Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/03/23 - Agenda PacketI - :r. c. L1 a rn CMIJ PIC M rz r,a C-2 C,3 Z, O I_._ CITY OF RANr -HO CUCAA,1ChNGA k'LANNTNG CO_MX, 1ISS1O�T Z AGENDA vl > 19» ACTION L M WEDNESDAY March 23, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION °S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegiance Swearing in of Addie Juarez as Planning Cammissioner n .r ;! APPROVED 4 -0 -0 -1 IV. V. Herman Rempel, VL Chairman Dennis Stout, VIC' Vice - Chairman APPROVED 5 -0 VIII. APPROVED 5 -0 Edith amendment to equestrian trail location. Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Juarez X Commissioner Stout —=- Commissioner McNiei X Approval of Minutes February 23, 1983 Announcements Election of Plaaming Commission Officers Consent Calendar 77re following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. 7`hey will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. TIME ARCEL B. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 81 -02 - CHRISTIAN The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their OPWOn of the related project Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to S minutes per individual for each project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAI 7A39 - t.7 .7. C on �r.rrm•: '.c. Y PtwueLS m [ne x -1 zone Of Hillside Road and 1061 - 251 -17. - A division of 1.839 acres into .orated at the northwest corner Moonstone Avenue - APN Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 2 APPROVED 5 -0 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7834 - JENzr - A division of 1 acre into 2 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northwest corner of Via El Dorado and Sunstone Avenue - APN 1061 - 251 -16. APPROVED 5 -0 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7853 - NESSTT - A division of 8.76 acres into 3 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the west side of Hellman, p north side of Church - APN 208 - 021 -02. APPROVED 5 -0 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL N,AP 7912 - HAHN TENANT IriTERIORS, INC. - A division of 1.57 acres into- parcels for condominium purposes within Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53, 54 $ 55. APPROVED 5 -0 G. VARIANCE 83-02 - BLWC - A request to reduce the required front yard setback and stree•.scape in conjunction with the development of six industrial buildings on 1.57 acres located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207- 271 -53, 54, do 55. DL New Business APPROVED 5 -0 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -02 - BWLC - The development of six industrial building totaling 25,032 square feet on 1.57 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1) located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53, 54, do 55. APPROVED 5 -0 L E%TMnXMrWPAr ...- ______ -�L� - inn construction of a 420 square foot addition to an existing building and parking lot improvements on a 9,500 square foot lot in the C -2 zone located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and San Bernardino Road - APN 208- 152 -12. X. Director's Reports APP= 'ED 5 -0 to J. forward to City Council with Amendments Planning Commission Agenda Nlareb 23, 1983 Page 3 REPORT RECEIVED K. VICTORIA AVENUE XL Pxbiie Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed hem are those which do not already appear on this agenda. 9:40 XIL Adjoumment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 P.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. A "l "plc ffrEm",,Cm.L Ampoor. CrrY OF RANCHO CUCAMCW4C A 1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING GONLMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY March 23, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMCNGA, CALIFORNIA ..:. 1 :. 11L Swearing in of Addie Juarez as Plamning Commissioner HL Roll Can Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Juarez Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel N. Approval of Minutes February 23, 1983 V. Announcements VL Election of Planting Commission Officers N71L Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. if anyone teas concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. TIME FOR PA 6636 - D.R, B. TIME E %TENSION FOR VARIANCE 81 -02 - CHRISTIAN The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be Iimited to 5 minutes per individual for each oroject. LO % parce>S in nee X -1 zone of Hillside Road and 1061- 251 -17. SMENT AND PARCEL MAP - A division of 1.839 acres into .ocated at the northwest corner Moonstone Avenue - APN ?-ecaT dt�- 0 VA D. E. F. Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 2 ��- •.a.•ai�inla r���a�mtN'I' AND PARCEL MAP 7834 - JEFSEN - A division of 1 acre unto 2 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northwest corner of Via El Dorado and Sunstone Avenue - APN 1061- 251 -16. ZAVIKUNMENTAL ASSESSMENT. AND PARCEL MAP 7853 - NESBIT - A division of 8.76 acres into 3 parcels within the R -1 zca2 l.'+Cat2d ut the west side of Hellman, north side of Church - APN 208- 021 -02. L9 M a.ar acres into 3 parcels for condominium purposes within Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53, 54 & 55. G. VARIANCE 83-02 - BLWC - A request to reduce the required front yard setback and streetscape in conjnmetion with the development of sir. industrial buildings on 1.57 acres located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53, 54, & 55. New Business H. .a.�.uo.a ana uuu0¢ng LOtaung 25,032 square feet on 1.57 acres Of land in the General industrial category (Subarea 1) located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53, 54, & 55. L ENVIRONMENTAL J. - ••�n+•� - Ane consrruetion of a 420 square foot ad&ihon to an existing building and parking lot improvements on a 9,500 square foot lot in the C -2 zone located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and San Bernardino Road - APN 208 - 152 -12. Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 3 K. VICTORIA AVENUE XL 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. N1L Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjow -nment time. If items go beyond that time, they $hail be heard only with the consent of the Commission. OMTA*10 IpTEMMITIGMUL ♦tllPOpl' CrrY OF RANCHO CE)CA pq CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 23, 1983 Chairman Jeff 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 Lions Communitv Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry ?&-,Niel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King ASSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Rick Marks, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1983. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1983. Commissioner Rempel requested that the Commissioners be provided with copies of Resolutions approved by the Commission that had changes or modifications to either the Resolution or conditions of approval. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, replied that this could be done. • f • • f ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that the Planning Commissioners' Institute would be held March 2 through 5 in Monterey, California. Any Commissioners who were planning to attend should contact the City office for travel and itinerary information. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, announced that there would be an Advisory Commission meeting at Lions Park Community Center, February 24, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss, among other issues, the neighborhood commercial center in Etiwanda. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF PORTION OF 7TH STREET - CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS E. VACATION OF 8TH STREET - CALDSvELL COMPANY C. TIME EXTENSION FOP. PARCEL MAP 5144 - MoKINNON• -RIFF D. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -17 - SHIBATA Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. * * s o PUBLIC HEARINGS E. F. - -" - 1.1-11 ru•�wur�LGl o -U� - CALMARK - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units /acre) for the development of 161 affordable senior citizen apartments on approximately 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald, and north of Base Line - APN 202 - 151 -34. - --- - - - - -- ,...,,....,,emu...4 tlIuL rL.a1VLVWJ lltVELOPMENT 83-01 (PARCEL MAP 7827) CALMARK - A change of zone from R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Plar-ned Development) to R -3 /SO (Multiple Family Residential /Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres of lard generally located west of �':chibald and north of Base Line - Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5792 - APN 202 - 151 -34. Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that this is the conclusion of the first phase of what has been established as a two -tier process for senior citizen projects; the first phase being the design review aspects, and the second would be the development agreement between the City and the developer. Rick Marks, Associate Planner, narrated a slide presentation of the Planning Commission's tour of Calmark projects in neighboring cities. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 23, 1983 Jan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report presenting four options available to the Commission regarding this itec:: (1) approval of the project as presented; (2) approval with modifications; (3) return the project to the Design Review Committee to revise the project; or. (4) denial. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that the project developer met with staff earlier in the day and an agreement had been made that more attention would be brought to the window treatment on the senior apartments and the roof line on the market rate apartments. These changes would be brought back to the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of Building Permits. Mr. Gomez further stated that he wanted to add a 6th item ir. the General Plan Amendment Resolution which would state: "Whereas, -Section 65361 of the California Government Code provides for amendments of mandatory elements of a General Plan at any time during a calendar year for an affordable residential development, as specified in said section." Commissioner Barker stated that one of his concerns was with the separation of the senior citizen community from the market rate community and asked if some treatment had been devised to accomplish this. Dan Coleman replied that item 9 of the Resolution addressed this feature. He stated that this was one of the concerns of the senior citizens group staff had met with to gather input and landscaping to minimize the impact was suggested as a solution. Commissioner Barker asked if this would then be 'brought back to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Coleman replied that the final landscape plan could be brought back to the Design Review Committee if the Commission desired. Commissioner Barker stated .that he felt it should because it is a major concern of his. Commissioner Rempel agreed. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Larry Persons, representing Calmark, 2121 Cloverfield, Santa Monica, California, addressed the Commission giving the history of the Calmark Corporation. In regard to the segregation of the two projects, Mr. Persons stated that the intent of the developer is to limit the amount of access and intrusions, such as sidewalks, and have the project orient more toward the interior of the project and to try to present a barrier through berming and landscaping. He further stated that the only other way to completely separate them would be with a fence, however, it was felt that this would create a walled community and would isolate the senior citizens` community and would also create more problems. He stated that this has never been a problem with other %.:11mark projects. Also, the lighting concerns expressed by the senior citizen group had been addressed in a recent letter from t'ae Calmark Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 23, 1983 Corporation. and advised that this project would be within the confines of one of the brio test projects to ,Prevent possibilities of anyone hiding in the dark. In regards to the handrails, he stated that a rounded top handrail is being installed in all. Calmark projects. In regard to access to the shopping center, the problem facing the developer is the grade deferential. The present plan is to install a ramp at the extent of the drive at the corner of the elderly and the general occupancy; any further to the east would place it at the loading docks of the Alpha Beta store. Mr. Persons stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval imposed by staff and the only concern was one of a monetary nature and requested that the fees be waived in an effort to provide Lhe lowest possible rents to the residents. Commissioner Rempel asked what the pitch of the stairways and the width of the walkways was proposed to be, and also asked what type of texture would be used on the walks. He stated that he was concerned with the size of the recreation, or open area between the buildings and wondered if the open space proposed would be adequate for the people living there. Mr. Persons replied that the stairway pitch is 6 and 11, the walk width is four feet, of a textured nature to prevent slipping, and water drains were placed under the walks to prevent puddling. With regard to the recreation center, the buildings which are 2000 square foot and can be sectioned off for smaller meetings by accordian doors, is the same recreation building size as the Oxnard center. With regard to open area outside, he stated that it could possibly be the scale of the map as the actual open area outside is twice the size of the Duarte project which has a substantial amount of open area. Commissioner Rempel asked how they intended to keep other tenants from parking in the senior citizens' parking area. Mr. Persons stated that this is not envisioned as a problem; however, should it become one there are provisions for parking stickers. Commissioner Rempel stated that he saw a problem with the parking in the front of the cul-de -sac coming into the main entry in that the general occupancy visitors might take those parking spaces. Chairman King stated that there are various goals the Commission wishes to achieve in passing along affordable housing to senior citizens. In exchange for the Commission reaching that goal, there are various options such as density bonuses and fast tracking that go to the applicant. He stated his concern that the applicant is seeking to upgrade the land use or density from what was deemed appropriate and there is a 25% density bonus for achieving this in the City and that he felt the City should be getting a project which is top quality in terms of design. Farther that hopefully, the City getting the top quality project and the applicant getting the added density bonuses mould arrive at a project that is not only an aesthetically pleasing development, but would accomplish the purpose of providing affordable housing Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 23, 1983 to senior citizens. He voiced concerns with the elevations in terms of being aesthetically pleasing. Further, in terms of parking, felt Commissioner Rempel's concern was a real concern and hoped the design of the project could address this. Also, the pedestrian access from the senior citizen aspect of the development over to the far western corner of the project was a problem ane he did not see it addressed in the design. He suggested a covered wall:way be considered so that during the rainy season a senior citizen could get from his unit to a general congretational area. He stated that he realized that the City's requirements could be such that the project looses its feasibility in terms of accompli-shing both the applicant's and the City's goals and did net feel it was the intent of the Commission that this should happen so that no one's goals were met and the project falls through. He further stated that what the City is receiving back should compensate the community fcr the extra density in terms of upgraded lard use and density bonus. Mr. Persons stated that the project was designed and presented to several cities. He stated that the denisty is 35 units to the acre when evaluated on the number of units to the acre; however, when evaluated on the occupancy, it equates at a lower density because this product type has an average of 1.2 people which is significantly less than conventional apartments. This density would be on the order of 15 units per acre when calculated in this manner and the impacts of lard, travel, and services is significantly less. Further, in regards to amenities, everyone could add something, however it raises the cost of the units and it was found that the average senior citizen would rather have a luwer :,ent than extra amenities. Commissioner Stout asked if any thought was put into mitigating the amount of traffic which would be going through the senior citizens' project because it looks as if there is a straight path through the project to get to the southern parking of the project. He suggested that younger occupants might have a tendency to utilize that pathh to exit the project and disturb the senior citizens. Mr. Persons replied that a lot of thought was given to this and the de eloper attempted to provide separate circulation patterns for each area and several options had been explored. The present design was selected as the best for all concerned. Commissioner Stout suggested that the branch of the "T" intersection at the bottom :* the project which goes into the senior citizens project could be made for ::mergency vehicles access only and the seniors could enter from Lomita C ^,urt, park, and exit the same way. Commissioner Rempel suggested that a one -way street be made from the upper "T" coming down and bring the point down at bottom so that it can only go one direction. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 23, 1983 Commissioner Stout stated that he did not see why the loop could not remain as far as the Sunrise portion goes, but did not see why there had to be access from the Sunrise portion along the south boundary to the senior citizen area. Further, that there is no need for other traffic to drive through rile senior citizen project and that traffic could be cut down 90 percent. Fir. Persons replied tha blocking this off or making it one -way prohibits any type of emergency vehicles in non - emergency situations from going through the project. He suggested the use of the devices used in drive -in movies and amusement places that prohibit a car from going in more than one direction might be considered. He stated that this has never been a problem and that Possibly the project could be developed as presented and if problems come up at a later date, a means to alleviate them could be developed. 8'10 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:20 - Planning Commission. Reconvened Chairman King asked if anyone wished to address this item. and the public hearing was closed. :here were none Chairman King stated that the Commission had several options before them and if they desired further discussion, they could continue on the item. :However, he felt there are definite concerns by the Commissio n with the design and Possibly the item should be continued to March 9 so the applicant and staff could work them out. He asked for the preference of the applicant. Fir. Persons replied that he could be agreeable to a continuance to the [arch 9 meeting, however, would appreciate further input from the Commission on the design so that they and staff could work out these concerns. Commissioner McNiel stated his concern that the occupants of the market rate units off of Lomita Park might use the senior citizen parking and suggested some type of a plan that the interior parking be eliminated and placed where these people could use it. Chairman King recaped the concerns of the Comcis� ion and asked that they be addressed at the next meeting. ':he coc =s: concerns relative to access; the i ncerns were as foli ngress and egress as it relates to the general Population on the left complex gong through and traveling in the areas Closest to the senior citize::s; the parking and the possibility Of the general occupancy residents taking parking from the senior occupants; elevations; the issue of open space and its adequacy; specificity as it relates to recreation area -types of facilities, adequacy of access from senior project general service area; and pedestrion acces to the s from the senior project to the Point of ingress and egress into the commercial area. He asked if there wer other concerns the Ccmmissioners wished addressed. Planning Commission Minutes -6_ February 23, ?983 Commissioner Stout stated that possibly the option of locating the recreation center more towards the center of the senior portion of the project should be explored. He also stated that he realized there was a lot of thought put into the present location by the applicant, and would be willing to listen to the reasoning at the next meeting, but the present location does bother him. Motion.: Moved by Stout, seconded by Hempel, unanimously carried, to continue Planned Development 83 -01 and General Plan Amendment 83 -03 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1983. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83-01 - An amendment to Chapter 1, Section 1.08.160 and 1.08.170 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding home occupation permits. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked what type of home occupations are being applied for? Mr. Vairin replied that in these hard economic times people are applying for a wide variety of side -line businesses. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, explained that even though there is no fee for a home occupation permit, it is a record keeping system in which if there is a problem, the City has the ability to provide more effective enforcement. Commissioner Stout asked if a cost study had been done on these permits. Mr. Vairin replied that it had been done at one time and it was around $20 to $25, which included mailing notification. with the implementation of the proposed ordinance, the amount would be very nominal since it would be a permit issued at the counter. Mr. Lam stated that the problem in adding a fee for the permit is that a lot of the people now applying for the permits would not have done so if there was a fee involved. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this might also dissuade people from taking out a city business license. Commissioner Stout stated that it seemed that conditions 4 and 5 conflict because it states that you can grow fruit on your own trees and sell it, but no one can come to your house and buy it. Mr. Vairin replied that this was not the intent and would not be interpreted in that manner. Planning Commission Minutes -7- Febr. 23, 1983 Dan Coleman stated that you could add a statement in condition 5 of the ordinance to include the sale of fruits or vegetables that would eliminate the conflict. Commissioner Stout stated that he felt this inclusion would be a good idea. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 83 -22 recommending approval Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83-01 to the City Council with the change to condition 5 of the proposed City Council Ordinance to include the sale of fruits and vegetables. AYES: COMPIISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, McNiel Re mpel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None --carried- * * • r s H. - - -- — - �•u =�� >>-�3 - nuNrea�ORl - The development of a 8,615 square foot preschool and elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone ;^PN 208 - 154 -14, 15, 16 (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1983). Chairman F,ing stated that he has a son who attends Montessori Academy and asked if any of the Commission construed this as a conflict of interest. The consensus of the Commission was that it did not. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission. Chairman King asked in terms of entry if there would be some type o° signing that would direct Wendy *s traffic away from the school. Mr. Coleman replied that this was correct. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Russ James, Western Commercial, addressed the Commission stating that his architect and the applicant were present this evening to answer the Commissions questions. He also stated that the architect would address the changes that had occurred since the last meeting; however, the fence was left off because they had some concerns with this constriction.. Planning Commission_ Minutes -8_ February 23, 1983 Herb Horowitz, of Leidenfrost and Horowitz, 3ivj W. Olive Avenue, Burbank, California, addressed the Commission stating that the charges had been made to the project which were of major concern to the Commission at the last meeting. However, the fence had been omitted because they felt that the parents might park adjacent to the east parking lot and use the sidewalk as an alternate means of getting from their cars to the school building without calkL,g through the parking lot itself. Further, they had no objections to putting the fence up if that is still the Commissions preference, however felt the sidewalk would serve a greater number of people if the fence were not there. Mr. Horowitz pointed out that the directional sign is for the Montessori School to develop a traffic pattern for the parking lot itself, which would be a counter - clockwise route. Sandy Schmidt, Director of Montessori Academy, addressed the Commission stating that she was available to answer questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Re=pel stated that his concern was with the traffic and wondered if it wouldn't be better to install a radius curb to better facilitate dropping children off. M.-. Horowitz stated that this is a good suggestion and they would be favorable to it. Commissioner Harker stated that he was a little dismayed to see that the fenced in walkway had been eliminated and that he could see the applicant's logic, but at the same time the fence would have provided some measure of safety to the elementary school children. He asked if something couldn't be designed that would allow periodic access. Mr. Horowitz stated that they would be agreeable to putting a fence at the walkway area if this was the Commission's desire and work with staff on any access points they deem necessary. Commissioner Rempel stated that he still has a problem with the selection of the site due to the traffic turning left onto Foothill. Ms. Schmidt responded that a lot of research had gone into the site selection and this one was the best suited to the needs of the school. As far as traffic turning left on Foothill Boulevard, Ms. Schmidt stated that the only solution she could see to this would be a right turn only sign. Mr. James stated that since the hours of departure are staggered, the impacts on traffic would not be as great as if it were a use that would be closing at 5:00 p.m. Co- -missioner McNiel stated that he did not feel the walkway would meet the purposes it was designed to serve. He asked if the dentist had been consulted as to the placing of the trash bins in front of his offices. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 23, 1983 Mr. James replied that he had not contacteC_ t he dentist regarding the 'trash enclosure since it was already there and there was room for a double enclosure. Further, if it caused a problem, the trash bins could be relocated. Commissioner DtNiel stated that he felt the dentist should at least be advised. Commissioner Stout stated that he was in agreement that the fence should be there and should not have an opening. Ban Coleman suggested that self - latching gates could be installed if this would serve the intent of the Commission and possibly the applicant could respond to this. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that it had been suggested to the applicant that supervision of the parking lot could be required to provide observation of the students at the time of arrival and departure and if the Commission so desired, this could become a condition_ of approval. Commissioner Stout stated that Ontario has developed a Conditional Use Permit for preschools in this type of location and that he would like to see what their requirements are. Ban Coleman stated that he had contacted the City of Ontario and their requirements are basically what is before the Commission tonight. He added that Or_tario has had no problems so far with the preschools they have approved in locations similar to this ore. Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner McNiel's statement regarding the placement of the trash bins is well taken and suggested that the southeast corner may be a better location. Ted Moore, one of the shopping center owners, addressed the Commission stating that ore of the owners of Wendy's was present who could address the issue of how Wendy's prepares their trash for placement in the bins if the Commission desired his input. Commissioner Stout replied that he recalled that there is an existing structure there so the relocation_ of the bins may cause a hardship. He asked if this became a major problem could it be brought back for a change to the Conditional Use Permit? Mr. Coleman replied that one of the conditions provided that the use would be monitored over the next six months and if there was a problem, it could be brought back before the Commission. Planning Commission, Minutes -70- February 23, 1983 Commissioner Stout stated tnat it did rot but could the dentist be contacted at that the trash bir. location? Mr. Coleman required that it could. Chairman King closed the public hearing. necessarily have to be a condition, time to see how he feels regarding Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt Resolution 63 -23 approving Conditional Use Permit 33 -03 with the amendments to include the fencing and the radius curb. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, Rempel, barker, McNiel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried - 9:05 - Planning Commission Recessed 9:15 - Planning Commission Reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 33-01A KANOKVECHAYANT - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium Residential (4 -14 dwelling units /acre) to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwellirg 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. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1983). Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Dr. Raveewan Karokvechayant, applicant, addressed the Cocc__z;ion thanking the City staff for helping her prepare the application for a General Plan amendment from Medium Residential to Medium -High Residential. She stated that this density only appears in the planned communities areas and that she had been contacted by a developer who was interested in.. her property, but the property did not carry a high enough density for her to sell it. Also, she did not feel that a problem would be created in this amendment, Dr. Kanokvechaya. ^.t stated that she objected to a staff report statement that indicated that the entire 36 acres needed to be considered in the amendment of this property because her property is a different situation since her property Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 23, 1983 two major streets, Base Line and Rochester, which could carry more traffic and this traffic would not affect the Rochester tract. Don Baer, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commissior in opposition to tre rezoning of this property. Mr. Baer stated that this property was the subject of lengthy debate during the General Plan hearings. F rther, that he realized that densities would change and was not against change as long as there is a good plan; however, there doesn't seem to be a plan for this property as of now and that raising the density of the property without knowing what is going to be built there would be contrary to the planning the City has spent the last five years doing. Dr. Kaanokveeh_ayant addressed the Commission stating that she is not a developer or builder and cannot afford to bring a plan before the City. She further stated that she would make sure that a good plan for the property was submitted to the City. Also, that one plan she had been working on was similar to the project on Grove Avenue and 8th with a parking lot underneath; however, was not financially able to complete these plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that he is of the opinion that the density is at maxirwm now and it is out of reason to rezone it a higher density. Chairman. King stated that this specific parcel of property was discussed at length at the General Plan hearings and that everyone basically felt that Day Creek was the more centrally located and more mass - transit oriented roadway and therefore the higher density should be placed along that major arterial. Further, that this piece of property has the highest density of any property west of Day Creek over to Haven north of Base Line and up to the Foothill Freeway and the reason it has the present density is because of its location with regard to Base Line and Rochester. It was felt that this piece of property was a good piece of property to have this higher density on. Further, to raise the density any higher would be against much of the discussion at the General Plan hearings and that good planning calls for the density that presently exists. Commissioner Rempel stated that the commen,; made by Mr. Baer is applicable in this case and that a plan really has to come first. There were no further comments and Chairman King called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt Resolution 83-24 to deny General Plan Amendment 83 -01A. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 23, 1983 ,< AYES: CWLMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: iacNiel, Rsrker, Rempei, Stout, King None ABSENT: COr- 24ISSIONERS: None - carried- Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that this decision is appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date. Director's Reports J. FOOTHILL COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised the Commission of the status of the Foothill Community Flwi. Fir. Comez stated that the project is moving along and staff will keep the Commission informed on its progress. Public Convents Commissioner Rempel asked the status of the Development Code. Jack Lam replied that the draft is to be on his desk by the end of the month. Further, that this draft will be distributed in -house to give staff the opportunity to refine it before distribution to interested parties. Jeff Sceranka, Executive Director of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, advised that there would be a Chamber of Commerce meeting on March 7, 1983, 7:30 a.m., at Hers and Holsteins Restaurant regarding the Sign Ordinance. Further, that Michael Vairin of the Planning staff would present a slide presentation and discuss the revisions to the Sign Ordinance which he has been working on with the Chamber. Commissioner Stout stated asked if the Commission could revise the Victoria Plan, or was it permanently set because he would like the Commission to review the terminus of Victoria with respect to where it meets the Etiwanda Specific Plan boundaries. Rick Gomez replied that with further direction, the staff could look into this and report its findings back to the Commission. Jack Lam asked if Commissioner Stout was referring to the Victoria which cul-de -sacs rather than goes through. Planning C,—L- aission Minutes -13- February 23, 1983 Commissioner Stout replied eplied t- tha he '" was referring to the Victoria which Mr. lam stated that the b.•ought before them. Commission could initiate a request that this item be Ted Hopson Assistant sistant City Attorney, advised that You revise a specific plan, the answer is if the question was could Commissioner Stout Yes. at this and stated that he would like would report back to the Commission. C - to re Stout that staff be brought back. o missioner take a look asked when this Mr. Gomez replied the second meeting in larch. Commissioner Stout tract is file3, stated that he would like it in the works before the first Mr. Vairir, advised that the first tract has already been filed. Commissioner Stout iz.volved. stated that he would also like to kncx how many tracts are Ted Hopson advised if they have firaled the control; however the map, ' if the applicant wanted to es' the City no longer has Y could voluntarily change Jack Lam stated that the issue is not whether Will not cooperate, as he felt they would °r not the L at it because it was , but is Yon Company will or plans, a very major item of discussion is Significant the tVict000a It was the consensus of the Commission meets the Etiwanda Specific p that staff by the second lan boundaries look into Victoria where it meeting in March. and report back to the Commission ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously 9'45 p-m, _ Planning Commission adjourned. carried, to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -14_ February 23, 1983 b / C CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGP STAFF REPORT DATE: March 23, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 6636 - D.R. BUTLER The attached letter from Mr. Dewain Butler, owner, requests a time extension due to economic conditions for the subject parcel map. This is an industrial subdivision of 6.09 acres of land being divided into 2 parcels located on the west side of Heilman Avenue, approximately 433 feet south of 9th Street; and was tentatively approved by Planning Commission on January 28, 1981. One six -month extension granted at this time wou RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that extending the expiration Respectfully supmitted, as Attachments has been previously granted. A one -year extension Id expire on January 28, 1984. Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution date of Parcel Map 6636 to January 28, 1984. ITEM A \' : , k'i' . L-he ain R. Butler Fet.uary 28, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Devc1opment Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re F'2C12L MAP 6636 West side of Hellman, South of 9th Street r,ctn: Paul A. Rcugeau 'y AR a ±983 "'!Ty OF RAUC`i0 CJCA&IONGA ENTMEEWNG C1Y!S!o. "J Mr. Dewain R. Butler is requesting a time extension due to economic conditions. Please find our check for the amount Of $62.00 enclosed as requested. Please note our new mailing address: 3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 385 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Thank you. Sincerely, !' la Z' (' �c�.� - t � Maureen Peters 3300 Irvine Avenue. Suite 385, Newport Beads. CA 92660 714- 662 -0221 |� ■ ISO* J 2 i& $ \ � A ■� k 2 \ ��$ � \|- I. \\ � } //� }| # < #; qi ' nu §1. : � � � 7 C } � L.0 / U � Q � ! | : � « f ISO* J 2 � \ � A - 2 k 2 « f ISO* ;! �_ � \ �| V I. \\ k/ //� «•\ qi ' nu §1. : � / a �$ # & k $ \\ £ f ISO* ;! �_ � ��}}�}} �| V I. \\ k/ //� «•\ qi ' I>' §1. : � a �$ # & k $ \\ £ 'CZ m / f - \ �\ �} ;! �_ � ��}}�}} �| I. «•\ : � 'CZ m / f e� \ �\ �} ;! �_ � �| & s ` — �� | !�! /\ } c . � -j� > � §q$ ,! \ \ �\ f \ � j� \ � § xv \ �\ �} .`$ �_ � & s ` — �� | !�! /\ } c . � -j� > � §q$ ,! \ \ �\ f \ � j� \ � § xv RESOLUTION 140. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6636 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8.1(b) of Ordinance 28 -8, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described Tentative Parcel Map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has ;Wade the followingin�;ngs: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a lack of financing and high interest rates for construction. B. That these economic conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would net be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 0. That the granting of said time extensions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements 4n the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension or the a� •e- described project as follows- Parcel Map 6636 Expiration Date January 28, 1984 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY:— ATTEST: 40 Secretary of the Planning Commissior, Resolution No. Page 2 I. JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly regularly introduced, Passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon a and on the 23rd day of March, 1983. byuthe following fvote Planning Commission held °°ES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: - o -W! L: l 'J 0 0 11 9 DATE: TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1'VIONGA STAFF REPORT March 23, 1933 Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR VAR - Request to permit construction encroach into front and rear yards lot in the R -3 zone located at 202 - 131 -04. <11 UI H116C 01 -UL - 6MM113I1K14 )f residerce that will on a 3,532 square foot 6969 Amethyst - APN BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved the above - described Variance on August 12, 1931, per the attached Resolution. As a condition cif approval, the Commission required that the proposed two -story house be redesigned to mitigate the conc-rns of the Planning Commission and be brought back to the Design Review Committee per the attached Minutes. The approved plot plan is shown or the attached Exhibit "B ". The attached letter from Mr. Maurice Moore requests a time extension in order to finalize construction drawings for presentation to the Design Review Committee prior tc securing building permits. Mr. John Christian, the original applicant, has abandoned plans to construct a home on this property. Variance approvals run with the land and continue to be valid upon, a change of ownership of the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows for the granting of the time extension for an additional period of one (1) year. RECOMMENDATIONI: it is recommended that the Planning Commission grant a one t year extension for Variance 81 -02, establishing August 12, 1983 as the new expiration date. s ectfully �mitted, ck mez ty lanner DC:jr Letter from Maurice Moore Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval for Variance 81 -02 Minutes of August 12, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting Resolution for Time Extension IT Elm 6 "rwr X.MN FM YOUR SUIfZIW. COLLAR' ® MOORE CONSTRUCTION CO. MIRAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS 8585 Calle Del Prado Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 (714)980 -7934 City of Rancho Cucamonga Co'. -.=ity Planting Commission Subject: Request for tilde extension for a variance No. 61 -02 Dear !L-,. Coleman, ?_s you are aware we have been ? ^. the process of pla=i^g and preparing drawings for construction on t ^e property which in- volves Variance No. 81-02 This property is sma11 and requires special attention in order to Teet all of the guide lines set down 'oy the planning co-.n- issicn. You will recall that the co=aission granted a variance with is the stipulation that a full two story building be avoided. ?,ie have had to a —proanh problem from several directions in order to arrive at a plan that would be attractive and also be an asset to the neighborhood.. ::e feel that the planning Corission is being very fair and helpful ir_ helping us develop this property and we in tw—n would li6:e to design a structure that will satisfy the re- cuirments of the area. We therefor appeal to the Commission for an extension of t=' e hoping they understand that the delay has been an effcz-v by us to develop a proper building. �. E E I ? ? 6 8 + id 12 j 14 CITY OF RANCHO CUCN.\,IO.NGA Pi-t NNI \G Dl\rMN rm\1=_JlA &,,Q®i q'V o- TITLE: LOCIiMW MAP E- XHIr3IT =_ A SCALE: """ NORTH 0 E 3. �i!�J�Iil�1; •: C: !, t �rZL � ! or Jam^, � �-_ `- .-- ihflNTt i - V'ST,4 ' v c I ? ? 6 8 + id 12 j 14 CITY OF RANCHO CUCN.\,IO.NGA Pi-t NNI \G Dl\rMN rm\1=_JlA &,,Q®i q'V o- TITLE: LOCIiMW MAP E- XHIr3IT =_ A SCALE: """ NORTH 0 E I� I f � 1 - i- i i � I1 i r ! 2I VA5 LA Moli-l-G V I ST-4 ST. CITY OF RANCHO CL'C.MMONG.N PLANNING DIVOO\ I ' i r , i z4wr..S, 15. L [ �S V V Noirm ,F,rru: ---V- -PLC_ EXHIBIT: _ SCALE: mw 0 `iled and A RESOLUTIM OF Tr.c" RANC;O CUCA-'�'1G„ CO''IIISSION APPROVING VARIANCE ';0. D -VIATE FP,O+, FRONT - REAR YARD REGUIPE'`E LOCATED AT 5969 AMETHYST AVEI;U;. IIi 7HE y^ ':T ZONE. WHEREAS, ccepted on the above - described project; an appiicatior. was project; and blHEREAS, on the 12th day of August, 1901, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant tc Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTIOP! 3: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code. 3- That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condit;,-;ns applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone- D- That the granting of the Variance will not constitute 3 grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity SECTION 2: The Planning Commission hereby approves the requested variance based upon final approval of the pp design of the structure_ PLANNING M APPROVED AND APP -TED nIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1931. S;O'd OF THE CI n9, Chairman OF RANCnO CUCAMON:vA Resolution No. 81 -M Page 2 AT TEST:- ® Secretary of the Planning Co=ission 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 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Remoel, Sceranka, Dahl, Tolstoy, King DOES: COMMISSIONERS: Clone ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none J. 1] C Mr. Lam, Director of Co:r.munity Development, advised that Item, M of this agenda would be moved to fo'_iow Item P, dealing with the City's Redevelop- ment Agency. CONSENT C.4LE\DAR A. FN%7IRONMEXTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -24 - KAJIM,& _ T'ne development of a 30,220 square foot industrial building on 3.2 acres of land within the M -2 zone located on the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Seventh Street - Parcels 15, 16, and 17 of Parcel Map 6194. B. E_QVIRO%MENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -27 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL - The development of 2 industrial warehouse /d is tribu rion buildings totaling 221,000 square feet on 13.1 acres of land in the M -2 zone located on the east side of Pittsburgh, soath of 8th Street - APN 229 - 261 -29 S 30. C. ENVIRON14ENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-2,2 - LORD SHOBE - The development of a 30,000 square foot warehouse` acility on 5.02 acres of land in the M -2 zone to be located at 9120 entral Avenue - APN 209- 262 -07. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. VARIANCE NO. 81 -02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction of residence that will encroach into front and rear vards on a 3,532 square foot lot in the P.-3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - APN 202- 131-04. Mr. Lam stated that the Assistant City Attorney had to make a determination as to the validity of the lot split and -his was the reason this item had beer postponed several times. Planning Commission Minutes -2- Au„ust 12, 1981 C E 0 Mr. Charles Doskow, 222 Euclid Avenue, representing the applicant, stated the reasons for the variance for this parcel and asked for approval. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that in looking at the lot he understood that in order to get use out of the lot, a house would have to be built on it. He thought, however, that a 2 -story house on that lot does not give proper appearance heading east to Monte Vista if it is built with the 25 -foot setback.. He indicated that if the applicant is given additional space that is sufficient for the front and rear setbacks, he felt that the lot is adequate without it being a 2 -story unit. Commissioner Rempel also cited the recent controversy relative to multi -story units ne_Kt to single- family units and felt that this 2 -story unit would pre- sent the same problems. Cormmissioner Sceranka agreed with Comm - issioner Rempel in the inappropri- ateness of a two -story unit in this neighborhood and stated he would agree with the use but not the 2- story. Commissioner Dahl stated his agreement with his fellow Commissioners that a 2 -story unit would not fit the property. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was too bad that this is a lot on which a variance must be created; however, since it is a legal lot, the Planning Commission needs to go along. He agreed with Commissioner Rempel relative to the 2 -story house. Commissioner Tclstoy stated that perhaps with some creative design change in the use of a carport situation which would take away some of the scale of the building, and a .loft situation, and keeping in mind at the same time that what the Commission is trying to do is keep the view from the 2 -story effect away from the side yards and the rest of the Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 12, 1981 .- ' .hat _)n Jn: :cc,: , that _as F):z.. :Cr. ... _ _Ce lann ' ;lC certain when the actual split too.: place other than ,he fact _ -at ' occur prior to that time. Mr. Hopson stated that an assessors Mao exists which shows the lot split prior to that time and that before this it would have been legal to do this without the map; it is a legal lot, however, it is nonconforming. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. E 0 Mr. Charles Doskow, 222 Euclid Avenue, representing the applicant, stated the reasons for the variance for this parcel and asked for approval. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that in looking at the lot he understood that in order to get use out of the lot, a house would have to be built on it. He thought, however, that a 2 -story house on that lot does not give proper appearance heading east to Monte Vista if it is built with the 25 -foot setback.. He indicated that if the applicant is given additional space that is sufficient for the front and rear setbacks, he felt that the lot is adequate without it being a 2 -story unit. Commissioner Rempel also cited the recent controversy relative to multi -story units ne_Kt to single- family units and felt that this 2 -story unit would pre- sent the same problems. Cormmissioner Sceranka agreed with Comm - issioner Rempel in the inappropri- ateness of a two -story unit in this neighborhood and stated he would agree with the use but not the 2- story. Commissioner Dahl stated his agreement with his fellow Commissioners that a 2 -story unit would not fit the property. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was too bad that this is a lot on which a variance must be created; however, since it is a legal lot, the Planning Commission needs to go along. He agreed with Commissioner Rempel relative to the 2 -story house. Commissioner Tclstoy stated that perhaps with some creative design change in the use of a carport situation which would take away some of the scale of the building, and a .loft situation, and keeping in mind at the same time that what the Commission is trying to do is keep the view from the 2 -story effect away from the side yards and the rest of the Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 12, 1981 0 set�:;borc..od -.. mss.._.. :... _ .. .. _. • .act ^r - _., - ...... ..:at .. _ -... c. _ .. tJ dt�U:)t . i:cnclluti Jn NO. D. -nb. .. .•..•.�• •['..l C: :" redcsi�,nrd in such a wav as tJ i - .a:• Commission ano that leis he breu ^nt oack - *;,. -� •' �• t`:V 1 ".vnn:cC for approval. i•.si;;n ric'Jl�w ittee E. E:VVIRO_`d.'•*?NTAL ASSESSMENT AND CO:rD:TION.,%L IISE a' cRMIT NO. ar, - SOUTHEP�3 CALIFORNIA EDISON COAbY -The development of an electrical distribution substation located on 4.78 acres of and in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the northwest corner of -bald Avenue and Wilson Avenue 1061 - 571 -04. Mr. Lam a&vised that this item had been continued from a previous meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional information to the Commission. Further, that Mr. Dick Verrue, District Manager Of Southern Calbfornia Edison Company, would presert that informa- tion. Chairman icing Public hearing. Mr. Venue stated that: here had been several questions raised at the prior meeting and that expert wi:.nesses were not available at that time Mr. Verrue introduced Mr_ 'a im DuBois, an engineer with the technical support group, to speak to the sound and noise; Mr. G. Cling with Bob Langston, architect and designer; Mr. Bill Burger, telecommunications; Mr. Norm Cooch, attorney; and 14K. DiNatele, of the land appraisal divi- sion._ Mr_ Verrue indicated that these people would be able to answer any questions the Commission mighti,have. Mr_ Verrue spoke of the site selection, noise interference, and visual impact and explained how electricity w,,ts transmitted in this area. lie Provided background on how a determinatiLn is made that the area cannot be served due to growth. \ \\ Mr. Verrue described the site selection of this particular plant pro- viding the factors which entered into the seleion process for the substation_ Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in relationship to Site No. 2, he could not imagine that the County Flood Control District would be un- willing to release land for a site. \ Mr_ Verrue replied that where were other impacts such as ttin� lines in and out of Site No. 2. He indiated that because of the ysical characteristics of the site, it would be difficult to get lin s across Hillside. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 12, 1981 LJ RESCLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE NO. 81 -02 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 61.0220 (a)(8)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described project. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following in_mgs: A. That the applicant has made a diligent effort to complete the project prior to the expiration. B. That external physical conditions have caused delay in the start of construction. C_ That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval Ie regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extensio— n for the above - described project to August 12, 1983. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission E Resolution No. Page 2 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 23rd day of March, 1483, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS• ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS• 0 11 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 23, 1983 TO: Planning Commissior, FROM: Lloyd a. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL division of i the northwest 1061 - 251 -17 +»tJSMENT AND PARCEL MAP acres into T parce s corner of Hillside Road 7832 - H & S PROPERTIES - A in the R-1 zone 15cated at and Moonstone Avenue - APN I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This parcel map proposes the subdivision of 1.839 acres of land into 4 parcels within the R- 1- 20,000 zone with each new parcel containing approximat3ly 20,037 square feet. To the south and west are existing single family residences; to the east if vacant land and to the north is a vacant piece of property for white; an application for a parcel map (Tentative Parcel Map 7834) has been submitted and is on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. II. ANALYSIS: This map is a subdivision of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 5269 which was recorded on February 1980. Most required off -site street improvements were constructed with that map. This map was reviewed by the Equestrian Committee, which recommended that the community trail along Hillside Road be placed :;•ithin the existing 11 -foot wide parkway to conform to the situation to the east. A 15 -foot wide feeder trail will be required along the west map boundarv. These requirements have beer, incorporated in the conditions of approvao for the map. No development is proposed at this time. III. 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. ITEM C Planning Commission Staff Report EN4IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7832 March 23, 1983 Page 2 IV. V. LEH: CORR.ESPONDENCEE Notices of Public and placed in the been completed. RECOMMENDATION Nearing have been sent to surrounding property owners Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also It is recommended that the elements of the project. If can support the recommended City Engineer's Report, then be appropriate. It is also issued. Ily sPlitted, : jaa Attachments: Map Trail Map Resolution City Engineer's Initial Study Report Planning Commission consider all input and after such consideration of 'the Commission C( iditions of approval as written in the adoption of the attached resolution would recommended that a Negative Declaration be 11 E 0 , � 4 N _ - -- - -- i CARNELIAN-TREE 7� - j 'Z' ' 1 i 4f 1 J Cj� I a � z ' n w Cb • z _ �.iw �i j ��p m Via. c ,.` �C7 `�' ^a. o' it 1'•' i ^.o =` cn tA ro OY a f,��✓� m° i ! wO It Q L CIA b cn � a c a 1) rR - 1 6 I � � s w ) � � � � i /§ ƒ| �R = ¥ � \ m / / POW � } � k §q � � @ \\ � N env ` - + � � � ` �� R■ � ƒ . � ._ E El 11 CITY OF RALNCIIO CL'CAMONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT TNFOR."ATION SIiEET - To be .completed by applicant Envirormiental Assessment Review Fee; $g -9.00 Projects C-"J For all p jects requiring environmental review, this for- ^ust be completed and submitted to the Development Review CoM-nittae 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 meo� -cr at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration filed, 2) The project will h will br, 'nave an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or by An the additional information report should be supplied scant giving further information the proposed project. concerning PROJECT TITLE= TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 7832 APPLICA.;T'S I\,AME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE= N & S Pro ernes {7143 983 -5871 1009 West Brooks Stre ATTN.- Dave S anger et, ntario, A o � NAIM E, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCER NTNG THIS PROJECT= Linvi Ile- Sandersor. & Associates, 9587 Arrow Route, Ste. H, Rancho Cucamonga, CA �`� I� —ua:'y do er5on - LOCATIOI. OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AhJ Southwest corner of Via El Dorado and Moonstone Avenue B 5en Alta Lo a NO.) i0C1- 251 -17 LIST OTHER PEnP•lITS NECESSARY F FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY RO.! LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE. AND AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS Cit of Rancho Cucamonga - Planning, Engineering and Building Depar— tme 5, Cuca..ong_ a��v Water District; Southern �a,itornia 35on ompany; Chaffee Unified ` hool District and Alta Loma Elementary School District. I- i PROD ECT DESCP_P'TION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bein Mal) Poo. 5269 to create four ne w Pa a division of Parcel a of Parcel t2 IS.. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NY: EYZS17 PROPOSED BUILDINGS IF , A Total area is 1.539 acres or 80, 720 sq. - rro nr r G AND buildin Ts . opase or existing DESCRIBE THE EWIRONNIE7 IIQCLi7DiI:G INFOR•L�TI , AL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE ANIti :LS'. Avg O� ON TOPOCR'1PHY P�rS (TREES) CULTUREEL, HISTORICAL OR SCEI•IIC ASPECi$, OF SURRIUNDING PROPERTT_E$, AND THE DI:S r EXiSTI51G STRUCTURES USE AND THEIR CRIPTyON OF ANY The project site lies in Alta LomaRaLthe(northwesternESSAP,Y SliF.ETSj- ucamonga. t �s gun e a part of Rancho on the east, Hillside Road on the southaoardrexisitnr oonstone hv' on the 4est_ The land slope s from Werth t g residential hou.;in_g The site**- vacant and has buildin Fo south at an 9 area for four oroximate7 7. sists of annual grasses. The sit pads. Vegetation con= or scenic aspects. The animal life is resumed to consist o e has no a arent cultural historical Qp t and r tiles 9ndi enous to the local area. sma birds, The _urroundin land uses are residential to the west, south and north and a= ado grove to the east. Is tine Project, part of a 2a.��r project, one o� of cumulative actions, which although individually a series may as a whole have significant envirOrtnental y small, NO iripact? 1- � IM-�A�T:': If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the ne_ct page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements f•.trnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and informatior required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability. and that the fact. s, statements, and informatics presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional infori^ation may h^ required to be submitt ^d before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Develop m-tit Review Committee. t DateQN.. , J Signature/ I/ Title tom.- eSlr(en Z3 WILL THIS PP.O,TT'CT: YES NO -� X 1. Create a substantial change in g ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial charge in existing noise or vibration: 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, seurage, etc.)? -� X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan de.4,gnations? XZ>: Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IM-�A�T:': If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the ne_ct page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements f•.trnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and informatior required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability. and that the fact. s, statements, and informatics presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional infori^ation may h^ required to be submitt ^d before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Develop m-tit Review Committee. t DateQN.. , J Signature/ I/ Title tom.- eSlr(en Z3 r RBSrpr TrSTii C0.•:53TP.TTCTI0*1 The follcc•Tinq information should be Planning Divis_pn in order to aid inProvided to the Ci school district to ty of Rancho Cucamonga accommodate the assessing the ability of the proposed residential d- evelopment. Name Of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific location of Project: PHASE I PHAPHA =? PHASE 3 1• Number of single PHASE 4 TOTAL famil•r units: 2• Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin corstruction: 4. Earliest date of occupa::cy: Model and : of Tentative $• Bed_ rs Price ® T � RESOLUTION N0. * A RESOLUTIONi OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7832 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7832,) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MOONSTONE, BETWEEN VIA EL DORADO AND HILLSIDE ROAD WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7832, submitted by H & S Properties and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the west side of Moonstone, between Via El Dorado and Hillside Road, being a division of Parcel No. 4 of Parcel Nap 52693 Parcel Map Book 53, page 82, Records of San Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: ®I. 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 env iroamenta .mpacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Ma No. 7832 is a the recommended Conditions of Approval n approved subject to pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 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 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES. COMMISSIONERS: ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: r 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.9oNGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: West side of Moonstone T -- TEN.AiIVE MAP N0. 7832 between Via E1 Dorado and Hillside DATE FILED: February 7 1983 LEGAL DESCkIPTION: a division of parcel 4 NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 of Parcel Mz _ P { 4 3._r'ages 82 Records of SanGROSS ACREAGE: 18.4 Bernardino Co. - --- ASSESSOR PARCEL N0. 1061 - 251 -17 DEVELOPER OWNER H & S Properties same ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Linville Sanderson & Assoc 1009 West Brooks 9587 Arrow Rte. Ste .4 Ontario. CA 91763 Rancho Cucamonc- CA 91730 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucasonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: —�_ additional feet on additional feet on -�_ additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required C er City ty Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows:___ 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. �. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to building permit 2. A lien agreement must be executed pror to recording of the map for the following: X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to issuance of building permit. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and /or to building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements prior to building Permit issuance. Street Name Gutter Pvmt. WaIk Arpre STrees Lirhts Overla Is is E1 Dorado X X X X 911side X X X oonstone X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation or meter u 9 X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Engineer Registered Civil and approved by the encroachment permit. City Engineer prior to issuance of an 6. Developer shall coordinate, relocation and where .necessary, pay for the of any power poles or other existing as public utilities necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or undergrounded. less fronting the property shall be _ 8. install appropriate street striping and markings with name signs, locations traffic control signs, City Engineer. and types approved by the X °. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Cucamonga. Lights Company and the City of Rancho shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 12. Drainaqe anal Flood Control X 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and sF -tll be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff 11 Grading 1_ 2_ 3 Grading of the subject prope;•ty shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading Practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. A roils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. aeologistcand sub mitt daat thep time rof anpli ataion led engineer or check. or grading Plan 4- The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation Of the final subdivision map or issuance of buildin Whichever comes first. 9 permit X 5. Final grading pl.ns for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prier to issuance of 9 permit. General Requirements and Approvals 1- Permits from other agencies will be required as fellows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County F1oo Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other Z- A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) thermap. by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of P. x 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. X 4- Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A required. letter of acceptance is 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to an re other Y requirements that may be received from them. 11 is X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available time building at the permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits unless will not be issued said certification is received in writing. X 8• Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan, A det iled trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and accordance weed control, in with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation. 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created X 10. parcels. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing division, tie original land notes and bench marks referen-ed. X 11. A 15 -foot wide private easement shalt be reserved on the map along gwith rthe west map bo ndary X 12. Construction of community equestrian trail per City Standard shall be required along Hillside Road parkway at the time of building Permit issuance. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO86A LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: L1 11 KI C'TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 23, ":983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7834 - JENSEN - A division of 1 acre into 2 parcels withili the R-1 zone at the northwest corner of Via El Dorado and Sunstone Avenue - APN 1061 - 251 -16 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This project consists of one acre being divided into 2 parcels within the R -1 - 20,000 zone. Parcel 1 cortaim ng 21,867 square feet and Parcel 2 containing 20,865 square feet. To the north is vacant land and to the east and west are Existing single family residences. To the south is the site of Tentative Parcel Map 7332, which is also on tonight's agenda. All surrounding land use is re:idential, very low, 2 dwelling units per acre. II. ANALYSIS: This map is a subdivision of another parcel (Parcel No. 1) of Parcel Map 5269, the other parcel being the parcel 4 for which the Tentative Parcel Map 7832 is under consideration by the Commission at tonight's meeting. No development is proposed at this time. As per recommendation of the Equestrian Committee, a 15 -foot wide feeder trail easement along the west map boundary is required as a condition of approval for this map. Most street improvements have beer completed with the previous Parcel Map 5269. III. 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. ITEM D Planning Commission S�aff Report VIRONM EN ENTAL ASSESSMENT March 23, 1983 AND PARCEL MAP 7834 Page 2 IV- -CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have and placed in the Daily Report been rompleted. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the elements of the project- If can support the recommended City Engineer's Report, tFlen be appropriate. It is also issued. Respectfully submitted, LBH .5 . jaa Attachments: Map Resolution City Engineer's Report initial Stud, been sent to surrounding property owners Newspaper- Posting at the site has also Planning °ommissio: consider all input and after such consideration Of the Coranission cordPtions o, apPr +oval as written in the adop -on of the at' :ackea resolution would rE- ommended that a VeSative Declaration be E 11 0 i nCC �c c° U In I O J ! t O •I 1 1 f i 1 N Q> f to � C "�iei— �fi9_`�IiAs =--i �- �f.,41 ' l�3 °• i _ 0 O.� try I } -� -. o oz ¢ Cis Y ti Z 1 C ' - 1 \ i- o I �• O �-1 4 J vi b a� b� Cam? ?zi c<p J = O U h �I l.ef to Z ono cz ti C WQt� a bQ 20cw>C T 1 oa ' hV �Ytt QOO jl�y� C h a h Q 6 0 e I? J W Fq, I w c� n °Q btu Y v6V saw g cz tll I tl I t 1`�� 1 Itt f ( I 1 li;t I� I vt I I I 11;1 i I C� I i 1 ru t I I� I i l l t J1y t tt] t •f 11 � I J � v i I f � � �'o� •F. f � t(7 W d F- 'g -Zr fmra�v� r It ,I t II 1 I, Iil I! i S�a ai i SI L� 69 !L a c \' J w tll I tl I t 1`�� 1 Itt f ( I 1 li;t I� I vt I I I 11;1 i I C� I i 1 ru t I I� I i l l t J1y t tt] t •f 11 � I J � v i I f � � �'o� •F. f � t(7 W d F- 'g -Zr fmra�v� r It ,I t II 1 I, Iil I! i S�a ai i SI L� 69 !L a c \' J E E n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Env= ronmer.tal Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental 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 ens of three determinations: i) 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 supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the Proposed project. PROJECT TITLE:_ Tentative Par el M ?p No. 7834 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, . LEPHONE: (7i4) 984 -1721 Robert C. Jensen NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Linville- Sanderson & A�cn ATTN- r,..., c LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Northwest corner of Via Fl nnr.,4n -A LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: City of Ranchn r;- ramn...,-. r; I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 13 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Being a division of Parcel i of Parcel Map No. 5259 to create two new pa:-ce s. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA. AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS IF ANY: Total area is 6.981 acri SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL 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): The oroiect Cite i iz, ; , A,1_ The land slopes from north to South--,It — site is vacant and has buildin area for two rad yV r consists o° anneal rasees. The sit h n historical or scenic as ects. The animal life is rte' consist of small birds rodent an r it iccal area. The surrounding land uses ar r cirlcntial to tb dui west south east nd vacant north Is this proiect, 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 I -2 4 ® WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X I. 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? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of _ potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project invalves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the - next page. 11 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements fur*iished 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 DAvelopment Review Committee. Date_ % - f- 82 S i g n a t u r" Tit!e I -3 C t RESIDENTIAL �IONSTRUCTIOtd The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Clcamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessi -o the ability 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 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 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 g of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range I -4 TOTAL LI RESOLUTION N0. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMN •'I0N OF THE CITY OF RP.NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7834 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7334), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VIA EL DORADO AVENUE, WEST SIDE OF SUNSTONE AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 78345 submitted by Robert Jensen and consisting of 2 parcels, located or the north side of Via El Dorado Avenue, west side of Sunstone Avenue, being a division of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 5269, Parcel Map Book 33, Page 82, records of San Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, or. March 23, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- aescr•ibed map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: !hat 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 r!ot cause substantiai 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 March 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7834 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CI' "AMONGA BY: 0 000997 J I Resolution No. Paoe 2 ATTEST: Secretary or the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City o= Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Commission was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adc,ted by th Planning Conission of the City of Rancho Cucamonn?_ at a regular meeting of-the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 r L.J E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMiMENDFG CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATIGN: Northside of of Via E7 Dorado TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7834 west side of_Sunstone Avenue DATE FILED: February 11s 198_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: a division of Parcel 1 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 Parcel Map 5269, Parcel Map Book 53,P2 82 GROSS ACREAGE: .981 Records of San Bernardino Co ASSESSOR PARCEL NO, 1061-251-16 DEVELOPER OWNER R::bert Jensen ENGINEER /SURVEYOR same Linville -Sant :rson& Assoc. 226 West "E" Street 9587 Arrow Rte, Ste. H Ontario CA 91762 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Improvement and on Municipal Cott # Ci requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the to, the following: ty of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited Dedications and Vehicular Access 1- Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map, 2- Dedication shall be made of the fol ?owing rights-of-way on the following streets: additional feet on —�_ additional feet on additional feet on 3- Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular follows• ingress and egr ?ss shall be dedicated as 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, f r Suret 6. All existing quitclaimed requirements. easements lying within future right -of -way are to be or delineated on the map per City Engineer's 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public. improvements prior to recording for and /or building permit issuance for Prior to 2. A lien agreement riust be executed pro^ to recording of the map for the following: X 3. Surety snall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewaterirg all parcels to the •atisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to issuance of building permit. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to -ecordation of the map and /or to building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -font wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements prior to building permit issuance. Street flame Curb Gutter A.C. Pvmt. Side- Walk Drive Appr. Street Trees Street Lights A.C. Overlay I Median } Island* Other Surstone X X X Via El Dorad X X j *Incfuaes ianoscaping and irrigation or meter L-2 X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. o. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. E. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. Landscape and irrigation, plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standa -ds. Drainage and Flood Control X 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff �1 Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading Practices. The final grading conformance lan shall be in substantial e with the approved conceptual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared ;y a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plar shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of buildin,, permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each pdreel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval pricr to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino ounty Floo Control District X Cucamonga County Water District °fir s ewer and water San Bernardino County Gust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A ce ?y of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required rirtor to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Y" District standards. A letter ra of acceptance is quirec. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approva:- of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. E �—'' X 7- The filing of the tentative map or approval 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 Cuc? -'n "ga 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 8• Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plar: indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with: City trail standards, shall be submitted to a approved by the City Pldnner prior to recordation. nd 9. X 1D. ti I1. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessme ^t District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. At the time of final map submittal. the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. A 15 -foot wide private trail along west trap boundary shall be reserved on i %e map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. 4UBBS, CIT-d ENGINEER by: IE 1 J C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 23, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Y.rall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7853 - NESBIT - A division of 8.76 acres into 3 parce s within the R -1 zone located at the west side of Hellman, north side of Church -APN 208 - 021 -02 (Reference Tract No. 12238) I. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project consists of 8.76 acres of land being divided into 3 parcels located on the west side of Hellman Avenue approximately 272 feet north of Church Street. Parcel 3 contains an existing residence. ParcPis 1 and 2 presently contain an orange grove. Land to the south and to the west contains an orange grove; to the north are a few single family residences and to the east is Cucamonga Jr. High School. II. ANALYSIS: This map consists of a portion of the Tentative Tract Map 12238 which was approved by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1983. A copy of the tract map is attached for your review. To facilitate the purchase of land for the development of the tract, the subdivider has submitted this map to separate a portion of an existing large residential parcel. The applicant is required to improve Hellman Avenue in front of parcel 3 which is required to be completed along with the tract development. In response to the public hearing notice for the project, correspondence has been received from a resident ofthe area, a copy of which is attached for your review. The concern she has expressed in the letter pertains more to the tract development as no development is proposed with this map. The drainage for the Tract 12238 was thoroughly reviewed ITEM E Planning Commission Staff Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PARCEL MAP 7853 March 23, I983 Page 2 and the drainage concept was accepted at the time the map was approved. The expressed drainage concern was addressed and appropriate mitigation measures will be taken at the time the development occurs. III. 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. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the elements of the project. If, can support the recommended City Engineer's Report, the n be appropriate. It is also issued. Resp F tfully submitted, LBH: : jaa Planning Commission consider all input and after such consideration of the Commission conditions of approval as written in the adoption of the attached resolution would recommended that a Negative Declaration be Attachments: Map Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study 13 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7853 UTY OF RMOO CUCAMONCa4. COUNTY OF SAW Wflr DWO. STATE OF CALIIORNM JANUARY. 1983 OWI.F-R - SUBMWER: bffT y y'y.i. Ttvslt{, q iyt .1.�T[ N •tytT 1 IpTM Vlt.l:T WtlY�l�n4 •f)q <OY•T♦ ORt1 •all lo. �TOto. (.. •erw GELIERRL NOTK. ♦ t.l:A.s i n ra. 1 Nl tt.4YRN MII� f11.Y IMIY.i q Y Y - -. .vM1..wt 41' V t�a� Yw -�fVL ♦ Y.wYY Ur J.t VYyiVItL •tYYL6��. tw -1W L tdwt.wW M+wV(+.ANe tp�L t+-N .atTY W M ff .t{t{ L y VI.a.IYY ♦Ri q Y T wl �r A Y ya CS}f tYWtL. L .Ya � ♦/ Ct1:•Y ♦f0/l /�I �. yAyTTW •e �i • (Y a�V IVt M1CYf• 4�. A.Y1Yw♦.O \(M..M)ri -fM• C RLJOG<ur YwM [NGI1JEE/t . [ I L. TCO n�r tl-nC YK. Y. YI M,YfI:[�,4 •:IM. IMI M'.1r M 4LS "M {♦v ��LR, /9lY t.r, p(S:p(,4 •tr. -ll:♦I 111 -YY i M vtlr�(.[♦ +mot. (�(q SYi M.h• f.q.(i♦we:lw.4. rTf �� n noLte� awua fulw�a u,IVr w.Trtyl.,4.a:l�a+o.r.. ++ a � I O i LIF If J �1 1 �r 174-JI RT )AR lulr o«xucl- 7 on �RR.t 1 M •olK 2 •.x .,c Yl•l Kl K �L4 I►C�[L � Zw C.iWRCN 5T. u C z I� Y r i uY• O a z 11 Ll L—] TENTATIVE i RACT NO. 1223 _ COUNTY 9F SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA mvK*- ntwE!RTnTei f 5114••'••<, 761ii] ml twlc C L74B]f 3 . ;; _. 11pG.IYO• e,•i s� ',fli• F y • 1 ]gNf1Y ^►v .ma.0 %o'/ ,',: P��t b`*". ,.^ Y .,F1 r 41TIi�i STREET ]EiSm•j ��• /.q,.�': �� C? � ' . - a Y If �-a \ 11s� I I� � �! Tmc►L rierrz•�W—a¢7ui•.� i � � ��,.0 j °` i- °�� r •; -} �� j i' {� Iai•fERER STREET] � r .' ��� ` ��9' _. �• T�C •�. 1. ^- _._ OTfiLI ffiII ITY v �` �� Ta! <, `• �,+we �. -f�.� o. _ ��' ♦ ✓.�\�?: \a\• i� a �. C f �f `_ \� i' —rte .� s ,avl -�¢t _ __ _-� •:-:.c .� —ate _- I a /�.,. _a e � ee;n\.,•.,• ° _ l � `.C•� I.Sa]06t.pppl'�RE[T r,v.•+. = i� � ���. •� (� .J_. �.- ___: -,_ �,�-._ 1 :}YERE,. �..•:a 1 •a� 1_ u.t__ ucT .. ': -3' Il'"s� III17!• Y:� � ^_ 11 I � X111 � ;�A, l.• , ! r. �� -� i � ¢I. uee • / • c�ERU mm: Y till ( I.M. .,..... - .�Y.,..�M..r....a�.Y...Y.. :mss - _ -.�'i I • M �,,:I j • - la - �. � � w.•' �,���� � �I Y -ate \ R .,,,• 's. •:� ��....,�,.w.� _ III C� v � i ,,..,e � i t� • �� �'�: • M•1•a�, •aaT •aa•- �,n�.aaaw„v „+v� ti Y+.a -•�w I•,t I� i•�o\I \ �_���� •, �i.:"O lY�f, • - -_ {� /�• ran ; '1R`.�( `7F_ YYt •lY¢t1.1: a..a.vaw.�..aa�\ws,. _� —�\ - � is TISITLTNE TI.aLT 11230 - Yewae•a.aa.w.ws.aa\�as.�w •� �.�w� _ _.. __ � a I x�r at}• wosT i'eial :� March 6, 1983 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Dear Mr. Hubbs: MAR CITY OF RANC110 CUC NIONGA F`!G°••"'GFR!NG My!ciOti This letter documents my concern over the proposed development of land north of Church and west of Hellman Avenues. At the present time, this land is a beautiful orchard - covered hill with a natural flood control channel along it`s edge. If the proposed development is approved, the hill is to be leveled and the channel filled. Ir. the past 24 years as a resident on Hellman Avenue, I've seen the street flood on numerous occasions. The modern flood controls fill with mud and debris and the water rushes to this old, natural devastation. channel, saving the property owners along it's edge from possible Please consider this letter in any future decisions made regarding this development. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mrs. Linda Rely ue / L "J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the Project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) Aga additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. ® PROJECT TITLE: p/ ZOE L- MAP -1$ =53 APPLICANT`S NAFIE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: ZpeT. A. )�tSP�a'( _Tp 1+2en TAS CS ?A'f£ OF i2[3t3 Sx>rT44 y oS tiv1UfJFi2.5 c.arrtL E>AkaU<- .r_,rai °i33 (So`D 832 -4snz NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: 2OUAL.ID 4 A.Sg)k) OF PROJECT (STREET :ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 4In:4U A)M - Zi3"1 IS O CJIjmr - e p, ;p LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 f { ±TILL THIS '-- PROJECT- NO 2. x _ , � a 5. 6. �r Create a substantial Contours? Change in ground Create a substantial charge noise or vibration? i n e=cistirq Create c aipal serviceste In demand d for sewage, t ) POI ic. fire, water, Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? ? Pe -nove any existing trees? How ar �`7ZO GtT�LU Create m 5 Potentia l need for Y � -�'� =- Y hazardousSe O- disposal of toxic substances, mater' flammablesaor s1cn as £xPlanat.ion Of exPloszves? �?.z any u C answers above - G( APL e ✓c > 1'l� YJ Vo C A o S s R/-rT -FS IMPORTANT: If reside protect involves next page. units, complete thesforc too nthe CERTIFICATION: data -and di ndei� hertifY that eta above the to she best re that exhibits tents info of mY ability, re and that this initialresent the rmation Presented axe that knowledge and belief. true and the facts, stat. Lion informatio I fur correct to the best ef,my1d t�ha evaluationn a be required to b understand can be made by the De v;2c- ml- ted before danta equate Date 7j-- - 3 /! I Review Cortmi/t�tee. Signature X / .. --11. r Title I -3 u C� M RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCPJIONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7853 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7853), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN, NORTH SIDE OF CHURCH STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel trap Number 7853, submitted by Robert Nes')it, Trustee and consisting of 3 parcels, located cn the west side of Hellman and the north side of Church being a division of a portion of Lot 1 and 2, Cucamonga Vineyard Tract, Recorded in Map Book 20, Page 45 records of San, Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS 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 wiil not create significant adverse environmenta-T—impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7853 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C.UCAMONGA BY: Resolution No, Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary of the Piannin i Commission I, JACK LAMS Secretar Cucm nga, do hereb Y of yh that Conznission of the regularly introducedY certif the fore City Cit of Rassed, and ado ted b foregoing the °f Rancho Y Rancho Cucamonga, at a re Y the PI Resolution Was duly and on th` 23rd day of Mar h, 1983 gular meeting of the Planning g Commission of the by the following it: Commission held AYES: COMMISSIONERS: , 9 vote -to -Wit: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �J 0 E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 11 LOCATION: West side of Hellman Avenue, TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7853 north side of Church DATE FILED: February 23, 1983 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: being a portion of NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 Lots 1 & 2, Cucamonga Vineyard Tract, GROSS ACREAGE: 5.27 recorded in Map Book 20, Pg_ 45 records of ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 208 - 021 -02 San Bernardino County DEVELOP O's1NER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Robert Nesbit, Trusteee same R.M.A. 4708 Winners Circle P. 0. Box 157 Bakersfield, CA 93309 E1 Toro, CA 92630 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: 3 additional feet on Hellman Avenue 20 additional feet on Lion St. additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common r ^ads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall re recorded concurrent with the map. 11 X 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreem Attorney,u er and City guaranteeing satisfaction of the City Engine completion of the public improvements prior to recording for parcel 1 and prior to building permit issuance for parcels 2 and 3. 2. A lien agreement must be executed pror to recording of the map for the following: X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing drainage completion of all dewatering ll parcells t t the satiisfact on 1 of the necessary the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording of maps. E Street Improvements g Title 16, Section Pursuant to the City Of Rancho enter Cucamon a Municipal Code, security with may 16.36.120, the subdivider requiredconst uctiongpriorntoarecordation of the map the City guaranteeing and /or to building permit issuance. 4+.A to 1. 2. Construct full street improvements , including, sidewalk, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement parkway frees and street lights on all interior A, minimum of shallobewide j uctedtfortali half-section streets. streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to recordation contiguous to parcel 3. Prior to building permit issuance contiguous to parcels 1 and 2. but not lime e , drive approaches, streets. *Includes landscaping ana irriya6l- - X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits is required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuan-e of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, 12. Drainage and Flood Control X 1. Appropriate drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to t`:e satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff 11 X 6. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting the subdivded properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcels that may be subject to, or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. X 7. Hellman Avenue shall be designed as a major water carrying street requiring a combination of special curb heights, flood protection wall, and /or a landscaped earth ber-ans. Gradinq 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Star,,iards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The fipal grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Con:nittee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit s whichever comes f-;;-_:z°. X _ 5. Final grading plan; for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies CalTrans for San Bernardino County X Cucamonga County Wate Say Bernardino County issuance of a grading Other will be required as follows: Flood Control District r District for sewer and water Dust Abatement (required prior to permit) 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. Xs. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. C X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San. Bernardino County Flood Control District. X F. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested egencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will he 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 net be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner f building 5t 'issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X _ 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original lard division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 11. Hellman Avenue shall be designed as a water carrying street per City Standard. The construction shall be coordinated with that of the Tract 12238. The City reserves the right to collect in -lieu fee for this improvement if construction of the tract is delayed indefinitely. CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: KI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE; March 23, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7912 HAHN TENANT INT Rl!�R41 INC - A alvision of 1. acres into pa rcels for condominium purposes within Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53,54 & 55. (Ref: D.R. 83 -02, Variance 83 -02) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION• The applicant is requesting a division of 1.57 acres into 3 parcels for condominium purposes within Subarea 1 of the Tndustrial Specific Plan. D.R. 83 -02 and Variance 83 -02 for the development of these parcels are on tonight's agenda. The project site area is presently vacant. To the north is the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks; to the east and wesL- are existing businesses and to the south, across 8th Street, is an existing single family residential tract development. II. ANALYSIS: The land proposed to be subdivided is a narrow, long piece of property. The divider has requested a variance on the property to facilitate development. This item is on tonight's agenda. Drainage from some areas north of the railroad traverses through t e project area because of the location of a railroad trestle ao- northerly boundary. The development is required to provide approp: drainage structures to carry the runoff to an existing storm drain Eighth Street. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part 1 of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmentdl 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 environr,:ent as a result of the proposed subdivision. ITEM F Planning Commission Staff Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7912 March 23, 1983 Page 2 IV. CORRESPONDENCE: and Placed Public Hearing Placed inthe Daily Report to Newspaper .Postingnat nth Propert owners ha been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is reconmended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration of the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully submitted, LSiiIgl;:Jaa Attachments: Map Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study 1 S _ 1 1 w ? 1 M 0 l N ti _ Q 2 2 'I I; �1 e � E I� I` I• 11 1fi •gy`��pp _ eft j:r1l'•_i,\' ` ��•�%° ' . < litt FF '� i 1 a \ �a jtjU - a e hill It J y << . u °V- ti I s �• c. :on - - o .f ' a. .11.trly ' o� OR - Qas .a- E? ae� -UJZ m <V MQQ p0� t ;NQ A •� J <�y - -� -L Vy PVd Lu Vj r 2 y— aav„ �Q r ° o ryOV z< o -ea o0 s.. ZOJ O_y QaCj Q Y Cty J� t t 7a <O� YAM- V "Z t �Z° — 1 - 1 S _ 1 1 w ? 1 M 0 l N ti _ Q 2 2 'I I; �1 e � E I� I` I• 11 1fi •gy`��pp _ eft j:r1l'•_i,\' ` ��•�%° ' . < litt FF '� i 1 a \ �a jtjU - a e hill It J y n ti b . ti I �• c. .f ' .Y7nn.21� .11.trly ' n ti b .rJ °6 � ASK WL N/L 0 On 81DKM /1, oOR wV ttOA J6 z !A, 1 A. ^SESSCD /G.2S Y WL {� V © Par -1 TY OF RANCHO CUCA'%'1OiNGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP ---- sra --:' K .,G 19+ AC WL JAC M/L e z Ac a yL. Par -3 F-7 2 h n N tit Page 2-M AC IU9C�naer — On 81DKM /1, oOR wV ttOA J6 z !A, 1 A. ^SESSCD /G.2S Y WL {� V © Par -1 TY OF RANCHO CUCA'%'1OiNGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP ---- sra --:' K .,G 19+ AC WL JAC M/L e z Ac a yL. Par -3 F-7 2 h n N tit Page \J L J 82 -75 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Bnviro;unental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental 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 Corrnittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental inpact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project- VA 83 -02 PROJECT TITLE: Eighth Street Industrial Ref: DR 83 -02 APPLICAL-T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE.: Barmakian, Wolfe, Lang S Christopher 9375 Archibald Ave_, Rancho Cucamonaa, CA 91730 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: La- r y woife. BwL s C. 714/987 -0909 IACA'ZION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS ANM ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 8th Street W/O vineyard A.P. #•s 207- 271 -53, 207 - 271 -54 and 207 - 271 -55 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM lid-CAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: CCWD- Const. Permit Santa Fe R /R- Censt_ Fermit - Z t c PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: small industrial The aroiect consi divided condominium buildings into four condominium g each bu areas wz1� __ units £or liahr_ ; .ng further use. ca,•,, u ACREAGE OF PROJECT PP,OPCSED BUILD N F ;S, A AND SQUARR =DOTAGE OF EXISTING AND 67.350 s `LN-" Total project area is a are feet; ro osed buildin pprOX�tely each for a total of 25,000 s°. ft. area is a roximately 4200 s - ft. DESCRIBE THE EN- VIR0N—%f,NTAL SETTING r INCLUDING INFIORNL�TIO�i O« BE PROJECT SITE ANIMALS, ON TOPOGRapHX, ?_T�kNTS (TREES) OF MALS, i CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE EXISTING STRUCTURES ALR IES• AND THE DESCRIPTION OF AN. STRUCTURES A1�TD T$EIP U he roiect -site is a sandy -1 USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) 3th Street, oan o n s ace sitting on the north side of The site is bounded on the north by the Santa Fe R /W, on the lest by a welding sho P. on the east be Rcnr «., m -�uun side o 8 Street is a sins ano on the area. The project site has no e- ami known historica Va ue_ The on Yreic or fauna onsite is some scrub brush and li gopher. The property 81111 l ght weeds and an occasions rate of Y slopes tc the southeast at abcut a 1 grade. There are no structures on drainage inlet, which will be replaced when the roperty except for a improvements are made. Is the Project, part of a largez Project, one of a Of cumulative actions, which although May as a whole have series No significant environmental ndividually small, o ympact, I 2 0 E WILL THIS PROJECT: YES ND 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 ru n. cipal 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? x 6, Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flamnables or explosives? explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, comalete the form on the next page. CERTIFI^_ATION: 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 'aformation 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 evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date --A --;i 3 -:S'3 Signature Title Project Engineer M-13 RESOLUTION NO.. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT`.' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7912 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 140. 7912), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7912, submitted by Hahn Tenant 111teriors, Inc. and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue, being a division of a portion of Lot 32, Section 9, T. 1 S. R. 7 W., S.B.M. per map of Cucamonga Fruit Lands recorded in Book 4, pane 9 of maps; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS 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 wi it not create significant adverse environment�mpacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7912 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA KI Kesolution No. Page 2 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 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1983, by the following tote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS• NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS• 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: North side Of 8th Street watt rc „".__ of Vine and ” "1M11VE MAP N0, 7912 —_ Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTIOiN: a DATE FILED: February 23• 1983 d vision of a ort NUMBER OF LOTS: Of Lot 322 Section 9 T, 3 I S•,R 7 W Fruit Lands recorded in GROSS ACREAGE: 1.57 Book 4 e 9 of .,,,. Rx * * * ** Pa n, --- -__�� nSStjSOR PARCEL NO. 207 - 27i -53 54 55 DEVELOPER Hahn Tenant * -- OWNER - ._ iors Inc ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Barmakian Wolfe, 174��,uth Gridg7ev Rd �� Associated En ineers —�� 9375 Archibald Ave - Artesia CA 90701 316 East "E" St, Rancho Cucarr on a CA antario Improvement and dedication CA Municipal Code of the requirements in to, the fallowing: City of Rancho accordance with Title 16 Cucamonga include, but ma of the Dedications and Y not limited ® Vehicular Access 7• Dedications shall be made of all interior all necessary easements as shown on the tentative rights-of Dedication way and following shall be made of the following g streets: g rights -of -wa y on the —�� additional feet on —�� additional feet on —�� additional feet e^ — 3- Corner Property y line radius will be required per Cit y Standards. 4• All rights ar ingress and follows: of vehicular egress shall be dedicated as x_ 5• Reciprocal access —� access to all easements and maintenance are drives t parcels and joint maintenance 9 ements ensuring recorded concurren areas shall be °f a77 common roads, with -ttre map. by C.C,&R•s and shall be E I Surety 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recordation of the map. 2. A lien agreement must be executed pror to recording of the map for the following: X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainace facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to issuance of building permit. Street Improvements Pursuant' to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and /or to building permit issuance. I. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missi of the map. ng improvements prior, to recordation Street Name 8th Street Curb & Gutter X A.G Pvmt.1 X Side- Walk X Drive jAppr.j X treet I Street A. Treesj Li hts Overlay X X Me ian Island* Othe I - iuiciuues isnescaping and irrigation or meter i, 0 i, X 4• Prior to any work be in shall o paid and an en erfo h ed 4in the public right -of -way, fees the City Engineer's Office, in addition shall anbe obtained from required, other permits X 5- Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall ccordinate, and where necessary, pay for the as lnecessary of any power poles or other existing public utilities X 7• Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X g- Street light locations, as required, are to be approved Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative service. poles with underground X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 12. Drainage and flood Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. X 3. Construct drainage structure to drain -unoff from the north to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to recordation of the map. X 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff I] Grading X 1• Grading of the subject J property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final gradinc, l conformance with the a piar. shall be in substantial Fprcved conceptual grading plan, 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at th check. e time of application or grading plan X 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Comm;ttee and shall be completed prior to recordation Of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. X 6. Provide protection for buildings from adjacent water flows to the extent o' 100 year storms. No storm water shall be diverted to adjacent properties. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. X 2, X 3. X 4. 5. _ X 6. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino ounty F oTo ontro istr ct X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) X Other - Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the crap. Provide all water, electricy owes services to each lot including sewerage, P gas and telephone. Sanitary sewer and water systems ;mall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Approvals have not been secured from ali utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will b3 subject to any requirements that may be received from tham. C U lu X J, 8. 9. X 12. X 13. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building requested, the Cura�nga County Water District will be asked to Certify g Permits are y the availability . Per will not be issued Of capacity unless said certification is recei�;ed in writing, Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Flan. P, detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, jr, ..ccordance with City trail standards, shali be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for For and /or prior to building pFrm�t— s �e Friar to recording. a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Asses: =_nt District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. At the time of final map submittal submitted: Traverse calculas > the following shall be maps and deeds used as referCOns (sheets), copies of recorded division, tie notes and bench is --e and /or showing original land ks referenced. The storm drain system as required shall be capable of hand7ine 100 —year frequency storm through storm drains and /or through a combination of drains and <urface flows with adequate inlet and outlet structures to control debris, The system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City En ines shown on the map shall be revised ;`o conform toTthis standardin as Construction of a paved drainage swale along the railroad easement at north of property shall be required. The applicant shall be required to acquire all appropriate approval, license permits, etc. from the Atchision., Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company for any work within their ease to recordation of the map. meat prior CITY OF RANCl;O CUCAF MGA LLOYD B. HUB85, CITY ENGINEER by: 0 .J CITY OF RANCHO CJCAi110NGA STAFF REPORT JATE: March 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 83 -02 - BWLC - A request to reduce the required front yard setback and streetscape in conjunction with the development of six (5) industrial buildings on 1.57 acres of land in the Gereril Industrial category (Subarea 1), located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207- 271 -53, 54 & 55. Related Files: DR 83 -02 and Parcel Map 7912 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action ?eouested: Approval of a Variance application to reduce the required building cetback and streetscape. B. Purpose: Construction of six (o") industrial buildings totaling 25,032 square feet. C. Location:_ North side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue. D. Parcel Size: 1.57 acres E. -cx= nq Zonino: Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial category (Subarea 11 F. Existinq Land 'Use: Vacant G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Santa Fe Railroad, vacant property, and industrial; General Industrial category (Subarea 11 South - Single Far.ily Residential; R -i Commercial; C -1 East - Industrial, and a bar; General industrial category (Subarea 1) West - Melding shop; General Industrial category (Subarea 1) ITEM G 1977 Variance 83- 02J34C Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 2 H. General Plan Designations: North - General Ind u s tri al South - Single Family Resioentiai, Commercial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial I. Site Characteristics* The property slopes to the southeast at approximately 2 percent. No structures, trees, or significant vegetation exist on the site. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: This application has been filed concurrently with Parcel Map 7912 and Development Review 83 -02. Approval of this Variance is necessary for approval of the site plan, and parcel map as submitted. The Master Plan of Streets designates 3th Street as an 88 -foot wide collector. The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires a 35 -foot average landscaping depth and building setback (streetscape) on collector roads, as measured from the curb. The site plan submitted proposes a minimum 27 -foot building setback and an average landscaping depth of 25 feet. Approval Of this Variance would basically reduce the streetscape requirement from that of a coilector road to a local industrial streetscape requirement of 25 feet, Exhibit The subject property is 94 feet deep on the west side and 100 feet deep along the east property line, measured from the curb. Considering the depth of the property, development is significantly restricted by the 35 -foot streetscape requirement. Rather than providing the full 35 feet of landscaping, the applicant is attempting to maximize the effectiveness of the reduced streetscape with a low level retaining wall and berming as proposed on Exhibit "E°, The retaining wail and berming are intended to screen the parking area and reduce the perceived height and bulk of the structure. In comparison, the proposed 25 -foot streetscape will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. III. FACTS -- FOR FINDING. State law, as well as the City Zoning Ordinance, gives the Planning Commission the authority to approve a variance for certain development standards only when special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, or topography would create undue hardships. Also, variances may only be granted when the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance. Variance 83- 02 /BWLC Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1483 Page 3 L. 'I In this case, the combination of the collector read designation and shallowness of the property is a unique characteristic uncommon to industrial properties in Rancho Cucamonga. The design, solution effectively utilizes the amount of landscaping proposed to mitigate any adverse visual effects. Consequently, the plan is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and strict interpretation of the Code would result in practical difficulty. In addition, the granting of this Variance wouid not be construed as a granting of special privilege and -is not detrimental to the public health. safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Dail Re ort newspaper and ail property owners within 300 feet ot the subject site have been notified. In addition, public hearing notices have been posted on the subject property. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this Variance. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Planning Commission can support the facts for finding, adoption of the attached Resolution would be acPrcpriate. Respettf llyabmitted, r Rick orne City !Planner RG:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - I.S.P. & General Plan Exhibit "B" - I.S.P. Subarea 1 Map Exhibit "C" - Streetscape Requirements Exhibit "D" - Site Plans Exhibit "E" - Landscape Details Resolution of Approval KI GENERAL PLAN L s ' ■ RESMENTIAL i__1 VERY LOWc2UUi AC LOW 2 -4 DU's AC LAV'!- C. ".EDIL'It S bDU S"Ac MEDIUM a -u DU'VAC �— MEDIUM -HIGH 14- 24DU'W= !� H:GH 24-30D'J'.AC O MASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL %OFFICE Oat COMMERCIAL �- COMMUNITY CONIrrERC1AL NEIGHBORHOOD COMM- REGIONAL. COMMERCIAL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK C"' GENERAL INDUSTRIAL © G:NERAL INDUSTRIAL! RAIL SERVED r '9 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL E OPEN SPACE '-'-1 HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL C OPEN SPACE C7 FLOOD CONTROL/ UTILITY CORt '� SPECIAL BO(KILEVARD CITY xx RA\CI OO CL;C ANIONGA PLANNING DIVISONT fez> ✓ V NORTH ITEM: TITLE= �cFJli_ ✓�dwle� /A/ Ic1gi ai .J r LJ E E FIG. IV -1 Y a �m ROW• & 0000000 0 o C) ' o ' ti o i p subarea 2 v I CIRCULATION TRAILS /ROUTES x 120' R.O.W. 0000 7 ® 100' R.O.W. 09400 Bicycle ® ar or less R.O.W. `7r t "'-,""' Regional t Multi -Use -r Pm RAM SEMCE - -i�—i 1 Ezis2et4 P_S Bridge - -� Special Streetuape/ - t5 - +i-+- Proposed 4 Acc =i^9 Access Poctts - l vj7 0 AT 3 SP R.H. 0 o C) ' o ' ti o i p subarea 2 v I CIRCULATION TRAILS /ROUTES 120' R.O.W. 0000 Pedestrian we•"� Creeks E Chamrels ® 100' R.O.W. 09400 Bicycle ® ar or less R.O.W. `7r t "'-,""' Regional t Multi -Use -r Pm RAM SEMCE - -i�—i 1 Ezis2et4 P_S Bridge - -� Special Streetuape/ - t5 - +i-+- Proposed 4 Acc =i^9 Access Poctts - l vj7 0 40W 900' 1600' 'The ..ties shown may not be current!! owned nor as the location sne specm- The eepcaon of a size is an Ncte: Parcel tines and lot configurations indication of a projected Wave need that may be are shown as approzrmatton only adjusted over tram as the City devekV& V NORTH CITY OF TTENI- %-4h VZ-7, PLACNCH0 CLEANIONGA Tnu: lmoLs mIm_ !Spa:4ft._ r`Zf+a.! PLANNING DINUON EXHIBIT- W, SCALE= M-rs. SECONDARY (74 & 88 ft. ROAN) my + Za 30 n rw 3.mra �mv .y J - K4 fb..bc.y r rwara l.ep.c� I See SVY...L -ea 15, SPeCj31 ConS!.deration LOCAL INDUSTRIAL (54 M ROW) � xrt. Mk E.ro.ct ner ry E 11 0 CITY OF ITE:Ni: tiA a3-oZ RXNCH0 CUCANIONGA. TITLE: --cs: . 4 SIM �AA5 FAEn, 40- PLANN NG DIVISUNI EXHIBM 'C SCALE: 14--r-5- 0 -- a •.ASH a `\ �•�, �� Ii ofl lGE } . 'MP} -' j•meL�rar- ••4 Sy Je _ mesa: t•G'a 7YYY �1TY iL awsi. _.. ._..._. e•n r. <• sP se�.nY•r a ✓ 1.� ` K 4V ate•. wu an• n um C V NORTH CITY OF ITEM.[: ya 83 --CZ- 40 RANCHO CLCAAMO\GA -TITLE: PLANNING DIt'dSI0N EXIiIRIT: SCALE- CITY OF MEN 1: VA46-3 �z- RANCHO CT:CATTO \GA PLkNNING DR'ISIO,\' TITI E: S` a!E - - -- E.tHIBIT: QE-" SCALE: N-rs. 0 to RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO C'UCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 83 -02 TO REOUCE THE BUILDING SETBACKS AND STREETSCAPE FOR SIX (6) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY (SUBAREA 1) WHEREAS, on the 31st day of January, 1983, an application was filed and accepted on the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of March, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION is The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enfcrcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. 4. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent vith the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. 5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11 Resolution No. Page 2 E ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Comm..ission 1, 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 23rd day of March, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E Ll LI 11 CITY OF R -ANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 232 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJEC : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -02 - BWLC - The development of of six 5 industrial buildings totaling 25,032 square fee *_ on 1.57 acres of land in the General Industrial category ( Subarea 1) located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207 - 271 -53, 54, and 55. Related Files: VA 83 -02 & Parcel Map 7912 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan and architectural design and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: To allow the construction of six (6) industrial buildings totaling 25,032 sauare feet. C. Location: North side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue. D. Parcel Size: 1.57 acres E Existing Zoning: Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial category (Subarea 1). F. Existinq Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Santa Fe Rai road, vacant property, and industrial; General Industrial category (Subarea 1) South - Single Family Residential; R -1 Commercial; C -1 East - Industrial, and bar; General Industrial category (Subarea 1) West - Welding shop; General Industrial category (Subarea 1) ITEM H Development Review 83- 02 /BWLC Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 2 H. General North - South - East - West - Plan Designations: General Industrial Single Family Residential Commercial General Industrial General Industrial Site Characteristics: The property slopes to the southeast at approximately 2 percent. No structures, trees, cr significant vegetation exist on the site. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: Development of this project as proposed requires approval of Variance 83 -02, which is also on this agenda for your consideration. The average depth of the property is 97 feet, measured from the curb, while the required streetscape is 35 feet. The site plan proposes a minimum building setback of 27 fapt from the curb and an average landscaping depth of 25 f�-.et. lu increase the effectiveness of the landscaping and screen the parking lot, a four foot high retaining wall will be provided along the south side of the parking area. Turf movr:ding wi it be provided up against the retaining wall and rnr':inue al-)ng the front of the buildings. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee worked with the applicant to resolve concerns relative to the parking lot configuration and exterior building texture. The site plan was revised to show a new location of the *_rash enclosure and a maximum amount of landscaping in the parking lot. Also, the applicant agreed to provide a heavy sandblasting treatment to the exterior of the building visible from public view. C. DeV 2 ment Rev iew Committee: The Development Review o:nnittep reviewe the pro3ect and determined that with approval of the corresponding Variance and recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. D. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project and determined that storm drainage facilities are necessary to replace ar, existing 40 -foot wide drainage easement across the property. Currently, water enters the property from the north via a drainage course which flows under the railroad tracks. Development of the site will divert the runoff to the east along the south side of the railroad tracks. The Committee approved the conceptual grading plan with requirements that E L'J 11 Development Review 83- 02IBWLC Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 3 storm drain facilities be provided to protect the new development and adjacent properties from diverted runoff. The necessary improvements will be provided along the north and east project boundary and will be designed to handle a 100 -year flood and tie into an existing drainage pipe in 8th Street. Pecnmmended conditions of approval are provided for your consideration. E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Development of the project will increase the amount of water runoff from the site and divert an existing drainage course. However, these impacts are not viewed as significant because the required drainage improvements must have a 100 -year storm capacity and will actually decrease the amount of water on the street. ® III. FACTS FOR FINDING: This project is ccnsistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use, building design, and site plan, together with the recommended conditions and approval of Variance 83 -02, are in compliance with applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and City standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for environmental review in The Daily Report newspaper. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If after such .consideration the Commission can support the facts for findings, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. >_s ectfully submitted, ick Gomez ity Planner G:CJ:jr .r Development Review 83- 02 /BWLC Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 193% Page 4 Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Initial Resolut "A" - ISP -nd General Plan "B" - ISP Subarea 1 Map "C" - Natural Features Map "D" - Site Plans Building Elevations "F" - Grading Plan Study, Part I ion of Approval with Conditions 11 L• J 0 11 El LitNt: ALs FLAN j I d� 1.Ss! • it 6=^ ST_ I RESIDENTIAL r - ` VERY LOW <2 DU's AC LOW 2 -4 OU'.. AC LOW- MEDIUM 4- e0v',,Ac MEDIUM a -M DU"AC =J MEDIUM -HIGH 14-24 DUSIAC r= HiG4 24-30 WS AC MASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL /OFFICE ® COMMERCIAL C: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 4-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERAL INDUSTRIAL _r S GENERAL INDUSTRIAL/ RAIL SERVED HEAVY 1NDUSTRI:.L OPEN SPACE = HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL = OPEN SPACE FLOOD CONTROL/ UT1v CORt SPECIAL BOULEVARD V �I NURTH CITE' OF rrE,%I: �3 +�► RANCHO Ci,'CANIOtGA TrrLE: PLANNENG 1DIV00 -N EyHIBIT: °gr SCALD 9TS_ FIG. IV-t 1 y ' toss o O e lox I e '� O Gs a s' O I r O O O O O •dbarea 2 O AT A SF R a city boundary �� r•7�r C7iCULATION TRAILS/ROUTES 120' RO -W. 0000 Pedestrian ® 700' AO.W. 0600 Bicycle ® a8' Or Jess P_O.W. ��+� Regional RAIL SERV CE Multiuse +�'— `� ITT Ezistmg Bridge ~wo•" Creeks & Channels pg7 r �•"�"^^ Special streets,apei Proposed e Landscapi :g ACLe55 Point• O COO' HGO' 7500' 'The sees s6,0_n may not be grrentty owned nor is the Note: parcel lines a.'d lot Con} bcahon We spec!=The depiction of a site is an are shown as a,, figurations indlabo" of a LZat may Pro><m+a:ron only. adjusted o- Proleetetl htIIre need y De K :ene as L'7e City develops. CITY OF RAINCHO CL'CA.NL IO \GA P"INN \G DIVLS aN NORTH ITEM- �� 63 -o-L- TTIU: !MO SiPial EXHIBIT = E_ SCALE- T_ S E a E / am. z= i � � ali9N0 fNC► � � V � Jai Y ' C6w7w� i STAEET i ® �lAYELT K7OLIRYL (((i _ I c -J'i L > a I , �� eueu�oro. e.mc \FLOW CONTINOi cwran L _ 1"E C-:5\ Noir i i 7 CITY OF ITEM- X83- R. IN 0 CC:CAIN GA PLANNING DIVISION EYHIBM " G" SCALE.: r1.rs _ E M r•mi '• iC Y�:9.Y I � d «fir i - --- Par. i •.�.c.e� �,e. �_ �: a ue i .. - _ _ Qiuz _,�_ rream.��erma.r¢c 1C£TNNIUJro i.L�tL_ CITY OF ITEM= -M&3-cam RANCHO CUCAi� ONL GA PL UNNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- "b" -SCALE--H-X-, I ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCATMON, G.k PLAINTIVI\C, DIVMNI IJS aA ... aoA c f- •L LJ •L iOA MOM MWLLSi nekn -Win" •^- ��� wr.v BLDGA tIL ..1, 1� 1 T11CY 6�a -ah(i X" C ^�, aadl Via. CITY (3F RANCHO CUCNINION'GA PLAMI G MrS.YaN M VMytwa M..1�� irf0MiM" LJ IaA r y 4 � •). Iai T rte' EKa}!T}i 57AEET .._. -- -- • ..... - ...: e::.�•. >' �I •ti O � - -w.w M�.MIr•- TITLE= EXHIBM "F" SCALE:J T s . E .f L�s•I.c �i- NV nI.LI MM1/Ra J�41 ��yy�M(I,Mv r- I3�4.3 IK..ti 6/ aoav M.•. rr. a... +nrr�rr.r Iw...I rn..I arw ti_ fYI. MI4MM M•w x•/1�/rulw/F ry MOM MWLLSi nekn -Win" •^- ��� wr.v BLDGA tIL ..1, 1� 1 T11CY 6�a -ah(i X" C ^�, aadl Via. CITY (3F RANCHO CUCNINION'GA PLAMI G MrS.YaN M VMytwa M..1�� irf0MiM" LJ IaA r y 4 � •). Iai T rte' EKa}!T}i 57AEET .._. -- -- • ..... - ...: e::.�•. >' �I •ti O � - -w.w M�.MIr•- TITLE= EXHIBM "F" SCALE:J T s . E CITY OF P^rIQC::O CT. CP TONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental 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 w=_11 meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which tiine the project is to be heard. The Committee will :naive one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The proj,.:ct will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. 0 PROJECT TITLE: Sth Stinet I1 E APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Barmkian- Wolff- Lane- ChriS=her 9375 Archibald Avenue Suite 101 Rancho Cucamorea CA °1 730 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Sasn' LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Address unassimed Parcel Nos 207- 271-53 ' 207 - 271 -54 •971 -55 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 ) i i a PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: New ccmr-mte tilt —nn constrnntion_ Tnrinctrial buildings complex. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:1.57Acres. Existing buildings- None New Buildings: 25,032 S.F. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (T -F=S), ANIMALS, ANY CULTUPAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC. ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURE: AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) Existing Flora: Weeds No existing structures or cultural soenic or historical aGm�tc 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? *lone 1-2 C IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the ti next page. 11 N/A 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 fur u stand that additional information may be requires} toiltted before an adequate evaluation can be made by /the Develop*ntj�evaejo Committee. DateJan• 21, 1983 Signat Title 1-3 Designer WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 0 1. Create a substantial change in ground -- J'- contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for x_ municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or �..neral plan designations? X 5, Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of hazardous materials such as potentially toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: N/A IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the ti next page. 11 N/A 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 fur u stand that additional information may be requires} toiltted before an adequate evaluation can be made by /the Develop*ntj�evaejo Committee. DateJan• 21, 1983 Signat Title 1-3 Designer RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RAP' i*0 CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT R:VIEW NO. 83 -02 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY (SUBAREA 1) WHEREAS, on the 21st day of January, 1983, a complete application was filed by BWLC Architects for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of March, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with approval of Variance 83 -02 and the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements is the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use together with approval of Variance 83 -02 is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That this project will nit create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on March 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 83 -02 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. The exterior elevations facing 8th Street and the parking lots shall be finished with a heavy sandblasted treatment. Details shall be provided on the construction drawings required prior to issuance of building permits. U rage ENGINEERING DIVISION 2. All pertinent conditions for Parcel Map 7912 shall apply. 3. The drainage area under the Railroad bridge shall be graded and paved to the satisfaction of the Railroad and the City Engineer. 4. Drainage facilities shall be provided along the north and east project boundaries and shall be capable of handling 100--year frequency storm through a combination of drains and surface flows with adequate inlet and outlet structures to control debris. The system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Drainage facilities shall be provided to protect adjacent properties frc,,, diverted water flows to the extent of 100 -year storms. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 233RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: ecretary of the Planning Cornnission — I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was Ouly 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 23rd day of March, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 � c+— vrn•✓ ^dW dvv — ac °[' ✓TP c— A v¢ -�v. -v — cccW qLO nuc ad JO o ✓c — °c y ^q N ET L L. V 9� O. G y G Tu V 0- r ✓ d .� J N y O LN y� O `r 'CU NOVC d vq 9 f.urlF •T•L A C ✓ N�` � L_ _ 9 C O 9 - C N> � T �` "L. F q y C d L q ✓ ✓'tUiq`L y0V � ✓ L' A`N' ry O d' L ✓✓ Lq J° O A E q d C V Pv. N d ✓ i y L V =° � 2_ •O N O V Y U C V N O N_ V q b 4 L q W L d✓ V a V t P L^ .L... C 9 O .O+ O .0. O_! _ ' �OI T� YSd 9N- O� Y9 ^CN 6.yC0� O_NN CY dam' O _ C✓ ✓ p? L^ ^ p O �` q L L v H S ^ L a Q C q- C A V' uN ✓ C v- a" ✓ � ny LoLL L O L_�N o,✓ C Nq d =c' N N �c�c'-rnc Y W ^ '�°„� r �. p q— p N N C o q A� q= d •U d C 6 q�' �e� oo`^ aY. .c-L •L•> L by do o° a of �aLrn c °N '. ✓� L � � o Nom✓ � E qR, c'^ ^S �° �L.. �. O y L_ J N d L y L L O� N✓ 6 w° N O v 9] L �. J N i C Z; M 10 ✓L =✓ rno vc. ✓Yr o °' va '¢ °v � e w ao �bc' � aoiq�_ v... r�uo o"v �✓ ✓✓ L . DL •- OLL_ LLVy O —L GCV ccC N �_� O .� N CN AL O pE CZ­ 9`0 —_T^ V8� .� KOq qt] APAT LVC ^'^ — T�Caq HL 4V J ✓9ado�O. nVL 6AnL° QN6G 0 GL F�f1N �N° NG NT.q V d d O E C i N� F C q L A✓ q> _ q O rn` N q O O L � tV W q °M L N a Y O 1L Y C O 9 L ✓ � ✓ C _ L C a � Nv °TC OOH V q 9GA Lq T - qCW = c+ 9 o O C q T V C O N C C d ✓> A y ion o✓ o q E ` c = C ✓ v ✓ a o6�5 u.°_�rL C 4v n °a9 _ 9 V Q' o d`c LL_ 9 N C O Y O � .� A = C✓ P q 0 � w� C C j L° G� Q:5 d j• V ° qj= O�� jLL _ .� ✓C LAN Uw.= MMM N q •o NYLL ^° qN PNYN Ybgb O r ✓ N 1/' n L"c �LN �9�� =Ny dNC E�.=. rn ✓c�M �.6E V pCNq `v WY ^ J" a + V C C J L O C° A C 9 d CI d✓ � 6 2 O u� 0 �Jt C ` M •• ✓t N Ll d O q V L� r 6 O. �I r O S V✓ ¢ N= e a 6 O m r � Q O E \j•'� \ (4L J ` 1•� `% 6 m A u » ✓ P9 N.—.[ O ` a�cc P =n Oa AtC NniN,a„ ` O ^ti l NA d � v.oA ✓ L C r� l a2anoo ". -.mot °° on �� m � =q•LO —n c>^ A 'O dVLVgr`�N y t C L_ q °N SGT OW r r n «q 7"n n" C O O LV riQq �OSCOyCA>r Cc n ay �� ✓A('C �rpr' U.L. '. ^O� W E G✓ L« G^ y q — V d C E V A = ,00 �> N �N�✓gNVOPL) O�ti MO ra .J ✓ J V ACC J V A L .� a L C A •� T v G _T_ q ArC NC � __ C AOEra Ocdbrn C'w�i�7 Fr —YdS ✓LU L NJFC n06N To T L^ CC' BEN ^qN qC NA =E Q Jy AW OdOA 0 d.-.�_ n .^22 AO."3ArO '>O? C b C =d CAp.✓ WN_6ya «Ci06 c bn0 .27; C -�Y, �9 -� L.�nC OL � r� I b u r ° T V A r A✓ C 'O A qq' rLrC r C 2— =yrTL A 0 9` '�_ ^j «� O —E' F ry NLL o•AjO d rnd V u u �r O L C �' j F. C V W L pl ✓ a L O O L S C nr L C Goa � N'_° AC G6 n CN � ANA A�.L..N ^•C7 ^a CCL .Cr° N 4 °q q qLb� W >n✓ GPOL =a N�q N_f� ^AV ✓L OVO C A9 OIL VGA LOL drrary G� CVO L�Ja ^2 °C j� 7Q GLr' N N� .22 NI �V(O S �aq= —V O Onr�L ✓N BOO ^N n AW _ >Ly Crr rLn rLirCL Or O S AO�r`uLir dO Y LO V «C POO Lvr ,Ca— ^rw _-�Lr ^ddC >� G C d ^0«y pr a WUALrJW PL ryry"O` VO M�V� CUr rr0 C�Oy L y M qAr� CrrV Or` L:O ✓ _G: �s� rr «bC ^ YCC NE N� L NOOL aN « ^_b7 Pa Crr >dm0 r7 PGA A�� OrAL >u —q P�CL oJ✓ » ° - °� =`° NL.+o n oW r°.y cam.«. c .r.LO V a =ai .- ._�e y.a.a r ^� �ci. w: o ✓_.Low i q cc 2 uOr q Y� r�.ani 6C«n C`. r L L CL n a' K 6C r- A irrOi� cLr oL 6 Nn.�v v b C -'o EL Cr N� 0 vo�W � wr.rN o A �V .O.r O r ✓d« A ^ NG • C O urJn L � Er OL C✓ 6 rj9 YI •� d P4 L] R �. CLgr'TE« °^ N d y, _ a j _ r. O. V r A E � �� O r V A 9 .J � L O ar bAE `d rt A�O•�6 01 EEr«ntOa Ta tC« °.a -✓ wL' r a.'c -7Z n��y� a`o•.c « NG Cy Cy_a aL b�ELd _LSdi PN +GWy >rV Y N A'ur_ ✓ S C. Orr cVra.rL :00 '� V C L O ^ _ ✓ � rc i g _gib =� qE✓. —per cc`v �wA C J C 9 C C 72 _ O L rr' N O d g t.; g N W ✓ I J V «rr L.o c,z _ v° o; ✓yrn2 Nt� es° O LA AV 70r V AO gOrRrN C y N✓ 2 T nr C °VC O u T L O— y C oa! N 6L ^ V C`�O O� EOr C C °« W dW u O OC ``FrN T L E A � J A �j E« a ....r N � ° C G O G O — U« O 9 n� L d L✓ n0 AC—O y�rL �� Y, L �o^a rLir= TO n~O ^Ut r�tiC nVL TA' Cy r�� rLirL O Lo LaOq` TC VGrgrEL nr —On Ja L_« LLJ Cm N1 gvJi '. mturOr �Q. oLdi - -a ^G .U.CEE ,L,r 775cD ZE \C nrr O V a 6 O LT OC C N^ ON Wr ON 2C .O dCq G'� L AO W'� Crr�� yq A� I C^ O L P d C ✓_ y ' V A _ p� V G A P L �. � n A r'J � ��CN C V uI ^N rL IO +Q^ ^rj _ WIV _�7C1it' A Kr u n r 5; Oc �L GOLnG 6F.'�¢ S'.S.Gn u N ('7 - ° = o .I =' _ s. �. T, c o c .a� � y A ✓ t — .°. � ,yyip� r [ r O � A_ O •! 9 i Q p T� L ti''•1 r r COrja qN ¢p U I` ✓.Yy L q'J V II�iI S9 ` Op V�� J Vy D J EY .�iN •'9� -o � v ,(y -✓' �' y' �. -.ate OE - a � O 6;i �VY'� ro ✓2 f t N V �+ ^ N J�1� L �° U y r .. ✓ rOV9 �L n - VO L✓ JC rq 9a T� ✓�L a ^LI�� HOC N u0 dr -__ -L t ✓O q � Q �d O � E '•' N c V.U. '•' V S T V aJ Oun O c NI O O s r� CAW �AC� �C� °C O » W— CL^ S6 °6UQ ✓ 60 VV � u � n. •,. — — T O d c N N N O ao _ co C -J O� O r t ✓ C V x N 9 d j g T M 6 •r N V 4 I O ° J C eu L c D. —� _.. .^v nv Nv z c e crx c c e u —a .: r ✓N �N _o V' "'.°..d �A L nc c L �o o-•o c ru ,p„N -.: m v �o •1'DO G ° -M> q rl[ L� E LnV T r G N L V rGAaL T6�00 r �� C -�O �' U L y9 A .A'D - O r60`PV NOLVp C[ At J� G ' ^V N A ° c i i 0 P r 9 L -� � D s_ E cn � .. A -_ z q r • G ✓ v -,=C. -� ^ar yLA'y P` c ". N Vd rAV —oi - .d <W- �—^ vL vrvA V Or _ U urd v� L > L- p d q d L V �• C •Ye - ` O L P� P° �� � •J C � G - �; C J G ie - V L� ^ ° �Q DV A7 GL LNP QQ L ��Y J Vy✓iVV nOVV V G a C ^Yr o L C G.r� C L O G q V O J n D •A C U V �...ii 'p L -✓ p� UA C ✓° E_ _�� .ry =q C Cqr NC OJY� ✓dpq ✓ OrV i qA y n.-. T P _ _ d O r -E C C VNL Y N C 7. S J .U.r�tO •" ° J y t W A O C D L N L y r O'J •r ° L= L y �r L --m L V Y O -g. Pao c_ oEOm «w p•N'J °T C� L -- �l0 9w EA. �n�'L VMl OL -LCU 'nu «'' ANA N✓ 9 ✓L qa >_ `172 r a E E�yd .. D. Cdy E Q� � ^yCO� p P ✓Nd� C t_t Air ?L f."Jn UdT O- OL v4 CC ��Ud ✓ye qU`U NOCr✓ � q✓ Prq T N O'A LOi�P y�I� ✓O✓ ✓� J• qC' .�V 4r V vvU 1.� .-. qr.r ` OL ur r Jy _ O T•n L U ` -✓ A O EV r•J� JMw Fj� UP.O.GpO S�JTP C` �An C�i V� ✓ t E W O O r� C C - - t o q'�CV O - V � A^ -� L✓ � � ✓Q Q A�� rrr -� N � � s dN q N�.xgN - GY - 6D QN LNyy QS -O° 6 D✓ rMa N S Q� JLE- O ('7 C.] c nGG PYa ✓ate LOq?- �;� q ° = ✓i •,,. � I_] O q C� C V O✓ = L � n � r_ {� I ` N � T C c N P. ^ d E '. .O.• V c P �' 7 E y G uP Vp j u ✓.. �pVCC G -`m ✓E _ r V V dqV A O =i G V �I _ P_ 'u y C✓ Qd7 � A -' V 6 ✓ n� 6 O nv.'m UG Sm>. Z.0 O A � TOE n C °1'C 9r0`•^J' y.0.•q O V� O _n -s D O 'V -J G .�G�'y � ^• O L `� O y N d . w N C J y V G i p v -J �✓ q d� V G S] ^J 0^ n V Cd ^� V 0 9 ` V� L L Y C y G G G O O j p �` W = ? O q q n L O L A ��� y�✓ 6 7 O'q •n0 .`.. �yE ONd yO q q L q � r -J L_ -• -O w. d Z �• ^ O _ � •� aOR' D ^ a: n •r r G U > A _ Y T ' q L N l_ N V O ` i q W .V' ✓ L 2 AO_ ''] q W� GGU•O 'OipO GAN ✓rOi ' �VANCQPO OL _n ✓✓ .La c G >..°�. ' G n c'a•� Sri i p.`L _d r. 07- "'AN io pr uco u vd.°.L `n oHNaiv `d =o.- uuE .1E � u N t N' q 0� V' O V� ✓ O j cy rn N T T EN �^ r n ° °oA ° -. 'e. a,a ! ✓ _ O L n qL r d A 6+ ry c p G N^ r 0 q� G'° ✓d. d` V N° N) y BONN q` j 'a6 ✓V c0 - � L��O �O�O N✓ �n0��- `GNOV S c E G�� ^V� , � •^A O` ^-J Ln�3 - P✓ PPP_ p ^ A ,e P OI C u O A n. P d O o d✓ nj C yy r ✓ r � O V y G N t C W G ✓ ^ P u P ^_ y l q p V 9> • O N T q C O •- d _ T A T 0 y�V7y� <A O Op�E ^L W LSJ <O VO PA OI =y NN O qj t C GI o v r ^ wI W� CSC G_ ou yrn O' P m_nd ��nj C ^dC�9 q_ V A A OJGd ' A � ✓ C t L T• C o 9 O C u N V O rn^ = A E L y �LL�V ��G� VC�Jy Y�d� L�' �r 9m D fP•r r'TVW 00 7P -E o m.v �-JG -cu oAO V 9 O G O A d 1 G> y u c y O O V u � AV✓ v0f r_ V`•O_ �L`A![ Yv =C v `c d y0 W O y9 N ✓ P _^ D. C Pn• OJ V� q VO✓ G y�Ga2 _ -1 � y C� � P ON E q V� q A D 'l _j VV ` A i V O j O_ Z._.N �= N u• V N d r y C ' N N AG GL qp LV �J= 4dG - ��' TO VS mO' =V 9 G G pSV F O V N ` O73`r r� ^N EOJ'aUn r m - L.py N A6 N r ^J 7 G` ✓ E Gr N ✓'�...1 E q O^ N p � A C M P _T 9 • ' O 4 E y 7 v T 4 4Oa G d D U p rn� q Z.G.. G ✓` 07 G V V _ n m r✓ L C G ` ` y f.J p V L .-.• 9 V� o r _ r CO `` T � •J ...aVU O OSr '1 pV ' D �_ p .L+M O � N� n n C r q r c_ D O G � q✓ L` ^� I n G W G O�_ A q O r -•cS p✓ v✓° C O r O Jp am^ O qVG -557 " ooNJo 7q ^ A Z� L _ 6� +'- ay J^OgV N c _ TD_ ✓' -p'm ° ° -' u^ ',"a �G qo NG go�CC MGn. �v >m c L a' i o { �c _'.c^ 4^ o ? m A° o✓ •'oF ~'�.G� � „ .N.. d C.V _c wV -J j 9�0 .N^E O-'Fu• =V Jn L O^ G c r G V ✓ qi 1 1...-lq O n 7 G a•' � � l O a r � C %' _ '. '-' u A -� �• G 9 V nT. > d L ry 9 p V is `I O O C^ C y L V ' N N uN u QI rl ^I O' O! � NI I I ql� u� � GI N• • m _ C.] E. 1 • Q II N?I WI O i n &, E • I tC) Na IO cw-a I < LLdGa a T of 9 •+ I G U L ✓ 4 O L L V V L� u < `I I � i 0 � 9 J � V N J � _ 9 O < I I I � C� -� A 9 O C l i O C Y V✓ q I ¢ N 3 i ✓ N V V '3L G \ P O= > n P O a V 1 O n N V T 7 .n= O A¢ a L >oON d V J P9 v i C L i q 2 N - P r v V Ll G G T n N I tC) Na —o —� cw-a a a LLdGa a T J N Y C 9 •+ L G U L ✓ d -I L L V V L� u < `I I � i 0 � 9 J � V �• O � _ 9 I I � C� -� A 9 O C l i O C Y V✓ q I q ✓ N V V '3L G P O= > 1 P O a V qC O n N 7 .n= O A¢ a L >oON d P9 v i C L i q i N - P r v V Ll G G T n ^ ✓dVn <C� � N °H✓ UPO Y Vy �L P u2 A0 J N9 L_uT 2¢�. c.� aTL✓ Ny W_ L U O a 0 6° E� O r rO ✓.O °✓ 9A ✓ � V� L✓ rCOI d L° �_ L A � M I N • L� Y t 0 E P C P T.O.• A� Cr T A O i C L O V a L - I O L �r V ^a nN CV L ' C q c'c PAaOV V a -p °Oq_ Pd Ly �✓nY L� O'V t ✓Ty✓ F •• v NO L — p` L O Pte' JLF^ q�'u a2� O � v ^G� qW OV� vSrf N� �� L •'L, G n E ✓^i s'e` —LL ✓ � e�E w n"'. G � O H 9 uV VO p d�.N. o _ L V P C_ _ L A A W. ° q O T a O✓ V . a L d � p d L q Nc 9^ L And Nv uq ✓o— A 6�Np —9lOd _ ^ —� a. V99P N^ is+ �a0. s� dd�� NV —v a— LP L ✓� P �� iac n.L •' NT O d✓OG N Vaal Yd CA q .Ti V6P�0 9C ^a OL uV. 6NV GGNN.r NAW— O rrt� NO✓O ^— QV 6^ WL✓ `^ ../NL V 26 VO 9 �' c I •fin `✓ 6C ^_ A Cr ^ � �tjlI b m PI I I 11 = I tC) 9 L 9 ^ O 9 V N T J N Y C 9 •+ L G U L ✓ d -I L L V V L� u < `I I � i 0 � 9 J � V �• O � _ 9 I I d PLa �O d .^.. .O.r >•NM I q > 1 qC O i 7 .n= qT T� ✓ q C v i C I I N = Nq - v n"o ^ ° N- W L- L° �_ L L ��• P M I N L - I q N c'c v� a -p v iL _^ y a T N C G � O H 9 G N O 2 L V ✓ _ ' c0 �' I •fin `✓ 6C ^_ Cr _ I i I s t a d N N '^ �? o. N N i i .T. - ,°•• ✓ o O- N I^ L q u nr �^ N l_ C P E f V P ✓ T q C d N �I U y� O I qN GV? (YI LL ✓✓ VO v ngYV OVn G` MPN_L•. Lq E P c E OVA 1 r I Vv Qq � m.°. nu 6V�• °4 60L uY E � V qYS 6t V^ al \j VJ I tC) ,1 0 6 c✓ i G � � C T— _ — L_ 9 y 2 p V C L O NG NG t] 'jr_ � N F ✓ - OtJ ✓ u V O � •n t V L O- ? L � y ✓ V °N— a np �� L ✓ N r G C 9 v ✓ c> d p c v o a c- 00 v —w e s aco c :d- i� d— G�.S C� ✓TP a 2 C d 9 •O c a i L 4 9 n c y J V °T L N` • � o N N p VV9 —r fGj p? —V OG 3 ✓a . =j Cp ny CCCa C „ > S J V a a C.2=u V y G C — � ° N �` _ d l� G✓ D T � y C O SE� Ste' GCio �LNY V — N �✓ — O 2 V i� _ V E ✓ �. ✓ W C S C Z C V q° U N V V� V ✓ ` ✓ S E L V I O T✓ G70 •..r LL6L � 6 — d i i• O G c ' I I � v �� L Vu 9 .Gn✓ .G.. iTnO �6r9 � I y i M9 O 9CtJ °rn VLEC `=N� LO — iG pa i F OY a 4� L I T °L Y o Nc `i I� v _ q•n' is L. rn ad_ c It 5 V y C ✓ d cI _ V c ( my `o .ci •" o�.G.` L=•° ' o rn C Q d = C ( V 7I — ✓ n � ,C �J 9� C IL � C C W I I Gnu C� — N � l N G n u� I L c O G✓ 9 g V O i I,p It x C � � d a C t✓ L > 9 d d N• 7 L J 9 r u —I _ _ ° I d °� v o.°, °�✓.. m Ii ^--' =c d d I I ! r� Yd —> __ ,r yl `J ti. sir 6 GN C MJ Z IN lnT� =y I L V `✓ i— ✓ n .1 Nill o E u r 40 K] CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -09 - GONZALES - The construction of a 420 square foot addition to an existing building and parking lot improvements on a 9500 square foot lot in C -2 zone located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and San Bernardino Road - APN 201- 3.52 -12. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re uested: Approval of a precise site plan and architectural design, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of a 420 square foot building addition and canopy, plus the development of a six (6) stall parking lot and landscape improvements. C. LGcation: The southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and San Bernardino Road. D. Parcel Size: 9500 square feet (73 feet X 152 feet) E. Existino Zon ?ng: C -2 F. Existing Land Use_ Drive -in dairy G. Surrounding land Use and Zonin : orth - as station, zoned C -2 Single Family Homes, zoned R-2 South - Retail Commercial and o'fice buildings, zoned C -2 East - Vacant property with an approved shopping center design, zoned C -2 West - Single Family homes, zoned C -2 ITEM I Development Review 82 -09 /Gonzales Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 2 H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial Low Density Residential (2 -4 du's /ac) South - Commercial East - Commercial West - Commercial I. Site Characteristics: The north half of the site is currently occupied by two small buildings housing the subject business. The south half of the site is a dirt lot currently used for parking. The topography of the site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south. Existing street improvements include curb, gutter, and sidewalk. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: This project is an expansion of an existing drive -in a3 lry- Tu-siness. The application includes the construction of a 420 square foot building addition and a new canopy. The building addition will provide a walk -up window and additional storage. A mansard roof is proposed with the addition and canopy. To provide a consistent design, the new roof will be continued around the remaining portion of the existing structures. With development of the project, the applicant will be required to provide the required on -site parking and landscape improvements consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and General Plan. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee was satisfied with the proposed design and felt the project represented a reasonable request between expansion of the existing business and an overall renovation of the site including needed landscaping and parking lot improvements. The Committee stressed that the site must_ be brought into conformance with current ordinances pertaining to signs, outdoor display, and landscaping. The Committee stated that the existing Alta Dena pole sign must be removed, mounding and trees added to the existing landscaped areas, and the current outdoor displays and price signs moved completely under the canopy. Regarding the new landscz ,)ed area and parking lot, the Committee suggested that the large planter could be rounded off at the corners to allow for an adequate t1irning radius and maneuverability. Conditions of approval addressing these items are provided for your review. El \• J LJ l J Development Review 82 -09 /Gonzales Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1983 Page 3 C. Development Review Committee: The Development Review Committee worked with the applicant concerning technical requirements necessary for issuance of building permits and completion of the project. Their requirements pertained to items such as plan preparation, landscaping, signs, parking lot configuration, and pavement striping. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed y the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Development of this project is not expected to increase the amount of automobile traffic to the site. Water runoff is expected to increase minimally as a result of the parking lot improvements. However, because of the existing soil compaction and the relatively small area of new pavement, any increased runoff will be insignificant and will be handled by existing and proposed improvements. Ill. FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposed use is consistent with the C -2 zone in which the site is located. The project design, together with the recommended condit'ons of approval, is compatible with the slarrounding area and is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. In addition, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in tha vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for environmental review in The Daily Report newspaper. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission cau support Vie facts for findings, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Rick Pomez - CIty ► Planner R'G:CJ:jr i Development Review Planning Coinoission March 23, Page 4 82 -09 /Gonzales Agenda Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Initial Resoluti °A° tic" _ "D„ _ "Eu _ Study on of Loction Mar Zoning 8 general Plan Detailed Siie Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan Part I Approval with Conditions E E 11 1 i - I 1 - ITT. 'L- pW.4...p •YG li -Y�e*4 I O CAR c: LT �rAtL.L. ... CITY OF �R•�. INCHO �CUC�A� MIO\'Gh SLAINI1VTM DLYLSIOV c —'ct ITEM: T4Z, off TITLE: w�aP EXHIBIT. A" SCALE. � r� Nott A- GENERAL PLAN ZONING RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW <2 DU S /AC LOW 2 -4 DU's /AC © LOW - MEDIUM 4- 8DU'S /AC MEDIUM 4 -14 DU'. AC E MEDIUM -HIGH 14 -24 DU's/.a -, I HIGH 24 -30 DU's /AC MASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL /OFFICE !� COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 1=7 NEIGHBORHOOD COMA. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE CITY OF RANCHO CL'C MO. Gtr PLANNING DIVISION ITEAI:7�83 -� TITLE: EXHIBIT: _scALE:�a.-r� l I•iE \i �CbF <�I: � .41i S (otJ i a n iI 3 1 ° I I9li �I P w-�A NORTH \ CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.IOti'CA Trn_E:,�� ®PLAINNIRiG DIVLSIC)V Eve '��° — SCALE,-&M--_ 1 bG«x. feD .�mo ACA NoPy fir_ rA1L c LC : vyaP_o' GZ'rl Ali' � AD71t IDIJ, c� ^i tam I P�K ✓2w TL ev �J 6 A rS'^ 51pr ELEVATION CI7'YO oF RANCHO V V�� vio PL� \'N1NG DfNrLSQN ^ !N VAiI naDK EXHIBIT- "D" SCALE =�(-r s. 11 11 s c es en' C, ml o" Z i W YRLLZEsL "PEZLSC Y hZVAAM1! Si••�'ai'11 � /LfL STOR AREA r�� Via,- -rr /.V / •ii -AL MG O \ `ffJCJAJV� -E.1 Ste E f —oF`�c C.:.n_E �t��t :..T'T -�.a ^-•+ 45 1 v � �%+�J tam 1•:•J °� i• i\ \ or 400-reA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiN,10 \TGA ® PLANNING DIVISON T_ GPaJOPY yi,t� �� At,! rm.I: VK a-s- TITI_E- * 4 EXMBIT: � SCG1L.E -�•TS - 1 -SV �� SvO rMrf 4 i/ IY QI O 9f°R -. GFFLC� µtcr4cy r ` iy `I � ti'y,• .4. 6R�ILV -Ir:L uECTi-rJ s c es en' C, ml o" Z i W YRLLZEsL "PEZLSC Y hZVAAM1! Si••�'ai'11 � /LfL STOR AREA r�� Via,- -rr /.V / •ii -AL MG O \ `ffJCJAJV� -E.1 Ste E f —oF`�c C.:.n_E �t��t :..T'T -�.a ^-•+ 45 1 v � �%+�J tam 1•:•J °� i• i\ \ or 400-reA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiN,10 \TGA ® PLANNING DIVISON T_ GPaJOPY yi,t� �� At,! rm.I: VK a-s- TITI_E- * 4 EXMBIT: � SCG1L.E -�•TS - CITY OF RANCHO CFJCAMONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFOP-MATION SHEI:Ze - To be completed by applicant Envirr�nrental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects regui=ing environmental review, this fcrm must be completed and submitted to the De-.relopment Review ::ommittee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the E_1vironmen`al 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 significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Ir,;pact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giviig further information concerning the proposed project. r1 L oA; cF P4S -ng&— PROJECT TITLE: APPLIC;='S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: /!�.g _r3'GCh' Fi.C�Ci1�/- it -c./J S'T . .�A.!.��11C �.5��'�1C.✓f'J'�'� _ NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: _� •TcavJi�7 f �v �.l � e�G'R�i IA:ATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) C'C-C'G S•,- t'An'C j= Ole Ave?:�q 'X1 d.a-V LIST OTHER PS'RNIITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, VTATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: - I -a PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: /71 A04-11 A ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE EWIRON=NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORK-ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY -, PTTUMNTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL. OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SUTLROUNDING PROPERTIES, AMID THR DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): - , WN WV Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, whicli although individually small, may as a whole have significant . environmental impact? 1. 1-11 h'ZLZ, THZS PROJECT: 1 S no •,/ 1 Create a suos'�antia2 cizan a ground contours? g in -b 2- Create a substantial tial c2hange in existing or vibration? 3_ Create a substa municipal ices a Pal Ser l change u: demand for sewage, etc.}? (Police, fire, water, -4= 4- Create changes in the existing zonin general Plan designations? g or S- Remove any existing trees, ow many? 6- Create the need for - potentially hazard. use or disposal of toxic aterials such as ExPlanation Of nces flal=ableg or explosives? any y s answers above: IMPn �ANTT= If the project involves the construction of residential units, next Page_ complete t7_-Ie form 'o the CERTIFICATiOA *; above I hereby certify and attached that the statements furnished information exhibits best of cuired for this esent the data and info my ability, and that the evaluation to the mY knowledge are true correct and ri a cor_ect addit' 1 infnd belief. I further to the best of Iona or.,n understand that before an adequate on may be rev_vired Review Committee- .4 evaulation can to be submitted ew Conarit.quat be made by the .ate ��1/ Development Date ---- T ;1�w'sC40 t _ �8 a; Signature_ >. � 2L-sL� Title v4� s' RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 82 -09 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD IN THE C -2 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 13th day of April, 1982, a complete application was filed by Louis Gonzales for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of March, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially ® injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and s. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on March 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 82 -09 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standa•d Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. All permanent nonconforming signs or the property, including the Alta Dena pole sign, shall be removed from the site prior to final inspection and occupancy of the building addition. A proposed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 2. All outdoor displays and price signs shall be kept in the building or under the canopy. A plot plan showing the location of outdoor displays shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and ® approval prior to issuance of building permits. a�m�� Resolution No. Page 2 3- Turf mounding, trees, shrubs, and automatic irrigation shall be provided in all existing and proposed landscape areas pursuant to city standards and ordinances. 4. The proposed landscaped planter may be rounded off on the interior corner. 5. A g" diameter standard galvanized steel pile guard filled with concrete shall be provided at the southeast corner of the building addition to protect the building from passing vehicles. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning ':,ommission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing of the City of Rancho regularly introduced, passed, and adopted b 9 Resolution was duly City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting ofetfie Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1983 b Planning Commission of the y the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C 0 0 ,• ddb do nF .JTC'r c— q b6 N`bw -b coc P_ Crn�J c cccy 'O o a aap o` oo�c —q } b vv r'cq ° U , "9s•.° ✓J °d =�'r N 'v L6 O�N��7 -. 2L_ �O� $ qa Vn O�J y q V�qd GGgq �N _pR SJ— N n °i N aNi Gov "c � N� �dmoa. n qL pNC > qL_ q NOS rnJNd J O� r q6 �fbbN N ._i.cd. qu9 G�aA ��� orris SC ?N_YC60 oV S Z+ G.q N�� NCB niJV PO bL L V - >q q C_ dV_CbOC —� -L� a ,.q _l 9„ L l r•C C qL Nub �O` tCL„ G�d� rq- nd0 Lq y =L LOY. ^CqC Ob N rn�L q p b�A _ q G L« C A t Y C q C omn J p� .VCa +� +JO �> o dr^ RE ugwrr ^n —Cr. L �OrL a � ` N � rQ�r M Y G ' O N r g � � V � rFQ: �= O W •. L N J _ G �V'. b L N � V A— � A b N 6° 6 rL J q 10 F •O b C V N N T V l ^J b C o q n v^ ar N� p O��Or E E� rdr�q a bC Cc0 C +q q 9__qq GOr «w. ^ E6 Qrn Ca v— Vd> — a L' W PdgL O Ni t. ^ XOA A 'V Ord= VQ Ot yt PQ�L L G d O _ �^ O •� L 4 d a 6 �-L N° Nq 6V Jrrb nd Or O a O A g 6 O-L4 GNna <q Ql <L 1�6N _Nn r• b LO. VNE 2 127 y b d p b n_ L b0� Cq> rSC C'9 q:GY _ d qu _ Qq 69� ^� q C ✓b 9 KjCp OqL � KN� by'+ LL gNOd _OY V d O C C d } Cam ` i y C W. v =ae .z E L O C W q G N y L y z `NV — C 30 V } A 6r q rGir V e 6 C _ V WVrti dgc0 1 V� qC n� J P C C C_ G� ic S pG rngV Oq NN �VO� GV C1 O } qN —_ }ota IL o V ioL• a °w- nr—p'. a ;, �1 orGgn= •= _q. CC ` cl Cc f �rcor.' > cc V J ^cL0 » + 6 gow c a�N_ >ba d�q �L� yr O 6 J li 6 G. O r O G 6 N^ O V 6 O 6 '• -- "' W V N = n \77 6 m L 4 ��1 •� a O 6 «Y.IN •a �ICC VC ••� 'v0 - VCP OQO` POm OD tw �WLN� VOWVT� rnq T -L L°`W U,.`+a'o_u^ ro^ o,n ✓ =^ nn6 G_'u. nN !t aa^ ow .a O V n V� u u 0 O W u T y N C 6 � E G� C ✓' d .°.. T $� c= 9 �. y C a r- O Cr >O O ANA o q T c o m T � ✓^ - w °G .E V au j u D Y qr °�C�' ^ 6 c � � • y o j � •p a p rc -A N�.�+^i. .a,.00 rnu a.^`�- A� ° a' -AO✓ ° w n c v� d^ q ° N O y Y. O V u •�, t r ry O y C u, O_ _ - .-J N _ O u J•JN O N •} `nV C O LS °ic N L m' ^C✓ D ^6d[i =NCCO LDO'w•'J.o —r P` ^ v y V _ r OOOgGV ^'N'> °` Dq t'Ey -ECCV °GV A� �N, - OWNC C >L' LVCNLy y •rdi rC V - NJGT C9 yL Cq J�'""� ✓ q�i iy u n¢6„ d�C�dW ° L °ico' .D Nu c NA C ✓� w aoo °CA °40`u •' c c T� E a -o D,An aro �°'.a.iu✓ r "A C �o A QD .n ° °a A.°.. L Tn;� ^ L N T OEWL ✓JL OL¢wG G`d tl^ p�C O` CyV= `vY_V y °r �O�L6 LL N q m^ NY y V LdD -JL °w ty ^L6 �. nr a N« O ° w C P�� A A m A C C n 6 q � D^ L D C N d q a Y°• q a ^..G. ¢ CA. r ^�CWD Ar LOL V VO.^OIA y a~V V ^N V NA O«`V NNC PnN pjw ^ ^N LV•N '� A¢• J LdD. d✓ q_ N � O V C L N N M r ✓� ^ Wd LO � L� l u r° r 6 q O✓ P ^ q q` N � J r q 0�" r d � .� D V C � a C Q C° V V ^ «« C` O, T y N� C d« �' � V .•. C ^J G ✓�`r G J Q C A Nd�o A � °G^ O, A L CL6 JW VYLLN °L OC >wa` - S W VI n a.-.O NF O� M yI NI CI I I L� 1 I II I W O D r w qr -� ° r r C= Fr q >r. .rrl�pq • e A On C'ay `GNy °O d V_✓ S t 4J90 A V L L Y°. Cy e•' TEy a� LD ._= A ac y4T or =o V ~Ctl r W°ay EUV N$u° O42�'D n40�0. Y C awr'u� r E y C1L JC w0 O v L N� dA Lyla •6��yrQ�^ ^ ✓C t DN�N y_OCrt GALL CA A VSNO D AND° �i°y N L N pGL CLN ,°n>V L C A r r � q�rOJ,S yVd L ^� C D° O Y. O L _ =�Aa u�^ L :;t s aaD.. oL 6' N C A d 7 J ,r tl ✓ w L '^ D � C V � D ° A J L� � O - C F- y O L N O L f d✓ n � OSV •� SW C v J ' a N d uLD Our��jVA° w W tl - N 9 9�� S CVD CMG Carr^ OCCTVri V^ {n�E N O °, N T V ip N • n u C° A Q y q� C =`J A ... t 0 = ✓ w✓ C O p 1 q A • O✓ A y a ✓ L a V a L w w N _ C S O O r ✓ W 6 Y C N^ 'V w L A J N� P O y O 0 O' V P V p` � ^ C E O H Y C w ' V r � pp D A C •� O P C O q SY y r ✓ y O 9 ` Ac P�.ArTyq- nuD L ` - a A a N a G a L c D.. a .ai �Di. P n o° a n a• d V O D N G C C d q L � L �-.•. q' O J_ � O ° D•' 0� -LCU C w = Wa N N N N` ¢y L� ° rO d L��^ :u .� H r °VG ON VGw TV w °yCNP �.O YD a° J S Nd'O'CV J« LC .0 •' .^ 4O ° rT LC VL GV }✓ PDEE ^.�P OC.,a rV_u•di V °GO T «N C_N^ w 9 Y � O q C'O -O' •a..«Vyu n 9 D t< T� c cI r C rn V V� - L N r✓ CGi D ✓'^ C O �� � N C 6 E� 6 � D n O L n n O^ L q N T� it •I ^I �I ^I v� y,I I VI u 11 d r✓ L P V N • b C V O W S r^ _ C y C .� q- P � G c cA ✓ ✓ uL � t�9 rA OYZI NZnd = J _ q9 • =° R V =44A .a.�NL �J� ✓O TZ NN y -. y EOA i_v° q u at E T PS.wO 6 00T I ✓ ti ^I vas ;^ �✓ ^C' ^ j A c qc �.• ^q b cc.i V ^ ✓ C N N V L o Q A d d P O T C U t � � i z L^ V=A ✓ AO p P V ALL O� Z 'LYCO� VVJ.OA L. r� a• qd� - lw VW V V`��1 VLNY .V T9N C O Ny� r d✓V A c l2 N 9 v L ` � c P O C A ` u� P S O L T✓ C V O 6 CULO rn w A 7 y Y = Q V L N O� y T✓ w. v A P J P V P ✓ V O C N A C `"'wC ^. N.e W- L CV V O � F9_ L O IZ Y Z L O N C G1 i' O✓ � N U W � � 1 C NAP Nay c ✓jay FL LA i W E✓ r CG O✓J1 r V09 r CC N GY L YN^ S ^CA•^ GTE w J A w `LW V V A A. G Z C A • t✓ ✓�C9 N O J d _ PTO ^VW ✓ q Lwi.. NL L -� � ��� L. MdL°Ce OCtiO L L O PVO � ^ V � C L w ^ .� I u U 1: L •• N r q �i O OC^ 6� i n.Vj u ! V q W E j V � O C O 9 T^ 6 W A C A✓ W L� d W J� L L y. V� O w• 'a' G= O 9> N r q N✓w dV V 1[ VNLr >OCV C_ •Or T •J.r V V O_ L O✓ P P~ O L O L� q � V T Cy V ✓ Z^ `O 9U n G Ow 9 u � N „- ✓ N O Ur NQ.O. ✓ N N A O ` u O � W N 1 J N.Le .o ✓o L 0. r r'G u AA �> ✓ It T • ONa � P �c N q O N L ✓V .^� _L � � O T � _V L. L N ✓ O C �^ ✓ d C n� w. 1• `> O. 9 W m -~ L L � � J V Z✓ L v G N N >• q G w.• A q _ ✓ � N i V' 6 d Y� f Y W L f'n C L✓ C O.� ° q J A } N CL - A ..v - O O _JL i E CPO^OO N `.^ AN C r O uC O N � YV � N U' N j ^C ^ NLw• J .r .�M \. aL � .3 N q V T � Pv. T � CN ✓ >Z= A L L q G Q G r� q � G L b •A.. C O a iEVlrc C C Qw✓ y 6 � J > i 6- od N Ntr - —a L 6i] Y o L m i T b •. C N .� C L W H V v N 9 u ✓_ ✓ w• ✓ G q d A6cAC P'I- �° Z ai VN� e0 _ Vdr E O- a'OL�L � ^Lw20 u �• O Z V< j � '� 9 V O - t Y P L T E L O N i 1 N O� 2 C C O O 4 A V Ir E 2 G a✓ V �• A 6 6Y Z r .ZO E 6 6 m C• V N11 P C • N N M1 b \ NI I d r✓ L P V N • b C V O W S r^ _ C y C .� q- P � G c cA ✓ ✓ uL � t�9 rA OYZI NZnd = J _ q9 • LOC R V =44A .a.�NL �J� ✓O TZ NN y -. y EOA q u at E T PS.wO 6 00T ✓ ti ^VTy V Ta Z O r �✓ ^C' ^ A �y w- V V ^ ✓ C N V L Q A d d P O T C U t L^ V=A AO p P V ALL O� Z 'LYCO� VVJ.OA L. r� a• qd� - lw VW V V`��1 VLNY .V T9N C O Ny� r d✓V A c l2 N 9 v L G c � c N 9 C A ` u� P S O L T✓ C V O O i J O a w A 7 y a 7 Y = Q V L N O� y T✓ w. v A P J P V P ✓ V L W- C NAP Nay c ✓jay FL LA i W E✓ r CG O✓J1 r V09 r CC N GY L YN^ S ^CA•^ GTE w J A w `LW V V A A. G Z C A • t✓ ✓�C9 N O J d _ PTO ^VW ✓ q Lwi.. NL L -� � ��� L. MdL°Ce OCtiO L L O PVO � ^ ZZ w LO L�Ap ., wE w wZ N OC^ 6� CG6C n.Vj ! A E j V � O C O 9 T^ 6 W A C A✓ W L� d W J� L L y. V� O w• 'a' G= NV GT r q N✓w dV L 1[ VNLr >OCV •J.r >` °J O Cy V ✓ Z^ `O 9U O G Ow 9 u =N �W 5 -E C O O Ur NQ.O. �:a” �a G' N� N.Le .o ✓o o r W q" ✓ �a T H^ m° � L P �c N N (Lv O O N C✓ Z p A � � O T TJ u C_ � L. L N W TL C d C n� w. 6 •' `> O. T d N J V 7 v G L p d ..P. r >• q G .N w q _ ✓ _ N N 7 O. V �^ L f'n rO 9 ✓ A N CL - i E CPO^OO n Cr C -s dV w+ ° ✓ O N10 -Y - CV NNGQJ �A�C� �� LN� .r .�M -rN q GN CNL CN >Z= �' LPL ^yN =W Qw✓ 6 L1✓ NL NN i 6- JL!- N Ntr - QN 6i] 4N 1NVW 6A�06 1 M N� t LL T L C P N V P L C M 9 T L O u C C C P O N GTC P C GP L iC P.� ^WE yW4 _O °vCC ^v LnY —�LLms co .. y4 dmV •O rC ^ .La ✓W do _Ld•F.� n qdo °,,,P r..r L -�yo < yy L L O _ r W } = N d OvC w✓O6 d��: >CGO�° qU L � CTO V JPD U D fL.,r O Z2 L T✓ � �� N � W F 4 7 w I T L L `p'� q. l ✓ S c✓ _ q q a C ✓� y✓ r W y>°c C` m � aq '<O�v L �`T '�°•�„ N SOS .d.?.d..q — °L oc q L 6. O ✓ t C < U � O v L G� L N W O ^ � C O V^ �_ V D LOV n ^N TN 6���.•ur a Wes' -•rte F ✓ gCtO V•, O� lt] 6`.a yNL��P. LA ` W rD0 T W^ C` r N C 6✓ O N 1 L U CONC LCT ✓ L p y 9✓ q < ^flu LC m u d FN r •rV a L °iN V� UNN N !y` W O > O N L >— l G C E T N °o m r`D C y• r0� ytd'•' °GEC aw d 6��G(a F_ n y0.OV 1' Tj t° ^e O O •"' y Y y N C p° F V L W g n ^ 4 O YO F S O N D D C y� O r U �• �✓� 6N ti q PL V N' •Nn a W t dUC ^O^q� •c to dS <LO ^9La •'.•C YO PL_E < CCi 6 ✓V C PO. O LCP� �JC CPOJ 9q6 DO•C „q ✓E L'. L N q � TW n O u ✓ ^ NC d qr P q_ Wy °OL CD^ '•�� <P G C ^9CN T^ r Nffl F ^ ^P W PA O lC-.S� 6WCi _�Or TqC tp w?y NVyN 6gg0 Oo =E =L fLmCa 6VVVO � yT „� L�AL q Pq 1 N1 6� 4tdn� 6V�0 ¢ A p V O q V SII c pd0 o ° ^i W C O _I W J '✓ O V C q C C^ p V t °✓ J W C O 12, L P C A ^ F 9 A d C r q� � C C V O O O W ? •'• Gl L N r• K C' F r ^ l i rLLVL mild,— ✓ C �q.lod Vc•c m rn� Lb o W` v i�CV rdiGLD T ^AdW P OL� �a VO m� O yV dr VSr^ VOOn u6E c q Y °N C .r` �'� �L+ —o c gNfY •°"� a r.j i < u ° �b4gd Wr 2O NV •r �° L~ 9 uti > W d F q 9 V C � •L.. V 6'L' O L N q u C .n W_ N N q A a C r L Y N q N •n O y > •yYd d^ C Y ��yy aE�q ,� � 4 ✓ °c m o � �� V q a 9 ✓J� q _�.°.•.a rq•.+ W P dN � b `q^ Z A y °O ^ N 4PLV C C� q Y• � �_� 0 qC 6 J L qD• •"• ^ F ` O C D 1 4 ^ d V c •= t• d W u o° Pr ^° � q O W .. r y E q <— _T S V r'•• C g d C 9`` U > � q E. ^ 'c 6 b f.J O. L .� P C O ACL °V U✓ D rL. l d A< N L C✓ b_ U rga�aN n b - L W a b W C `T°•P � q r O q^ y a L � 0 0. uO W� °` • :Vr OOU < ° > <r d � ^L �� VTR ^?WU 'V W O''V9 a� °�•. LL y < D tP l .r Nu �W. nL V .Pb wC'C nt �Q< ^LCD• O'aCp CTDr q Sr JO q q d y O n+ C U � 'V ^. •p W N N C� T N V < O✓ C O r n C.� y W T^ 6 W A O 'O C� 6 C L' C O •^NV�V C N f -. �� _ �CMCV °V q �4 b °” ✓C^ C✓ qi •<oWV V.. C ...E ... OuN �LL CN _^ P C� � ^ q JW.w Ny aW `.r _ y c is L� O m L r� l F N -�^ ✓ V G q r p a C � � .� P` V y y tLIrNLL �� r L D.JGa .2,; �N� 11Z LLN yCA�p N 4Va wJJ `J6 V7 V.j NN•L.r�1 ^' Oi fV I �• N <I blot � \fJII� PI � \\ �I �� \].'j of .nI � " I I FI •u� ! ' I mI ^ b . S • I u d u d N � rt O u=cam i I mN Nc•'e °_ y'rno N N �i csr i ° .� I� °.ri.0 Td a °N d PO •°/ LW ..° LQ qu ... N . Vy I LuC Y6u�� dWCU S Nu �US P. p. OL N I n•.r ° °_ _ W✓ y r u iJ d 'w U A L d ` •..r i6 d w •O V V 6N NV L u Pq2] d N."' P - .•L-' Thu T y N u LSw G`DdC pC }� p OL p Ou Gds W • �� • _P O wCj C G' d O O L O C y L Y 6[ q Vi Y N EL —G+ GW pd °.� 6 V ^dV0• ^d Sf] Q 1 ^ � q W O TL w V ^ T P d N 6 V •+ O Y G L q V y �• C pT � D N O � N •.°^ G � • d A^ O' N q N� YDG tSIId VL VD^ LC C^ C}VySG '•+ q e °.c..NNw Lw •-. ..• .ac ` T O O I I I q 9 I•I q�d �O L ^ V uTNr d� � UV` 00 V O� V r d S J rn0. y C O �S � D A.y P6 9 UOQV `yVj E � W •� CCC J P TwV d 6 =d `u Ln° C`dp �� L u O O O W W I O V 5 2. L WT y d to co Nq �Np Y 4 O 'no a c a z i N G „^ o n dam„ }up e. ,y°`� E I �Ca6 •�u U Fd N L WAS V U d y a 2 I y q 'Y +Oi ^E �•''/� Nu CD �S U >C UO O > N A q N C d_ A •"' N y N •.. _ N . v c I q4✓ °c L c= .+�� N. .N.I u•�m PO P f ... ^P` O� I I � UO Qq { ¢Y 6U 6Yr 69 6P°t WI O OA9 Y� 4L V^ x' LA �f ml O 2121 �+ V N 4 l O V go = o q W c -T- ^ c t V � V L a a`. O O M� L V _ a z Z- its N .L oy.o '+�vc ocr w, N c v c O l d .r.. c O W y t V y N .A o° N b a v VI S n� •-O W of o -_ b S f f' v m � d ` � a C n T N� 7 r V � O c a � e _ L G t s P C t A 9 = w O °Y= /I C C _T V O `c V L E i o .. be a 4 v .il V N aN n � NI vd cI i V G s O V .° of ny HC b ii v c L ° a N L a � _ W A o L L N, O O q E y, i c A � p m 4 p NI Lam_ � L O F'T LL 4 b U O ^ c�- .. a c v ^L Y N o O N C y U Or„ O S C V 9 Ofd c_n c' d� L C N -cv J y O b V y v A r T a y d u` =ua �I N °c i a r v a. a' Y C � r y u ,N„ V N 4 u V w� S OL dE L P O Cq « i= +u Q _ Y N N c T V .Oi V d v- _ a Oy p- V V e d eO r q a N u v P w C r 0 l « a C O p L d v N V O J N 11 0 L Ll C T rnq vUS =E_.c r d - G f] C N Nd. CU b °= °' `'moy p y v _ n J P .Tr l C N N L � O rb L • �+_ V „ b r u 4 C of O c V = C� oq0 Lub rd °l �`yL OW N °c i a r v a. a' Y C � r y u ,N„ V N 4 u V w� S OL dE L P O Cq « i= +u Q _ Y N N c T V .Oi V d v- _ a Oy p- V V e d eO r q a N u v P w C r 0 l « a C O p L d v N V O J N 11 0 L Ll C Attached is the Administrative Guidelines for the Senior Citizen Hcusing Overlay District. Previously, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an implementing ordinance for a zoning overlay district which provided the opportunity to establish senior citizen housing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose of the Administrative Guidelines is to provide specific detail requirements and to explain the process by which a development application for senior citizen housing would be considered. In addition to the Administrative Guidelines, staff has provided a brief overview of the review process. The Guidelines are set forth in the following order: 1. Project submittal requirements A. Pre - application procedures B. Application C. Development Plan D. Adoption of District & Development Plan E. Establishment of District F. Terms of District G. Modifications H. Site Location Criteria I. Site Development Criteria J. General Provisions K. Performance Standards L. Design Guidelines 2. Project Maintenance Requirements A more detailed summary of the Overlay District Administrative Guidelines is provided in the first two pages of the the attachment. Recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Administrative Guidelines will be forwarded to the City Council with their consideration of the adoption of the Senior Citizen Overlay District Zoning Ordinance on April 6, 1983. ITEM J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT cx3C"M0,i y a DATE: March 23, 1983 F- TO: Members of the Planning Commission �E� '.977 FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ADMINTSTRATIVE Ginnn TNFS rnR [FNTnR rTTT7FN nvrotdv Attached is the Administrative Guidelines for the Senior Citizen Hcusing Overlay District. Previously, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an implementing ordinance for a zoning overlay district which provided the opportunity to establish senior citizen housing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose of the Administrative Guidelines is to provide specific detail requirements and to explain the process by which a development application for senior citizen housing would be considered. In addition to the Administrative Guidelines, staff has provided a brief overview of the review process. The Guidelines are set forth in the following order: 1. Project submittal requirements A. Pre - application procedures B. Application C. Development Plan D. Adoption of District & Development Plan E. Establishment of District F. Terms of District G. Modifications H. Site Location Criteria I. Site Development Criteria J. General Provisions K. Performance Standards L. Design Guidelines 2. Project Maintenance Requirements A more detailed summary of the Overlay District Administrative Guidelines is provided in the first two pages of the the attachment. Recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Administrative Guidelines will be forwarded to the City Council with their consideration of the adoption of the Senior Citizen Overlay District Zoning Ordinance on April 6, 1983. ITEM J Administrative Guidelines Planning Commission Agenda March 23, 1483 Page 2 RECOMMEVDTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the adoption of the Administrative Guidelines and forward their recommendation to the City Council, SUbqkted, Ricj�I G Ci P TJE:jr achments: Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Project Submittal Review Process \J 1.1 SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT: ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES The Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines are designed to provide guidance and clarity to developers and low- and moderate- income senior citizen- oriented housing units, city policymakers, the public at large, and city staff. They show early in the planning and design process what the city is seeking and the information it will require. The guidelines consist of two parts - Project Submittal Requirements and Project Maintenance Requirements. Additionally, attached is an analysis of how the senior housing project submittal review process operates. This analysis and flow chart review each step in the review process, its purpose, who participates in it, and general explanatory information. The Project Submittal Requirements (Part I) can be broken into four parts. The first part is basically a detailed guide to the type of information that a developer interested in developing housing units under the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District will be required to submit to the city. The information required is patterned on the City's existing Planned Development (PD) process, but tailored to provide information regarding the special needs of low and moderate income senior citizens. The second part of the Submittal ® Requirements simply outlines the review that the information submitted will be given, and the findings required by the Planning Commission and City Council before the project can be approved. The third part consists of the basic criteria by which a developer may assess whether a parcel of land meets the essential locational requirements in order to adequately serve the Overlay District's target population. The final part of the Submittal Requirements provides guidance regarding the actual development of a project site. Part II of the Guidelines consists of the Project Maintenance °equirr..ents. A long -term maintenance plan will be required of all projects submitted under the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District and, in orue to insure compliance, the posting of a Performance Bond will be required. The Administrative Guidelines should he followed in operation of units constructed under the provisions Overlay District. The Guidelines reflect the City' of project approval and were in part the reason for incentives to developers of senior housing projects Overlay District. 7J the management and of the Senior Housing s expectations at the time granting development in the Senior Housing Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 2 C I. PROJECT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Pre - Application Procedure Prior to submitting an application, the following procedures should be followed: I. The project developer shall submit the following information in order for staff to determine project compliance with City requirements and policies for eligibility as a Senior Housing Overlay District. o Preliminary site plan (location; acreage; number /type of units) o Elevations o Proposed rent schedules o Requested development incentives o Analysis of how proposed project can serve the target population as defined n the Senior Housing Overlay District o Analysis of developer costs including land costs, construction costs, financing costs, expected profit margin. 2. Upon completion of their r -view, the Planning Division shall contact the developer to arrange preliminary consultations with the City Planner and other City offficials to discuss the information submitted and development incentives requested. B. Appli ration �. Thi applicant shall file with the Planning Division a complete Sen °or Housing Development package consisting of applications for: a. A tital residential development b. Senior Housing Overlay District (Planned Development Zone Change request) C. Subdivision (where applicable) d. General Plan Amendment (if applicable) 2. An application for a SHOD shall constitute a zone change request. 3. A complete application shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Uniform Application (Standard City form). b. Subdivision Application (where applicable) Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 3 C. A Total Development Package in accordance with City guidelines, Development Plan, and other submittal requirements as listed on forms provided by the City. d. Part I of the Initial Study for environmental determination. e. Any other information as may be deemed necessary by the City Planner. 4. Upor receipt of an application, written notification shall immediately be sent to the applicant indicating whether or not the application is complete. If incomplete, a specific list of information necessary to complete the application shall be provided with this notice. It shall be the obligation of the applicant to provide all required information prior to the acceptance of the application. C. Development Plan. A Development Plan for a Planned Development shall include, at a minimum, the following: 1. A boundary survey map of the property. A tentative subdivision map may be substituted if the applicant proposes to subdivide the property. ® 2. A conceptual grading plan indicating existing and proposed topography 7v' of the property and adjacent land within 100 feet of the property, shcwn at contour intervals not to exceed two (2) feet. 3. A site utilization map indicating the gross land area of tre development, the present district classification thereof, and the district classification and land use of adjacent land within 100 feet of the proposed development, including the location of structures and other improvements. 4. A site plan with at least the following details dimensioned and drawn to scale: a. Location of each existing and proposed structure in the development area, the use or uses to be contained therein, and the proposed dimensions and gross floor areas of each existing or proposed structure. b. All streets, curb cuts, driving lanes, parking areas, or other traffic circulation features within the site or affecting adjacent streets and properties. C. All pedestrian walks, malls, open spaces and landscaped areas. r u Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 4 d- location and height of all walls fences. e. Types of surfacing, such as paving, turfing or gravel used at various locations. to be f. A phasing plan if the project is to occur in increments. 5- PIans and elevations of buildings and structures sufficient to indicate the architectural style, construction standards, and type and color of materials to be used on building exteriors. 6- A conceptual landscape plan which meets the requirements of the City's Growth Management Ordinance. 7. A written explanation of the proposed land use, site development, architectural guidelines, and performance sufficient to govern use and development within atherdistrict in lieu Of the applicable provisions of tie base district or districts. 8. Such other information as may be required by the City Planner to Permit complete analysis and appraisal of the development, and to facilitate approval of the development pian by the Planning Commission. D. Adoption of District and Development plan 1• Upon acceptance of an application as complete, the project will be scheduled for Committee review by the City's Dev °7opment Review Section. 2. Upon successful completion of Committee review, the project will be scheduled for the earliest scheduled Planning Commission agenda. 3. The Planning Commission shall hold concurrent public hearings on the development plan, Senior Housing Overlay District request (zone change), General Plan amendment, subdivision and development agreement. Upon completion of the public hearings, the Planning Commission shall adopt by resolution a recommendation to the City Council to approve or conditionally approve the project. If the Planning Cc--mission denies the application, the matter shall die unless appealed to the City Council wit days. hin fourteen (14) calendar a. The Planning C01=ission may alter the development plan subdivision or development agreement and impose such restrictions and conditions as it may deem necessary to ensure that the project will be consistent with the intent and purposes of this section and with the adopted plans and 11 Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 5 CJ policies of the City. b. The Planning Commission may, for any reason, send a plan back to the Design Review Committee for reexamination per Planning Commission instructions. 4. The City Council and Planning Commission shall make the following findings before recommending approval or conditional approval of a project: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the location of low and moderate income senior citizen - oriented housing in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area. (b) That the proposed zone change would not have significant enrivronmental impact on the environment or adversely impact or affect surrounding properties. (c) That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the General Plan. (d) That the proposed zone change meets the location criteria put forward in Section H of the Senior Housing Overlay District. (e) That the proposed project meets the site development criteria put forward in Section I -2 of the Senior Housing Overlay District. (f) That without the granting of development incentives as agreed to in the Development Agreement the project could not be built. (g) If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the development plan, Senior Housing Overlay District (zone change), General Plan amendment, subdivision,and development agreement, the City Council shall schedule a public hearing on the development plan, Senior Housing Overlay District (zone change), general plan amendment, subdivision, and development agreement for its earliest possible agenda. The City Council shall approve, modify or disapprove the zone change, General Plan amendment, development plan, subdivision, and development agreement. If the project is not approved, the City Council shall notify the applicant in writing of said decision. An approved plan shall be c,nsidered as part of the ordinance approving the zone change. 11 Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 6 E• Establishment of District. established shall be in icatedconsenior Housing following the zoning g Overlay District R-3/S,))_ g a reference numbe. identifyin g map by the letters The approved development Plan g each separate base district sha'1 be considered to be a (e.g. and shall be identified by reference development objectives , or the statement of verlay to the corresponding n the ng designation aaofe each specific Senior Housing la F. Tern of Y District on the zoning map. rezones Dhetr "t' If withir, twenty -four map is not approved Senior Housin X24) months after the City shall pProved and recorded g Overlay District the final subdivision expire and the district classifi back to the previous ba cation Of the Project se district designation- Housing Overlay District grant a time extension City C shall revert the expiration date of�the °Seniorthat at least sixty City Council may request for extension statin H0U57ng Overlay Y (60) days prior to the Plannin g the reasons therefore'strict a written g D�v751iti Rs a condition of the extension the may impose new conditions , shall be filed with development plan as it may revise existing conditions City Council requirements of the State find is onsMaY, pursuant t' or modify the extension shall be discussed P Act- fees Public hearing at that time, Any for processing an G. Mod-ifications develo en ";ia s approvedeby theh��tyhCounci ?district sha77 comply with development plan shall be submitted, reviewed, evaluated the Plannin C Any amendments tv a 9 omnission and City Council. and approved S' H. ate Location Criteria, Applicability- ur certain condit,�hn beforeoising Overlay District specific parcel of land. applied for In order to adequately and satisfactorily this district has been created to serve, demonstrate the following conditions I. 2. and Appropriate base district Lan,4 zoning. the by requires the presence or attached to a serve the target population that any Proposed project site must features: uses in the immediate and surrounding area, current and Projected, must be compatible with senior citizens and must be free of the living environment required by h fumes)genera7ly 4uiet, especially atha9ht, andefreeoofrnaxiousobl�s C L1J E Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 7 El 3. Area infrastructure must be in place or constructed as part of the project and capable of serving the proposed project including: o streets o sidewalks o traffic /pedestrian signals o drainage facilities 4. Proposed site topography must be fairly level and easily traversed by people of limited mobility. 5. Project site must be within walking distance of at least one of the following type commercial establishments and services: a. food shopping b. pharmacy c_ bank d_ public transportation (main or frequently served routes) 6. Proposed site should have convenient access to as many of the following as possible. a. public services (library, community center, service providers) b. professional services (medical, dental, legal) C. general commercial activities d. parks /recreational facilities. I. Site Develo ment Criteria ii' a City recognizes t e need to evaluate affordable senior citizen housing projects as unique developments serving a financially vulnerable and economically inflexible target population. Because the very nature of designing rental housing for this group requires the use of sites, siting techniques and building techniques that present special problems, and because providing affordable housing for senior citizens of low and moderate income is a high City priority, the City will not require proposed projects to meet specific minimum or maximum development guidelin,�s. I. All base district requirements governing items a -h below may be waived provided public health, safety and welfare are not threatened: a. lot area, width, or depth b, front, rear, or side yards C. building height or setbacks d. lot coverage e, dwelling unit size f. on -site parking g. open space h. space between buildings 0 Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 8 Prospective developers of projects are advised to consult with City staff rior to development or submittal of any plans in order to determine the City's experience and expectations regarding affordable senior citizen housing projects. 2. In general, projects processed under the Senior Housing Overlay District will be evaluated according to the following performance criteria: a. affordability of dwelling units produced (priced to meet income requirements of target population as defined in SHOD Ordinance). b, overall ability of project to serve target population (design, location, amenities provided) C. impact on immediate and surrounding land uses (current and projected) d. design compatibility with immediate area (architectural style; landscaping; street frontage; color schemes, building materials) e. On -site lighting (common areas. walkways, parking areas, frontage) f. site perimeter planning (to provide protection for the project and surrounding uses from adversely impacting each other; use of buffering techiiques; gateways where appropriate; integration of site with area where appropriate) g. use of design techniques that afford project residents the opportunity to intermingle on both a formal and an informal basis (internal walkway systems; gazebos; shaded sitting area; covered patios). h, use of safety materials in project design (skid- resistant materials in sidewalks, patio areas, outside stairs; handrails on stairs or paved grades; bathroom safety features). i, practicality of site design, for mobility limited or non - ambulatory people (curb cuts; wheel chair ramps; avoidance of grades in common areas). j. design of pedestrian safety features at vehicle /pedestrian interface points (clearly marked walkways, use of pedestrian signs, well lighted walkways, transit passenger waiting areas) L 11 Senior Housing Overlay District Administrative Guidelines Page 9 k, design of vehicle ingress and egress to and from project site (traffic signals, turnip lanes, bus acceleration /deceleration lanes, bus pull -in areas 1. parking area design and layout (integration and masking of trash collection area, proximity to dwelling units, use of landscaping) J. General Provisions The genera provisions of the base district shall apply, unless specifically changed by this chapter or as modified by a development plan or conditions of approval. K. Performance Standards In addition to the performance criteria of the SHOD, the performance standards of the base district shall apply, unless specifically changed by this chapter or as modified by a development plan, or conditions of approval. L. Design Guidelines The esign gui elines of the base district shall be applicable to all projects whenever possible, unless specifically changed by this chapter or as modified by a development plan or conditions of is approval. II. PROJECT MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Project developers should be prepared to demonstrate to the City how they intend to maintain the project over the long term (landscaping, buildings, parking areas, walkways, etc.). Approval by the City of a long -term maintenance plan will be a standard condition of approval in all projects developed under the Senior Housing Overlay District. In order to insure that project maintenance is in accordance with the maintenance plan approved by the City the posting of a Performance Bond shall be required. Project Mainatenance Plans should, at a minimum, provide details regarding work to be performed and approximate maintenance schedules for the following routine maintenance items: o Painting or staining of buildings (dwellings, recreation, other) a Landscaping (trimming, replacement) o Resurfacing /restriping of driveways and parking areas C Rcof u oenior Housing uvertay Uistrltt Administrative Guidelines Page 10 o Walkways o Common areas, covered patios, outdoor furniture o '_ighting o Pools, spas, saunas o Recreation Buildings E E SENIOR HORSING OVERLAY DISTRICT PROJECT SUBMITTAL REVIEW PROCESS The following is an outline of how the senior housing project submittal review process operates. This analysis reviews each step in the review process, who participates in it and generally explains the purpose of each step. Step 1: First pre - application conference Pur ose Explanation of Senior Housing Overlay District - development process - incentives possible - development agreement Explanation of proposed project (project developer) Participants: Planning Division Staff Project Developer General Comments: The purpose of this step in the process is simply to provide an opportunity for the project developer and staff to become familiar with each other, to give staff an opportunity to explain the workings and ® contents of the Senior Housing Overlay District, and to give the developer a chance to explain the size, nature and scope of the proposed development. Step 2: Pre - application submittal Purpose: Provide basic project information for staff to review in order to determine project adequacy, development incentives to recommend that City offer via development agreement; (basic feedback to developer) Participants: Community Development Staff (Planning, Engineering, Building) Senior Citizens Municipal Service Providers (Sheriff, Fire, Sewer, Water) Project Developer General Comments: Based upon staff input at the first pre - application conference, the project developer will submit basic project information (site plan, elevations, rent schedule, etc.) to staff so that staff may review it, determine whether it meets City criteria for obtaining development incentives and to give the Senior Housing Overlay District Project Submittal Review Process Page 2 Ll developer a response to the project early in the development process. Second pre- apPlication conference Ste�3_ Provide staff response to development proposal, sta fwil l commend Purpose indicate development incenti es re developer; provide that City award opportunity to review staff's corm+ents. Planning Division staff; Project Developer Partic� =- the discussion at this meeting, a developer regarding the General Comments: Based on will know what staff's recommendations er project and development y are acceptable not. If to staff if they if indicate they are, the process cortinues aon with thestep; etagree;nent they are not, staff reachm developer to try Staff Report /Recommendations to City Council Std Report tc the City Cou��ep�e d nature and development cope o Pur ose: the proposed project, consider granting the that the C�tY for a incentives ro riaLe provisions and recommend epP P developer development agreement. Council; Planning Division Staff; Project Participants- �---= City Developer oint in the process, the City %council will At this ? the project, where it defining General Comments: have basic information located, what incentivrso e t feasibler and is to be requires in order to make the pdevelopment staff comments on the project,reement. At this incentives, and development ag indicate whether or not point, the City Council must with staff recommendation it agrees aaDevelopmert staff should proceed with preparing Agreement. tion (per requirements of Submit project a; District) Step 5: Senior Housing Ov- Begin processing Pur ose• Ll E E. E Senior Housing Overlay District Project Submittal Review Process Page 3 Participants: Usual staff and outside agencies involved in Design and Growth Management Review. General Comments: Prcjects that have reached this point in the submittal and review process will have been developed with the benefit of many hours of staff review and comment and should not require significant revision. Step 6: Design Review Growth Mangement Review Purpose: Usual detev-m- nations of ability of service roviders to servic =_ project (Growth Mangement Review and rs-,e' tioa of design problems /issues (Design Review) Participants: Design Review Committee Growth Mangement Review Committee Project Developer General Comments: If the City Counc'1 or Planning Commission deli -� special unscheduled meetings of committees may be called. Step 7: Development Agreement Purpose: To provide assurances to both the project developer and the City that incentives offered and agreements made are kept. Participants: Planning Division Staff City Attorney Project Developer General Comments: In order to provide assurances to both a developer and a city regarding the processing, density, site requirements, and any conditions, terms or restrictions originally agreed to will in fact materialize and endure, the California Government Code (Sections 65864 - 65869.5) establishes that Development Agreements may be entered into, the provisions of which become legally binding to both parties and all successors in interest to parties to the agreement. Senior Housing Overlay District Project Submittal Review Process Page 4 Step 8: Planning Commission Public Hearing: Project, Overlay District, and proposed Development Agreement Purpose: Review project for consistency with the City development policies and SHOD policies. Participants: City Planning Commission City Staff Project Developer If the Planning Commission fails to approve the project adjustments will be made in the processing sc:iadule at that time per Planning Commission. instructions. If the Planning commission approves the project, overlay district, and development agreement: Step 9: City Council Public Hearing: Project, Overlay District, and Development Agreement Participants: Planning Division Staff; City Attorney; Project Developer General Comments: Based upon this review, the project and overlay district will be approved and the development agreement signed by the Mayor =half of the City. If the City Council fails to approve the project, adjustments will be made in the processing schedule per City Council instructions. If City Council approves project: Proceed To: Map Recordation Plan Check Etc. L] El E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. STAFF REPORT 983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: VICTORIA AVENUE During the Victoria Planned Community and General Plan hearings, there was much discussion about traffic issues in Etiwanda. There was a strong desire expressed through testimony that Etiwanda Avenue should be kept as free of traffic as possible to retain as much of its present character. This issue and the one of land use in the "heart" of Etiwanda were the two most important policy issues for Etiwanda that the Commission and Council addressed during the Gen- eral Plan hearings. After consideration of various alternatives, the Commission and Council adopted in the City's Circulation Element a Victoria Avenue Policy that does not provide service between existing Etiwanda de- velopment and the new development of Victoria Planned Community. Further land use decisions were made that reinforced the circulation policy and provided balance. Thus, land uses along the west side of Etiwanda Avenue were designated lower intensity with the concept of traffic from this land use being oriented toward Etiwanda Avenue and the Victoria P.C. land uses oriented toward Victoria Parkway and Day Creek Boulevard (see exhibit "A "). However, to provide continuity, a trail connection has been provided to allow pedestrian and non - vehicle traffic to transverse into Etiwanda Avenue via Victoria Avenue. Subsequently the William Lyon Company submitted its first Village subdivision which was approved by the Planning Commission in November 1981. This subdivision incorporates the non - continuity of Victoria Avenue but provides for a trail connection from the Victoria Windrows Village to Victoria Avenue (see Exhibit 1311). The remainder of the subdivision has been designed to be independent of Victoria Avenue. The entire project plans are com- plete and await building permit issuance as soon as the project's Title 10 'oan is released (approximately 60 days). ITEM K March 23, 7983 Victoria Avenue Page Two Therefore, it is not feasible visiont in view of thesigicantaimpl�cati °nsiass t0 the map approval Circulation RECOM"'NDATION: a result of subdi- �tf, The Planning Of receive and file this re Re pctful ubmitted, I - Fj _ port. JACK LAM, pICP Community Development 0i rector JL: j k Attach: Exhibit "q" - General plan Land Use and Circulation Exhibit °g along Victoria Avenue - Victoria Windrows Subdivision Map E 11 1 e,� a N Vimzma. CIS Ccv&,LvUb" � e a Figure 111 -1 LAND USE PL RESIDENTIAL L= VERY LOW <2 DU E= LUVV 2 -4 DU's /AC L� LOAN- MEDIUM MEDIUM 4 -14 DU': ` MEDIUM —HIGH - HIGH 24 -30 DU's /A( O MASTER PLAN F COMMERCIAL /OFF1C ® COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY CC E NEIGHBORHOOC REGIONAL COM: I=mo OFFICE INDUSTRIAL � INDUSTRIAL PAF M GENERAL INDUS GENERAL INDU.i RAIL SERVED UM HEAVY INDUSTR OPEN SPACE = HILLSIDE RESIDI =1 OPEN SPACE ' FLOOD CONTRC ® SPECIAL BOULE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEi Hl EXISTING SCHC 6 E EEE PROPOSED SCH PARKS'(ocasTM F CO CIVIC /COMMUNT CITY OF RANCHO i GENERAL pLAN n a +aos owns ,.,,ate. ++• �• • I 0 uq z s D i U SE- i r.. l tAVP - �r}vHSS.yy'. a 1 �1��0�4�1 Slo1� is pra�,c�, _ s _ e VA Gwj-y fr 69 B 00 - I +P•.Crha:r�- U SE- i r.. l tAVP - �r}vHSS.yy'. a 1 �1��0�4�1 Slo1� is pra�,c�, _ s _ e VA Gwj-y fr 69 B 00