the affordable units. (d) Allow use of alternative forms of construction on the P= , oject if such alternative forms of construction meet standard industry building practices and are approved by the _Z I r City and CEFA. G 7. City, at its option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to ., in the event construction of the project is not commenced within one (1) year after the date of this Agreement, or in the further event that construction is not thereafter diligently pursued to completion. °. In the event legal ac-ion is commenced by the City to enforce performance of any :)£ the provisions of this Agree- ment, the party prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to suc% other relief as may be granted, to recover reasonable attorney's fees ino.urred in the connection with any su:h litigation, including any and all appeals therefrom. 9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall in- ure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. IN WI.NESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agree- ment on the day and year first above written. a partner- ship BY: , Partner BY- BY: CITY OF '2ANCEO CUCAMONGA, a muni- cipal corporation -/ v Mayor AT,rST- i`= C1 Cit�k L-� 4L.= ® -3 I