Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/04/13 - Agenda Packet;. ,. _ _ ��� .. .- .. � � r :'.: �.. i. 1�' ��; •t.. -.1- �_ ,. ;. jAf S CITY OF RANCIiO C[JCANtOtiCA 'o PLANNING Co�kIMJSSIO. 1; AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY April i3,1983 7:00 p.m. ACTIO Tract 11577 - Landmark N- - Roberts Group Tentative Tract 11797 - .MulUns/Biiss - Diversified L IL. ur APPROVED 2 -0 -2 -1 APPROVED 3 -0 -0 -2 IV. V. LION'S PARK COV24UNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,. RMCH(l CUCAN;ONGA, CALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegiance :, :i Commissioner BarkerAbsent Commissioner Juarez Commissioner McNiel X Approval of Minutes March 9, 1933 Announcements Consent Calendar. Commissioner Rempel Absent Commissioner Stout X The following COnsertt Calendar item3 are expected to be routine and non- controversiaL They 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. FNVSR /iAT 1Rr�mm.. Ln�r-.NUER _The development of a 125,000 square oot industrial boil ding on 6.25 acres of ;and in the Industrial Fart category the south side of Evcal (Subarea 7) located on APN 208- 351 -38. 9ptus Street, east of Elm Avenue - B. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE Tentative Tract 9619 - Hillside Vista Investments Tentative Tract 11549 - Lewis Development Corp. Tentative Tract 11577 - Landmark Tentative Tract 117 81 Tentative Tract 11793 - Roberts Group Tentative Tract 11797 - .MulUns/Biiss - Diversified C. TIME EXTENSION FOR DR 81 -35 - JENKINS A' Planning Commission Agenda April 13, 1983 Page 2 D. TIME EXTENSION FOR Parcel Map 6076 Parcel Map 5733 VL Public Hearings The following items are Public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the reic:ed p- z,1zc-.. F tGUae wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. APPROVED 3 -0 -0 -2 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7264 - WATT COMMERCIAL - A division of approximately 37 acres into 2 parcels within the C -1 zone located on the east side of haven between Highland and Lemon Avenue - APN 201 - 271 -53. APPROVED 3 -0 -0 -2 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LUaWLUn me development of a 411,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility on 23.8 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial zone (Subarea 15) located on the south side of 7th Street, approximately 1045 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue - Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 6658. CONTINUED TO G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APRIL 27 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -03 - An amen residential use standards to allow for elder cottages and second units on single family zoned residential lots. APPROVED 3 -0 -0 -2 H. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR with language modifi- HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT cations REPORT RECEIVED I. REPORT ON DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 3 FILED VIII_ Council Referrals CONSENSUS TO RETAIN J. CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES FOR HAVEN AVENUE CURRENT PLAN f. 9:40 p.m. Planning C.rission Agenda April 13, Page 3 1X. 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. X. Adjou mment The Punning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go tsyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission_ 04740.0 MIERMATIOw.q AIRPOWT' CITY OF RAWCNO CUCAMC*@" 0 LJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 13, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -06 - MESSENGER - The eiekipment of a b, square foot industrial building on 6.25 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7), located on the south side of Eucalyptus Street, east of Elm Avenue - APN 208 - 351 -38. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration B. Purpose: Construction of a 125,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility. C. Location: The south side of Eucalyptus Street, east of Elm Avenue D. Parcel Size: 6.25 acres E. Existin Zonirr4 : Industrial Area Specific Plan, Industrial Park category, tSubarea 7) F. Existing Land Use: Unmaintained Vineyard G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Unmaintained vineyards, Industrial -Park category, (Subarea 7) South - Unmaintained vineyards, General Industrial category, (Subarea 8) East - Unmaintained vineyards, Industrial Park category, (Subarea 7) West - Unmaintained vineyards, Industrial Park category, (Subarea 7) H. General Plan Designations: North - Inaustria3 earK South - General Industrial East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park ITEM A Development Review 83-06/Messenger Planning Commission. Agenda April 13, 1983 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The site slopes uniformally to the south at approximately 2 %. No structures or trees exist on the property. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: A. General: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assesment and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of this project. B. Impacts: Development of the project will generate additional tra is and increase the amount of water runoff from the property. However, these increases are not viewed as significant adverse impacts since the surrounding streets and flood control facilities exist or will be provided to handle the projected increases. III. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon site analysis and the Initial Study, it appears that this project wi'1 not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment. If the Commission concurs, issuance of a Negative Declaration for this project would be in order. Respectfully subay tted, RiO Gomkz City Plinner :CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Man Exhibit "3" - Natural Features & Grading Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Elevation Initial Study, Part I E E J .1.1 Pin. ft 1/2 Sec 12, TIS,R.7tvs8a a M. Rm ft cucam qo Gay 2os-35 7w ftle. AW I50<9- 15051 i07f, 42/ 4 ,,.5 303 1 6 ft,-3 ciED 06 CENttR t'F"VF CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO CUCATMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION F.XI iIFUT- --k-- SCALE: NORTH �� 6'�•I li EUCALYPTUS % `1 i f �,_ f \ STREET �J r � , D m /w yA i L Grp Z 7-21 �-- rl� - a qq� � a N 0 v - �A t �- A 3 a� ¢ Ili. I L (h i I ��I I �U t nn ppl IS•� SU1wRt &CYCLE fACUjrV r �� �W:auiLLbr. f WIGq QICCY'AO�M4tY ti4 M�m� LKJq CIC1YOMA fJ11TgN� cw V NORTH CITY or ITEM= 1X e3 -c>fa, RANCHO CLCNPVIQINGA TITLE: .� PLANNING DR'LSION ENI ill;rr= �_ ALE_ LJ 1 CITY OF RANCHO CLTUMMO\TGA PLANNING DIVISION ITE.N I: "CREWS -oto TITLE: -.7,m�L m -5rm EXHIBIT: 4-2— SCALE- V V NORTH CITY OF RANCHO C;CAMMOO'GA PLANNING DIVISION! ITE N1 :-TIC8�3 -O(o TITLE: 19LE2, � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET -- To be completed by ant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed ar.d 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 determinr-tions: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a. Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant ervironmental 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. PROJECT TITLE: �ewsQn, ,u aw r s� pa< - 1�u�e¢ APPLIC;SNVS NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: ",,3;s,nq,r Ca_ NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: N' II- P �c_io <f ACe�4 4� 19clo8 S!S�t (y 1,2kal "It vi ' f4 70g wes7- Ro�•� S *�-- t7µ1.�St °go4v LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR `PARCEL NO.) r It_ r__1 t___ _ c G .. _1 _1_. C4 (i•_. \- rl. -i�cl LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Q.ru,c1_- C,c,.......ae E.�o���.�, �•w �e� Iw. p.,�'.<fj,..,.} I -1 C C PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING A14D PROPOSED BUILDINGS, I'r ANY: i &.,; 2 AcRKS (283.i4ot Cq. C�a !Ja Ex�9T7e.6 CT2ycTV2E9 �� woe Cc7 CT ��oCS B%of Amer DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOMOGRAPHY, 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) 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? ivy 0 11 C WILT. THIS PROJECT: YES NO ✓ 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ /"3. Create a substantial change in demand for zaunicipai services (police, fire, water, / sewage, etc.)? _ ✓ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or / general plan designations? ✓ 5. Remove any existing trees? How mazy? 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 involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be .wade by the Development Review Committee. Date_ Signature ti Title Assr S;P- -r� i� pop 1- 3 .RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Protect: PEASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1- Nu. fiber of single family :nits: 2- Number of multiple family units: 3- Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range I -4 E \J DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 13, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner FOR TIME - TENTATI 19777 BACKGROUND: The attached letters from the applicants request time Axtensions for the above residential projects. The requests are based on the current economic conditions adversely affecting the building industry and lending market. None of the above - listed tracts have submitted plans for plan check to date. The approved tentative tract maps are shown on the attached exhibits. Listed below is the unit type, number of units, approval date, and expiration date for each project. Tract # u of Units Unit Type Approval Date Expiration Date 9619 31 SF 12/10/80 5/10183 11549 90 SF 5/6/81 5!6/83 11577 7 SF 11/26/80 5/26/83 11781 76 Condo 4/22/81 4/22/83 11793 47 SF 4/22/81 4/22/83 11797 240 Condo 5/27/81 5/27183 ANALYSIS: Tentative tract maps in the City of Rancho Cucamorga are currently valid for a maximum of four (4) years, with appropriate extensions per Subdivision Ordinance regulations. The initial tract approval is 24- months with the possibility of two 12 -month extensions. Tracts 11549, 11781, 11793, and 11797 are eligible for the first twelve month extension. However, Tracts 9619 and 11577 were approved on a different time table in 1980 for twelve months, and subsequently granted an 18 -month extension. Since 18- months remain of the four year maximum for these tracts, it is suggested that a final extension be granted for the full eighteen months. ITEM B Request for Time Extensions Planning Commission Agenda April 13, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the final eighteen (18) month extensions be granted for Tracts 9616 and 11577, and twelve (12) month extensions be granted for Tracts 11549, 11781, 11793, and 11797. The new expiration dates are shown on the attached Resolution. Ily yiabmitted, ty (Planner PG:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" through "G" - Extension Requests & Tract Maps Resolution of Approval L' �J r 11 1�1 VICINITY MAP savelvasse City Limits Unincorporated Area Within City Sphere of Influence CIAINTY OF R CHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION TITLE: VVJNtr<X4,4F EXHIBIT- 4 SG%I-E- HILLSIDE VISTA INVESTMENTS 7333 Hellman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 (714) 989 -1767 March 8, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION 9340 Baseline Road P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Re: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TENTATIVE TRACT 9619 Dear Sir: Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COPM110 Fy CIEVU OP MEN7 DEPT. triAR >i 1983 AM PIN 7181911011111211 1212541516 k We hereby request an extension of tract No. 9619. Due to the poor state I ending market, we have been unable to Enclosed is our check for $62.00 fee. If there are additional costs or please contact our office. time to record tentative of the economy and the proceed with the tract. representing the er_t,:nsion forms v­� must submit, In regard to the amount of the extension, we request that we be given the maximum amount of time that is available to us. The market is improving, however, we would like to have as much latitude as possible. Thank You for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. DKH:vr Yours truly, �s r . G* Do as K. Hone General Partner UJ J r' LJ I „ r, 1 1 i r I I r I a •Y j - I l ti SR' i--i s'I � !� 1 F -- -__� •,rte- �____. ----------------- -------- 1 --- �--�-- =- r i __.. ,tip_. e , I – I „ r, 1 1 i r I I r I a •Y j - I l ti SR' i--i s'I � !� 1 F -- -__� •,rte- �____. —_�_ �i' -- Itr� I a 1 I r ___ 1 ,tip_. , I I „ r, 1 1 i r I I r Z LZ r=te. I I 0 � IMw r- G 1 .,, � �' ,vim ��.. yJ ••' � \ 1 . yY _ ♦au•rr �.. \ .. P�Oa CC(/4T e rf0• II ( T �` _... �. !q ".. t I. fh ]0.,s• r).T. �' G �r 20. w 4 i . -_.✓ 110 1 . ..wl � ns � =sr � rrpr.i r✓+rl r._':. ryI �.. Y _. _,,., ar l` � I I a •Y j - I l ti SR' i--i s'I 1 `-ZD rrGanr C vE ,tip_. Z LZ r=te. I I 0 � IMw r- G 1 .,, � �' ,vim ��.. yJ ••' � \ 1 . yY _ ♦au•rr �.. \ .. P�Oa CC(/4T e rf0• II ( T �` _... �. !q ".. t I. fh ]0.,s• r).T. �' G �r 20. w 4 i . -_.✓ 110 1 . ..wl � ns � =sr � rrpr.i r✓+rl r._':. ryI �.. Y _. _,,., ar l` � I I a •Y r t _ 1 I l ti SR' i--i s'I 1 `-ZD rrGanr C vE ,tip_. CITE' OF ITEM- -nms ic-rEgg(c .a ® R.,V\CH0 CUCNNIO\GA TM—E- —►`r -Tt i q PLANNING DRVISION EXHIBIT: E-� SCALE- eZrzr• e:. r ;ur. �A/ V L `oRTH t1L�EMS HOMES 6 North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Uptarrl. CA 91786 / 714 985-0971 March 8, 1983 Mr. Michael Vairin City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P. 0. box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 11549 Dear Mr. Vaarin: -1 - Y OF RANCHO CUCANTONGA COMMUNITY CFVEI OPMENT DEPT. MAR 8 1983 AM PM 71819110it XiI1213141516 A We hereby request an extension of time on the above - referenced tract. We have been unable to proceed at this time due to the slow sales rate and the poor economy which has had an effect on the housing industry. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Cordially, L'WIS HOMES Ron Nottingham MW C -1 E E n i St 1MM T-r ANA--- i i rV ifq_ A ilk WAY Is 11 •i_n..... s i....`i .i i..u.rl ��� /.<..�../ ,,,.. <w. », a..< ( cwol —_ II i rtw _ I..1 t 1ml Z' 1� p... < .��t.I� Z6 � i :��•^3C'1�1 t 1. s•.��. t �I ✓I rt♦ .ems `.�. � r ro CITY OF BL lNCHO CUCANIONGA Il PL.ANN ING DIVISION 41 cv ss i r� �a a� cV i i � • lll; 1 �l iS 9. fit^, T^•_ A "�. 1 y% � !l � !t l', � !i R.,U� � 1�2�_p0�- r .j �MV,:11i.:.4i .'.wj= t'l�"�.cT'c:r,pjf•.. 1 YY'y '!u�....4^!'�.�"y (4 NORTHV NORTH ITEM -�II�4q - TiME�ad TITLE - T r l l S EXI iIBIT- _ SCALE- l- ®1 TERRANCE A. LANE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEERING& SURVEYING 902 West Ninth strect Up)and. Caiiiornia93786 (714) 981 -5602 City of Rancho Cucamonga Flannino Division 9340 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA_ 91730 Re: Time Extension Request for Tract 11577 Gentlemen; "✓ AfiiONr A (,:, •. °:'ttr�r•v t;Ftr,gp:,,FK7 DEPT. Iviy� > ;yLS: AM 17 18 ►9(i01'IIL'I Al2a314�3 ►6 March 22, 1963 Please extend Tract Map 11577 for a period of 6 months. The Tract is scheduled to expire on May 26, 1983. We are currently preparing house plans and processing the project through F.H.A. Enclosed is the extension fee in the amount of $62.00. A 79 -17 t Very Truly Yours; LANE 8 ASSOCIATES r� i 0 Terrance A_ Lane 0 w Bdst /.nom S.r�ait idmr /�rY Non 1 --, I D I � F10 %Y C' :fr ✓� Grove I41 I a ✓c. �`i i lQ� SroSfrf.ol ,es I IC.frWI ` `ai I 1 L. -�1 f E I R- / ,v -/ SCG rR.7dias Line .4- - r twl� 2 IFOMwooP } {,c.... — +� � •^ � �y _T— .I �I� I � = f'k lj- Wit_ ""."•+.�..�� 6vENUE „ /�i- �N. -�i +..r- .�+�, -�. � E� 1 w. � S I Li INS_ I ,1 �— :783 CITY OF ITE:\t= -Tmc_ ® RA\CHO CUEATK) \'GA TITLE: � �: - PLANNING IDI LSIO NORTH :SIC•tii'•1u;11;ii:?�c JAMES E. CROSSy ENGINEERS. INC. March 14, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attn: Community Development Planning Division Re: Time Extension for Tentative Tract No. 11781 Gentlemen: Tentative Tract No. 11781 has an expiration date cf April 22, 1983. Because of adverse economic conditions to the building industry for the last year or so we are unable to complete and file the map before the expiration date. On behalf of the developer, The Roberts Group, we respectfully request a time extension of one year for this Tentative Map pursuant to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $62.00 for the consideration fees. Sincerely, JAMES E. CROSBY ENGINEERS, INC. Robert A. Bacsik RA3 /vc 336 -80 CC: Roberts Group V-X4jzrg a _1 1620 E. Deere Ave. • S=e 100 • Sams Aria. CA, 92705 (714) 957.8066 -.1 III �1 _ HKP� we I R1650aT _ _ -Wws a�T _ CXISTWS q+aS' T R.7 .� EJf6TWC'R4 PROPOSED R -3 RJ wr< f CITY OF RANCHO CUCA'MO\TGA PLANNING DIVOON ITEM= T; _ NifrIELISICIA TITLE: ME 11-781 EXHlBlT =_,t-:-'-Z- SCALE- rV �J NURTH Lawrence O. Bliss Prop —ty Development Broker 7333 Hellman Ave.. Rancho Cucamonga. California (714) 989-4092 Feburary 21, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga Commuity Development Dept. Gentlemen; Please extend Tentative Tract :dumber 11793 Mullin /Bliss for a one year period -to April 22, 1984. of $62.00. LOB /bhs cc: Mr. John Mullin Enclosed is the required fee Sincereiy Yours, %tiawrence O. liss i ;i TY OF FF.f1Ch:Q UCAMONGA CCi'-N'UhiTY LEVE;OFMENT DEFT. VAR 8 L083 AM Pp 7 0- il0jU1121Zt213141a °s MUWT F -f I� I� � �_ �i ail. ._�•__ _T NORTH—_ Jli' 1 - C`.'4 - ;- jam: •,,� - -- all �. CI'T'Y OF ® RANCHO CUCANNIONCA TITLE- -r-r 1-7g5 PLANNINU DiVLSION E\! llBrr p7-?- sckll- - -,- i 0, Ry-' 'C'. L Fi6;t.J ^II i v DIVE' 0 HUNT DEPT. n DIVERSIFIED `: ESTMENT AM ;N ' y GO IN PM J I I COMPANY 718;91ID1111;i111213o41516 27C S BRISTOL STREET. SUITE 201. COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626 1714% 957.2651 March 7, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 9340 Baseline Road P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, C_8 91730 Re: Project File €TT11797 To Whom St Mav Concern: This letter shall serve as official request for a time extension for our project to be located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Baseline Roads in Rancho Cucamonga, file rTT11'97. Our project has, like alot of others, suffered delays due to current economic conditions, we are therefore, respectfully requesting that the City grant us a one —year time extension for our application. T_ have enclosed check €148 in the amount of $62.00 as an extension ZEE. Please let us know when our time extension request will be scheduled on the Planning Commissio^ agenda. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you reed any further information. Very truly yours, DSJERSSFT_ED- Z— NVESTMFNT CONLpAlI`i anet�, L. Petersen Director of Construction JLP 1 tah `, J cc: Jack Tarr J E E 1 � • •� e'er j P. G4, 4G2 ••u': -� In, � t a� �° 's as Aaara b��"�y ✓' CITY Or. rrE %is -n.•rc ..,�, �►� RANCHO CUCANIIONGA - rrrLE: sr- 11-7 9-7 PLA\NI \G Dl %rM\ EXHIBM _,*:z SCALE- .j TNOR l l I 1 El 11 L/ RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 9619, 11549, 11577, 11781, 11793, 11797 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described projects, pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28 -B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described tentative tract maps. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following Findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for residential projects. B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to record the tracts. C_ That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Cade. D. 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 in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning - Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tract Expiration 9619 December 10, 1984 11549 May 6, 1984 11577 November 26, 1984 11781 April 22, 1984 11793 April 22, 1984 11797 May 27, 1_984 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission 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 13th day of April, 1583, by the following vote-to-wit- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 11 0 E CITY OF RANCHO CIUCAMONGA ST ?,.FIB REPORT DATE: April 13, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR DR 81 -35 - JENKINS BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a time extension for the above industrial project, located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Tarner Avenue. The proposed project consists of two industrial buildings totaling 36,750 square feet on 2.14 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 5). Initially, the project was approved on December 9, 1981, with an expiration date of May 10, 1983. Due to the current economic conditions, the applicant is requesting a one (1) year time extension, consistent with Zoning Ordinance provisions. RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that a one (1) year extension be granted for this project. The current expiration date of May 10, 1983 would be extended to May 10, 1984. lly submitted, ty Planner Exhibit W - Location Map Exhibit °B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C° - Elevations Exhibit "D° - Applicant Correspondence Resolution of Approval ITEM C A ai 4 lu Sr j y T 1 � I I fib,- CITY OF RANCHO CUC NIONGA FL- VNINING DIVISION E NORTH 1TF- %1 =12K81- 31s-,TM95 2�ET�tS�ctii TITLE: .w1�MAC E\I1IR.'T -�._ SCALE, - N.T.S. E I I" I Ij ' I I! I I � , 1 I TURNER AVENUE 9TAEETSCAPE -�.�.. r�� ±'m+s -•••• acmes e• ra.e�mv fw�Kf �.y�u�iC (rnt V��NIO.VP'OC ?�s�ocssvw.w ww� PARKING LOT PLANTwcS mica r..w - �ee•+.m s..m RttaDW D � Zp�ZSO � , �i • �...a..n ..y,.z i�� FORTH CITE' OF { / \jT IT{E%1�� lam, 01 -3S TN'I�T �• �� R IN C1 O VUCAT TONGA T! 1 LE: �1CiS��E s 1 T -A-9 PLANNINS MOON EXHIBIT: 1�S SCALE: WE 5. .� Q I�j It AmR9 � � E OfAiC ~� 81111'.110 C �- i sG. Pr - r _ ?�s�ocssvw.w ww� PARKING LOT PLANTwcS mica r..w - �ee•+.m s..m RttaDW D � Zp�ZSO � , �i • �...a..n ..y,.z i�� FORTH CITE' OF { / \jT IT{E%1�� lam, 01 -3S TN'I�T �• �� R IN C1 O VUCAT TONGA T! 1 LE: �1CiS��E s 1 T -A-9 PLANNINS MOON EXHIBIT: 1�S SCALE: WE 5. NA . of . - ---- -- --__ Eq w_ c' �c _.Iwo WE57 I ELEWA77ON• -i37 TYPICC.L SEEON TFIRO ��'J✓ .�1_� � \•� 1 `(''���'tr'�� -Q,, `. '- fir: . e --�•"j y',� .♦..y } 3v WEST Sul�nt�t CITE' OF RANCHO CLCA�'IO \G.A, PLANNING DR'iSIQ�i TITLc �� cyl+rtn• tic war ErHIBf7= �-- _SCALE : —AL S E SOUTH ELEVATION _- E WELT ELEVATION =421 'EAST ELEVATION f NORTH ELEVATION ��s-j" 3v� �✓1rvG CITY OF RANCHO CUCCkNIONG.AL FLAMNI \G DIN SIGN ITEM I :TMIc3I- 3s.-T-IaaE r?;rc44st*t TITLE: ELEV n4e, -- Eo,-C- . EU i nrr; C -7 SCALE: -r-s_ 7 t Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Johnston Dear Mr. Johnston: M. April 1, 1983 This letter is to formally request a time extension for the Davis - Demler industrial - office project at the north -east corner of 7th & Turner Streets in Rancho Cucancnga. Though interest rates have somewhat receded in recent months; it is still not economically advisable to proceed at this time. Si erely, J- Rort G.ve�+?J ins RGJ:mr A[d IftOCtsP 23:141 Mill Creek Road. Laguna Hilla. CA 92653 (714) 859 -7951 u 9 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -35 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, pursuant to Section 61.0219(n) 83 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously approved the above- described project. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following .in ings: A. That prevailing economic conditions and interest rates have caused a distressed market climate for this project. B. That current marketing and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to construct the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. D. 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 in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Project Expiration DR 81 -35 May 10, 1984 A ?PROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8Y: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: 0 Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 I. JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Coo:aission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the ?fanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of April, 1983, by the following Note -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E E E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 13, 1583 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Request for Time Extensions for Parcel Map 6076 and Parcel Map 5733 The attached letters request time extensions for Parcel Map 6076 and Parcel Map E733. Parcel Map 6076, located east of Sapphire Street on the north side of Vicara Drive, was approved by Planning Commission on July 7, 1980. A one -year extension was granted on January 7, 1982. Mr. Anderson, owner, is requesting an extension of time due to prevailing economic conditions. An 18 -month extension will result in a total time period of four years. Four years is the maximum time allowed under the Subdivision Map Act. Parcel Map 5733, located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue and north of the Santa Fe Railroad, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1980. An 18 -month extension was granted on September 17, 1981. Since the Etiwanda Specific Plan is not yet approved, Betty McNay, owner, is requesting a one -year extension. This extension will result ir a total time period of four years. Four years is total time allowable by the Subdivision Map Act. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Planning Commission consider the request for extension of time for Parcel Map 6075 and Parcel Map 5733 and if the Commission concurs, adoption of the attached resolution would be in order. fully submitted, 1 LBH.BK :jaa Attachment ITEM D s. ♦ A r" L: TF/J7A71. VE PARCEL MAP MAP NO. 6 076 :.1211 • 'to 1nW."Is IN THE CITY OF RACJCH,? CUCAFAI,7iVG4 o.,..p an:p... BEING A DIVISION OF PARCEL NO 2 CF PARCEL MAP NO 3342. AS PECOADED IN 000R 33 OF PARCEL NAPS,PAGES -' 61 AND 62• RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO CODNTY•CLLIFORNIA GOD- �f3 - ufow'yn• 1N/ _ •N�ri :.1.]P ♦ NOTES --r - - - __LA _ SENDA ROAD SCALE I )-.50* . .. ' T 1 I 1 v W I uo s� rc.+c oracoo.uc Fe �rkr nleccn - 1 ' t PARCEL IP A RCEL 2 PARCEL �• r°D� 3 •pgCEt e T J. /W.•LV ._ irlll _ •N�ri :.1.]P ♦ NOTES --r - - - __LA _ SENDA ROAD SCALE I )-.50* . .. ' T 1 I 1 v W I WCARA 1 I 1 a I ' ae , 1 fAMKY AF• S.tC OVr /AL t 2; I 1 I KCB _ f 1 7.__ r I 1 R m ' i1N U U / - i y I . n I' t ' t PARCEL IP A RCEL 2 PARCEL �• r°D� 3 •pgCEt e J. 11 • Sf 0.0 ^' -. -Df -. i. WCARA 1 I 1 a I ' ae , 1 fAMKY AF• S.tC OVr /AL t 2; I 1 I KCB _ f 1 7.__ r I 1 R m ' i1N U U / - i y I . n I' t 2 a' March 8, 1983 5341 Carol Drive Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 (714) 989 --2858 City of Rancho Cucamonga 932L' Baseline F.oa2, Suite C Rancho amonga, Ca 91730 Attention: Paul A. Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer Re: Parcel Map 6076 East Side of Sapphire, North of Vicara Dear Sir: I respectfully request your consideration and help in obtaining an extension of time to accomplish the develop- ment of the referenced parcel to the point of completing the required improvements and recording. As everyone is aware, the ec.)nomy; tight money and high interest rates have made it infeasible to proceed with such a project. Respectfully submitted, �1, Don Anderson .o I � i I ,i I e .i " "low, I� X43 u4 it I 1 III I ' I i J f— r y ^_ A r 3 alp y �7C a�? L ee z'� 64 LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING I 17, & SURVEYING COMPANY,1ri1G �, -It f 1 .. �• .t y C = �� - I � lK,. '+ \•\ail � / 1 • 1 I✓1 I� X43 u4 it I 1 III I ' I i J f— r y ^_ A r 3 alp y �7C a�? L ee z'� 64 LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING I 17, & SURVEYING COMPANY,1ri1G c ' 8300 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CAI- FCRNIA 91730 (714) 985 -1861 :March 08, 1583. CITY 0: RANCHO CJCAMONGA Community Developmert Department P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Ns. Barbara Kral! Engineering Technician R:ference: Time Extension for Parcel Map rr 5733 Dear Ms. Krall: Enclosed please cover the exter. March 17, '_984, li you should contact ma. find a check in the a.Toz:nt of $62.01v, to sion for the period of one (1) year through on t!:e above referenced parcel map. have any questicres, please Feel free tc Very truly yours, n Betty McNay BM :rg Enclosure: As Listed Above cc: file MEMBER ONTARIO- UPLANDLHINO BOARD OF REALTORS if A.I.O.C. INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL - INVESTMENT - RESIDENTIAL RESOLUTION NO. 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSIONS FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 6076 AND 5733 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8.2(b) of Ordinance 28 -B, 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 made the following findings: 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 external physical conditions have caused delay in the start of construction. D. That the granting of said time extensiuns will not be detrimental to the public healti, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION. 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for the above - described project as follows: Parcel Map Expiration Date 6076 July 7, 1.984 5733 March 17, 1984 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONnA BY: Herman Rempei, Chairman n i r �J 11 CrrY OF RANCHO CUCAIMONOA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 13, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer B"- Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician �m SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7254 - WATT COMMERCIAL - A division of approximately 37 acres into 2 parcels with the C- zone located on the east side of Haven Avenue between Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN 201- 271 -53 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Requested Action: To divide 37 acres into 2 parcels. B. Purpose: To separate C -1 zone (Z.C.80 -02) from residential property. C. Location: East side of Haven Avenue between Lemon and Highland Avenues. D. Parcel Size: Bath parcels are appr -)ximateiy 16 acres. E. Existing Zoning: C -1 (Parcel 1) and R -1 and R -3 (Parcel 2). F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. G. I ng L2.n use asA Zpninn- North: R- South: R -1 East: R -1 and R -3 West: Mixed C -1 and R -3. H. General Plan Desionation: North: low 2 -4 d nacre South: low 2 -4 d.u. /acre East: medium high 14 -24 d.u. /acre West: neighborhood community and medium 4 -14 d.u. /acre. I. Site Characteristics: The subject site slopes approximately 5% from north to south. There are approximately nine existing eucalyptus trees along with assorted plant life. No structures are existing. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7264 - Watt Commercial April 23, 1983 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General: This parcel map rom the residential zone changing the area included by the City Council on May the Planning Commission and zone change are attached. divides the C -1 zone shown as parcel 1 shown as parcel 2. Zone Change 80 -02 in parcel 1 from R -3 to C -1 was approved 21, 1980. Staff reports and minutes of City Council meetings resulting in this A dedication for Lemon Avenue will be required on parcel 2 along with the additional dedication shown on parcel 1. Dedication for the freeway frontage road on parcel 2, if needed, will be determined at the time of development. Prior to development on any parcel, a development :view application must be submitted for Planning Corm+ission approval. The area shown as proposed freeway right -of -way will be precisely shown at that time. 3. 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 investgation. 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. IIL CJRRESPONDENCE 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. VI. RECOMMENDATION 1t is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration, 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 Derlaratin- issued. Resp tfully ubmi ed,. i LBH: B • as Attachments: Vicinity Map Parcel Map Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study E IE 11 nm !u.' m u.n.. un..n.a�s■ ■�� ei sC '.� . ii �■��/�� a p � a � nln/ N no ■mM��� all r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO. ,`gyp title' ENGINEERING DIVISION A VICINITY MAP page TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 7264 IN INC CITY OF RANCNO COCANI7NGA BE /NO A S/BOMS /ON Or C PoRrJON OF LorS J.4. 2/ XAV 22 OF FOOrml -lL FROST4ESS FRUIT CONPANr SUBOMSION NO.2. M TR£ CIYr OF RANCHO CUCANONCA. CDUNTY OF SAN BERNARDI&V. STATE OF CALAORNUI, AS PER NAP RECORDED /N eCOr 20 OF NAPS. PAGE J4. /wCOROS OF SAID COUNYY. i i i 1 _.t 2rl I J 1 I ` � 6,_II � v i A� i b 4I� �1 01 a I�1J L _ 1117 APAUAPW 1/Ci - 2 ivs- nc:"age$ R al/ a . ( 1T, �A00, gLa1� 1M - {Of {` ' '�>•�TrtC G IMO�YIw' lf4AMf Iyti• �. y ll�:p �Sp•prtr VACANT Jf/ rJ /os .q cs szz �'JC rs r� >c� 4/ >S. rstfl /L1fM ,..J�si err v�oc u ��_ aMr rs z /ca a \ \ ✓� � —\mob \�-�-� =,.� � - -- PARCEL 2 C -1 VACANT .. rse� -• n\ —�_ _ .. fir• � _ _. _ _ _ / /_/ -���� - �r�.tlnfATy�r�(yC7 f'�r��ivvv�TJN J . \�- j_..rli - foe. rJN - RTw I SfsMa /'• /GD. O STATE JJ /ffAiYNY "Oar,= /SO i1 EINOLE- FANN.T N[cID[NTIp R�1 }r R�1 _ 2 TRACT 9475 , II ' M.S. L35/33.-54 , � CC.SMJN e✓CNUG Y Lae /lrsr♦f Gra !p f I✓ mw 'J..a Gcrtrlr i i i 1 _.t 2rl I J 1 I ` � 6,_II � v i A� i b 4I� �1 01 a I�1J L _ 1117 APAUAPW 1/Ci - 2 ivs- nc:"age$ R al/ a . ( 1T, �A00, gLa1� 1M - {Of {` ' '�>•�TrtC G IMO�YIw' lf4AMf Iyti• �. y ll�:p �Sp•prtr VACANT Jf/ rJ /os .q cs szz �'JC rs r� >c� 4/ >S. rstfl /L1fM ,..J�si err v�oc u ��_ aMr rs z /ca a \ \ ✓� � —\mob \�-�-� =,.� � - -- PARCEL 2 C -1 VACANT .. rse� -• n\ —�_ _ .. fir• � _ _. _ _ _ / /_/ -���� - �r�.tlnfATy�r�(yC7 f'�r��ivvv�TJN J . \�- j_..rli - foe. rJN - RTw lae�rs ri.,/ pJrs STATE JJ /ffAiYNY "Oar,= /SO rGE n75( • VACANT R�1 Nrr[rTJH IRJVi0�.45 9!'INGY' ' xJ.rc pv rYOrrr — l�..mr.vgr R/Nn- ne('GJly� m•�/�G Y Lae /lrsr♦f Gra !p f I✓ mw 'J..a Gcrtrlr a � o.�zR I ^4. ^n �VO k 1 0� a 81 ' rsGn F.r. rs� rice. aJV-s yrri.,.Nrr J>�T SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TRACT 9587 M.B. 137/90-92 E 0 E I i 4 I l J 2 G Z T Z m shops 1 o ypf 'S to C ' •� , i _Cf� y ..� i � z -* • i C' F pad D�. �!'.• , .� • ' — VN 1 _ 3 pJ I HIGHLAND CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL.ANNI`;G DIVNON AVENUE I NORTH rrai- Zorg E C- NA GE - 8D-o7 Tri LC- , _ ;L i i N &Y FLAK Exi iiBrr- F SCALE- _ CITY OF RANCHO CCtCAMONGA ® INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $.7-0, -QQ For all projects requiring environmental review, this form :rust be completed and submitted to the Development Review Ccmmittee 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 :sake one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an 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 ® t-.e proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: P.M. 7264 DEER CREEK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: WATT MMERCIAL PRnDFRTTFS � Ty-- ?716 Ocpgn Park Rlird $?nl :� Santa -Unni ra � Pali ¢ ()fm j5 r213) 450-6 ? ?7 iAKA- WCp pEVE-LOT)AEN 7 ! (A.mANY) NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: R( WATT COM,iERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC.. PERSON TO BE CONTACTED 2716 Ocean Park IACATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Between Lemon Avenue and Highland Avenue. adjacent to Haven Avenue on thn tcPCt Tax Parcel #201 -4 -21. LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: • Grading Permit • Bui ldi nt- Pc-rmi tc I -t PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: he north, Hi hland Avenue on 16+ acres bounded Lemon Avenue on L• I ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 1}5.700+ square feet of proposed buiidiags (no exis lug s DESCRIBE THE E14VIR)M1ENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOR 1ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL C?? SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSA�y SHEETS): he subiect site is open space with no existing structures. Tile plan ife consists o t e norma masc.e nistorical or architectura va ue. nti. =1 (2 -5 h[I /acre). To the east i space and to the west is me ium en Is the Project, part of a larger Project, Gne of a series- - of cu:nulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO `J F- 2 11 11 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO Y 1. Create a substantial change in grouni contours? M 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? M 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? )M- . _ S: Remove any existing trees? How many? 9+ 6. Create the need for use or dispo,Al of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flamnables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: — PLEASE St-.-ATTACHED PA.E FOR — IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for '-his initip.l evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fads, 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 evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date February 10, 1983 Signature t 1 �- Title _ F-)M [T; iVF VICE PRESTDENT WAIT COMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC. Z � ADID JM TO INITIAL STUDY RELATING TO: P.M. No. 7264 — DEER CREEK 'VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER EXPLANATION TO PAGE I -3: YES TO No. 1: Will this project create a substantial change it 2ro7m ['L'S;;4 e'� The site will be fine graded and paved to obtain proper drainage relative to the building lay -out. YES TO No. 3: Will this project create a stbstantial change in Since the property is presently vacant, any development would cause a demand for mrmicipal services, whether substantial or not is questionable, i.e., police services patrolling a vacant site or a shopping center, more or less service. E 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February 25, 1980 To: Planning Commission ( From: Jack Lain, Director of Community Deveiopmer.t Subject: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE NU. OU -UZ - WATT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC. - Request for a change in zone from R-3 to C -1 for 15.85 acres of land located on the east side of Haven Avenue between Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue BACKGROUND: Watt Commercial Properties. Inc., is requesting a zone change from R -3 (Multiple Family Residential) t, C -1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center) for 15.85 acres of land located on the east side of Haven Avenue between Lemon and High land Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The applicants' inten- tion is to eventually develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center at this location. A preliminary concept plan has been drawn for the site and is attached as Exhibit "B ". The first phase of the center would be developed to the north end since the potential for the frees -iay still exists on the south end of the property. This review entails only the review of tLe zone change and its consistency with the General Plan and not the specific site plan which will be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date. The preliminary plan is provided for your information only and does not constitute the final design of the center. ANALYSIS: The subject site is suitable for uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and shape. A commercial shopping center at this location ..:an be developed in the manner to be compatible with existing and planned residential uses, since there is an abundance of vacant undeveloped land, in which to create appropriate design and buffer tech- niques. Exhibit "C" displays the existing zoning on subject site and adjacent properties as well as the General Plan designation for the area. As can be seen from the exhibit, the base General Plan designation for the site is Mixed Use with an alternate Neighborhood Commercial Center being pro- posed at this location. Surrounding zoning is comprised of various residential zones and a corresponding C -1 zone on the southwest corner of Lemon and Haven. The proje ^.t site is presently vacant and a majority of adjacent property is vacant with the exception of a residential neighbor- hood to the north across Lemon Avenue and a multiple family apartment to the west across Haven Avenue. As the Commission wil'. recall, a General Plan Amendment was granted to this area in which the Mixed Use designation was shown all the way to ZTal "C" t Negative Declaration and Zone Change No. 80 -02 February 25, 1980 Page 2 Lemon Avenues. At that time, CC &R's were recorded to restrict vehicular access to Lemon Avenue from any commercial development on this site. This was done to insure that land use compatibility will be easier to create. Recent action by the Planning Commission recommended an amend- ment to the General Plan to re,ocate the asterisk shown on this site to the intersection of Highland and Haven. The amendment has not been reviewed by the City Council; therefore, it is not yet -approved. In any case, the request for the zone change would still be in conformance with the existing General Plan and proposed amendment. After issuance of per- mits for the center, the General Plar wall be amended to reflect the area as a neighborhood shopping facility. It is recommended that the zone change be granted for a period of one : -ear to allow construction of the center to begin within that time period. 3f the center does not obtain buildirg permits for the construction of the center within the one -year period, then the property shall revert back to its original zone and the General Plan will not be amended. This method will insure that the City does not lock in any one corner at an intersection where the General Plan indicates alternate center locations. If a developer does not intend to develop the site in the near future, then zoning should not be committed. The applicant does intend to submit plans for the center after the council has reviewed the zone change. Part I of the Initial Study is attached for your review. Staff has com- pleted Part Ii of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this zone change. Therefore, it is recommended that a Negative Declaratior be issued for this project. ZECOM.MENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Cownission adopt Resoiution No. 80 -05 whicn recommends approval of Zone 'change No. 80 -02 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. Re pectfuily submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Connunity Development JL:8V:kds Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location 'lap Exhibit "B" Preliminrry Site Plan Exhibit "C" Zoning and General Plan Part I Initial Study Resolution No. b9 -05 �l 1 PUBLIC liFs'v1I1:� NEGATIVE DECLAFU.TION A \D 'LOb: CHANGE N0. 80 -02 - WATT INDUSTRIES - Change from 3 -3 to C -1 for property located on the east side of Haver A.- -nue between Lemon and Highland. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nr. 80 -05 which reco=ends approval of Zone Change No. 80 -02 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. Staff further recommends that if the zone_ change is approved that the following conditions be added * -o Resolution No. 80 -05: 1) That the zoning revert back to the original zone after a one year period i£ the applicant is not successful in obtaining building permits for the protect. 2) The zone change could cover the area sta=ting at tae north of Leman Avenue south to within 250 feet north of the centerline of Highland Avenue. The Caltrans right - ef -way is not to be changed to C -1. If at a later time the freeway does not go in then there_ could be an opportunity to come 7n and re -zone that area. Commissioner Jones asked if we are currently reaching saturation point on co=er- cial centers. Mr. Vairin stated at this point we are merely considering a zone change for the property and its appropriateness for the potential of a snopping center. Commissioner Garcia asked if the applicants have considered the ei &,Ire 80 acres in their p'- arming. Mr. Lam stated at the present time the applicant is nc:rsuing the center porc:on OF the property. Their intention is to have a planned development with combina- tion A -P type use and perhaps condominium type uses. Both uses are allowable under the mixed use designation of the General Plan. Chairman Re=pel opened the public Iearing. Mr. Scott Bell, representing Watt Commercial Properties, stated they have reviewed the staff report and are in concurrence with that report. They are pursuing the Zone Change in order for the zoning to be in conforsrnce wish the General Plan. Clara Veloz, 10522 Lemon Avenue, stated there are 34 homes-within her tract and they all share one thing iu. common - their desire to preserve the residential neighbor- hood. They chose to live in a small community below the foothills for their children to play. They deliberately did not cant to move into an area next to ccmmercial de';elopment. it is felt more emphasis should be placed on the reeds and desires of the residents in the area. A shopping center would be very nega- tive for the area. There are currently many vacant shops within this City in existing shopping centers. In a quick survey of eight centers, 37 shops were vacant. She submitted a list of residents willing to work toward keeping their cocmunity residential. JoAnr_ �SU ns, 10570 Lemon, submitted a petition signed by residents of the area in opposition tc the zone change. Their main concerns are: the saf_ty of their Children, ecological impact, the community impact, the deterioration of property surrounding shopping centers, the proximity to sales of lieuor and the misuse of lieuor sales by Chaffey students and the proximity of liquor sales to schoo? bus stops. Planning Commission Minut °s -3- February 25, 1980 A Mr. Fred Sherman, E225 Dakota, stated an environmental assessment was ircluded in the staff report which has assessed no impact to the residential area sur- rounding this zone change. However, there is nothing to back up those conclusions. He finds it: hard to believe there would be no impact due to the increase of traffic in the area. There will also be trucks to stock the stores and a lot of this will be done at night. Development of a center would cause a lot more noise and traffic problems in the area. There could also be a significant increase in the crime rate. We already have an overburdened police department without enough personnel to pro- tect the entire area. Commercial development in this area will cause a drop in real estate values. The entire appearance of the area is going to change fron residential to commercial. He asked that the Commission consider rejection u_ the zone change. If a rejection is not given he asked that at least a 30 day postponement be given so that they may be given a little more time to assess the impact this is going to ;lave on the area. Mr. Roland Smith, 6235 Valinda, stated the reason he moved to this area was to get away from commercial development surrounding the residential. He would like this area to remain residential. He moved out here for peace and quiet and does not want another Montclair Plaza. There is a large area in the City which could be zoned commercial. - Mr. Steve Heimann, 10423 Cartilla, stated he moved from Los Angeles to come to this city. They moved to this area because of the value of property and the serene, pleasant atmosphere of the area. The effect of a shopping center in this area is going to be very damaging. He is concerned of the increased crime rate. The impact of commercial would have a detrimental effect on the children in the area. Look-4-9 at this project he does not sae how the City will benefit. Mr. Dave Tanner, 6563 Valizda, stated commercial areas should definitely be kept separate from the residential areas. He bought his home in this particular area due to the fact there was all residential development in the area. At the present time, he can see the mountains from his home; however, if a shopping center is developed it will block his view. Mary McNamee, stated she moved to this area from Downey. She .lived next to a Junior nigh School and off of two major streets. It was not the kind of area you would cant your children to grow up around. She moved here for the peace and quiet. She does i. -t want her children to. live in an area where rhev are afraid to walk out their front door. Mr. David Delgado, 6646 Mesada, stated there are many people in the audience here in oppositioa to the zone change. It is his op- inion the people that live in the area should have some say as to what is developed around them. More schools and parks are needed in the Citv instead of commercial develo} ent. Chairman Re =pel stated the City has. no control over the schools as the school district is an entirely separate entity. The City has worked since incorporation to get schools and .heir problem solved. The Cite is trying to find funding for schools. Mr. Robert Todd, 6232 Cartilla Avenue, stated this City needs street sweepers and needs to take care of drainage problems. We need to take care of what is currently is the City before new commercial is developed. We also need more parks. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 25, 1980 .l 0 El Chairman. Re =pel stated the City currently does not have the money for parks, street sweepers, etc. Uho is going to pay for the parks? It is up to the citizens of the community to work with the school district and agree to pay higher tares to have new schools. Mr. Mark Whitehead, 6542 Valinda, stated he is in opposition to the zone change and can not see a need for commercial development in this area. Chairran Re=el stated this Commission car. not deny a developer to come in and submit a cone charge request. That is why the zone change is before the Co -mis- sion for public hearing. Mr. Jack Sylvester, applicant, stated in 1966 a shopping center permit was granted for this area on Haven and Highland. Lemon Avenue at that time was abandoned by the County of San Bernardino. He made it possible for the people to develop Leeson Avenue so they could comply -,ith County requirements tc have a 60' -ide street. 16,en John Blayney was rerained as the General Plan Consultant he recormendeu at one time that the entire 80 acres be a regional shopping center. Cnly when he discovered that 14 odd acres could be take., t or aright _f way for the proposed Foothill Preeway and interchanve on that cnrnar was it downgraded to a cor- -unity shopping center area. He then found in going to the Planning Staff that although Caltrans notified him in writing that they •.ould not stand in the way of development, it was suggested that he move any co=-- ercial site to Lemon Avenue and that he :oluntarily agree to a CC 5 R prnhibiting access er egress on Lemon Avenue for any commercial project. He raised no opposition and voluntarily agreed to sib the CC 5 R's. Their project, as proposed, will not Mock an: view of the mountains. Their buildings would rot exceed 22' in height. The Planning Division will also insist on a landscaping b•iffer on Lev,= Avenue and they will do their best to screen any unpleasant aspects thzt may arise. They are not proposing anv development that is not in the best interest of V-.e City. They are preparea to sit down with any committee i:o work out anything which -s fair and reasonable that is in the best interest of the community. President of watt Commercial Properties, stated for the people in the sudience, he would like to state that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted one of the strictest development standards .;1thin Southern California. In regard to property values, the homes built around their existing developments have increased in value. With the adoption of Proposition 13, one of the few remaining items left to create income for a City is shopping center development. He hoped the- the City would look favorably on their request. Hr. Dave Mulligan, 6620 Mesada Street, stated when he moved to his home this area was basically a rural area. There was all kinds of wildlife and nature around. They moved to an area ;iiich he hoped his children could grow up, have animals and be able to live in a rural area. They are in opposition to the zone change and asked that the Commission consider what the people living in the area want. Mr. Steven Beck, 6233 Cartilla, stated the fact that the developer does not live in this City says a lot for the project. Those living in this area will have to continue living with any development that may go in, but the developer will leave the area once the development is completed. 'Feb-y 25, 29S0 Planning Commission :Minutes -5- Mr. Sid Silliman, 6310' Haven Avenue, stated he is in opposition to the zone change. He statea at the time the General Plan was adopted for this area, a number of people did come to the : ommission and object to the designation a® of commercial development. They also submitted a letter and petition to that effect. There being no further comments from the audi.>nce, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how long the asterisk has been at that intersection_ Mr. Lam stated it has been there since July of 1978- Co=issiOne- Jones stated she disapprovea of the commercial designation at the time of the General Plan hearings. Also it is her opinion Haven Avenue should be developer: as a scenic route. For that reason she has been opposed to the asterisk shown on the General Plan throughout the whole process. Commissioner Garcia stated his concern at the present time regarding this pro- perty is that it is taking only a portion of the total 80 acres. It has been our policy to request master planning of major parcels of land. The applicant: I as a right to ask for the best investment of his property and at the same time the residents around the area have a right to protect this project. In terms of a zone change for this property at this time, he feels that it is not time. Commissioner Dahl stated in his review of comments received from the audience, he has to separate the emotional from the :actual points brought out. In regard to increased crime, in looking at the cer._ers on 19th and Carnelian; we have not been affected in that area with a major crime increase and have nz, reason to believe we would be affected in this area. On the other hand, there would be a definite increase in traffic. There would be a possible increase in debris as indicated. He doesn't necessarily feel that property values would go down because of commercial development in the area. A valid point is the possible over - building of commercial development in the City, as there are a number of units that are vzcart now. On the emotional side is the liquor statements made. Students from the college car get liquor ary place if they want it, and we car. not eliminate that. From a factual s*_andpoing is the drainage problem. He would agree with ComAssioner Garcia that we are not ready for a center at this location at this particular time; however, he would not want to shct the door to that center being developed in the future either. More evaluation of this particular proposal is r-eded. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the asterisk was placed at this iocatic,:i as it was felt by the Commission and the Council that this would be a good location for a t:ozr..crcial center. He would agree with the other Commissioners, however, tizat this is not the time for this particular change of zone. This is not to say that t`:is Commission will never feel a center would be appropriate for this area. Chairman Rempel stated in regard to statements made that the City should keep same of its land open, the City is working with the County to develop a wildlife habitat restricted from vehicles, etc. we can not say that we are never going to allow a property owner to develop his land as the City would then get into LJ Planning Commission *:inures -6- February 25, 1980 inverse condemnation which means the City would be forced to buy that persons land. He stated it has been discussed on many occasions that we need approxi- mately 10,000 residents in an arer for another shopping center, therefore, it is also his opinion that a center at this location is premature at this time. In regard to drainage, if water starts coming down Haven without any facility to accept that water, it would also have a serious impact because of the amount of runoff. He feels it is totally premature to develop a center within the next two or three years. A motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Toistoy to deny Zone Change No. 80 -02 without prejudice. AYES: DAIM, TOLSTOY , JONES, G?.RCIA, RDIFFEL NOES: N017E ABSENT: NONE Recess called at 9:05 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:30 °p.m. with all Commissioners present. PUBLIC HEARING NEGATIVE DECLARA+TIO,I AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 80 -01 - HONE kND ASSOCIATES - Pro- posed shopping center -to be located on the. - southwest corner of Lemon and haven. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 80 -07 subject to the following amendments: Condition -45: A ratio of 200" of the trees to be planted on the site shall be specimen size trees to be 36" box trees. Amend Condition #7 to read: No additional food uses may be permitted within the center unless parking requirements of the zoning ordinance can be met and that such use is specifically reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. i Chairman Rempel asked for question^ from the Commission of the staff. Comnissioner Dahl asked that staff review for the Commission the comments by the Design Review Committee: Michael Vairin reported the Design \Review Committee reviewed the project and requested redesign of theiIservice station which has been complied with somewhat. Mr. Hogan added that the /application will improve Lemon Avenue if the Commission considers approval of the site approval. There is also a pooling of water in this area during the rainy season. The applicant will be required to install a major drainage structure to handle the water, so that it will not cause pro- blems fcr downstream properties. Mr. Vairin stated one letter was received from the Garder. Apartment homeowners Association, expressing objection to the proposed development. This letter has been forc.zarded to each Commission member for review and is on record in the Planning Division. He reported in addition, numerous telephone communications in opposition to the development have been received. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 25, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CSTAFF REPORT DATE: May 7, 1980 C IL -- City Council and City Manager FROM. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Barry Hogan, Senior Planner SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECf.ARATION AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -02 - WATT CO..IMERCIP1, PROPERTIES INCORPORATED - Request for a change in zone from R -3 to C -1 for 15.85 acres of land located on the east side of Haven Avenue between Highland and Lemon. Avenues. ABSTRACT: Watt Commercial Properties, Inc., requested a zone change from R -3 to C -1 for the land described above from the Planning Commission on February 25, 1980. The Planning Commission denied the applicants request because they felt that the proposed development was premature and that there is no justification for the construction of the center at this time. _ The applicant's intention is to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center at this location over a period of the next four years. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has prepared additional data for consideration by the City Coun- cil. Attached to the Staff Report, please find copies of the three -phase development plan and perspectives of the proposed development. These plays are only conceptual and would require specific site plan and design review if zoning is granted. The ap- plicant's intent .could be to open Ph.-se I, including a drug store, market and a shop building :�n April of 1982. Phase II, proposed to be opened in March of 1983, would include additional shop buildings and free- standin;, buildings. Both of the plans and the total development plan indicate a dotted line along the Highland Avenue frontage. This line indicates the extent of the rreeway right -of -way which may or may not be required. Fcr this reason the applicant is proposing the development to begin from Lemon Avenue developing southerly towards the Freeway right -of -way. At the Planning Commission meeting there was concern expressed over the potential views the residences on the north side of Lemon would have looking southerly into the devel- opment. Attached to your packet of information is a drawing showing what the developer proposes to construct in order to protect or screen the view of. the center from the residences. Also included is a sect :on drawing_ The developers are proposing 50 feet of landscaping from the property line and depressing the building approximately 20 feet in order to mitigate the visual impacts. This is similar to the proposal approved by the Planning Commission on the Gemco site south of San Bernardino Road on Foothill. Additionally, questions arose as to the feasibility of a market in the area at this time. The applicant has prepared a market and fiscal impact study done by Economic Research and Associates which is submitted in your packet for your information. In addition, the applicant hired the firm of Linscott, Law, Greenspan, Inc., Engineers, to do a traffic report to determine whether or rot the development would impact the area or change the level of service provided on the streets. Further, the applicant has contracted with PBR, same firm that did the EIR for the Daon Southwest property, to prepare an initial study for the development_ It also is included in your- packet for ;-our review and ccnsideration_ 6�z E �Jsc be 2 .. 0 Exhibit "B" indicated the general planning for the area and the property, in addition to the existing zoning. The property presently is master planned for mixed use and contains an asterick indicating it is an alternate commercial site which allows the applicant to request the zone change from R -3 to :-i. As the Council may recall, when a General Plan amendment was granted to t.ie property owner for this property the mixed use designation was shown all the way to Lemon P_venue. At that time CCbks were recorded to restrict vehicular access to Lemon Avenue from any commercial development that may be proposed for this site. The purpose was to insure land use compatibility between the residential and commercial uses. Part I of the Initial Study is attached for your review in addition to the information submitted by the applicant regarding traffic, drainage, and market ability. If the Council finds that there is no significant adverse impact that would be created on the environment as a result of the zone change then a Negative Declaration should be issued for the project. RECO'TL NDATZON: If after review of the information presented herein, and by the applicant, the Council concurs with the actions of the Planning Commission then a motion should be made to deny,the appeal upholding the Planning Commissions` decision. If the City Council, after review of the information presented Herein, and by the applicant, feels that the zone change is appropriate and will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment, then a motion should be made to adopt the attached ordinance approving Zone Change No. 80-02 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. - Respectfully submi` ied, d [no-l-li Jack Lam, Director of Community Development JL: cc'. Attachments: Location Map General Plan and Zoning Map applicant's Exhibits 5�3 Gir City Council mSiutes Ma, 7. 1980 Page 7 Wes ',llcy -Transit: Motion: m.ved by Schlosser, seconded by Mikels to appo P.,lombo. Motion carried 5 -0• Council requested that secret ballots be ue.d for the selection of the rcpre- I sentative for SANBAC /Orzitrons_ Tha.City Clerk conducted the process. and then • announced that Councilnan Mikels had been selected to be the Council's -cpre- sentative for SANBAC /O¢ndttans. Mikcls suggested that Jim Frost be appointed . seconded by Mikels to appoint _ as tae alternate. �76aon: Moved by Palombo, iJim Frost as a alternate for SA::BA /Omni[rars. motion carried 5 -0. 5, PUBLIC HEARINGS SA. APPEAL OF ZONE ChE,NGE ':O. 90 -02 - WATT INDUSTRIES. A change., of zone from R-3 to C -2 for 7roperty located o.. the east side of Haver. Avenue between Lemon and Highland. staff report by Jack Lam. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 101. ORDINANCE N0. 101 'first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CO'JNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING THE WESTERLY 557' OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 201- 271-53 FROM R -3 TO C -1 L0CATFr1 ON THE EAST SIDE OF pAVEN AVENUE BETWEEN LEAN AND HIG'n'TAW AVENUES. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Bridge to wai- ' further reading. Motion carried 5 -0. mayor opened the meeting for public hearing- Those speaking, in favor of the zone change and p:ope,ed shopping center were: President of Watt Commercial Properties Lloyd Bookour, environmental consultant Jerry Kramer Jack Sylvester, owner of the property Vito de Vito Francesco, attorney for Mr. Sylvester Bob Demlock, ccnsul'ing civil engineer Doug Hone, owner of parcel on the southwest comer of Lemon and Haven Mayor Schlosser called a rec, -s at 9:15 P-m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with all members of the Council present. . Mayor continued the public hearing by asking for those who wished to speak in opposition to the zone change and project. They were: Linda Greer, 6204 Valinda Street Craig Nelson, 10560 Lemon Clara Velos, 10522 Lemon Roland Smith, 6235 Valinda Ronnie Tanrebaum, 6681 Etiwanda Avenue Since there was no one else wishing to address the Council, the navor c" ,ed the public hearing. motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to refer this back to t.,e P7annirg Commission for reconsideration with the consent of the developer. Motion faileC by the following. voce: AYES: Palombo. Mikels. NOES: Frost. Bridge, and Schlosser. ABSENT: None. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost that the appeal be granted and the proposal for the zone change from R -3 to C -1 b; approved. Motion cur: d by the following vote: AYES: Frost. Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Mikels, Palombo. NOES: None. iMayor set May 21 for second reading of ordinance. 1 E 1i CITY OF RANCHO CUC',%AIONCA DATE: May 20, 1980 TO: Phillip Schlosser, Mayor 1-40 - FRUM: .ack Lam, Director of CormnunityDevelopment BY: Barry K. Hogan, Senior PlannZ„ [ty o. SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -02 - WATT INDUSTF.IES ABSTRACT: As you will recall from the last City Council meeting, there was cons- derable discussion from the people in opposition to the zone change. The discussion centered around the following points: 1- Traffic 2. Drainage 3. Aesthetics 4. Appropriateness of Commercial Development in the area 5. Safety TRAFFI': The issue under traffic posed was that the location of a commercial center would increase the vehicular traffic '�o and in the area. It is es- scntiall, correct that vehicular traffic will be increased. However, Haven Avenue a a raster - planned arterial highway which will more th a,i accommodate increased traffic which this center w.ill generate. F,irther, it should be noted that a traffic signal is proposed at Haven and Lemon Avenues and left turn pocket. for ingress and egress to Haven. There is no vehicular access allowed onto Lemon Avenue as *his has been restricted by deed in the evert of commercial development on the subject property. Additionally, develtpmer` will be required to fully improve and fully dedicate Lemon and haven Avenues to their ultimate width in addition to the installation of median islands along the entire frontage of the property. DRAINAGE: The area residents indicated t-1 at there was -a drainage problem in the area and should development occur, it will only exascerbate that situ,.tion. The City Enaineer has reviewed the site to determine what drainage requirerents will be necessary. F:itile tnere is a octential for drainage problem at this point in ti ^,e, howe ^er, the City Ergi :jeer concurs with the interim drainage solution proposed by the developer. There will be no drainage problems as a result of this project for the area residents. AESTHETICS: 'luch discussion ensued around the appearance of the Center and how it will impact upon the residential area. There were assurances given by the developer that the center will be one that is well designed and compatible with the area. The specifics regarding the design of the buildings and their location would be subject to a conditional use permit and desigr. review. At the zoning stage, it would be redundant tc' impose these conditions because they are already law. The concerns of the area residents, the Planning Cca mission and the City Council, in relation to the compatabil.ity of the Center a- chitecturally to the surrounding residences have been made and duly noted for future design rc-nEide_�t4 az�d inclussion. APPROPRIATENESS OF COMt9ERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA: The area residents felt that commercial development is incompatible with residential use. AS we have seen from the location of other centers in the community, those com- mercial centers that are developed directly adjacent to existing residential sites do cause problems. However, this proposed Center is different in three facts: 1. Tt is seiarated from residential development by a 60 foot street and a grade separation. From a house on Lemon Avenue there will be over 150 feet to a building, a 50 foot landscaped setback and a 1 elev pot atior. difference. 2. Any proposed residential development_ adjacent to the Shopping Center would occur after the Shopping Center is built and there - fo__,would have to consider the Center as a development constraint. 3. Most import_r.tly, this is 3 neighborhood Shopping Center proposed to serve the nei ^,hborhood area within a radius of approximately one mile. If neighborhood shopping centers are to serve the residential neighborhoods should they not go within the neighbor- hood? SAFETY: The issue of safetv for issue to the increased activity in will be an increase in traffic ano not result in lower safety for the be installed and appropriate on -si purposes are mandator-. the area residents was raised as a related traffic in the area. It is true that there activity in the area, however, this will area residents. Sidewalks are reauired to Ach le and off -site engineering design for safety MW The issues as described above were discussed quite thoroughly by the op_oosition at the time o_r the first reading of the appeal. To make the most effective use of City Council time for the second reading, it would be most appropriate to request that additional com.ients be addressed to any new issues that were not discussed during the first rP- '_ing. Should you have an A this item, please do not hesitate to call this office. y questions regarding JL: 3Fit : cd r� El 0 11 City Council :iinutes \� may 21, 1980 Page 5 Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no hearing was closed. response, the Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Mikels to approved Ordinance No. 70 -D. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Palumbo, a Mikels, Frost, nd Schlosser. NOES: None. AESEYT: None. 5B. APPEAL OF ZONE C,L:NGE ,10. 80 -02 - WATT INDUSTR:ES. A change of zone from R -3 to C -1 for property lac area on Lie east side of Haven Avenue between Lemon. and Highland. Mayor Schlosser gave a review of action taken at the M,iy 7 Council meeting_ Ciry Clerk Wassermae read the title of Ordinance No. 101. ORDSNA,NCf N0. 101 (second reading) AN ORD' NCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C11Y OF RANCHO CUCA`IONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING THE i I.'ESTERLY 557' OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL Nlr,„MER 201 - 271 -53 FROM R -3 TO C -1 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE BETWEEN LEMON AND HIGHLAND AVENTUES. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to waive further reading. Motion carried 5 -0. Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing to the proponents. Scott Bell, Vice Prenidert in charge of the project, addressed Council. Those addressing Council in opposition to the proposed zone change were: Fred Shersun, resident at 6225 Dakota Roland Smith, resident aL 6235 Valinda Craig Nelson, resident at 10560 Lemon Dave Hudson, resident at 10557 Heather ,'.r. Paul Wilkinson, Linscctt, Law, and Greenspan Traffic Engineer, answered some of the questicns raise by the residents regarding traffic and traffic couat surveys. Others addressing Cc =cil were: Vito de Vito Francesco, attorney representing property owner. Jack Sylvester, property owner. Jerry Krane, architect for the project. Mayor closed the public hearing_ After some Council discussion, the following motions were made: Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to deny passage of Ordinance No. 101. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Mikels and Palocy,:. NOES: Fro: t, Bridge, and Schlosser. Motion: Moved by F:OrL, seconded by Bridge to adopt Ordinance No. 101. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Mikels and Palombo. ABSENT: None_ ,,aver called a recess at 8:50 p_;a. Meeting reccnvened at 9:05 p.m, with all members of the Council and stzff presen,. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: East side of Haven TENTATIVE MAP N0. Parcel Map 7264 Avenue between Highland and Lemon Avenues DATE FILED: 2/11/83 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A sat,'ivision of a NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 portion of Lots 3,4, 21 & 22 of Foothill GROSS ACREAGE: 37 Frostless Fruit Co. Subdivision No. 2 as ASSESSOR PARCEL 140. 201- 271 -53 recorded in Sk 20 of Maps, Page 4 of Records in said City DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Watt commercial Properties same Associated Engineers 2716 Ocean Park Blvd, 42013 316 East "E" Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Ontario, CA 91764 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cvzamonga include, but may not be limited to, tihe following: Dedications and Veh icv i ?, Access I. Dedications shill 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: 16' additional feet on Lemon Avenue, Parcel i 33_x_ additional feet on Lemon Avenue. ParceT-2 dditional feet on X 3. Corner property tine radius will be required per City Standards. X_ 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follcws• 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring ac :ess .,, 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. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sic ?walks 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 issuance. 2. A lien agreement must be executed pror to recording of the map for the following: 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 Uivison prior to recording for and /or prior to issuance of building permit for _ y,treet Improvements Pursuant io the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.26.120, the subdiv` der may enter ioto an agreement and post security with the city guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map andior 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. X 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40400t wide dedicated right -of -way shall De constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing i.�provements: Prior t^ builaing permit issuance for Lemon and Haven Avenue. ricludes landscaping and irrigation or mete: X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroa6ment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 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 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. X _ 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 sidewal:: drains shall be installer! to City Standards. Drainaqe 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. 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 X 6. An easement to accommodate drainage from lemon Avenue shall be provided. 0 Gradin X 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 plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X 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. X 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 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. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: ® CalTrans for San Bernardino County oo o ntrol District x Cucamonga County Water District :or sewer and water 7— San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the :nap. 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 letter of acceptance is requi red. X 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTr ans. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. r X 7. The filing of the tentativt- 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 Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 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 prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit 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 land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: 11 E RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7264 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7264), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, BETWEEN HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVE;.JE (201- 271 -53) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7264, submitted by Walt Commercial Property and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the east side of Haven Avenue between Highland and Lemon Avenues, being a division of a portion of Lct 3, 4, 21, and 32 of Foothill Frostless Fruit Company subdivision No. 2, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, as per map recorded in Book 20 of maps, page 34, records of said County; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 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 40 SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. ►: J 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on April 23, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7264 i- approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA R --solution No. Page 2 BY: Herman P,empe?, Chai man ATTEST: ecretar_v of the P anning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Peso ?ution was duly and regularly introduce, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commmission held on the 13th day of April, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS• NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L''1 LJ �J E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 13, 1983 South - TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -05 - TIWANDA INVESIMEW -• The development of a 411,JUU square foot warehouse distribution facility on 23.8 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial zone (Subarea 15) located on the south side of 7th Street, approximately 1045 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue. Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 6658. Related File: PM 7951 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re nested: Approval of site plan, master plan, and e evatiors. ur ose: Development of 411,000 square foot warehouse 3. Pistribution building C. Location: South side of 7th Street, approximately 1045 feet west oTEtiwanda Avenue. D. Parcel Size: 23.8 acres E. Existing Zoning: Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin Nortls - Southern California Edison Industrial South - Vacant; Heavy Industrial East - Vacant; Heavy Industrial West - Pic 'N' Save; Heavy Industrial H. General Plan Designations: North - Heavy Industrial South - Heavy Industrial East - Heavy Industria: West - Heavy Industrial power plant; Heavy ITEM r DR 83- 05 /Etiwanda In, dstment Planning Commission E,eenda April 13, 1983 Page 2 J I. Site Characteristics: Slopes generally to the south at approximately a ore- and - one -half percent grade, contains vineyard and a single family residence on Etiwanda Avenue. J. A licable Regulations: Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) permits 11g.,t whosesa e, storage and distribution. I1. ANALYSIS: A. General: The piaster Plan, Exhibit "D ", encompasses 173 acres, an 1n lcates possible building locations, circulation, and drainage. The Master Plan is conceptual only, and the precise location of buildings, circulation, and specific uses will be addressed in future development applications. This Master Plan is less critical than the Subarea 16 Master Plan because the land is under single ownership and the property does not have the severe development constraints of Subarea 16. The project, Exhibit "B ", has been designed in accordance with Industrial Specific Plan requirements. 8. Design Review: The Committee was concerned with the architectural treatment of the office portions of the building and recommended a textured treatment such as sandblasted concrete or exposed aggregate. In addition, the painted color band should extend the full length of the building. The Committee was also concerned with the need for continual maintenance /painting of the north elevations because of damage caused by wind -blown sand. The Committee suggested using a textured treatment along the entire north elevation. These recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval. C. Environmental Review: Based upon the Initial Study, the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. III. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project, including the Master Plan, is consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan, General Plan, and applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use, together with the conditions of approvals, will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause signficant adverse environmental impacts. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing 1n 4e a1 v eport newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to proprty owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. DR 83- 05 /Etiwanda Investment Planning Commission Agenda April 13, 1983 Page 3 V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission con'-7a-TT—material er and input on this project. If after such consideration the Coranissior can support the facts for finding and conditions of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. s ectfully submitted, ck omez ty Planner :DC:jr Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhil:it ® Initial Fesolnt 2 "A" - Location "B" - Detailed "C" - Industri "D" - Proposed Study, Part I ion of Approval Map Site Plan al Specific Plan Master Plan with Conditions f CITE' Or RANCHO CUCA.,I0\G.k PLANNING ©Il'rSjav NORTH ITU%I: a� s TITLE: LOCO Ei /kp E.\i iII m A scku: ' _ U !1 Cl NORTH CITY OF ITEM- V% soQS RANCHO CUC kiNIOtGA TrrLE- 'SiMS SLAM PLANNING DeIVMN r—XHIBI . E_ SCALE_ w —mm a ®o� 120• R.O.VW � 100' R.o.m � 88' or less RAIL SERVICE +-+- + Existing + * + ++ Proposed TRAILS /ROUTES 0 0 0 o Pedestrian • e • • Bicycle �C7rJ Regional multi-Ilse Special Stre Landscapin Power Line Utility Ease Creeks & C n Bridge 4 Access Points 0400 800 55�- NORTH CITE' OF ITEA I= ���06- RANCHO C.'C1"/10. TGA TITLE =�� PLANNING DIVISIO`.i EXI iIBM C SCAU: ummm � PMAOc I DISTQI9Lf7. ION VIST /EXPANSION 411.000 SF. 207..0005F OtST018VTION 414900 5F DtSTRt5uTlI0N DtST 4KOOO SF Z5PWS` -------------- MRCEL I it EXPANSION 20TOoo SF OISTRIDVTION u0ocoo -,r I I PARKING I "co 63' DIST I 3Q6DOO sr. -7 PAPKING =mv ;j IS llT'A.L III PARKING Sik ri Fit 4 PEST R Lj : i m =T ;�NK 11 ------------------ NAM AVVA NORTH OftolL CITY OF, ITEM: Vc 47 lWo'5 RAINCHO CTk:CA%i,10N4GA TITLE: MAVIISM PLANNING DIVOCEN EXIiIIMT: 10 -SCALE 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 Porn 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 ter. (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) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. ® PROJECT TITLE: Commerce industrial Park APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPIiONE: Etiwanda Investment Co., 4209 Santa Monica Blvd_ #200 Los Angeles, CA 90029 - (213) 660 -2825 NAJAE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Ted Zwicker, 4209 Santa Mbnic r.,� ra Qnn9Q - 19191 660_9R25_ LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) South side of 7th St._ 1045 ft. west of Etiwanda Parcel 2. Parcel Map No. 6658.. LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: 0 I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 0 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND.SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 23.8 acres with proposed 411,000 S F distribution center. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON*IENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, ?SLANTS (TREES), ANTIM -4LS, ANY CULTURFL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SUR- ROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) Abutting and 3ust South of Snuth� 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? Site layout plan reflects possible development of 170 acres. 0 : --2 11 IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of .residential units, complete the form on the next pace. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signature Title�Q� 01 - I -3 i WILL THIS PROJECT: ® YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing _ noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, e--c.)? X S. Create changes in the existing zoning or i general plan designations? X 5. Rer,.o-:e any existing tree_? How many ?_ S. Create the need for use or disposal of potential?y hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 11 IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of .residential units, complete the form on the next pace. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signature Title�Q� 01 - I -3 s RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION information should be provided to the City of Rancho the ability of the The 6,klOwing r�.eosed residential 3e �elopment. ?lanr_inq Division in order to aid in asses_in district\ accommodate the p Name of Developer and Tertati� =e Tract No• = Specific Locat\io. n of project: \ PHASE = piiAsE 2 DDS£ 3 pK�� 1. Number of single - -- _ -- -- family units: 2. Number of multiple - -- family units: j ropose 3. Date p d to --- begin construction: 4. Earliest date of -- occupancy: Model and # of Tentative _ 5. Beds Price Range I -4 R TOTAL 1 RESOLUTION NO. x A RESOLUTION Or THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 83 -05 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 7TH STREET, WEST OF ETIWANDA IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (SUBAREA 15) WHEREAS, on the 18th day of February, 1983, a complete application was filed by Etiwanda Investment Company for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of April, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: 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 3. That the proposed use 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 not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 13, 1983. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 83 -05 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Revised elevations shall be submitted for the office portions of the building which indicate the use of a textured treatment such as sandblasted concrete or a textured form liner, to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The master plan is approved in concept only. Future development will require separate application for review. Resolution No. Page 2 ENGINEERING DIVISION 3. All pertinent conditions of Parcel Map 6658 shall apply. 4. The pavement width along 7th Street shall be a minimum of 32 -feet within the 40 -foot right -of -way. 5. If Parcel Map 7951 is recorded prior to issuance of building permit, ther, only 7th Street Improvements shall be required. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of April, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C E 11 11 Z O 0 D r O i O 0 �O c Q v z N O n ¢ O C C O V yq d V 6 J V u V ^ r. VQ ��OrrO Or- O P �✓ ad9 � q9`V =•'a M O rr VC D Y�4 ^✓ S .OV V `Nk yyO ✓ S �GCy C qup A yC mV� O N n E yOW . d r y d N 7 4 C � T V T✓ d 1 - °✓ Cq d ^� d 0 0 YL L ✓N 6 � dE o.L.y acL c a�e�u L J L O C d r ASEI� '° 9✓ C ✓ r O✓ r M° � I L 02` d�q C i N- S �... O dNT (Lj � 9• `c O AGE A9 L A •°r >> C_dyO C A` LOiV� �GD U6 AA O Aq d. D_A VVAOI ✓ u dNFN Yd0 LD 'O GNrC � ✓L'C`D yr ^ V L` ^ � 9 u V� O V ^� N d O C? a run °`r r^VG d ^p 7Ai V 9d a^ N� r^ j T °6 LPq d�� ¢ ^PI dm N O P r L Y.°.O r N O O= d � O y L L> � L O y V r- A� O C `� l ✓ O pU a° >'u ✓ u p L. q V p1 O O ° q L✓ N7V p Q -J 6 G L 'C O q✓ L Yp °d =q yA� T N° r0 u 6 r° rr�VNw ¢6 pdc >W °'LNd '•' L.. N.L. y.dj A S �° .L.icu _L'° _I r°ce ^�¢ dEq = ^Lr �= A� cy Lv v °ggcor No a °uo ° a4N W GL 9A „'• W '"rD O ✓O ¢ � �LOd n iN~ VLPL �_ 6 C T� 'C C� O p�u L N � p u0 TC NrL/� ^ ✓L VyyO NO NZN dqV' LC p ✓�•d qC9 nq> ti yNU GJq LO u N�_r O q N U .� N O C °� C P L _ L r O ✓> �^ r u� t E A N _ ry O9run c d W6 CVC W C✓ � ° N p NP6. �Z �✓ir yu O y O NULL CrT ✓ O O 6>pr O O° V L J ML N V N _ V N^ 9 ✓ Vyy ` + °�' ¢ J d °d `L � O S LL N C. o�NE CC AJVC ✓yC n� 6 rqr> IY PO �'•O'Gru �r� yC rQO¢ �E ✓O 6 ¢^ dOH_ �NO `V C ✓OVSa 9 G`_d N° 4p �^ O d p Or O r �'r P E w q a> d C C C 4 A L L• G O w e T b f C J •„r N O r N n d OEOr¢ VNC9 LF� N r >a°i GqL q LVL^ ^_� VL✓T -J 6dq pGy ^O _ Z:! ? r_JO7 d d °6 rr„ =q� OL dL V9J J✓O¢V P p�L Qr.6..7 6ALC] QD ►¢rn r". � I-L NVO O N LV Qgdtp ^ r r bi ^I C6 O\i l Z O 0 D r O i O 0 �O c Q v z N O n ¢ O C C O V yq d V 6 J V u V a id Yryu Gd S .OV V `Nk yyO Cq °A � dE o.L.y i o0 or 60. aqE �dnV rN> c � O �_ Ys 9✓ ° G p0 M° Z V •Or•G ~ O L A N ^O `p LVOV LOiV� LAm °6 d�� ¢ dm gCrrS O P r L Y.°.O r N N 9° V A✓ W d i N G CIO G 9 u O Y O T d L C G ? o •- E O O P E g O 6 l P. '.O °uo ° 'q 6 C T� 'C C� O p�u L N � p q ✓ ° O nq> ti yNU du•C rN= V D6 N�_r r wC�E ¢_ ?CT •e �t N•rD CYO.°. ry O9run c d W6 CVC q ✓ V N= N p ON = CCLO CC C n� 6 N•II lr J yC C d Q1 u� •Oi• A L 6 ¢^ N d f F, J •„r N O r N n < m a \I1� AWL =✓r —LN d a ao`N w czr o'c � y 6 j 2:5 y O V y ` > G q r �+ t 6y =w� V q O W ay d •S.r Ems rt_a a E}� fia •. r��'. >rO pq G Vym.'W yqY V ^4 '� =6a VY G V _d 9dL NY pr yLCP d _ LC L— qE n V a C n� V Cwy > L a J y T r r y W Pwi W m— p � w y L L Nq Cud —y�2 ^� C � NrrC 0 E —� c y e 9G0 C = _ °p Dew G — y dwE euT yL wrrpiy =Ly 72Nr a qcL oY, °o w � 0 �pNWjl LC N�rq rtiv =NUa yV T S� r ycCp u 9 y • r c O c w� G N C d C J GAD 6 6 °.L.P = cCd tMt wL ^c aN'W^ mY N VL O Laa wri =L VQ VNy-• SLOO qy MaV NGGq d. rLa d — dL it vo�� p'rr__y•... O w C fd� a q Ltv a GVLVOL U y d •�= GC• w p^ y KNCC ° w0 u N w w w yO L O G P O a G O qLd c �Qe�C V P—p u L' V L Lq L i PrQP r V y n C L w a y d V d g q C Y y Z Z r 0 u 0 V C— Y Y 6 n^ n= 2 h w ^ F Q q 2 a 6 O N C^ 6 — r O ro L n W =o�L a ao`N w y 6 q d t 22 V C n O r.. i r w qr y N E •. .5i C ur L.y V � P 6 G N ` y pr yLCP LO _ LC LN r0 n V a C n� V Cwy O Pwi °V" L MV(iC�p NOC° E � NrrC 0 E —� LN O G A = y dwE OQ�E`V yL wrrpiy 0 p rtiv =NUa ycCp u N oi. C O ate- wL � VL O Laa G NGGq V rLa d — o >o vo�� GG =Low a q Ltv a GVLVOL U y d •�= GC• w p^ y KNCC ° N N w w w yO L O G P O a 5yC C CLN N= y L L Lq L i PrQP CL° O"'qI a y V d g q V r N V H L L > p UPW LCw C9 d n —j.pr— T C G y d C G •� iJ 2 == d TEL w N Cdu.L.L OOd q0 1 G G W W N O p Y � � N n W =o�L a ao`N w y •. ^ ur L.y V � P 6 G N ` y N Y LO G n V a C n� V Cwy O Pwi °V" L MV(iC�p NOC° � NrrC 0 E —� LN O W = y dwE OQ�E`V yL wrrpiy � VL O -VCNN NGGq v d q c GG L N�aa G GVLVOL U y d •�= GC• w p^ y KNCC ° N P V ' 5yC C CLN L L Lq L i PrQP CL° O"'qI N OSw� T4 w 2 == TEL w N Cdu.L.L OOd q0 C= M d 7 E O LE w000= aroai s �n rLCG =j CrnNr CaJ vpC Eyi�O.L+ Lc cL c O_V O L T �� � .O w 00 Gr n Yo.T•rO •Viw w = V V O N �°i u n 0I c_•' L r' V.'r C —° y� 7_w L Oq mL°�w Y 9L O _ c 6nV— S u G `r e0• f'>w y VCrq� ° o 2Z, F O O^J^ =VT Lys d �^ —L N V L VI C w 6 E r 6 L L n 0 6 G 6— j yJi w N L z^ ti P u N® t c'f f "d L 'VPd O. . q -✓ P d '�� D04 q — OVPG6 � `� y^ =p�• � J ^N+a FCC• u q� o,'^ I oc Nd.LO G ✓ r� u✓r `vc q,Le -'"^ - c O.0 d 4V HNCJ C =. v n—",•a b �� L_. L d° J= N6 «q UC H� A a dN .o„ .O.rrO I ✓N � —I Yu �"� roc L " a�oi t. N —°' �� `n o �ru =ti 4 O q✓ R' L C V E o P J� 6 V S 4 ^ q i C t N✓ F V L O ^ G N L„ r N ^ q D` � a I � b 2 OE O C C A ^ Pd Oj 9� V V � •J V '- ` — —p N O 6 G r� d C✓� p 7 I IY T q C ✓ D l l O N C P ` p r �� �° d � C _ O y P 4 C T✓ ! 9 O N ![ O Cpp >� �� A L > L d_ O'=O N•;nq DD ✓_ qv G QPN WNT! O. -�A GiP E�� V N.L.+ EJ P N n..a` O — NCP dq�NOS Gu Et Q4 q V q d i 6•P.� aiC1'z4 ✓VL ^ C F_ O� r _^ C j -� �� V Nb O^ `= 6 V Y N G d A Z; 7; O O b GC }L1 P2O N qOC q �� L b NA OQ> t. NbLN .rDWUyd dqi L � I 7 C. P' LL is yr „ .�blG SW C ✓� TO � q O y N Pj r Q G G C y L N u d r J N q d � d C ✓ � C G c G3 d O 9 r ✓ A a r L V P O p`^ m L d ✓_ O r�� O C L � r M N] r 9 0 ^ d r 9 N N�~ 6 d O �` � l L r O C L✓ E C d O G J O �N Ft O V C d q �� O N ✓ O �� C TL q �N L.O CL6 d9^ 1r'N ^G �4 „ ofD O' LLC T LT d Ilra' « ✓ F db OGNQ N —A =CV d <O a`N uP— O —n'� Cd O.n V pL N L. Q Pi _V'' ^qC`> yw. S'OT ONnO/ Vt— VLF d P�aN F O 4_K ° C D i Ov0i �Tdq� CND LpJ .+ ' rp Wd UO= Nr'JY.. ✓ y nN ✓^ q n d E d rvt.p jN� E 6P0 =O(� 6�O�P EO ^'Jq (L] =�d `� A ^✓ LN AO'�Li EyP Ed cu =o bu0 q> L^ CFO d 6C GL VP 6N^ 6Cl VO —ON CN LNbW Pq F W �_ O ^ S M✓ G� JLE^ ^I 6 LqI G= ^p ° p 64 V W10r WE2 6b ✓U G6✓ ql 6I u — c'f f "d L 'VPd O. �•L O� A C V�b D04 O — OVPG6 � `� y^ =p�• J ^N+a FCC• u q� o,'^ I oc Nd.LO ` ✓ r� u✓r `vc q,Le -'"^ - c O.0 d 4V HNCJ C b vO.J L N6 «q UC H� dN .O.rrO ✓N � �"� roc L " a�oi t. .r —°' �� `n o �ru =ti 4 O q✓ R' L C V E o P J� 6 V S 4 ^ q i C t N✓ F V L O ^ G N L„ r N ^ q D` � a I b 2 OE O C A ^ Pd Oj C ��� V.L..rD NC — 4 �O- — Q✓d qV qvN C✓� O D G Q p N C _ O y P 4 C T✓ ! 9 O N ![ O Cpp >� �� A L > L d_ O'=O N•;nq DD ✓_ qv G QPN WNT! O. -�A GiP E�� V N.L.+ P n..a` — NCP dq�NOS Gu Et Q4 n i 6•P.� aiC1'z4 ✓VL ^ C F_ O� r _^ C j -� �� V al 4 O^ `= 6 V Y N G d A i✓ O O b GC }L1 P2O N qOC q �� L b NA OQ> t. NbLN .rDWUyd 9 GO g TO � q O y N Pj r Q G G C y L N u d L� L J N q d � d C ✓ � C rbr E `y ✓ 6. �� V O� P P J N� d O O b O O N Q V C d 9 'LJ �� O N �= ✓ O O = C � jC 4� 4✓ CL6 d9^ 1r'N ^G �4 ofD O' Qu� Ilra' « ✓ `` N —A Vyb b°'✓ <O a`N p —n'� Cd O.n F' pL L. _V'' ^qC`> yw. S'OT ONnO/ Vt— VLF d P�aN y 6d b O 4_K ° C D i Ov0i °'T.q O � r� { .+ ANN rp yf• = FC^ V y nN ✓^ q n p E d rvt.p jN� E 6P0 =O(� 6�O�P �� C.C6 =�d `� A ^✓ LN AO'�Li EyP Ed cu =o bu0 brd ^c `LwSM 6N^ 6D —ON CN LNbW 64 —U6 <V �1]r ND N Nq S M✓ G� JLE^ ^I c'f f 11 40 0 Y. C Pdd PL° J9T LO�� TJ CCnyN =. I a oq _L coc Aar of P^ LWV of GGOOC L c L n A p w 9L TO N P'P C�E EFO^ - L Cc IZ: ^ d O c 5 nD 6 9 Q 7 N OL q W==E 10. t O C _ y ^ .ate pA ti° D• dUWO dpO Vq.+ ✓ ^N A'Egt Op _pq Gs TN c° n ^ c J aq 61v HLm Lza c.°-a ?ao c Avi o -^ 'L'. ° N E V V N T n d o a L L Y L a q ^ A a C y Y O l C °On 9'i E- t V q p V J O ^ �' L..• °^ O ^L dJNc u'. �oN = aQnc Mo'o•' c N— L nNJ n �a�N? v a� wo P r A V L 4 L P ^ d V O Q = L.2 9 0 N q N 6 c N g F q L^ C T C O V O N q °..m o.:! YY O..n Pa OVL` N�df.rcy b O O� Sr N dkO29 d°Y N�pD Yi SON Tq O' qvO- Cj• -N f L� Nq O� J G- � CnA � pY � ^-ea N Vvf ¢ AC O E^ W maa 6 c O OI V NN q 6J QPV QV�O 6 E D V ° d Yi C m0 pl O ^ I _ v IW WI 1 P^7E P^ .liE du � VP Cd p� P aCV V w�y1 JT na_ y OO _E COL'' ` ^�G ��EdP� •- m. w°. C Cam C pq �`C° ✓C N^ `J LO•lSi C D[_ U^ `a q qCJ V v t V VF l C N L a aye` yE °nq or"n cA ..ya m �a nN ^ e. � qa d L 9- " •O V •n N PS .e r °` .. E O P .r.• m V= N c a - n G a qo cq nL. F^a=ea %y v �q �� JE dE TA�q aOry dVC � yV qdn POV J L V L(J REV CNm C°LO C ^` 61. •- L L C Y � C L O p d ^ •� y N D O p a y N 21 TI E d° d P d L E n U S O a �• A C C E � Y'^ O �? yl C l- m � Y 11 40 0 00 D `ODL� M n ✓LrG a j � c`-dd G V� 6'.. -r qlt P CM ✓�✓ q .V N O Q ✓ q N P ° L C O N P W V 4 T N I TL V¢��_ ✓ N L ✓ Q I I � � V r 0. ✓ V .✓ q N = o q E c a q A L L 9 A 6 L r G V J G N 4 d V O TLq �'aW .P V c Vu LYT Tnr� dd�N ° ✓ A i d N « C V L � L V V b E W C �„ d G✓ GN OyCPV✓i ¢rJ xjxl /� 014 A =J G2l V � �1✓ J NJ ✓ r0✓✓ Dq ddOV L I Cc I`� I Qr d09 nl dC bJ ♦ qy C �u TO✓ � S °C 1 C P GL NO -d J EVrr OV 1 C PGA GW JL^ qL J[� W � .r �. r I O d . q a q^ Ly b i. N j ✓ ✓d° > L N L G G ^ ° J C V n` t O A ✓ G F � W F �✓ q r x � T d 1. ddY L V G� N3 ✓ UdC° - O 4d� D YVV.. L P x q O E L D d V i I y q Y W n C- 46 1 `E4Ldd NU ^b dP ✓V P Lr4OP Tt Off- J` �\ 2 d DP a y� L- LW �Gjr COY SOW ✓ N r-" ✓ N C _ q j G 7 d O LW G f[ ✓ Zn VV V ✓0.0 „W NqW^ O N° ✓O 4V L^ WuN YV 6.-i.V w d L `w m �v9 c✓ L u .J.1 � u Y ° T y ar L .d G O L ✓ C V L C x.ui1 T Gq^ NTN � Z✓ ^ cy' Yr V d O- N d N .O V N F u C � ✓ N I N L„ � � C N O ° r� ^ ✓ U L t V r C - Wd NLV db 4 ° F 1°r r C AC TG L6 V aY. ✓LC-•bj �d - .- P � N q- M O q C d� • G W d O yAtl 4_Ld6 J V dJ6 ^d `� .tirn _ 4 ° O d W O a d r✓ N d ^ x E y .. .L.. L G I b a - N I N� dzi c - .-Q ✓ ✓�. ° NL to d✓ E vcv ✓ d -9 .L° 4fcj -d °c c ✓ -✓ l d d N Pl N > N _ N I ° i � � ° � M d °.. O NN - LPL✓ A GY+ iD nTi b^ �4fy✓ w°. L ✓u ✓ � I NE �.b r^ VPO >r VY m C 6 N O V° d ✓ A° � O. ` � I r P N d = ✓ q l V 0` � aF.l N N ^ � 60'Y Wx � LJ 9xL Ov VV QA CLwpV QV� WA l S 11 r d J� c27= 4`i,• c � d a c P r°ii O G V ° L O ^ N O N N rr Sr r TV y V a A+ O L o LC o �c F GGOY V vJiN dN � d 6p W F T � N Y d J C] V V V C q G y N O q C q N C P 'p 'Y O d ^ L O d N r q Y v 9 C Y C n 9 F i d O C N C C is aN .L. �L cd yyII ZE VW q .Y i Cry L Y ^ V_ L Uqp YO L SLG aV C Y 4 � >d r a c c c fj�N Q�N kG 66 6JUa C L1 Oq 9v�E NG �d d pdTO V L Yd 'L dr ` Na 6 11 r d J� 9 P r°ii O O d � G Ou L ° N rr Sr r TV y G a A+ O L GGOY V vJiN dN � d 6p W F T � q v a w J N N q Per N C P 'p 'Y O d N d r q Y V W C Y C n 9 F i d O C N C C ZE VW q .Y i Cry L Y ^ V_ L Uqp YO L SLG aV C Y 4 � _ C L1 Oq 9v�E NG �d d pdTO V L Yd 'L dr ` Na +OV 9V Etri �rdr �q W G_J L w-v Nr�L N NG 0— L CO D Lr �D ii C d' >N �C DV O tCOI � .n� DL = Z;2 ^ qL V VUq S r l s q0 LO q � 4n+ 6F 4^ JJ OJ G Z O 11 r 11 E E CITY OF RANCIiO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 13, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner 1977 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING UKUiNANLt AntrvuMtN1 - An amendment to the resi entiai use standards to 01 wr elder cottages and second units on single family zoned residential lots. SUMMARY: In response to recent State legislation regarding "granny flats" and "second units ", staff is bringing draft regulations to the Commission for their review and consideration ahead pf the new Development Code. The attached memorandum outlines the basic provisions of the State legislation and surveys the issues and benefits of these two alternative housing concep :c. To foster maximum discussion and provide the Commission with the widest range of options for consideration, proposed regulations for both elder cottages and second units have been attached. No action is required at this time on the Zoning Ordinance .Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to review and consider all material and input regarding this item and direct staff to prepare an Ordinance for presentation on the April 27 agenda. Staff is seeking direction regarding the attached draft provisions (i.e., designation of areas, parking, setback, unit size) to be included in the Ordinance. tted, ck omez ty canner :DC:jr Attachments: Memorandum Dated March 18, 1983 Proposed Elder Cottage Regulations Proposed Second Unit Regulations ITEM G PROPOSED SECOND UNIT REGULATIONS A. Second units shall be a conditionally permitted use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. B. The unit may be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence on a parcel zoned single family residential. C. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. D. The lot contains an existing single family detached residence. r The unit does not exceed 640 square feet. F. The unit shall have a separate entrance from the main residence. G. The unit shall provide parking and access per Zoning Ordinance requirements. H. The unit construction shall conform to the site development criteria applicable to accessory buildings or additions to main residence in the base district in which the unit is located. I. The unit may require architectural riview, pursuant to Ordinance 89, as determined by the City Planner. J. The unit will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow in the area as determined by the City Engineer. K. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director written certification from the affected water and sewer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptability including all supportive information shall be submitted. 0 0 PROPOSED ELDER COTTAGE REGULATIONS A. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director an application for a Temporary Usc Permit for an elder cottage. B. The unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or twc adult persons who are GO years of age or over. C. The lot contains an existing single family detached unit. D. The unit is a removable detached structure on a parcel zoned single family residential. E. The unit does not exceed 640 square feet. F. The unit construction shall conform to the site development criteria applicable to accessory buildings in the base district in which the cottage is located. G. The unit may require architectural review, pursuant to Ordinance b3, as determined by the City Planner. N. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director written certification from the affected water and sewer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptability including all supportive information shall be submitted. E DATE: TO: FROM: BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM March 18, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UPDATE ON "GRANNY FLAT" AND "SECOND UNIT" LEGISLATION SUMMARY: The intent of this memorandum is to summarize recent State legislation granting authority to local governments to provide for " grarny flats" and "second units" on residentially zoned property and generate Pla -Ining Commission discussion and input on potential regulations. In addition, this report will survey the issues of this alternative housing concept and provide information regarding actions taken by other cities in dealing with the new legislation. Copies of the new legislation are attached fcr your information. Staff proposes to discuss draft regulations at a public hearing on April 13, 1983. An ordinance will then be prepared based upon Commission input and presented on the April 27th agenda. LEGISLATION Two bills were enacted during the 1981 -1982 legislative session, which encourage local governments to provide for second units in response tc the need for affordable housing. The first bill, SB 1160 (Mello), which became effective January 1, 1982,_parmits a city to issue a zoning variance or conditional use permit for a dwelling to be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence in a single family residential zone. The bill was drafted in response to a critical statewide need for senior housing. The dwelling unit, or "granny flat ", must be for the sole occupancy of one or two adults who are 60 years of age or over, and a maximum of 640 square feet. The second bill. SB 1534 (Mello), which becomes effective July 1, 1983, is much broader in scope than SB 1160 and isn't limited to just senior housing. This bill authorizes cities to provide, by ordinance, for a second dwelling unit in single family and multiple family residential zones. Local governments may adopt ordinances regulating second units consistent with the following provisions: Granny Flat & Second Unit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 2 (1) Areas may be designated in the jurisdiction where second units are permitted. (2) the designation of areas may be based on --riteria, which may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (3) Standards may be imposed on second units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setvack, of coverage, architectural - evie- and maximum size of tha unit. (4) A Conditional Use Permit process may be required. Under the provisions of S3 1534, local governments may preclude second units altogether if the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that such action may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that second units would result in impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. This bill would exempt second units from CEQA and the Growth Management Ordinance. ® In the event that a local government does not adort an ordinance governing second units, the bill would requ:r^ cities to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a second unit attached to an existing single family residence, which is for rental purposes only, if the second unit complies with specified provisions. DEFINITION OF GRANNY FLATS AND SECOND UNITS: Granny flats are self-contained secondary we ing units, including kitch_ns and bathrooms, constructed on the same lot as a primary residence or attached to a primary residence. The unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one or two adults who are EO years of age c- over, and has a maximum flocr area of 540 square feet. Examples of both attached and detached granny flats are shown in Exhibit "A ". The American Association of Retired Persons is promoting a particular version of the granny flat, called an "elder cottage "'. An elder cottage is distinguished as a temporary use involving a removable dwelling unit such as a manufactured home or mobile home. The idea is to provide single family homeowners the flexibility to deal with the short -term problem of housing an elderly relative. A second dwelling unit versus a granny flat is a detached or attached dwelling unit which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons. The unit must include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel or parcels as the primary residence is situated. An example of an attached second unit is provided in Exhibit "8 ". Granny Flat S& Second Unit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 3 BENEFITS: The following is a summary of the major benefitsl of second unit^ ana granny flats: o The second unit can be created, financed, and marketed at a price far beiow that of a new unit on unimproved land. There will be no land cost and the infrastructure will already be available. The savings attributable to land and infrastructure is 25% - 40% of the cost of new construction. Additionally, various other costs, like landscaping, will already have been covered. o The second unit will permit homeowners with declining income to retain and maintain their home. o Homeowners faced with high interest rates and adjustable rate mortgages will be able to better afford the high monthly payments. Potential rental income will enable some prospective homeowners to qualify for the mortgage. The second unit will produce relatively affordable rental housing for low and moderate income households without any public subsidy. Energy, maintenance, and repairs will be shared by two households instead of one single one. Where common walls are used, savings on insulation costs can be realized. o The constructive use of existing in -place infrastructure is a more environmentally sensitive and cost - effective approach than requiring the construction of expensive infrastructure to serve new undeveloped areas. Other resources would also be used more effectively (land, building materials, energy, etc.). o The presence of a second household can provide security for honeowners, particularly older people who fear criminal intrusion and personal accidents while living alone. o Companionship and intergenerational support and contact will result. Incidential personal services for older homeowners could be provided inexpensively by tenants in return for a reduction in rent. o Second units could allow persons needing non - specialized assistance to remain in their homes rather than enter long -term care facilities. Sometimes grocery shopping assistance is the difference between institutionalization and non - institutionalization. 1 Department of Housing and Coninunity Development, State of California, A Survey of Second Unit Ordinances in California, November, 1982. E E Granny Flat & Second Unit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 4 ® GENERAL PLAN SUPPORTING POLICES_ The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan recognizes the need for housing designed to meet the needs of low- and moderate - income individuals and households. The General Plan states that a "major constraint to affordable housing is not only higher construction costs, but also the density and types of housing units being built in the City ". The following General Plan policies provide a strong impetus for adopting provisions for second units and /or granny flats: a. The City shall encourage housing opportunities which are within the financial capabilities of low- and moderate - income persons and families (p. 14). b. The City shall promote programs which meet the special housing needs of the elderly, handicapped, and minority groups (pp. 15 & 88). C. The City should encourage a balanced supply of rental and ownership housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households (p. 78). d. The City should develop programs to increase the affordability of the existing housing stock, especially low and moderate cost units G. 81). ® e. The City shall encourage the dispersal of affordable housing units throughout the community, such that they satisfy the widest possible range of housing location choice and needs (p. 78). f. The City shall work with developers and the local Building Industry Association to promote the use of innovative housing techniques and development with a variety of hcusing types (p. 90). ISSUES: Permitting second dwelling units and granny flats on single family residential lots raises some important issues that the Planning Commission and City Council must weigh in considering adoption of second unit regulations. Attached is an excerpt from a State survey discussing seven major barriers to second units and granny flats (see Exhibit "C "). The following is a brief discussion of the important issues for the City of Rancho Cucamonga: Nhborhood Character - Individually, the impacts of increased density reducing air space between residences aren't usually significant. However, cumulatively, these actions could charge the character of a single family residential neighborhood. The physical and sociological impact of a second unit would be similar to the impact of the construction of a guest house, which is permitted on all single family lots. The impact of an elder cottage could be considered less significant because of its temporary nature. Granny Flat & Second Unit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 5 Design Compatibility - An important concern is the architectural compatibility of second units with the established architectural character of the neighborhood. Removable elder cottages seem ready -made for mobile home manufactures, particularly where there is enough distance between houses to allow access to backyards. Ordinances can be adopted to ensure aesthetic compatibility regardless of means of manufacture. Design review may be required for all second units or on a case -by -case basis. Compatibility with General Plan Goals - The legislation is intended to improve ut*lization of existing housing resources and to reduce the barriers to the provisions of affordable housing. These goals are clearly identified within the City's General Plan, as previously discussed. SB 1534 states that second units "shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot ". Although SB 1534 does not require any changes in the General Plan to implement the bill, it may be desirable to incorporate specific references and policies applicable to the creation of second units. Regulation of User - The purpose of allowing second units would be to provide affordable housing to low- and moderate - income households. The City may require that the unit be for rental purposes only. It would seem unlikely that persons or families with greater than moderate income would occupy a second unit. SURVEY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY OTHER. CITIES: A survey of surrounding communities and their responses to S3 1160 and SS 1534 is provided in Exhibit 'D ". More detailed information may be found in "A Survey of Second 'Unit Ordinances in California ", available in the Planning Division. _ - GRANNY FLATS VS. SECOND UNITS: Any regulations permitting second units would allow occupancy of a second unit by a senior citizen. Howerer, the Planning Commission may want to distinguish between granny fiats and second units for several reasons. Firs, granny flats are primarily intended to provide temporary housing for an elderly relative - the concept embodied in the "elder cottage" program. Therefore, granny flats or elder cottages lend themselves to removable structures requiring a temporary use permit. Secondly, the Commission may want to designate specific areas for second units, yet ailow granny fiats in all single family zones, or vice versa. Finally, if the City permits only permanent additions or construction of second units, this would preclude the possibility of low cost temporary housing, and reduce opportunities for affordable housing. Granny Flat & Second Unit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 6 40 PROPOSED REGULATIONS: To foster maximum discussion and provide the Commission with the widest range cf options for consideration, proposed regulations for both granny flats and second units have been attached (Exhibit "E" and "`"). Staff is seeking direction regarding the appropriate provisions (i.e. designation of areas, park-Ina, setback, unit size) to be included in the ordinance. Respdctfully 4kmitted, RI k G ez Cijj y Planner R6:DC:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Granny Fiat Examples Exhibit "B" - Second Unit Example Exhibit "C" - Barriers to Second Unit Ordinances Exhibit "D" - Survey Exhibit "E" - Proposed Granny Flat Pegulations Exhibit "F" - Proposed Second Unit Regulations ® SB 1160 (MELLO) - Granny Flats SB 1534 (MELLO) - Second Units Gi v Floor plan sho how Fairfax area. ggraa�sga� ws was converted from two -car detached garage. CITY Off' RANCH" CUC kNIONG PL. \NNItiG DI�'ISIO�i At StIC Re dez- g, %I2AL ELO-,R =! AN Roar :o:. 48o sir r � C I FF Z. ti ■C: :J SGt2 V NOUH ITF,\1= TITLE= EX111UT° — SG \LE= ummmw 11 0 before bdrm- living kit- . y. bdrm_ III - -1 garage floor plan front elevation C171Y OF R-� \CHO CUG N 1®\GA PLANNING DIVOON — after second unit conversion r'�batN T i I` fd luting tt� — P kit. it bath �- ent L1 bdrm.. C7! bdrm. — - -- garage floor plan F'Zcor r?an on the Zeft is a 16so square foot, 4_,,7,dr0cm, 2- uatrrocm house. W,-td minor madifi!, Zion and G:6 addition or 16C cgcare feet to the back of the- house, a second unit it cn-atedr a lone mair unit is a 120C square foot, 2- bedtronm_ 1- bathmom house. a The second wtit is a 610 sqt re foot, 1- b,!dmom, 1- bathroom house. The Rent eZmvtion mmeins tF.e sacm aft, t7tn rna,,,,ion. C � (FORTH TIi1H-- E. \I iIMT- _J!�2 SC: \LE- 070* BARRIERS TO SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES Seven major reasons were cited for rejecting second units in single family zones. In order of frequency, they are: enforcement problems changing the nature of single family neighborhoods traffic problems infrastructure constraints density increases general plan restrictions public opinion 1. ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS The most common reason cited for rejecting a second unit ordinance was the orobiem of enforcement. Local governments generally wished to restrict occupancy of the second unit, requiring monitoring. Therefore the comments from local jurisdictions focused on code enforcement or administrative costs and difficulties in implementing ordinances. Th. ` 1ulation in Senator Mello's bill, SB 1160 (Chapter 887 of 1991), r� _.ting second units to seniors only, was the most common subject rased in enforceability comments. The subject of limiting second units to rental by relatives only also came under attack for enforceability. For example, the City of Sunnyvale, population 108,600, in Santa Clara County, commented on the enforceability problem: "The City can easily control the structural components of adding a second unit. But it is next to impossible to actually enforce the social oriented ideas for creating a second unit. For example, it's been suggested that the units be permitted only for senior citizens...I would not like the City to get into a position when it has to ask the age of every person or any person who lives in d second unit. "In theory, the socially oriented reasons for establishing a second unit (i.e., providing affordable housing for the elderly) sound great. However, in the real world it is totally unenforceable. No one is going to throw out a single 55 year old woman from her home for the sole reason that she is not technically a senior citizen." Ann Draper Planning Officer City of Sunnyvale Some jurisdictions believed that SS 1160 (Chapter 887 of 1981) restricts second units to seniors only, and cited this as a barrier. SB 1160 does not restrict local government's ability to allow second units. (Refer to Appendix.) As a point of information, very few jurisdictions which have adopted a second unit ordinance, have included a provision limiting occupancy of the unit to seniors only, nor does State law limit occupancy in Uis regard. "U � u T C u 2. CHANGING -iHE NATURE OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS The second most commonly cited barrier to the second unit concept was a concern with preserving the character of the single family zone. These jurisdictions feared that allowing second units would negatively impact the character of single family neighborhoods. Accordingly, any change in zoning regulations provokes fear and any type of change is often viewed negatively. As a point of information, these fears appear to be unwarranted, based on the results of this survey. For example, the low level of implementation (averaging one application per year per locality) combined with other requirements typically imposed (setbacks, parking requirements, owner - occupancy) and usual size requirements of about 6nO- 700 square feet, appears to suggest that where second unit ordinances are applied, the actual number of units resulting will be low. Further, because of the typical size requirements, the units will be predominately occupied by single elderly, and or two person households. Therefore, anv significant concentrations or increases in neighborhood densities are unlikely to occur in most jurisdictions in the forseeable future. 3. PARKING AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS Many jurisdictions mentioned parking and traffic as major barriers to the second unit concept. The concern with parking is also reflected in adopted second unit ordinances which require additional parking. Not a single jurisdiction with a second unit ordinance has waived the parking requirements for second units. Almost half of the proposed second unit ordinances stipulate that the parking requirements for the additional unit may be waived for second units. In a recent survey conducted by the Tri -State Regional Planning Commission (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut), a study was made on the objections to second unit conversions. When asked how they located conversions, only one out of 186 respcndents replied that increased cars and traffic indicated the location of houses that had been converted. Yet, the second most frequent complaint reported against conversions was that they increased traffic. This apparent discrepancy indicates that homeowners who are anxious about accessory apartments will someti..es find reasons to oppose them even if they are not borne out by the facts. 11 4. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS The inadequacy of the existing infrastructure to accommodate additional units in single family zones was the fourth most common barrier mentioned by local jurisdictions. The infrastructure issue is tied to density issues as well as general plan restrictions mentioned by many jurisdictions. A majority of existing second unit ordinances require that second units meet setback, building code, and service requirements. Many jurisdictions explicitly state in their ordinance that the second unit must not strain existing water and sewer facilities. However, much of the housing stock and hence infrastructure, was designed for much more intense use by large households. National figures show that the size of the average U.S. household decreased during the 1970s from 2.6 to 2.3 persons, but the size of the average home and apartment increased. GENERAL PLAN RESTRICTIONS Some jurisdictions listed restrictions in the General Flan as major barriers to second units in single family zones. Overall, these barriers are related to density and public ooinion objections. Six .�Xistinq ordinances which allow second units in single family zones stfpulate that the addition of such units must meet the density standards of the zone. 6. OTHER BARRIERS Other barriers to the second unit concept mentioned by planners from local jurisdictions include: no need for additional housing units; environmental quality; undesirable renters; absentee ownership; and higher home prices. There are obviously several ways to discourage housing speculation and any potential for neighborhood decline. Provisions such as an owner - occupancy requirement is one such strategy. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence available to indicate that home prices increase or decrease as a result of second units. Moreover, the creation of second units may be the only way that first -time homebuyers faced with high interest rates, adjustable rate mortgages and other "creative financing" will be able to afford the high monthly payment to qualify for a mortgage. E 0 E u LI COMMUNITIES SURVEYED Chino ** Claremont *** Fontana *** Laverne *** Upland ** *** Ilow Second Unit by Ordinance ** Considering an Ordinance * Not Considering 1 Survey Conducted on March 14, 1983 Montclair Ontario ** Pomona *** San Dimas M O HIW V T t0 h rf N r O`T y v J � _ __ C r` p O U O O W C� O`• w �` c� V� _ .. V V C b¢ J V 'C d 'in r❑ C= O= C �, m C q C V V U O U U T p U l O _ L N V 6 T V Z r,' O - E p 7R IQ L.2 _ q R p 0• CJ " 1x m r U ^„ L = V = O m ^OLCtc�N p "Fucu _ ✓; ;:�;y cu,_ u c`m •e v'`o�`u v= c.°�E�� =, i 11 Ll 0 E Senate Bill \o. 1534 CHAPTER 1440 An act to amend Section 65S52.1 of. and to add Section 6"5£3.:22 to. the Government Code. and t ho mi g- amend Section 2108o of the Public Resources Code, relating to (APpra`'Secretary of StatSeptember eptmbber 27.1982".) ed with 1,EC;ISLkT.VE COUNSEUS DIGEST SB 153.1 Housing: sin 'Mello. gle - family lots: second - family units. Under eros�aw, a city or county may, by ord Hance, designate various zones within the city or county and specify the uses which may be permitted on the land within those zones. Within such zones the city or county may condition certain uses or require special use permits or zoning variances for certain uses. This bill would authorize any city, including a chartered city, county, or city and county to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of second units, as '.ci, °d, in single - family and multifarnilY residential zones. Ir. the event that any of those entities do not adopt an ordinance governing second units, the bill would, f;,' - -- visions of existing law', require each notw�ithstand :ng Spec r u r city, including a ebarter city, county, and city and county to grant a special use or a re)- tditional use permit for the creation of a second attached residential ,,nit, v. aich is only intended for rental purposes, on a lot which is zoned for single - famfly or multifamily use and which contains an existing single - family detached unit, if the se and unit complies with spec�ed provisions. The bill would prohibit including a chartered city, county, or city and county from adopting an ordinance which totally preclude second units within single - family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains presidential unifindings. m the California Environmental Quality Act. This bill would require jurisdictions adopting ordinances for the creation of the second units to submit a copy of it to the Department of Housing and Community Development for submission Legislature. This bill would make other changes nczessarY for the implementation of this bill. Article XIII B of tike California Constitution and Sections 4=31 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code require the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other provisions require the Department of Finance to review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, for making claims to the State Board of Control for reimbursement. a� � yz 40 z - - -- - - - - -- _ -- _L 7ZJ� �Z• WiO m�� C _ _ ? • "�S' O ^_ _ O V O m O V V �- •G V ¢ •O_ u 1 LL C d �V° O_ w __ .. G) ` ¢ O d d^ d R N O V Z 6 Z..V- >.'J - ^Od„ = 9 V'.. ... f: ¢: >.- L'KmoCE�a. -yam G �- -�°' _�' _GRr.R.o � ;OC "•' .� F � S_ .0 - � v _� �.7 .N Z � � i V R CU � ` O. a m W m Ui ` M = O N a _ d _ � C � O - - R C'i .� C O C � ypZ •_ - � � • .. 8-2 2 - W dc_�n O m a� -u OC J Cp ^6'I` G C d O'J` _��.00em ^Z Z- C�OrnV V� - V'CCiC Or ENZLC Z =:. Z . M n ou Nm- 0 v oTR a> � ''� c >; .�, c .G. °-V _^ O �C GR ° ° t- o _ • ..Rs. 8.O c , 9 c" O _ a -° _. i .G . � O °= G u - ^ ` " ° ` EE _ c' V C d c C 3 E t 99 E; u,2 r - -R�c 5 . « �d ^LAa Oti qty G °p �an�SLz'CO GaC.r C�NdVd�.d.p ^¢C�yRx{C6.r -.'J s -c_- c 5 E2.` Z -� _ �9 m ooGGRG E Q`= o' u �d L -oc ME =•-� �°�`c my u a,rW. y �nm ors `.. E �':: �' ¢ `L_c�ao° o ko`as= R ot° u u od'dR 30 -•-t° '�E z Lff -O -°oE y2 a E `c k`o _ E ,°- „`o8'c -- 'a �c%n��uc `..� °v °LCi� Wc•°r�i FN �E�>•�a� p p �y,` a ^_ E _ i`....v mac�.^e -R•'o A C U o >>cao °iA mQE a.� c>..aV _`..�it eja e�E rEya mfr° 'a�m^a'y G -mc mak._ ^OF`vJ E-2 O as o�` a`. E O o _ G U.t L O. aO � Ui= __9 -`V-.0 M...O p2''�L �_. �'hU y.`2 -u•CO 'nO .0 Y]U.n f Y ? 1 N _ 0 11 ¢ C i 1 FL -I N J O -6`9 O� C J N .UVwO °�� °G�•� �CCS_. 00 R - _ a•� a ^'`- C =G._ a Fi C� O J _ =r Cr T`.Ui �OV70 00� O -sap c rCauu- - _ C O _ _ _ O __ - E -_ Y r_. O o r U J ST V_ r =;R c _ G OO�p1C��� iy^z� _ 2 Et c D � �• C• w V � 1 V J .� u r O v OL �' N r �•.�.. �.. yJ. ` _ C �r Uv N J O -6`9 O� C J N .UVwO °�� °G�•� �CCS_. 00 R - _ a•� a ^'`- C =G._ a Fi C� O J _ =r Cr T`.Ui �OV70 00� O -sap c rCauu- - _ C O _ _ _ O __ - E -_ Y r_. O o r U J ST V_ r =;R c _ G OO�p1C��� iy^z� _ 2 i - O`Y-J �_� �_ _ =_ _ �•^�: it - � `Gs wym m. m` 3 G -p 4• 3 O�C� `� = � .> •" = 4 � ^ J' `T. � O m O = � � j .. � -_ _Y.� 6 0 O O ^v Y' V .a.. r ~ n U � � ` S• `- G � C � j U ^ _� Gr > = C Tom` � ° p'C ° ` C t� > == O 'r"^ � = OC O c u_u �r- c- -` 0`.GU�c�m��'¢_' J c v m � � ° z - ^ � = � ° � _ � ' ° o 0 o m ° a ° °- m •, � � c c c°. � � �'e p u Z 3 0 �� _ rL =`._ o�8ri. SrU `. c•o Emu- S ° o` ppU O` 4._TO -SAC C. m C C1 11 CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REPORT ABSTRACT: This report contains a draft Development in conjunction with senior citizen housing projects provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission and City Council have recently been involved in creating an overlay district containing deteiopment incentives designed to stimulate the production of affordable senior citizen oriented housing for low and moderate income senior citizens. One of the key City concerns has been the long -term problem of insuring that all units developed under the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District remain available and affordable to the intended occupants. Development Agreements provide a vehicle by which the City can meet this concern in a simple and legally enforceable manner. Draft Development Agreement: The attached Development Agreement has been raft y the city Attorney and Planning staff in order to demonstrate to the Planning Commission the basic contents of such an agreement. In preparing the draft agreement it was intended by staff that certain provisions would run l!nif orm throughout all Development Agreements entered into by the City. Those sections of the draft Development Agreement especially pertinent to a particular project are indicted by rblanks" which would be filled in by the staff at the time an applicant applies for assistance from the City. Development Agreements w`111 be processed along with projects and brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Tonight, in order to comply with state law, the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on the draft general Development Agreement which will become the basic Development Agreement to be used by the City. SENIOR HOUSL -2 OVERLAY DISTRICT/ DEVELOPMENT AGRCEMENT Planning Commission Agenda April 13, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMEIJDATJ3NS: Staff recommends: a) that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution rpcomenending approval by the City Council of the draft Development Aqreement for use in conjunction with rental units produced under the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District; and b) that staff be instructed to forward it to the City Council for its review and approval. lly submitted, R #ck Gfinez Tty Planner G:RM:jr Attachments: Draft Development Agreement Resolution E 11 1 CJ 11 Ll DATE: TO: PROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 6, 1983 Members of the City Council and City Manager Rick Gomez, City Planner Rick Marks, Associate Planner T AGREEMENT: w 1977, 1 ABSTRACT: This informational report contains a sample Development Agreement which is to be approved by the City Council in conjunction with senior citizen housing projects developed under the provisions of the Senior Overlay District. Attached also for Council review is a project cost analysis (pro forma) submitted by Calmark Development Corporation for their senior's Heritage Park Project. This cost analysis will be used in shaping a Development Agreement between the City and Calmark. BACKGROUND: on 4 -,rch 2, 1983, the City Council reviewed Zoning .oinance Amendment b-S-02 creating a Senior Housing Overlay District in the City. The Council did not take action on the Amendment and instructed staff to prepare supplemental information relative to the new Overlay District including a draft Development Agreement. Staff was further instructed to bring the suppl =.mpntal information to the City Council on April 6, 1983 for its review .nd approval. Development Agreements - Points of Authority: The California Government Code (Sections 65364 - 65369.5) allows cities to enter into agreements with developers, the contents of which shall specify the duraticn of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maxiTam height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of iand fog public purposes. The Government Code further provides that a development agreement shall be enforceable by any part thereto. Relationship to Senior Housing Overlay District: One of the key concerns that the City has regarding the Overlay District is that of protecting the long -term availability of the units for the target population and insuring that rents charged are affordable to that population grout). Development Agreements, provide a vehicle by which the City can make the production of affordable senior citizen oriented housing attractive to the private sector while protecting the long -term availability and affordability of the units produced as well as insuring compliance with other city requirements. Sample Development Agreement April 5, 1983 Page 2 The Development Agreement, as drafted by staff and reviewed by the Council, will form the basis of future agreements entered into by tae City and developers of senior housing units in the Senior Housing Overlay District. Sample Development Agreement: The attached sample Development Agreement has been dratted by the City Attorney and Planning staff in order to demonstrate to the City Council the basic contents of such an agreement and to seek feedback from the Councii. In preparing the sample agreemnt it was intended by staff that certain provisions would run uniform throughout all Development Agreements entered into by the City. Those sections of the sample Development Agreement espt 'ally pertinent to a particular project basis are indicated by "blanks" vnich would be filled in by the staff at the time an applicant applies for assistance from the City. Calmark Cost Analvs�s is (pro forma) for Heritaqe Park Project: Attached for Council review the cost analysis anc request for City assistance (developm>_nt incentives) prepared by Calmark. This item is included in order to show the City Council how the cost analysis and request for assistance will be integrated with the proposed basic Development Agreement. City staff will use the cost analysis and request as a basis for negotiating with the project developer (in this case Calmark, drafting a Development Agreement and making recommendations to the City Council. it is anticipated that all Development Agreements cntered into under the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay Distric-'. :will be shaped in this manner. Next Steos: Based on City Council direction, staff will use Development Agreement and information submitted by Calmark Development Agreement for the proposed Heritage Park Project to the Council for its review and approval. NO ACTION REOUIRED Respectf l ly ,;wbmi teed, City P-lanner RG:R9: jr Attachment: Sample Development Agreement Calmark Cost Analysis Calmark Request for Assistance the sample to draft a and send it 11 E E 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 11 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1983, between _ ( "Property Owner ") and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ( "City "). RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: 1. Government Code section 65864• - 65895.5 authorizes the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. 2. Under section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations establishing procedures, requirements and administrative guidelines for consideration of development agreements. 3. Property Owner has requested City to consider entering into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with City's rules and regulations. 4. City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan. 5. On , 19_, City adopted approving the development agreement with Property Owner and said action was effective on _. 19_. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise — requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning: a. "City" is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. b. "Project" is the development approved by City, described further in paragraph 8 hereinbelow. C. "Property Owner" is and includes all of its successors in interest and assigns. d. "Real property" is the real property referred to in paragraph 3 hereinbelow. 1 e. "Senior Housing Overlay District" is the zoning category created by City Ordinance No. adopted 19 — "Target population" is tnP n±- _?n�.l �rC�� Wi-.;Uaancs, residents and tenants occupying any and all units or apartments in the Project as further defined in the Senior Housing Overlay District. 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of the agreement between the parties and shall be enforced and enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement. 3. Description of Real PrODert . The real property which is the =u07ect ot this Agreement is described more fully in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner repre- sents that it has full legal .itle to the real property, that it has full legal right to enter into this Agreement, that there is no other person or entity which has anv other interest in fee ownership to the real property, and that all other persons and entities who may hold legal or equitable interests in the property agree to be and are bound by this P.greement, If there are any holders of deeds of trust on the real property which may be senior to the lien of this Development Agreement, the holders of such deeds of trust have assented to the terms of this Development Agreement in writing and agree to be bound by the provisions hereof. 5. Binding Effect of Agreement._.The burdens of this Agreement shall run with the real property and shall bind, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, the successors in interest and assigns of the parties to it. 6. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City Property and Owner is such that Property Owner is an independent contractor and is not the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever. 7. Cites Aproyai_Proceedings for Project. on py 19_, Cit y approved On 19 , the City adopted a zoning designation "Senior of Housing Overlay District" for the real property. The record of the applications by Property Owner, Dro- ceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council of City on file in the office of City and all of the files and records in these matters incorporated are herein in full by this reference as though set forth in full. Property 2 ® Owner proposes to construct — apartment units, recrea- tional and common area facilities, and _ parking spaces and other amenities on the subject property, all as are set forth more fully in the site plan for Planned Development ( "Site Plan ") submitted by Property Owner ana approved by City, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. The Site clan in- cludes various conditions of approval which are not changed, altered or modified by this Development Agreement unless specifically set forth herein. 8. Chanqes in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the site plan without review and approval by City. 9. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date set forth hereinabove, regardless of the date of execution hereof, and shall continue for years, subject to the annual review described in paragraph 15 hereinbelow. 10. Tir.,e for Construction. Property Owner agrees to begin construction of the P o ect within days after the effective date of this Agreement and to diligently prosecute to completion the construction of the Project. It is anticipated that Property Owner will complete the Project within days after the date actual construction begins. Propert%, Owner shall make reports of the progress of construction in such detail and at such time as the City may reasonably request. 11. Restrictions on Rental Units. Property Owner shall restrict the availability and occupancy of all rental units or apartment units in the Project primarily to the Target Population as described more fully below. The °primary resident population" of the Project which must be reserved for and occupied by the Target Population shall be % of the units or apartments. Property Owner shall use its best efforts to make the entire Project available to the Target Population. Apartments reserved for the primary resident population of the Target Population may not be rented, occupied, leased or subleased to tenants or occu- pants who are not in the Target Population without the City's prior written consent, except as set forth below. A person or persons not a member of the Target Population may occupy an apartment of those apartments reserved for the Target Population if they occupy the unit with a resident occupant who is within the Target Population and: 3 a. then, only in an emergency, and for so ® long as the state of emergency exists; 3 0 b. on a temporary basis, not to exceed three (3) months out of any calendar year (grandchildren, blood relatives); and C. medical support personnel or private nurses for resident occupants within the Target Population. 12. Target Population. Tenants, residents or occupants in the units reserved in accordance with paragraph ll in the Project shall meet the following criteria: a. For tenants, residents, or occupants who are married to each other, the head of the household shall be fifty -five (55) years of age or older. b. For individuals who are not married, each individual shall be fifty -five (55) years of age or older. C. In addition to the age restrictions set forth in subparagraphs a and b above, any individual or married couple who wish to occupy or reside in the Project shall have and maintain an annual income from all sources equal to or less than eighty percent (80 %) of the median income for persons or couples within the County of San Bernardino as currently defined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. 13. Rents and Rent Adjustments. The Property Owner shall establish and maintain affordable base rents and utility allowances for all apartment units subject to the restrictions of paragraph 11 in the Project. For the pur- poses of this provision, rent shall include both the amount charged for occupancy of an apartment and any utility allowances if utilities are not separately metered. if utilities are separately metered, they will not be considered in the base rent. Rents for apartments subject to the restrictions of paragraph 11 may not exceed amounts consistent with the following base rent formula: Rents charged will be affordable to individuals or couples earning equal to or less than eighty per- cent (80 %) of the current County of San Bernardino median income as determined by the Federal Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Develop- ment, which rent shall also on an 0 annualized basis be equal to or less than thirty percent (308) of the eighty percent (808) of the current median income. For purposes of this section, rents charged for all one (1) bedroom units shall be subject to computation oased upon eighty percent (SC%) of the median income for a two (2) person household. Rents charged for all two (2) bedroom units shall be subject to computation based upon eighty percent (308) of the median income for all households (4 or more persons). 5 In the event that rents are increased, a minium of thirty (30) days' written notice of any rent increase shall be provided to all affected tenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Property Owner shall use its best efforts to charge affordable rent for all units within the Project in addition to those sub- ject to paragraph 11 above. 14. Maintenance of Apartments as Rentals. During the term hereof and such exter_sions as may be agrees to, all units. No apartments in the Project shall remain rental in the Project shall be eligible for conversion apartment from rental units to condominiums, townhouses or any other common interest subdivision in which some fee ownership in or entity other the apartment would be granted to a person in ownership of the Project than the Property Owner or which would be transferred to a corporation or other_ entity which would then sell stock or some other cooperative ownership interest to a prospective owner or occupant of an apartment or dwelling unit. 15. Annual Review. The Property Owner shall file with City an annual report containing information specified herein for the preceding calendar year. Said annual reports shall be filed with the City no later than March 15 fol- lowing the previous calendar year. The report shall contain such information as City may then require, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) rent schedules then in effect; utility- charges (if any); (b) Project occupancy profile including age, income characteristics of residents, number of automobiles owned by Project residents (total); (c) Listing of substantial physical defects 5 in the Project including a description of any repair or maintenance work undertaken in the reporting year; (d) P description of maintenance of the Project including the condition of units, apartments, land- scaping, walkways, stairs, recreational areas, and so forth. City shall be allowed to conduct annual physical inspections of the Project as it shall deem necessary. The City shall further be allowed to conduct an annual survey of residents in the Project in order to assess their satisfac- tion with the Project. The survey may contain, but shall not necessarily be limited to, questions regarding management /tenant relations, maintenance of the Project, design features, general attitud- toward the Project, and so forth. 16. Additional Re ortino Items. Prior to the execution herecf, Property owner shall submit to the City the following information: a. An analysis of the cost of the Project including land cost, construction cost, financing cost, and so forth; b. Tenant selection procedures which shall detail the methods that Property Owner shall use to advertise the availability of apartments in the Project and screening mechanisms that Property Owner intends to use to limit the occupancy of the apartments to the Target Population. 17. Tenant Selection Contracts and Rules and Requla- tions. On receipt of an application for occupancy in the Project, Property Owner shall determine the eligibility of the occupant under the terms of this Development Agreement. Property Owner shall verify the information supplied by the applicant and shall verify the income of the applicant for the purpose of determining qualification. Propeerty Owner may refuse to rent to an applicant if it dete =mines that false information has been supplied on the application or, in the two years preceding the application, the applicant has been evicted by a court of law. Property Owner may not use source of income or :marital status in determining eligibility. All agreements for rental of units in the Project shall be in writing. The proposed rental agreement or lease form shall be provided to City for its review and approval. Proposed rules of conduct and occupancy, if anv are adopted by the Property Owner, shall be in writing. Such proposed rules of conduct and occupancy and any later revisions, additions, of modifications thereof shall be 2 20. Hazard Insurance. Property Owner shall keep the Project and all improvements thereon insured at all times against loss or damage by fire or other risks covered by a standard extended coverage endorsement and such other risks, perils or coverage as Property Owner may determine. Property Owner shall also advise tenants that such insurance does not cover their personal property, and work with occu- flants to obtain for them, if possible and if desired by the occupants, policies of insurance on the contents of apartments and personal property of the c cupants thereof. 11 submitted to the City for its review and approval prior to use in the Project. Such rules of conduct and occupancy shall be given to each tenant prior to such tenants' occu- pancy. 18. Termination and Eviction of Tenants. A tenancy in an apartment in the Project may be terminated without the termination being deemed an eviction under the following circumstances: a. Death of the sole tenant of the unit; b. By the tenant at the expiration of a term of occupancy or otherwise, upon thirty (30) days' written notice; C. By abandonment of the premises by the tenant; or d. By failure of tenant to maintain income eligibility pursuant to the provisions hereof, providing that Property Owner gives tenant sixty (60) days' written notice of such termination. Any termination of a tenancy other than those listed in this subparagraph shall constitute an eviction. Property Gwrer ® shall only evict in compliance with the provisions of California law and then only for material non - compliance with the terms of the rental agreement, lease or rules and regulations of the Project. Property owner shall establish appeal and /or grievance procedures and rules and regulations for use for evictions in the Project, which shall be submit- ted tr and approved by the City prior to the occupancy of any apartment in the Project. 19. Local Residencv. Preference shall be given where possible to applicants to the Project who have been resi- dents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This factor, however, shall not be given any priority over the other elements of tenant selection in paragraph 17 hereinabove. 20. Hazard Insurance. Property Owner shall keep the Project and all improvements thereon insured at all times against loss or damage by fire or other risks covered by a standard extended coverage endorsement and such other risks, perils or coverage as Property Owner may determine. Property Owner shall also advise tenants that such insurance does not cover their personal property, and work with occu- flants to obtain for them, if possible and if desired by the occupants, policies of insurance on the contents of apartments and personal property of the c cupants thereof. 11 Durin^ the term hereof, the Project shall be insured to its full insurable value. City shall have the right to review insurance covf: rage maintained by Property Gwncr of its successors and assigns and the power to require additional insurance to be carried of a kind and in amounts at the City's sole discretion so that the provisions of this paragraph are complied with. City's action or inaction hereunder sh>_11 not subject it to liability to any third persons or entities. 21. Maintenance Guarantv. In order to insure that maintenance of the Project is performed in accordance with the maintenance plan as outlined in the Senior Housing Overlay District administrative guidelines and in this De- velopment Agreement, Property Owner shall either establish a landscape maintenance district pursuant to State law and City ordinance, regulation_ and /or policy, or post a maintenance deposit or other_ legal security acceptable to the Citv to be used by the Zity in the event that Property Owner shall fail to adeauateiv mainta-'_n the Project or breach this Development Agreement. 22. Snecific Restrictions on Develo-:oment of Real Prop- erty. The following specific restrictions shall also cover the use of the real property: a. Only residential uses of the real property are permitted in the Pr!,ject. b. Maximum density of residential dwelling units in the Project shall never be greater than dwelling units per acre. - C. The maximum height for each of the proposed buildings is: d. Maximum size for all of the buildings and the proposed square footage for each of the 'apartment types located therein is set forth more fully on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. e. Provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes are contained in the conditions for approval of Parcel Map Number and are incorporated herein by this reference. 23. Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its of�i s, agents, employees and representa- tives harmless from liability for damage or claims fot damage for personal injure including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect 8 operations of Pr operty Owner or chose of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relate to the Project. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend City and -ts officers, agents, employees and reF resentatives fro_.: actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the Project. This hold harmless agreement applies to all dam.,ages and claims for damage suffered or alleged to have beer. suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this Develcpment Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Project. Property Owner further agrees z�o irdemni£y, hold harmless and pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of this Develop- ment Agreement. 24. Affect of Development Agreement on Land use xequ•- lations. Rules , n regulatios and official policies governing permitted uses of the real property, the density of the real property, the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of thF real property, are those rules, regulations and official policies in force at the time of execution of this Agreement. it is ande =stood and agreed that City may grant Property Owner a dwelling unit density bonus, may reduce its requirements for on -site parking, may waive its requirement for covered on- site parking and may reduce and /or waive other fees as an incentive for Property Owner to construct the Project and for both parties to enter into this Development Agreement, Such, incentives agreed on between the parties are ;et fort:i on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 25. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or cancelled is whole or in part only by mutual written consent of the parties arid then itix the manner provided for in Go•:3rnment Code sections 65858 et seq. This Development Agreement does not prevent City in subsequent actions applicable to the real property from applying new rules, regulations and policies xAich do not conflict with those rules, regulations an�3 policies applicable ' -D the orooecty -is set forth in paragraph 8 hereinabove. This Development Agreement does not r- revent City from denving oL condi- tionally approving any subsequent development project appli- cation on the basis of existing or new rules, regulations or policies. 26. Enforcement. This Agreement ,s enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding a chance in the applicable General or Specific Plan, zoning, subdivision or building W regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations, or Policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, �.mp;-ovement and construction standards and specifications. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Property Owr_er, City shall give written_ notice to Property Owner by personal service on the representative of Propertv Owner (or its successor) at the Project, or by registered or certified mail addressed to Property Owner at the add -ess stated in this Agreement, or to such other address as may have been designated by Property Owner, and if such violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of City within thirty (30) days after the date such notice is given the City may, without further notice, declare a default under this Agree - mant and, upon any such declaration of default, the City may bring any action necessary to enforce the obiigatio_1s of Property Owner growing out of the operation of this Develop- ment Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for specific performance of the provisions of this Development Agreement, or for an injunction against any violation by Property Owner of any provision of this Agreement, or for such other relief as may be app. priate, it being agreed Ly Property Owner that the injury to City aris;ng from a default under any of the terms of this Development Agreement would be irreparable and that it would be extremely diffi- cult to ascertain the amount of compensation. to City to afford adequate relief in light of the purposes and policies advanced and satisfied by approval of the Project and by this Development Agreement. 27. Event of Default. Property Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions.- a. if a warranty, representation or statei:ent made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; b. if a finding and determination is made by the City following an annual review pursuant to paragraph 16 her . einabove upo the basis of substantial evidence that Property Owner haz not complied in gooa faith with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement; C. breach by Property Owner of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice described in paragraph 26 hereinabove. 28. Proceeding Upon Default. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Property Owner if on 10 periodic review Citv does not modi£v or terminate this Agreement. Non - performance by Property Owner shall not be excused because of a failure of any third person or entity. Adoption of a law or other governmental activity making performance by Property Owner unprof° *_able or more difficult or more expensive does not excuse the performance of the obligations to be taken by Property Owner under the terms of this Develpment Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements are available to the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement. No waiver by City of any b:.-each or default under this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 29. Attorneys' Fees. In any proceedings arising for the enforcement of this development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs and attornev fees incurred in the proceeding and such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by a Court in any legal action. 30. Cumulative Remedies. The respective rights and remedies provided by thss D- vlopment Agreement or by law or available in equity shall be cumulative and the exercise of any one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude or affect the exercise, at the same or at different times, of any other such rights or remedies for the same or different defaults or breaches or for the same or different failures to perform or observe any term or provision of this Agreement. - ,1. Partial invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 32. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the bene its and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto, their legal representatives, executives, adminstrators, successors and assigns. 33. Recordation. This Agreement shall, at the expense of Property Owner, be recorded in the official records of the County of San Bernardino in accordance with provisions of the Government Code. 34. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of li California. The provisoes of this Development Agreement shall be liberally construed to effect its purpcse as set forth herein and in the attachments hereto. Whenever the context so requires, the singular number includes the plural, the plural includes the singular, masculine gender includes the feminine and/or neuter and the neuter gender includes the masculine and/or feminine. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of a development agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed oy the parties and shall be effective on the day and year first above written regardless of the date of actual execution hereof. PROPERTY 0-NNER: BY: (Name) (Title) BY. (Name) (T1— t�-e CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: BY: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO I s5. On ot in a 1983; before me the undersigned, a aeareduolic and for said County and State personally pp and proved to me or_ the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed this instrument as Mayor and City Clerk, resnecrively, Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation existing and organized under the laws i2 Ll of the State of California, and acknowledged to me that the City of Rancho Cucamonga executed i , NOTARY PUBLIC STAVE OF CALIFORNIA 3 ss. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) On , 1983, bef_orc xe the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State personally appeared _ and P proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed this instrument as and _ on behalf of --`� 7 and acknowledged to me that the corpor tiaon executed it. 13 NOTARY PUBLIC EXHIBIT "A" (Legal description of the Project) ;a i Ll 11 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESCLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY k�F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL Bt THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will soon enact Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 creating a Senior Housing Overlay District; and WHEREAS, the City is concerned about protecting the long term availability and affordability of units produced for low and moderate income senior citizens; and WHEREAS, Development Agreements as prnvided in thn California Government Code Sections 65864- 65869.5 provide a .-jeans of protecting rental housing units produced under the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District for low and moderate income senior citizens; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Development Agreement developed by Staff meets general concerns of the City; and WHEREAT, on a project by rroject basis the General Development Agreement can be filled ir by the Cit in such a way that all of the concerns of the City will be met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the General Development Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the Development Agreement be completed on a project by project basis and brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983- PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY : Herman Rempe C airman ATTEST Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Pianning 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 Cortniission held on the 13th day of April, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L u E E 11 FROM: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOI`GA STAFF REPORT April 13, 1983 Membirs of tFs Planning Commission Pick Gomez, City Planner By: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REPORT ON DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND MEETING DATES SUMMARY: Based upon the request of the Planning Commission, we have prepared the following rep.:'t on the Design Review process. This report provides an overview of -he Design Review Ordinance and ischedrposes, as well as the actual review process and a proposed meeting the last six to twelve months, we have been conducting one Design. Review Committee meeting per month to accommodate the development applications submitted during that time.. However, we have found an increase in the development applications is causirg lengthy meetings. Scaff is proposing to hold two Design Review Comnitee meetings nh and to begin those meetings at 4 p.m. in the afternoon with approximately a p.m. cut -off time. This would accommodate approximately oyth,vwhich six projects per meeting or ten to _welve projects per approximately the amount of projects we have been receiving in the recent months. BACKGROUND: Design Review Ordinance Overview: Attached is a copy of the Design Review Office which outlines the actual Design Review procedure, purpose, and criteria that is used in the review Of projects. Simply stated, Design, Review is intended to prevent bad designs and to encourage quality designs that will implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Design Review Ordinance was `= :,Labrlishe projects to provide the Committee with enough flexibility to *iP cesian Review quickly, yet efficient',. The ordinance rovides Comnittet- the authority to consiC-er such design aspects as the relationship of the building to the site and surrounding area, ;_�dscaping and other site treatments, building design and materials, signs, and miscellaneous structures and street furniture . In she review of these design aspects, whether the project is a residential, recommendations on whether o er industrial project, the project meets th3 following a its criteria- ITEM I Design Review Process April 13, 1983 Page 2 Ll 1. Does the design and layout of the proposed development meet the applicable General Plan policies and guidelines? 2. Will the design of the proposed development interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties or create traffic and pedestrian hazards? 3. Is the architectural design of the proposed development compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood? 4. Will the aesign of the prcposed development pro-J de a desirable environment For its occupants and visiting public through the use of aesthetic materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing Lver a long period of time. The basic responsibility of the Design Review Corrnittee is to review each project and to make recommendation to the Planning Commission with regard to the overall design aspects of the project. The Design Review Committee is a working committee and is intended to provide feedback to the individual applicant in order to allow tr-e applicant the opportunity to revise desions, if needed, prior to final Planning Commission consideration. In reviewing any project, the Design Review Committee basically has three options: I- Agree upon the proposed development as designed and recommend approval to the Planning Commission; or, 2. Request certain changes in the project design from the applicant prior to review by the Planning Commission; or, 3. If the applicant is not willirg to work wit!: the Committee on design revisioas, recommend denial cf a project based upon the design not meeting the goals and objectives of the City, For the majority of cases, this process has been successful and very few cases have come to the point where the Design Review Committee and the applicant have not been able to resolve differences. Design Review Process and Meeting Ti^�es As was indicated earlier in thas report, the Committee has been meeting on7� once a month to review a7? projects. We have found that this has created a significant burden upon the Committee memhe:s ar�d has caused exceptionally long meetings. Therefore, we have proposed the following schedule of filing deadlines and Committee meeting dates which generally occur twice a m ^nth. The Design Review Committee meetings will begin at 4 p.+n., sched.:ling projects nr, a 20 minute interval with 5 minutes between each project. ,his would basically allow us to review five projects up to 6 p.m. This will allow us to review fewer projects during each meeting and will increase the efficiency of our review. L.J Design Review Process April 13, 1923 Page 3 Recently, staff has been providing some design comments and critiques on each project to the Committee prior to :'ie meeting. We have revised the format of those comments to better enable the Committee members to focus upon the major design issues. Please find attaches a copy of our most recent Design Review Committee memo which shows an example of the kinds of comments and format that is proposed to be used in the future. Additionally, we would like to formalize the meting more than what it has been in the past. Each project has assigned a project manager from the Planning staff whose responsibility will be to nake a formal presentation to the Committee reviewing each of the areas outlined on the comment sheet. We believe that this will assist in moving the project along more quickly by focusing on major design issues. Since -,le wi?'i be on a limited time schedule, it will be helpful to limit our discussions and review to the major design aspects of each project. Once the Committee has been presented the major issues by the project manager, the project manager will seek the Committee's comments on each matter and will then invite the applicant into the meeting to review those areas whic� the Committee has decided upon. We believe that this new format and meeting schedule will greatly assist both the Committee members and the staff in the overall review ® process. Staff has found the Design Review process p3rticuiarly beneficial with regard to input from tha Commission members who are on the Design Review Committee. Many times, while staff indicates certain design conc.rns to the applicant, the applicant is not willing to accept those criticisms until he hears them directly from the Design Review Committee. Staff views the Design Review process as one of the most important steps of the review process and highly appreciates the input from the Design Review Committee. This input .typically provides the direction for the ultimate processing of +'-e project. As always, we are available to discuss this process and procedure with any m—her of the Planning Commission at any time. Those Commission memt..•-s who are appointed to the Design Review Committee can anticipate havia.y imeetirogs on the dates listed on the attached schedule. You will receive a detailed memorandum of the projects as well as project plans approximately a week -and- a-hal f prior to the meeting. We have implemented this process for the next Design Review Committee meeting of April 19, 1983. If the Commission concurs with this process, we will continue using this procedure and will make refinements as necessary to develop the most efficient review procedure. 11,Y submitted, ---1 anner 0 R :MV:jr Design Review Process ;L •Y '. April •• .� . • ,' =. Attachments: Design Review Ordinance �1.1. Meeting Bates e Design Review Comnittee Memorandum .1 i i:rrr4t In r id =4 fi•. , . 7 + i r r 4 .. E, '�' F] H E Sections: 17_O8.C10 17.08.020 17.08.030 17.08.040 17.08.050 17 -08 -060 17.08. 70 17.08 -u80 17. 08.090 17.08 -100 Chanter 17.08 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE Findings and determination. Purposes. Creation of the design review committee- - Administrative provisions. Jurisdiction of review_ Design considerations. Procedure. Appeal. Enforcement. Environmental review. statutory authority in case of conflicting provisions. n 17.08.010 Findings and determination_ The city council finds and determines the following: A. That the planning commission, by its Resolution No. 79 -61, following a public hearing held in the time M (Rancho Cucamonga 1/82) 254 I] Ll 17.08.030 -- 17.08.030 and manner described by law, recommended the establish- ment of a design review procedure and committee described in this chapter and this city council has held a public 'nearing in the time and manner described bv_ law and has duly heard and considered the recommendation. B. That the city council has reviewed and considered the design review ordinance codified in this chapter and all testimony and comments pertaining tQ it and finds the design review procedures to be adequate in scope and content. C. That this chapter will have no significant environ- mental impact as provided in the negative declaraticn filed herein. (Ord. 89 51, 1979).. 17.08.020 Purposes. The city finds that a design review process will support the implementation of the general plan., as it stresses quality urban design standards. The city further finds that the quality of certain residential, insti- tutional, commercial, and industrial uses has a substantial impact upon the visual appeal, environ:nenta'_ soundness, economic stability, and property values of the city. This chapter is not intended to restrict imagination, innovation or variety, but rather to focus on design principles which can result in creative - naginati.ve solutions for the project and a quality design fog the city. It is, therefore, the purpose pf this resolution tQ: A. Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and provide a method by which the city may i.mple- ment this interdependence to its benefit; B. Encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and proper-_* within the city along with associated facilities, such as signs, landscaping, parking areas, and streets; C_ r:airtain the public health, safety and general wel- fare, and property throughout the city- - D_ Assist private and public developments to be more cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics of development; E_ Reasonablv ensure that new developments, including residential, institutional, commercial and industrial developments, do not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety or architecturally related impact upon existing ad- - ing properties, or the city in general; F. implement those sections of the city's general plar. which specifically refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of this city and its harmonious development. (Ord. 89 §2, 1979)_ 17.08.030 Creation of the design review committee- - Ad::,inistra=ve provisions. A. A design review committee (DRC) is created and shall be responsible for the implementa- tion and administration of this chapter. 2 55 17.Od.0 <u-- i7.08.0�0 17.08.050 Desiczn, considerations. The design review committee shall, in reviewing projects covered by this chanter, consider such design aspects as the relationship of building to site; the relationship of building and site to surrounding area; landscape and site treatment; building design and materials; signs: and miscellaneous strilctures and street furniture. The recommendation of the design review committee will be based upon the project conforming to the fcllowing criteria: A. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the city's general plan and any adopted architectural criteria for 256 B. The design review committee shall ccnsist of caree ® members _ One shall be the director oc cc^_n�. n ty develec:.,ent wvs or his desicnee and two shall be members of the planning commission. C. The planning co=issien shall elect two of its members to the design review committee_ The director of community development or his designee shall be the secretary of the DRC. Of t..e first two commission members appointed, one shall have a term of six months and the other shall have a tern of twelve months. Thereafter, all terms shall be twelve months_ D. Any member of the committee may be removed at any time by the planning commission. E. The design_ review committee shall meet twice monthly as needed. The time and place of such meeting shall be set by resolution of the planning com;nissicn. The design review committee may arrange additional meetings at any time in order to process applications within recuired time periods. V. A simple majority of members stall constitute a quorum. The committee shall review a project in accordance with the chanter and file recommendations with the approving authorit:•. Such recomzendations shall be consolidated by the planning division of the community development department as conditions for final approval. The DRC shall have the right to develop its own rules and regulations for conducting its meetings in add_ticn to developing and adopting design criteria and standards. (Ord. 89 53, 1979). ' 17.08.040 Jurisdiction of review. The design review committee shall have L_he authority to review the architecture and site elan elements of all residential, commercial and industrial developments, additions, remodelings, relocations, issuance of a building permit or which require a conditional use permit, site approval or director review. The review shall consider the use of design elements such as, but not limited to, exterior design and materials, lardscaning, architecture, site plan relationships, grading, signs, wall or bufferin_ techniques. (Ord. 89 §4, 1979)_ 17.08.050 Desiczn, considerations. The design review committee shall, in reviewing projects covered by this chanter, consider such design aspects as the relationship of building to site; the relationship of building and site to surrounding area; landscape and site treatment; building design and materials; signs: and miscellaneous strilctures and street furniture. The recommendation of the design review committee will be based upon the project conforming to the fcllowing criteria: A. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the city's general plan and any adopted architectural criteria for 256 17.03.060 specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans, community plan, boulevards, or planned developments; B. The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future develcpments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; C. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neig.'zbor- hood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this chapter and the general plan of the city; D_ The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for it occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (Ord. 89 §5, 1579). 17 -08 -060 Procedure. A. An applicant shall submit the appropriate application, as required by the zoning ordinance, and application fee as set by the city council, and required materials as specified in the filing requirements set forth by the director of community development, to the planning division on or before the filing deadline- Once an application has been accepted, it will be scheduled for the first available design review committee meeting and the applicant will be notified of the time and place of such meeting. All plans and applicable materials will be distributed to all members ans support staff of the design review committee a week prior to the scheduled meeting. B_ The design review committee shall meet with the applicant to review and discuss the proposed project and its conformity with this chapter. The design review committee may formulate recommendations on the design of the project relative to the criteria listed in this chapter or other design criteria or development standards as adopted by the city. Such recommendations shall be filed in the project file to become final conditions of approval.• in addition, the applicant shall receive written notice of such recommen- dations. C- If, after review by the desicn review cemmictee, the committee feels that the project needs substantial revision, the project review may be continued by the dP =ign review committee to enable the applicant to make appropriate chances and alterations. The applicant shall receive written notif_ cation of such decision and the date when the design review comssttee will meet again to review the project. (Ord. 89 §6, 1979). 257 17.08.070 -- 17.03.133 17.08.070 Aa_peal. :there a project application has beer j ® acted upon by the desi_,n review co=Ji ee, the applicant or ^action, anv interested person :.ho is aggrieved '_ tae may file an appeal to the planning commission. The appeal shall state wherein the actions of the design review committee are not consistent or in conformance with the provisions of this chanter. At a -egulariv scheduled meeting, the planning commission may affirm, modify or reverse the recom- mendations of the design review com_:nittee. Decisions by the planning commission are appealable to the city council using the same procedures. ;Ord. 89 §7, 1979). 17.08.080 Enforcement. A. No building permit, for the construction of any building or project described in this chapter, may be issued until the design review committee has reviewed the project for conformance with this chapter, design criteria, and development standards as adopted by the city. B. Further, prior to final inspection or occupancy, the completed project must be inspected by the planning division for compliance with the conditions of approval. No occupancy permit shall be issued unless all elements are completed according to the approved plans. If for anv reasor. this cannot be accomplished, a cash deposit shall be submitted by the developer to ensure compliance. (Ord. 89 58, 1979)_ 17.OS.090 Environmental review. The city council has 10-1 found, based -on re•iiew of the initial study, that this project will not create a significant adverse impact of the environment and issues a negative declaration_. (Ord. 89 §9, 1979). 17.08.100 Statutory authority in case of cor_flictinc Provisions. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect, annul or abrogate any other laws or ordinances pertaining or applicable to the •- roperties and areas affected by this chap- ter, nor shall it oe deemed to conflict with any state laws, orders or requirements affecting such properties or areas. in the evert that a conflict does arise, the more restrictive ordinance shall apply. (Ord. 89 §10, 1979). r L m co ON Z W H � H L-J o v: U C7 Z Z H H Z � Z H C Cs ny. C3 U� U3 G] 4 F v� = O U Iz: ¢ cz x � m p • � a)pmc CZ +> r- V E t4 CZ y c Y E H y 0 m cU E V ,) 6 O V m V E m y m C a V U p p E i , y C. p �up p �) U T- L E U O t E a> 0.0 0 C) U 0 c aLi o L c m O O O mac. y c C T) . ' O m C2 ' E m U V V £ W V 7 _ V � m m v) y H O p 7 O y y +y cc y p 4 U m � y o n O � 6 0 y L O (0 L. n - m o y o L U 4Vr p -�+ V C6 al O o CL m � nm� c m m p p m E .m. m s) Cy O p ti s d as Vm V 2 L U .-O. -0 6 a> -V-) pp� > r- 3 L C d 3 O m p L H CD O O c W p c tz L. o H CL (D y p O p m w -•+ m T . p y cli vVl v L L S O W d . N y > L y y p p d +i L m e ec m m c m c c S .0 E O ^+m @p L.= C2 E Cl. to 4 a v Z H %-a m F L- G 0 O M C L` F L- a L-7 e+ C m L' L L` H 3 v; Z C ti U M a a C F U ry 0 a O Z F Z 4 F C O a ti C O m m tio � � N O+ m N 1 I { C T T L L N ^ N 7 ry � N •m- N I O U y L ^� L tu cz V I H I H p O Cl bo C, L 7 L V +I .,y T TC. ti •T� � 1 1 p C N +) � co rn 1 ' I V 1 cap _ N m N O M C— N �' 7 7 '� T = U L 7 L L ¢ L ¢ r _ •TI �. E 'j .m� CVz. N �. -�� ' z � N . y U p m N ti N CJ ^ O d I O, m N p H cc C t— N I L n, L m Rf L p 3 U L ' ��t L L C T _ CL CL 1 � I 3 to p > O. I N y t0 M T m N L t I i H H ''C C•TI E y p O p 7 L L L LSC H EE .� •2- U � yp O 3 ba N p c > co co L L H ^ m L l cTc� .,.y . C Ci. L d Q F JQ O 7 O i N �. m — CrN m co 9 e co _ O` N ^ to N cfl t— ^ T ^ N co cm ti O cv cm to C) N N 7 p 4 L L d L k c E 3 .1 O f: tl co > p .L y IF 1 I 11 0 m m C z r.� o= a� o H T N U D cf� C U -H. N Z H � Cs7 ' y C TL O � E U � O O U [s7 Z W d [s7 s a C 1 0 .4 I I�Is M co N 1 .0 I 'N N C 1 0, .�i O I N I N e m E +i i� ra y N N L L L; d _ U J..t rn t1 m D E D E C) ' V D D E E D E E N Jya YUU > U 1 L L I N N {Jq7 U i O Z I o O 3 7 2 s �1 7 CD I � C � ^� m U CV, C- N 3 co CJ I n m L cm N L` N 7 a3 4� U� 1 C) CJ L I L d CJ J y >1 1' 7 E E D D E E E °' ( to em y ° y Q Q ; Z q CL z { j e . y 0 C\J N co U c, Na7 [N N L L L E m y C � a �4¢ tio 1,O �O O ; = Q �1c �o lj I I I I 1 I > a> d d Om N NCO N M i �P � _ N y Q L � L L L ,V L L L •- m 0 E e D E E e � N m to •�i y'�q'' y W Gy C < ©O �Z y�y ZLl O 10 „Oiti c' �(S m C,� m N �co -�i m L L - L •m a) D L (D C tto y m 3 y E O a E E E E � ¢ C) 0 8 (s 0 '> z z a 2 ti CD m N O% .i . N \D t- N 'O E p7 N �- co L y L L L t0 N N tb 4Z n m L L y oa tU as 3 N E O p y 8 m 7 7 tzo y al O C E V o � O o > 08 m O Z w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIvJONGA ME' Jy10P.A -T D i DATE: r-;pril 4, 1983 TO: DFSIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: Herman Rempel, David Barker, nick Gomez FROM, Frank J. Dreckman, Assistant Planner na cPRTI 19. 19133 SUBJECT- The following is a description of Projects review tb,z attached rating by the Design Review Comusittee. and provide staff plans, visit the projec� sites, formulate questions, with comments, criticisms. and prepared totdiscussrelevant the nprojects °eS7ga considerations. Please come prep complete and comprehensive fashion. rr Ject manager (noted As always, feel free to contact the appropriate the left margin;, pr' ^" co the meeting dates, if ro ects. In vshave spec along °r will be late, please `•G� have specific questions rela +.ad :.° the scheduled P J + can make the appropriate arrangements. addition, if you are unable to end a meeting, no*_ i iy our department so :s OOU square 3:40 -4:00 CK 83 -07 - THOMPSON - The developmen� of a 150> 'Jcated on 1�nd .1 (Cur - o° ware ouse en fi.19 acres °Subarea 10),thp "eneral Industrial /Rail Served Category ( enue, north Of ?;.n Street* the west side of Toronto Av 4:00 -4:23 OR 83-08 - ED ARDSirg on d 3� loc e of °- and3in8theuC� -2 font, (Curt) located on the north si'° of Foothill Boulevard, 750' east of Grove - APN 207_13 4 20 -4:40 CUP o3 -C6 - v'NDERCARE - The development of a 8400 square r Inc., on 1.1 acres of land in the C -2 zone, oot c;± care center (Frank) for Kindercare Child Learning Centers, tars, located at 10100 E. Foothill Boulevard - APN 2n8_;3i -2 . Design Review Cozw -ottee April 4, 1983 Page 2 IE 4:40 -5:00 TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - LABAND - A custom lot residential land ir, the (Dan subdivision of ZU4 lots on 140.98 acres of locate an the east side Frank) ainage Channel - API 201-121 -12. 5:00 -5:20 TENTATIVE TRACT 11781 & 11625 - ROBERTS A re- design in approaed condo tracts_ (Dan product type of two previously Frank) 5.20 -5 :40 TENTATIVE TRACT 12316 & 12316 -1 - LEWIS - A total 73 single detached (Mike) residential develop'lentg og are 73 lots ranging from 4800 square dwellings cn feet and generally located on the south side of Base square Line on the west side of Deer Creek Channel, 5:40 -6:00 TENTATIVE TRACT 12317 & 12317 -1 - LsinSle Aftotal detached (,like) rest e— tia deve opment of - 9 dwellings on 100 lots ranging fram 3960 square feet to 7500 square feet, generally located on the east side of Haven, south of Base Line. E FD /kep DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR APRIL 15, 1983 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING KINDERCARE (CJP 83 -06) Design parameters: The proposed Kindercare project will create a neta parcel tentative parcel 7891) to be establ4 shed on the south side of Foothill Boulevard (special boulevard standards) east of Turner Avenue. The new parcel is surrounded by existing single family residential to the south and east. A future office complex will be located adjacent to the west boundary. The following is a list of potential design concerns: 1. Site Plan Design Concerns a. Is the site large enough to accommodate the proposed preschool facility playground, and parking area? b. Should a vehicular circulation connection be made between the proposed Kindercare site and the future office complex to the west? C. Are the building setbacks adequate in terms of providing minimal buffers (noise, visual) between the preschool and the surrounding single family residences? 2. Buiidino Desian Concerns a. Do the proposed roof forms, elevation treatments, and use of exterior materials provide enough visual interest and variety? b. The entrance cupola appears bright red. Is this appropriate? Should it be constructed in another color to integrate with the predominate earth -tone quality of the main structure ?_ _ ROBERTS GROUP RE- DESIGN (TENTATIVE TRACT 11781 & 11625) Lesigr Parameters: The Roberts Group project represents a re- design in p.-oduct type of two condo - tracts (Tentative Tract 11731 & 11625) which were previously approved. Plotting of the structures on the site appears to be s:•nilar to the previously approved tracts. Thus, design concerns typically revolve around building elevations, materials, roof lines, etc. The following is a list of potential design concerns: 1. Building Design Concerns a. Although siding, trim, and roof color may vary, elevations and footprints appear to be a variation on the same theme. Should there be a 'variety of building elevations or themes? 11 LABAND (TENTATIVE TRACT 123323 Desian Parameters: The Laband project consists of a custom lr' residential subdivision of 204 lots on 140 acres of undeveloped land. The proposed subdivision is presently surrounded by undeveloped land which will not impose any design constraints on the proposed project. However, an extension of the Deer Creek project, to the south, will occur in the near -future. The following is a list of potential design concerns: 1. Site Plan Desiqn Concerns a. Increased lot widths; and decreased lot depths, could help eliminate sharp (2:1) crossfalls between lots: Should this be a. requirement? b. Grading all lots which front on a common cul -de -sac at or near the same elevation (and allowing the slope to occur between cul -de -sac areas; aicng rear property lines) could reduce sharp crossfalls betti:een individual lots. Should this be required? c. Should parcel size be increased to 35,000 square feet to reflect those found within the Deer Creek project to the south? EDWARD (DR 83 -08) Desiqn Parameters: This project consistscf a 3,858 square foot auto service building on a jb,250 square foot lot. An L -shape building is provided to screen the service bays, as per Design Review Committee comments from a similar project on Foothill Boulevard. Following is a list of potential design concerns: 1. Site Plan a. Is additional screening of the service bays and north portion of the property necessary? If so, how can it be improved? b. Is increased buffering of property to the north needed? c. Should landscaping be provided along the west building elevation? 2. Building Desian. a. Should decorative slump stone be used on the west elevation, visible from. Focthill Boulevard? b. Should dark bronze .glass be used in the front windows? c. Will indented windows or variations in the building plane on the street facing 3levations improve the design? I R THOMPSON (DR 83 -07) Desiqn Parameters: The project site is located Avenue, a cul -de -sac jest east of the new Tokai of Haven Avenue. The north end of the property Street, which will be abandoned by the City. A provided to service the project. Following is concerns: 1. Site Plan at the north end of Toronto of America lighter factory off is currently a portion of 8th Railroad spur line will be a list of potential design a. The finished floor is g' above the top of curb elevation to accommodate the rail service. Although the building is setback 120' from the street, should alternative grading methods be considered? b. Should screening of the loading docks be improved? c. Should the parking configuration directly in front of the offices be revised to increase the effectiveness of the landscaping? "c. Buildina Desiqn a. Does the office front need to relate better to the overall ouiidina design; such as the color band extended into or ground the orrice front? LEWIS (TENTATIVE TRACTS 12316 - 12317) Design Parameters: These tracts are the first to be developed in the Terra Vista Planned Community. They are occurring in a relatively undeveloped area without much constraint with regard to existing development. Following is a list of potential design concerns. Tract 12316 1. Site Plan Desiqn Concerns a. Flag lots: Should we require landscape and irrigation? b. Side -on cul -de -sac, Street "D ": Should we provide break or opening in wall along Base Line? If so, how much? c. Front yard setbacks: Do the front yards vary enough? d. Lot width: Do the lot widths vary enough, particularly along Street „D "? e. Street design: Does the length and design of Street "D" and the minimal lot widths and front yard setback meet out design criteria for variations? 2. Building Design Concerns in a. Building style and shape: Do the basic styles, roof forms and building shapes provide encugh variation and interest? b. Garage side elevations: Is there enough architectural treatment on the side elevations of the garage? c. Corner elevations: Are corner elevation treatments adequate? Tract 12317 1. Site Plan Design Concerns a. Flag lots: Should they be irrigated and landscaped? b. Street "E ": Should the cu; -de -sac be pulled south to eliminate street to rear of lots? c. Lots 44 -46: Should these lots be turned as normal corner lots so that the trail is in a side -on condition, rather than through the front yards? d. Lot "A": Should this trail access be landscaped, irrigated, and illuminated? Also, should a pedestrian bridge be provided to link trail with the rest of Terra Vista? e. Street, lot, and building variations: Does the plan provide enough variation on street design, lot width and size, and building setbacks and orientations? 2. Building Design Concerns a. Building *yle and shape: Do the basic styles, roof forms and building shapes provide enough variation and interest? b. "F" series roof design: Is the shed roof style on the garage consistent in design with the rest of the designs? c. Two story design: Should wood trim be added on windows of second story units? d. Garage side elevations: Is there enough architectural treatment on the side elevations of garage? e. Corner elevations: Are corner elevation treatments adequate? E E 11 C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 13, 1933 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Circulation Alternatives for Haven Avenue 1977 As development prop`sals are received for properties along haven Avenue in the Industrial Area, ti circulation policies contained in the industrial Area Specific Plan reach the need for implementation. Haven Avenue is projected to be the most heavily impacted of the City's arterials and will experience a traffic demand in excess of its "capacity ", resulting in severe congestion. This conditian will prevail betweeen 4th Street and Foothill Blvd. when the City reaches its buile -out level of development. SPECIFIC PLAN CIRCULATION POLICY In an attempt to mitigate the projected traffic impacts, the Specific Plan contains the following policies: PP II -19 and II -22; A reiteration of the Commission's Access P.licy, Resolution 78 -29, limiting driveway access. PP II -22 and II -24; Additional restrictions beyond those in Resolution 78 -29, including the following statement with regard to local streets: "Local streets should be plar.ned to relieve traffic demand on arterials by providing parallel routes." This latter statement resulted in a local street pattern for the vicinity of Haven Avenue as shown on the Circul..ton Plan portior, of the Specific Plan and further detailed in Figure IV -6 of the Plan (attached). Existing development and the railroad prevent the parallel street concept 'from being applied throughout the length of Haven Avenue, but the street pattern was planned to provide it as completely as pcssible. NEED FOR ALTERNATE CIRCULATION The value of the parallel road, especially in the lower reach of Haven, is that the traffic produced by the development into an industrial park of the properties fronting Haven can be taken by an internal street and driveway ITEM J 1 e .c F] 10 Ot o F 19 rt w LI Gam' v St e A- a -VI .013 NOITAIUOFIIO W.d.R 'osr � .W.O.R loot W.O.R aa91 ao '88 3OIVS32 JIAR gnitaiz3 f- f- -� besogoiq * + + ++ 23TUOR \2JIART nshtaebeq 0000 elavi2 0000 IsnoigeR Gv� \9gsaat99it21sioeg2'; gnigEOEbnsJ \enu -iawoq tn9tneas3 TtilitU alennstlO $ ZA8970 �"•� 9gbh8 n atnioq sae * =A )hsgr M nottst2 efia ooar 'oos'0 o� .�Ino anoifsmizo-vggs as maoda 976 anoitgytpgilnoo tot We 8903! 19a1sq :Sion co d 9rlt enet i9vo 6218 n0itsObl gsgrtt fs E b n ewotut bal okl so Hoot ;oibnf n6 ai ofis t 5r13 wolfs bfuorl2 n15JJ Sq 399132 f69of b51iup91 srT y0ifoq 399132 :`6901 is -15v9b l0 19nwo is-16q x1069 o3 ylifidixsf4 mum:xvn --Is no losgmi s215vb6 326sf sdi pnivsri nfiriw 15go n1sJ3sq noiJsfu:)li:) 9riT wof3 oi?is11 f61151 ,a -11 slupi3 ni nwori2 bns n6fq ziri3 1o�t b5gofsysb 9x13 pn:sinpoosl yd s1gionilq 2iri3 filiw z5ifgmon :pniwOffoi y319go1q pnofs bsbivolq sd bfuori2 2399132 o s1di2aoq 91sdw 29nif sd blu0�2 2f6f19J16 dJrw 2nOi309219Jn1 O 19v515riw 9fim 19Jlbup 19q 9n0 03 bs3imif 9f dizaoq 4IS-1I 9v9i131 of benn6fq 5d df=12 2199112 1600.1 O pnibiv0lg yd 2f5i19316 no bn6msb 0ill613 .25JU01 f3r1616q bfuod2 f5016q 6 n1riJiW n19J16q 399112 sdT O 919riw Jg90x9 , x.619 2 i riJ lo 2'lnq 6 9d 10n 61191117 9vods sril J99m 03 1'1622909n 23nsmgofsysb W9n ni 9(d61129b sd y6m 2199112 916Vi19 zJ591J2 936Vi1q noi-Isniiiinsbi y115go1q 9-- risrin9 bluow y5&J 515riw fri35g2 s19r1w bns 229006 io 1o1Jn70_lol 9bivolq 91u2n9 OT .bsviovn- 56 ysm 21g90n00 npr29b 116i9vO 6 ni b930u1J2no: 916 Znpi29b J99iJZ 929fi3 J6ri2 -1611 zz9006 y3nsp19m5 916917 Jon 1fiw r3iriw lsnn6m 96! zm91 d01q 90n6n9Jn 16m 51LJU'i 10 2b1626ri 11 ' , .2f6vo1ggs o3 bsilggs 9d b1UOt12 2b1sbn63z pniwolfo9 bslimii 9d 1f6ri2 2199132 9J6vrlq 10 921: srlT O JOn zJ991J2 (600f lonlm o1 bn6 2062-9b-fu0 02 .0i1?61J riguolfi2 eniY1160 s19riW yfno b9J31mi5q 5d Mw 2199122 926vilq O zi fiOnuoO yl;O 9ri3 03 VloJ0s12iJ62 2n69m 6 .noi3619go bns 50n6n92ni6m li5d, 101 b5blvOlq 9d o1 3011J21b 30n6n93ni6m 6 1.O noil6m10l 9fds:ov311i ns HJiW Y1622909n nsdv- b9J6v1106 9111 4o bsllupsl 5d ffsde noijsoibsb 10 15110 .noijsbio091 OS 10i1q 92n9gx5 2ir1 J6 lsgofsveb 9d lffw 23s91J2 53svllq (f6 to npr29b 9rfT o ;155nien3 ylio sri3 yd bsvoldg6 bn6 bsweiv91 yd bs3o5gzni sc flsde nniJou112naO 9x11 bns _ sldsoilggs ns dliw ,noieiviG pnilsenipn3 sri3 bisq 9d o3 ss1 "OiJOSg2ni 2n9m5vO1gmi 4IS-1I r. ♦ e r e r • a t • {. a r lnso6tb6 n99w19d 216i^+9116 01 2297oL b9nidmoO o -i22oq 1evslsf1w bsp61u0ons 9d 116dz 29i119go1q . 21n9mrio601on9 4o lsdmun 9111 9:)ub91 Ol 91d -ol sd ,eidi22oq 19V919fiw ,11662 23nioq zzsooA o 4o Aord sril mot4 les4 001 4o muminim 6 b316o 10 9n61 4 no ?noii:;sa191ni 16 2nw3s1 d1u:) .,-yswrlpiri 19biw ,yoiloq 2iril rl;iw sldilcgmoo sziwlsrilo 91sriW o 10 pnil2ixs slizoggo b91600l sd 1102 22soo6 sril 4o sbiz siieoggo sril no 23nioq bennslq .199112 -n619 ni bsnifluo 21otinoo sril o1 noilibb6 nI o -ibbs 1slsvez ,U -8C not /ufo2sA soi22immo] nnin vlseesogn sd If iw znoiloi11291 r6r.oiJ Ind n-wl 1491 bc6 2A69-id bn6l2i nsibsM - IN - ixolagc of b9limil sd bluoriz 22soo6 36.1 no 2pniosg2 slim 1s11Lup y191sm = 216i'19116 babivib 1oLsm pniwoffo4 ,b16VSiUOB lfirlloo9 ,sunsvA nsysH .1ss112 f111uol bns ,sunsvA nsAiffiM bsbrtsmmto9t srll 2wor12 a -II 91upi'l Hoidw pniJ6g2 noil05z191ni 16i19116 2rilpn9l 9p61012 916upsbs 9bivolq ffiw .tsnsf nlul 1491 1o4 9 9d bluorie 2n011092191ni bssif6 ^pi2 - Y' 01 ?16a6 slim At muminim 6 bs3sg2 .noiz2slpotq ysw-owl 916upsb6 sysirio6 in ton bs�6g2 lli12 bns 29n61 lixg bn -loo' ,n9vrii n i nwoee 26 9d n63 2nci 1792191n i "I"' 11686 1994 041e nsr.1 2291 5 y11ns rlu3-149f sbivolq 1 gsox9) 21 6 i 19116 9r11 no %AJ44 bn6 ,nsAiIHM ,fliri .d -11 ,tupi� -oils sbiz ,yonsioills bns y1s3s2 1oa sd bluoriz 2f6i19116 1oLsm pnof6 nail ->haq 1351le-no ,9104919rfJ bssiminim -do nsibem ,bsisnimifs sd bfuc.12 pni bns ,bssimin;m sd bfuoriz znoiloullz -svilb of 2zsoos bns 2lnsmsvom n1u1 -14sf bel-�npizsb o1 bsni4noo sd bluorie zysw .2noilsaof lenoilibbs ,nsAffliM bn6 nevsi; pnolA - b91iup91 sd ysm 2nai10i11291 2zsoo6 .21nis112noa 9mulov or47611 of sub SS -11 E i 11 2 i E - II 3JSAT ,20O1T332A3T141- ZO1TAA YT13A9A0 \3MUJOV 03T33LOA9 "0" 331VA32 30 J3V3J TA luoH 71699 M9 tznoilibbA en6J J \V y17io6g6J 9muloV roi3092193n1 — RK 29d7601gg6 It6--2nlul list .9rdO aS.r OO2r Oe8r 1lidloo1 \nsv6H 8U ;3M- -zsnsl mu3 list .sIdO e8.0 002r 04Et s1uoA w011A \n9v6H 82 ;SW- -zsn61 nlul list .9td0 8e.0 0021 0�41 t djAn9V6H 83 ;82 ;SM- -zsn6l n1u3 1391 .91dO a0.r Coat Oemr IIidlooa \ns7liIIiM 83 ;82 ;89- -29n61 nlul list .9IdO 08.0 Coat OoSt 91uoA wo1- A \n97liIIiM 00.1 002r 0021 d3+i\nsA i t I i M ae.o 002t 0414,r I(idloory \19129dooA 9n0 bn6 n1u1 1391 9n0 9v6d Ol b9mu226 916 29C'1�601gg6 its �b916l2 92iw19d10 22s1nU* r .29nst deuoldl Aaold -bim of noilibb6 ni sn6t nlul 1dpi1 -191n'- n9v6H \1fid1o03 9dl �?9163ibni E-11 5td6T.2A 9d3 ni noi1 =921s1ni bsb60119vo 120m 9d1 2i noi3092 9vodc; yI16i1n612du2 916 -9g0 of b9139gX9 2i bn6 YSiD 91619go O3 b5339gxs 21 ns;W I iM \I(Idlo01 -W i -16067 12Ui 91619g0 I I i w d1i \n97li t 1 iM bn6 Viio6q so svod6 . Y1in6gso 16 noilo92191ni 1ot6m Its iO noil63ns291g bsli6l9b A ni b93n9291q 2i 21nsmsl6upe -i Y6w-j0-Jdpil bn6 29nst z9butoni noi109219Jni doss ,yf16-i9nsw' .2 -II 9lupii dpuOldl %n6m 26 bn6 3nst nlul 1:91 9161Bg9z 9n0 9mo2 SA .mss'ilzqu 29n61 I9v611 916 d19d1 26 29n6t Ir 6 10 \bn6 29n6( n1u1 list 51duob .enoiIn9219ini .Y1622909n 9d Ysm 9n61 nlul 1dpi1 23131J09 22303A aMA 1101TAJUJA13 {liJ6g60 bn6 229nsvi135ils 9dl 91u2n9 01 19b10 nl 2161 1931A bn6 291Ji109 bn6 r1zH d6129 O1 Y162297sn 9d lliw li Zlsilslls 10 92911 .zsioiloq to11no0 229 006 biei - 9ololns -olq sdl 19bnu 109jj3 ni YISn911u:) 916 - Ivilnoo .eS -S� noilulo293i noi22immoO pninnsi9 9d1 10 2noi2iv b916Jib9b 9d tt6d2 216i1s116 Its of 229 »6 notl O 9vi36n19116 91d61iu2 19v91sdw yliJ 9H2 01 - Oslfoo 10 16001 mo13 bsgor9vob 9d ysm 225 »6 .2199112 101 .I6i191'i6 n6 of b91n612 9d 32um 229706 919dW O 10l lnioq 9n0 of b3limit 9d 116d2 2290J6 bi62 19z16q 19q lnioq 9no 10 9p63no1j 30 1993 OOE 2i it .9p61n01j lo 1991 OOE n0l 2291 ijliw -inim 6 d2i(dsl2s o1 Y�iloq sdl to 1n91ni 9111 .2Y6w9vilb n99411sd pnimsg2 loos OOE mum er- r l TRO93R 33AT2 MOI22IMMOJ 3NIIIAM gun9vA nsvbH 101 29vi15mrsIfA noi15iuoi?O £bpd ,£I f i"rgA E gp59 MOITAaN3MM003R jSi'7gj ";s grit °'9btmn bn5 W9ivgi noi22immO3 qdj Isdi bgbngmmoJ91 zi jd 3o sno 1J9(92 bnb gungvA n9vbH "ro3 X(ibi09g29 ,nbi9 Ji3iJ9g2 9d ni 29i3i'Oq :CoilOb 10 292-IUOD 2OWCO i01 brit bngmmoog"I bns dj,�09 j92 9"15 X90.1 25 29tDifoq 229036 sd.1 m9ilnoosR .d ^ro ,zg2nzdo on gAsm tiJnuo3 Xli3 961 jsrij z'Dit91 2b �JUZ 10 gjsrgo vgg ts!uvloR .S noijuDn9mmoJ9"r 5 S *g9iq of 33bj2 tJ9'1ib bnb ,mgj2v,2 199•it2 9dt of znoijibbb .nsi9 3itio9g2 qdj ni 9pnsdD s ^roi lionuoJ vjiD 01 ,bgttivTu�tJ9g29A ` v ssi:AA9.n6� AS,SS,el -Id 99 ,nbl9 ol3lrosg2 isi"rt2ubnI :2tn9mriJfitjA a -VI 9"rupi'� 0 E: TAOg3A 33ATZ NOIZZIMMOO @VIIV"jq 9un9vA nsysH ioi 29vf1sniel fAA noiJSffilgA S 9psq 9d1 r19991Z d1A 1A .199112 dlA O1 f11Uo2 bnE bb09 f9ffb16q 9dl 01 m912X2 19d1b9 01 91u05i of 22933E 99i259 n6 Ol 129W 9Uni"03 01 9bsm 9d n5O 92Un59b n99W19d Oil -tb91 991 30 b9V9H91 2f 31921i n9vbH ro2TA .9ungvA n9✓ i �9bnfinrild dl "(W 9fdi220q 9b5m 9d OZfb ffiW 9Un9VA SOi1U Sfv jzsg zd T 5501 22900 5ig2120 3o 9bf2 129w 9di no b9gof9v9b 9d ns:) n99llsq Clni 139nnG3 O1 n0ilbOib9b (99.112 fbnoflibbb ns pn(Cf51d0 vd 9Un9VA n9vbH biV 329W 2lnioq bns 199912 d1A Ol 729JOb pnibiV09O 2Ud1 r9Vf1j 991n9O 9399mm0O 9d 02f b f f iW 229JO5on9VA isin9O 1bn19911Z9d1AO0 � 0 ry9U1�1T9f g5 5iv 9fdiz20q 9d1 n0 nibldo 01 sf&220q 9'"•S 2b5G'1 f9f f blbq 92941 30 2nOi2n91X9 1(f99d19OVl 1Bp-, noi22imm0:) 941 25 r21S991Z d1C bns d16 n99W19d 9Un9VA nsvEH 3o 9bf2 J29W 3C 9bf2 1259 Sd1 n0 bnb '59-16 4 B ni W9iv91 g5mf9015q 1n9O91 5 m09i 19dm9m91 .gof9V9b 29i119go9q as 2nOilb3ib9b Csnoilibbs Xd 9un9VA n9V6H 3UN3vA A3- AH 30 23�UTA371 IDIZ30 2bd 9Un9VA n9v5H rb96vefU08 f6"(J9gZ b bnb vJQ 9dl O1 229336 99im91q 961 2A 7i3j611 mU!11ilg0 to 1n9m9V9idOA .91U09 Of19d1295 1rsi9ogmf ns 26 b9nn6fq n99d OT .19d10nb 9n0 1n9m9fgm03 fi3fdw 2fbOp 916 npi29b 10 f9v9fn2A 6 bnb 93(V992 g99b bnzf2f nb"(b9m b 9bufonf of b9nnsfq n99d 25d 9Un9VA n9vbH rbn9 2fdl 9dT .1ngmgofsysb imuminim 9"135 S) lof -9p1bf bn5229OOb b91Oi91299 r2ADsdJ92 9vilJS339 9d of 19b90 ni Oii3511 22010 90'f 2A699d W93 9v6d 32um ba5f2t nsib9m 5On9993991n! .9nb59ggb f Ondn9 01 bnb fo9lnoo 3i3t591 b 25 9JUb91 OT 1b 29mU'lov pni991n9 9dl bnb b9sfmfnfm 9d 12Um 21ntoq 229335 rWOF' Jf3tb91 dliw f909bQ 9"!35 S 6 i0 92U 9dT .9fdf22Gq 2fbOp 92Sd1101 „ 9 29 Udf11nco xf1691p%t2 1(119g0'7q of 229336 rb9V9tTjDs 9'15 21i39n9d bsnofln9m -ioli 9d1 1bd1 99U2n9 OT f9ffblsq 01 pnibs9f 2199912 f6n191ni Xd b9bivo9q 9d bfuod2 9un9vA n9vbH end s n9vbH no 2nOf1392191ni b6o1 oifduq 9Gi b99n 941 pnilsnimif9 2udl r291u01 22933£ Xfno- nlul -ldpfl 9v5d bfUOW dJfdW i0 99d1i9 2VBW9Vf9b v2 ud 9ti ; bfuow nbnb bnb 2199 -112 Y.2 99ryjzqun9 fi0 9vsh nQQ629d11m09'i 1Jb^`19b 02fb bNow 2Xsw9vilb YAAMMUZ 9Un9VA n9vbH 01 f9ffblbq 2199912 f6O0f j0 m912X2 s 161i1 rn5fil rIngbiv9 2i 1I 9Un9vA n9vbH n0 29mulov 3fyjb11 91U1Ul 9OUb91 Ol b9gof9V9b 9d bfUof'i2 bnb n53 r 199912 d1� bns 199112 dlA n99w19d pnipb9UOJn9 n9V9 bn5 pntbfvo"tq ffi12 9f(dw fin-191f6 q0 Xlil5up 9dl 29Jnbfin9 02fb 1g93n03 2fdT .0I 9lUOS 01 22SO3b 91 vd 9Un9VA n9vbH pnofs 9Sf2 f9J9sq mumfnim 9936 S 9dl Xd b9v9fdJb 9d of npi29b .21(,6W9vtib X2Ud bnb 2n& lO9nn0O 199912 O(fdug pn(lsnfmffS