Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/03/14 - Agenda PacketMINUTES CITY OF RANC90 CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 14, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, Califoreiia. Chairman Dennis Stout then led in the plee3e to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry McNiel, Fjnrman Rempel, Dennis Spout COMMISSIONERS ABS&IT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Curt J-)hnston, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau. Senior Civil Engineer, Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary i } } } } ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, reminded the Commission on March 15 of the subcommittee appointed by the 19th Street corridor study. Mr. Gomez indicated the Alta Loma School on Amet:yst Street at 7:00 meeting, he said, is to review the General Plan corridor. MINUTES of the forthcoming meeting City Council to review the the Committee would meet at p.m. The purpose of the land use policy along the Motion: Move:° by Rempel, seconded by ._Niel, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the January 11, 1954 meeting. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the January 25, 1984 -neeting.. Motion: Moved by ?Tempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve the February 22, 19G4 minutes. } } } } } PUBLIC HEARINUS A. ENvIRON'✓ENTAL ASSESSKENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMEidDMLRT °4_.07 -8 - OLT:iPUS PACIFIC - A request to amend the General Plan Land -Use 'Map fres Office to Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du/ac) on 4.35 zLcres of land* at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN ;'02- 191 -13. (Continued from February 8, 1984 meeting.) Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report_ Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Kiely, representing Olympus Pacific, indicated he supported the staff alternative of Low - Medium on the site which would bring it in line with the property to the north for townhome ty.;e development of the 10 acres involved there and to also provide a buffer to the single family homes to the east. Chairman Stout asked if the whole 10 -acre parcel is under Olympus Pacific ownership. Mr. Kiely replied that it is. Mrs. Christine Wilson, 6749 Cambridge, asked if the Pl.arring Commission had seen the parcel indicating that two homes presently being built next to the parcel have a valuation of approximately $175,C00 and the existing homes in the area are valued around $100,000. She asked what the price range will be of the Olympus Pacific project and whether it would be comparable. She also asked if there will be a strict code for the building exteriors because of resident disappointment with the apartments on 19th Street. Chairman Stout asked what optior the residents would prefer in this request. Ms. Wilson replied that she would prefer the low density. Chairman Stout explained the v.ry extensive review process of the City and stated that when the Fredricks Group apartments were approved, it was early in the City's life and the review process did not exist at that time. He also explained the time lag between its approval and when it was built and indicated that the Commission would look for compatibility with the surrounding area. Mrs. Wilson stated that she fears something might happen similar to what happened to the Brock Homes adjacent to the Jensen :•omes. Chairman Stout indicated that the Jensen project had beer improperly graded which led to problems with the adjacent property. Mr. Bob Matley, 10215 Ring, was concerned with the price range of the units and indicated that their preference would be low density. He also expressed concern that the architectural style be compatible with the surrounding area. Planning Commission. Minutes 2 March 14. 1QRL Chairman St---t, again pointed out the three options available. Mr_ yar_ey „gain -.ited their k.reference would be low density. Mr. Gene Carline, 101-52 Victoria, indicated he had spoken with mater+ people in his area and their fear is higher density and lower quality. He also indicated the people with whom he spoke would prefer low density. Mr. Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, stated in their neighborhood meeting they wanted to keep the density the sake as existing density because they were unaware of the third option. He indicated that had they known about the third option, they would want to keep it low. Chairman Stout asked Mr Kiely to address the issue of price rarige a-d siza. Mr. Kiely replied that they would be of a condo type and explained the placemen' of the units; indicated that they would range from 1,000 -1,300 sq. ft. in size; and would be compatible with the single family homes *o the east. Further, that design review requirements are that they essentially will be similar to those of the area. He indicated that the units will have extensive landscaping; however, it was premature to estimate what the price range of the units will be, but felt they will probably be in the $100,000 range. r'',airman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Juarez asked if the owner of parcel 14 had been notified. Mr. Beedle replied that he had tried notifying her but she does not have a telephone, and he advised that this has been advertised and notices sent; however, if the Plarning Commission desires to take the option and go with the recommendation for low density, it must be readvertised. Chairman Stout stated that although three options are available, if the first opt.or_ is to deny the change to office professional, and the third option addresses the recommendation for the corner parcel, and all three are studied then only the large parcel advances and the Commission cannot make a change on all three toni,-ht. He indicated that there are certain legal requirements that must be followed. Commissioner McNiel stated he would be interested in Mr. Kiely"s position or. a designation of low density. Mr. Kiely indicated that would not be feasible and they would have to re_vaivate their position as they would not be able to put in single family units for what th ?y paid for the site. Commissioner Barker sated that Office /Professional is not logical and high density is not compatible in this area. Commissioner Rempel stated that Commissioner Barker has expressed his opinion as well al hough he might have a problem going totally to low density because of trying to work out a street pattern and because of the work that needs to be done on ':he Hermosa intersection. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 14, 1984 Co=issiona:• Rempel felt that a solution could be worked out; however, with the 19th Street corridor study beginning tomorrow, he asked that this item be tied into that study. Further, that there should be 4 -5 units Der acre which would be in the low medium rather, than low density range which would provide a mixture of single family and peasibly zero lot Line or duplex units. Chairman Stout did not feel that this property should have the office professional designation az: perhaps should carry a residential designation in the low range. Further, t'iat all three parcels should be linkid together as this would not work by its -alf because of the street pattern probl,,ms. Chairman Stout indicated if the third resolution is approved and the applicant came in with a project that is in a 4 -5 du /ac range, he might at that time say that there should be a stipulation trat it be no higher than 5 because the area surrounding this project is in the same range and this would not be out of the realm of possibility. Chairman Stnut stated he would recon = end that the resolution of denial be approved ar.a that all three properties be studied along with the 19th Street corridor with a stipulation placed on this property that it must be compatible With the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner McNiel stated be is not inclined to agree that this area has been misdesigrated as office professional. He felt that a nice office professional complex would work and is reasonable and he did not feel it should be discounted. Further, Commissioner McNiel did not agree with the medium high density range and it bothered him that this office professional designation would go by the wayside. He indicated although it does not match the local neighborhood, it is not out of place, and might be needed down the road. Commissioner Rempel stated with that philosophy, you would be asking the owner of the property 'o hold on to it for 5 to 20 years, and that is not reaseaable. Commissioner McNiel replied if this is changed, the General Flan may as well be thrown out the window. Commissioner Rempel stated that is not what he is saying, although the General Plan could undergo some changes. He indicated that along with the office professional designation, uses such as a restaurant could go in as well as a gas station and that it could go in through the CUP process. He indicated that there is no guarantee that only uses such as a professional office or - estaurant would be gxaranteed. Commissioner Juarez voiced concern that since the recommendation would affect 211 three parcels, could it be fair to act on them since one of the property owners is not present because notification was not received. Chairmen Stout indicated that this would be readvertised and there would be renotification for surrounding property owners. Planning Gommission Minutes 4 March 14, 1984 Motion: Moved by Barker, seco-de•.i by McNiel, carried unanimously, to deny the applicant's request for a change from office professional to low medium density. Commissioner Rempel asked if before the next vote is taken, the applicant could have an opportunity to withdraw his request. Further, rather than take action cr a motion for the whole site this could be tabled until the 19th Street :5t12Hy is completed. Motion: roved ty Barker, seconded by Stout, to adopt Resolution No. 3 in order to look at all three parcels, readvertise, and come up with some residential designation in the low r -snge. Commissioners Juarez, HcNiei and Rempel votes no, and the motion was defeaied. Commissioner Barker stated that it will be in the neighborhood of three months before the study will be completed and a recommendation could be made at that time. Mr. Gomez stated that the Council has directed that the study be completed within 60 days and there are approximately 30 days left. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Juarez, carried, to table further decision on this item until the 19th Street corridor study is completed and recommendations have been made. Chairman Stout voted no. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CE14ERAL PLAN AMENDMENT _84 -01 -C - ACACIA - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Office to Medium -High Residential (14-24 du /ac) on 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Read - APN 202 - 151 -33. (Continued from February 8, 1984 meeting.) Senior Planner, Tim aeedi;,, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the property to the west is the site of the senior housing project. Mr. Beedle replied that it is. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Alan Y•eirick, 2500 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, California, stated a letter was provided to the Commission showing seven other areas not including the Hermosa site which be is presently developing in the City. He felt all six of those sites are special offices professional locations. He indicated further that five of the sites are vacant office professional designations, plus one which already has an office community established. Mr. Weirick did not feel that this particular office /professional use is needed at this location. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 14, 1984 Mr. Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, indicated that the homeowners on Mignonette, Teak, Cambridge and Elmhurst want to keep it the same. Jayne Grint, 5927 Mignonette, stated she agrees with the committee as this is office professional and she does not see a need for residential when this area is landlocked with commercial. She felt it should be kept the same. Mr. Joe Hanna, 6715 Jadeite, stated it should be kept office /professional There being ao further comments the public hearing Has closed. Commissioner Barker stated that the last time he expressed concern that with the senior citizen overlay district being placed here because of the amenities it provided and access into the shopping center, the intention is to provide services through office professional to the east. Commissioner Barker stated that this designation should be left alone. Chairman Stou.. stated with respect to thr: senior citizen overlay district the density is high but is mitigated by the fact that persons living there do not have children and in some instances automobiles. Because of this, there was a bonus transfer in order to subsidize and ks,�o lower rents and he felt that the office professional designation in this are-a is important and should remain the same. Commissioner Rempel stated he echoed a lot of Commissioner Stout's comments. He did not feel that putting in more high density in this area would to compatible and felt that the office /professic - -1 desl- nation should remain. Commissioner Juarez sta`ad that the designation shout� . not be changed. Commissioner McNiel agreed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. E4 -23 to deny the requested change. C. i ?'AL ASSESSMENT total development and a 22 single family units i.n generally located on the Road - APN 201 - 083 -4. AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12588 - oMNI BUILDERS - A ubdivision of 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising the VL (Very Low District - Less than 2 du /ac), southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Nillside City Planner, Rick Gomez, requested that this item be continued to the March 28, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant, Omni Builders, indicated that they are not opposed to the continuance. There bein¢ no further comments; the oublir honrinc uca closed_ Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimo %isly to continue this item to the March 28, 1984 Planning Comnmission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 14, 1984 D. COND17IONAL USE PERMIT 84 -03 - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LABOR ASSOCIATION - A req.est to locatA a 720 sq. ft. t12 acre site in the "M° District, located or, the north side of Arrow Highway, west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, 6706 Arrow Highway - APN 207- 211 -01. :associate Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report and showed slides of the site to the Planning Commission.. Chairman. Stout asked if the applicant could build a permanent structure for their operation here. Mr. Johnston replied that this could be justified as a condominium sinc4 it is in a residential area; however, they would have to bring the street improvements in and up to standards and it is unknown whether that would be feasible. Chairman Stout indicated that this would then be just a replacement in 'kind and size. NL^. Johnston replied that is correct, Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Al Friezen, 1355 Stanford, Upland, the applicant, indicated he is in agreement with the Conditional Use Permit. :'here being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Conditional Use Permit and the trailer is much more satisfactc_y than trying to get a permanent facility. Further, the whole site will have to be demolished in the net too distant future because it is not compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner McNiel thanked the applicant for the use of the kitcher. facilities for some of the panca!:e breakfasts sponsored by Little League. Chairman Stout stated this Conditional Use Permit should be approved for a two year period and asked that the applicant came into the City offices six months prior to the expiration of the CUP if an extension is required. Mr. Friezen asked if the Conditional Use Permit is issued two years from the date of this meeting or the placement of the trailer. Mr. Gomez replied it is two years from this date. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-24, issuing Conditional Use Permit No. 34-03. i 4 ! i i Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 14, 1984 E. DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT HOUSING A?SD TECHNICAL APPENDIX ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN - The distribution of the Draft Housing element_ and Technical appendix for future Commission consideration. This material will be forwarded to the California Department of Housing �.nd Community Deveiopmeat as required by California State Housing law. Review by the Commission will be made following F:CD comments. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner reviewed the staff report, stating that a copy of the Housing Element has been forwarded to the State for L 90 -day review period. Further, that the hearing process on the Housing Element will begin the middle of June. Chairman Stout statad that many cities' Housing Elements come due at about the same time and asked 14r. Beedle if it's possible that the State will ask for an °tcnr-i^ Furthc^ ^11 t c Cs� -.•- , -�y 1" e a time probleLu. Mr. Beedle replied that the --chedule is close but we are within striking distance and Rancho Cucamonga will be one of the first to complete the process. Commissioner Rempel asked how this will be incorporated into the General Plan. Mr. Beedle replied that copies will be made available of the Housing Element but once the heari ^g process is completed, it will be incorporated into the General Plan and wi.Ll- match the format. Chairman Stout asked for comments from the audience. Mrs. Jayne Grint asked that the Commission explain the Housing Element for those in the audience. She further asked if the hearing process will be a7. open public hearing. Chairman Stout explained how the State through the legislature has established what comprises a General Plan. hr. Beedle elaborated that the policies adopted by the City stem from State law. He explained the public hearing process and how it will be open to the public for comment. Chairman Stout stated it is becoming increasingly difficult to comply with State imposed regulations relative to the General Plan. There was diocission on the importance of public parts ^ipation in the hearing process. Mr. Melvin Bond, Cucamonga resident, asked if the labor camp Gill be torn down in future years and whether they would be r.,ade to move if the City no longer wants them in thei.^ present location. Planning Commission Minntes 8 March 14, 19 &4 Commissioner Rempel replied that the Citv cannct make them move. F�irther, the reason_ the labor ca=p will move is because there nn longer is viable agriculture in this area. Mr. Larry Lewis indicated that there will be a meeting tomorrow night and felt that a crossin6 guard is needed at the intersection of 19th Street and Hermosa. Fie further indicated that there are no speed limits posted on Nermosa and people drive 55 mph on it. I * a a i P DJOURN IFINT \Ill l ..d�d 4.. Dy�....1 �.� v�V f/f 9�. jNITn� 1V �.1V[l. Va VCu uy vic�aca, sc\. v.. v) +..,. \. �, ..u.. �.. �. --�_.. _�, _ _ 8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. a • i k c Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning Commissi�a Minutes 9 March 14, 1984 �:- ;: '�: `� :�.:, �. - �� i:. _ �:- 1977� A t^ 1 1 U IV APPROVED 5 -0 QTY OF RANCHO CL"C�,ti]G\GA PLA -NI N NG CO NBUSSION AGE' D.-k WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1984 LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LME RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance H. Roll Call Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Juarez -7,— Commissioner McNiei X M. Announeements IV. Consent Calendar 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Stoat X Ahe following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over cny iten, it should be removed for discussion. A. CONDITIONAL USE PER'Mrr 82 -18 - HOWARD - A revision to previously approved Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of God Church for the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the "VL" District, located on tie northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues - APN 201- 381 -01. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11549 - LEWIS - A residential tract subdivision: of 52 acres into 90 cots in the Very Low District located between Etiwanda and East Avenues, south of Summit Avenue - APN 225 -181 -02 through 04. 06 through 09, 26 and 43. V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related protect. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. APPROVED 5 -0 C. With requirement that :.C&R' s he reviewed by City Attorney prior to recordation or map. ..az Lr.—vil -.ti uxvision oc 1s.1 acres into General Commercial district (GC) located corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven 1077-401-01,03. 8303- at the northwest Avenue - APN APPROVED 5 -0 with D. amendment to recuire review and approval of roofing material by The Planning Division prior to issuance of building Dermits & reccrdation of map or lot merger prior io next phase corst. g_ APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 with F. rewor Ing of Engineering Condition -2 to include possible work on Alta 3 oma Basin. VI.. 13( CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-07 - CHRISTESON - The development of Phase I of the Virginia Dare Winery Business Center, consisting of office, ba-aldng and restaurant uses comprising 2 buildings and a theme tower on 13.1 acres of land in the General Commercial distric located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN 1077- 401-01 and 03. CONDMONA . USE PERMIT 83 -17 - 84 LUMBER - A revisicn to a previously approved CUP for the development of a 31,200 sq. ft. building for 84 Lumber on 2.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located on the west side of Haven, south of 8th Street - APN 209 - 231 -0E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12523 - LIGHTNER - The development of 35 single fami!v names an 9.55 acres of 1anY3 in the "L" District (2 -4 du/ac), located on the north side of Lemon Avenue, 600 feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201 - 251 -09. .w Business APPROVED 5 -0 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELO7 REVIEW 83-44 - SUP RACOTE - The construction of a sq. ft. wa ehoc: e addition to the existing manufacturir on 16 acres of lard in the General Industrial District (c 8) located at 11200 Arrow - APN 2x38- 351 -12. i> > . t -MM REPORT RECEIVED H. DISCUSSION OF HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDP - Review and comment from the members of the Commission of the information contained in the Technizal Appendix of the Housing Element for the 1984 update required by AB 2853. • VIII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public tG address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which dG not already appear on this agenda. 8:30 p.m. IS. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an lI p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be hearts only with the consent of the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA -2- 2IARCH 1:, 1984 5 -0 -0 to continue C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT to 3/2$/44 12588 - OMNI BUILDERS - A total development and a subdivision of 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising 22 single family units in the VL (Very Low - Less than 2 du /ac) District, generally located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road - APN 201 - 083-4. App) oved 5-0-0. cant to come in prior to expira CUP in event an is required. App's i- D. 90 days tion of ex..ens i on CON DMIONAL USE PERMIT 04 -03 - -0A 11 V.-IL BRML V ALL -. 1 LABOR ASSOCIATION - A request to locate a 720 sq. ft. (1 2 feet X 60 feet ) trailer for temporary office space on a 15.25 acre site in the "M" District, located on the north side of Arrow Highway, west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, 8'<06 Arrow Highway - AP 207- 211 -01. VL Director's Reports Received and filed. E. DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT HOUSNG AND TECHNICAL AVVP'JT11Y 9i.F11FN'r np TRF f-FNFRAT. ALAN - Tno appendix for future Commission consideration. This material will be forwarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by California State Housing law. Review by the Commission will be made following HCD comments. VIL Public Comments ?his 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. V11L Adjournn,ent 5:35 p,m. The Planning Commission has adorted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shalt be heard only with the consent of the Commission,. 9. QTY Or > RANO-iO 0°. \3O \GA 1977 WEDNESDAY vlarch 14, 1984 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A C T I O N S L Pledge of Allegiance H. Roll Call Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Juarez X Commissioner McNiel X M. Announcements Tif. Approval of Minutes Approved 5 -0 -0 January 11, 1984 Approved 5 -0 -•0 January 25, 1984 Approved 5 -0 -0 February 22, 1984 V. Public Hearings Q " 4-cw. Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Stout —li- The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to ba recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your acme and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. GPA denied 5 -0 -0 A. AND +•••+ -•�+ o-t-ui h - Vui.virua rHL.1S ll: - A request t.". 4 -1 -0 to table further amend the General Plan_ Land Use Map rom Office to action until after Low - 'tedium Residential (4-8 du /ac) on 4.36 acres of land, loth St. corridor study located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa completed and recom- Avenue - APN 202 - 191 -13. (Continued from February 8, !984 mendation made. meeting.) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS- VfENT AND GENERAL PLAN GPA denied 5-0 -0 AMEN D;IIENT zs4-01 C - ACACIA - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use PlriE-IN—OrP Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du/ac) on 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Road - APN 202 - 151 -33. (Continued from ebru:,r� *_ 1984 meeting.) � cr-t ' OF "' RANCHO CLCtN9Q \G.-. �l q ti I� PL YEN -�Np�IN %Vlti li� i i�0.+1�� 1977 WEDNESDAY Aarch 14, 1384 %,. I p.m. LIONS PARS{ COMMUNITY C° r'TER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO C;UCAMONGA, CALITO.M?TA L ?I--*e of Allegiance IL Ralf Call Commissioner Barker _ Commissioner Juarez Commissioner McNiel ffi. Amnouncements IV. Approval of Minutes January 11, 1984 January 25, 1984 February 22, 1984 V. Public hearings Commissioner Remp✓i Commissioner :tout f The foZZowing items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opLniore of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. AU such opinions shall be limited to 5 mirmtes per individual for each project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDNIENT 84-01 A - OLYMPUS PACIFIC - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Low - Medium Residential (4-8 du /ac) on 4.36 acres of land.. located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - A ?N 202 - 191 -13. (Continued from February 8, 1984 meeting.) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-01 C - ACACIA - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du/ac) on 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Road - APN 202 - 151 -33. (Continued from February 8, 1984 meeting.) a . PLANNING CC;MMISSION AGENDA -2- MARCH 14, 1984 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 125E8 - 0 -NI i BUILDERS - A total development and a subdivision -�f 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising 22 single family nnnits in the VL (Very Low - Less than 2 du /ac) District, generally lo^_sted on the southwest cornea- of Hermosa Avenue snd Hillside Read - APN 201- 083 -4. D. CONDITIONAL USE PER?17.T 84 -03 -SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LABC;: ASSOCIATION - A Pequest t8 i0cate a 2v sq. ft. %12 feet X SO feet, trailer for temporary office space on a 15.25 acre site in the 'N" District, located on the north side of Arrow l•:ighway, west of the Cucamonga Creek Charnel, 8706 Arrow Highway - APN 207 - 211 -01. VZ Director's Reports E. appendix for future Commission consideration. This material will be forwarded to the California Department of housing and Community Development as reauiree ay California State iit using law. Review by the Commission will be made following 1I 1-D comments. VII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. vKL Adjournment The Planning Commission has cdopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1. �VCAMONpA- pUA511 Cp'JM}• P(G�pMAL P1MR OMIAM10 IMi(NMI!IONAL AIMMOMC CTTY OF RANCHO Ci)CAN ry(,A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Januar7 25, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00. The meeting :was held at Liors Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. n,_e ---- e_7 - s— '_ �__ rl._ O._- V11611'L—'A JHWU1 M:I CSl 1611 111 &M b &M F11CV.15Q 1. ,.µ0 L1Q�S• ROL- CAi.L COITMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addie. Juarez, Larry McNiel, Herman Rezpel, Dennis Stout COP4MISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edk;ard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer MINUTES Motion: Moved by P,em?el, seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minutes of the December 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Juarez and McNiel abstained from vote as they did not attend that meeting. ■ T 4 * t CONSENT CALENDAR A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPE FOR TRACT 12320 TERRA WEST PARTNERCEIP - 116 condominium units located on the southwest corner of Archibald and Victoria Avenues - APN 202 - 181 -07. Chairman: Stout asked the reason for the requested change to this protect. Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the project had been sold to another firm whc was requesting a change to the architectural package for the tract. Notion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. f * f * a PUBLIC HEARINGS B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -02 A AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84 -02 -. OTLYMPUS PAC - ?IC - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) and a development district amendment to change the Development Districts Map from OP to LM, all on 4 -36 acres of land located on the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202 - 191 -13. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01 E - i,INCOLN PROPERTIES - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on 3.57 acres located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202 - 301 -21. D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -•01 C - ACACIA - A request to amend the General Plan Land 3.58 acres feet north Use Map from Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on located or. the west side of Archibald Avenue, approximately 500 of Base Line - APN 202 - 151 -33. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that these items- would be handled concurrently by the Commission. Mr. Gomez advised that the purpose of the hearing this evening was to seek direction from the Planning Commission as to whether an independent market demand study should be conducted to determine the demands for office /professional uses in the City in conjunction with the General Plan Amendments. He provided tide Commission with either the option of employing a private consultant to conduct the market demand study on a city -wide basis, or having staff prepare a study for just the CPA's on a site - specific basis. He additionally advised that the cost of the market study conducted by the consultant would be shared by the applicants. Mr. Gomez further advised that a study conducted by a private consultant would require approximately eight weeks and a study conducted by staff would require approximately four weeks, which would therefore necessitate the continuance of these items accordingly. Chairman Stout asked if a decision would be made on the specific projects this evening. Mr. Gomez replied that staff was not seeking a decision by the Commission on any one of the projects at this time, but was seeking direction as to which of the above options they would prefer. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a staff analysis had not beer prepared on a project -by- project basis on which the Commission could approve the projects. Planning Commission Minutes -2- Jar.iary 25, 1984 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing to comments regarding Item "B ", Olympus Pacific. He asked each of the applicant's their preference as to the type of market study to be conducted. Don Kiely, representing Olympus Pacific, addressed the Commission stating that his preference would be for approval of the project at this time; however, would have to recommend an in -staff site specific study be conducted. He advised that Olympus had already conducted market demand studies of the office/professional uses in Rancho Cucamonga and did not feel that any new information would be generated by an additional study. Further, that the time element involved would also be a concern. Mr. Kiely also stated that if this lo,:ation was a good site for offices, Olympus would build offices there; (lVMCY C:`, :11r Op 1I11V1I Na3 bildt 14113 pGS"1.1:: L'16:" location 1-7 ijuL a gvuC! 311.@ 1VL' office uses and that a residential use would be more compatible with the surrounding uses. He additionally stated that this project was Proposed at too low of a density to qualify for HUD financing and is not ^reposed as apartments, but owner - occupied units. The following individuals, addressed the Planning Commission opposing this project based upon concerns regarding overcrowdirg of schools, increased crime, impacts on traffic and city services, and expressed concerns that this project may be a HUD financed apartment complex. Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga. Randy Warmdall - 7C37 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Walt Rube - 10253 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga Jim Co-:acky - 6739 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Jay Tranell - 10244 Ring - Rancho Cucamonga Ruth. Parker - 7054 Fiik?n3 - Rancho Cucamonga Steve Yating - Victoria Street - Rancho Cucamonga Kent Wilson - 9790 Archibald - Rancho Cucamonga Fred Coty - 6729 Hermosa - Rancho Cucamonga Wayne Douglas - 10123 Finch Avenue - Rancho Cucamonga Lois Mc Kern - 10266 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga Jennie Moon - 10253 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga Manny Politia - 10010 Monte Vista - Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Halder. - 6938 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga P.K. Higgins - Carrari - Rancho Cucamonga Jane Grint - 9927 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Walt Pappas - 9800 Base Line - Rancho Cucamonga Christine Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Hubbert - 6735 Berkshire - Rancho Cucamonga Judy Vidorsic - 6017 Burgandy - Rancho Cucamonga Barbara Devalo - 6768 Elmhurst - Rancho Cucamonga Darel Car' -son - 8484 Hawthorne Street - Rancho Cucamonga Don Floyd - 5833 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Dennis Stout - Ramona Avenue - Rancho Cucamonga (No relation to Chairman Stout) Betty Carlisle - 10152 Victoria - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Watkins - 6749 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 25, 1984 Ons jentlemen, Mr. Lundgren , spoke in support of the project stating that singe fammily residences Were not affordable to some people and that multinl.e familx homes would be the only way they could afford a home. Further, that the desires of the entire City should be taken into consideration, not the opinions of a few people. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing for Item "B ", :'_} and opened the hearing to Item "C ", Lincoln Properties. Chairman Stout i the applicant his preference to the two suggested options. Walter Ingalls, representing L'ncoln Properties, addressed the Commission S-._ting that market studies d been performed on this particu ar site by C•_-zman and Wakefield and could not sae the need for further outside study. E. suggested that the Commission direct staff to prepare the study a':- tae four w-ek rime frame. Mr. Ingalls explained that Lincoln not or:l.y builds their projects, but also manages them and that this project would not be HUD financed. The following individuals addressed the Commission opposing Item C, Lincoln. Properties, voicing concerns of impacts on schools, additional traffic generation, impacts on streets and city services, and low income housing units. Joe Hanna - 6715 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Christine Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga P.R. Higgins - Carrari Street - Rancho Cucamonga Margie Hanna. - 6715 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Jim Rizzo - 6001 Burgandy - Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Halden - 6938 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Raney Warmdall - 7037 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Hubbert - 6735 Berkshire - Rancho Cucamonga Jane 3rint - 9927 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Watkins - 6749 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Sol Mendelson - 6790 Hellman - Rancho Cucamonga Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga 9:20 - Planning Commission Recessed 9:30 - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout opened the public hearing regarding Item "D ", Acacia. Chairman Stout asked the applicant his preference regarding the study. Rick S:iyder, representing Acacia, addressed the Commission stating a desire to work with staff and the Commission to resolve any issues at hand. Alan Weirick, representing Acacia, addressed the Commission stating he would be willing to work with both staff and the Commission on this issue. He advised that a market demand study had been conducted by Acacia which disclosed that too much available office space presently exists in Rancho Planning Commission. Minutes -4- Jan.ary 25, 1984 Cucamonga. Further, Acacia would not want did not want and would be willing to development, of this project. to build anything that the citizens work with the residents or. the The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to Item "D ", Acacia, voicing concerns of impacts on the City generated by high density projects, impacts on schools, increased crime, inadequate park lands, increased traffic generation, and impacts on City services. Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Chris Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Ken Wilson - 67:9 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Jim nizz-- - 060V-, Burgaridy - Ra -lleho weaw�nga F.K. Higgins - Carrari - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Hubbert - 6735 Berkshire - Rancho Cucamonga Joe Hanna - 6715 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Root - 6939 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Chairman Stout closed the public nearing. Commissioner Juarez asked if sufficient acreage exists in the General Plan for office /professional uses. Mr. Gomez replied that approximately 1 -3% of the City is designated for office /professional uses, including the industrial areas of the City, and the Terra vista and Victoria Planned Conaunities. Commissioner McKie! stated that the issue before the Commission this evening was not the approval of the individual projects, but a determination on whether there is too much area designated for office /professional uses in the Citv or not enough. He advised the audience that their concerns had been heard by the Commission, however, they must deal with the issue at hand. Further, he could not see how a determination of this nature could be made without a study being conducted to see what impacts this decision would have on the City in the future and recommended that a market analysis be conducted. Commission Barker agreed that a third party should be hired to prepare an analysis which would determine if a mistake had been made when the General Plan was adopted by designating either too much or not enough office /professional space in the City. H- additionally stated that he had difficulty with a project presented as a "down zone" when shifting from an office professional uses to one proposing 292 apartment units. Commissioner Rempel stated that office professional uses should be rear residential areas, especially uses such as medical, insurance, and attorneys' offices. He pointed out that people would then not have to travel all the way to Foothill and Haven for these types of services, which is what will happen if the office /professional designations are removed. He further stated that these sites are viable office /professional designations and did not see the need to employ a consultant to research the need as it is apparent that the need is there. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 25, 1984 C ^mmi`si ^ -• 3uarcz agreed that the designations should be retained ar -d couli not see the need for the developers to spend the money to hire a consultant,_. Chairman Stout stated there were few people around who a?aocate low density as much as he does; however, there is a practical need t.) have uses other than residential in a city. He stated that he desired is ?,ave a more specific Proposal directed on these three projects on which to base a decision. Additionally, his decision could not only have to be based on his feelings, but also what is best for the entire City. He requested that an analysis be conducted, which would not necessarily have to be done by a consultant, with recommendations as to what the appropriate designation should be on each of these parcels. Further, that the concerns stated this evening should be giver, h ,5: yi i0^ity in Lice preparation of the analysis. He recommended that the item be continued to allow time for the preparation of the analysis. Commissioner Rempel stated that in response to the comments regarding the park situation, the City does not presently have the funds to purchase land in the developed areas for park sites. He aavised that the City Coancil would be placing a bond issue on the ballot in the near future and that a 90 acre park site is proposed on Base Line, east of Haven. Commissioner Rempel additionally ^ted that in order for the intersection of 19th and Hermosa to be improved, development will ha.•e to occur to finance these improvements. Motion: Moved by Tempel that these items be continued to March 14 with direction to staff to prepare azi analysis on these three sites along with recommendations as to the appropriate designations. Motion died for lack of second. Mr. Gomez asked if Commissiorer Rempel was requesting an analysis on a site specific basis and not an overview analysis of the entire City. Commissioner Rempel replied that the study area should be bounded by Haven west, to the City Limits and study sites that are now designated office /professional. Mr. Gomez responde..•.'. t'iat fou-^ weeks may not be sufficient times to prepare an analysis of this magnitude and would be reluctant to commit staff's resources in that length of time. Edward Hopson, Assistant City .Attorney, stated that with a site specific analysis the Commission would not have the benefit of a study determining The future or present need for office /professional designations in the City because staff does not have the resources to conduct such a study. Commissioner Barker stated that if the study is done on a site specific basis, the ability to make long- range decisions would not exist and each site would have to be dealt with individually. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 25, 1984 Commissioner RempeJ. replied that there are not that many office /professional uses left in the City. Additionally, to clarify his motion the study would include those sites on Base Line, north and there are not that many vacant sites that remain. Chairman. Stout stated that it is evident in the near future that time and resources will have to be budgeted to look at this issue; however, it seems that time and resources are just not ava:.lable at this time. Mr. Gomez stated that staff would haze to program a charge of this magnitude with other large land use changes and budget the time and resources to look at the .ntire General Plan, which wculd more than likely not occur before one to Commissioner Mc Niel stated that as long as the office /professional designated sites are not marketable there will be requests to change the designations to those which are marketable. Further, that he could not see how a sound decision could be made on three pieces of property when the future of the entire comm=unity _s of concern and did not feel that a decision should be made when the Commission is ill equined to make that decision. ,;ommissioner Barker stated that the Commission would not be functioning as long -range planners if a look at the future needs is not analyzed. Mr. Gomez pointed out that it takes certain professional expertise to condur_L a study of this nature and currently the City does not employ a staff member who possesses that expertise. Pdditionally, the funding could not be borne by the City at this time, which is the reason_ staff recommended that a consultant be hired at a cost to be shared by the applicants. Commissioner Rempel stated that from 9aven west to the Cit= Limits, and Base line north to the City Limits there are only three other accent sites besides the projects before the Commission tonight with orrice /professional designations. He stated that it would not be difficult to see that there would be a need for the office / professional uses in these areas in the future and that a consultant would not come up with any other decision. Commissioner Juarez asked Mr. Gomez if thousands of dollars were not spent in the hi -i.ng of a consultant to prepare the General Plan. Mr_ i-omez replied that a lend use planning; howeve employed. Chairman Stout asked if prepared whi _ -h reflected would need. consultant had been hired by the City to consider w, the expertise of a marketing consultant was rot Mr. Gomez meant that at no time was information just how much office /professional space the City Mr. Gomez replied that this was correct. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Ju..-•ez, that these three projects be studied and reviewed on a site specific basis. Chairman Stout asked if this motion would reco=er_d review of these sites without the benefit of a market study. Commissioner Rempel replied that this was correct. Motion failed 2 -3. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, that a third party be employed, at a post to be shared by the developers, to conduct a study to give an overview analysis of demand and future demand for office /professional uses in the City. Motion passed 3 -2 with Juarez and Rempel voting no. Chairman Stout pointed out that an agreement would have to be entered into between the developers to share the cost of this study. Commission Barker stated that if the developers do not enter into an agreement, he would then recommend that the sites retain the office /professional designations. Mr. Gomez stated that staff would coordinate the agreement with the applicants and the City Attorney as soon as possible. Chairman Stout asked the applicants if they were agreeable to this decision. Mr. Ingalls, Lincoa-n Properties, stated that his client did not accept the decision. Mr. Riely, Olympus Pacific, stated that his acceptance would be contingent upon the contents of the agreement. Mr. Weirick, Acacia, stated that he would accept the decision. Gomez suggested that the public hearing for these items be continued to the February 8, 1984 meeting to allow staff time to work with the applicants and the City Attorney on the crafting of a agreement. At that meeting staff would either request a continuance of eight weeks to allow time for a consultant to prepare a city -wide study, or if no agreement between the applicants could be reached; the request would be for a continuance of four weeks to allow staff to prepare a site specific study without a market demand study. This would just be a land use analysis of each specific site. M ^. Hopson suggested that the motion be made among the three Commissioners voting in favor of Commissioner Barker's motion to recind that motion to clarify the intentions. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried, to recind the motion. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried, to continue Items 3, C, and D to the February 8, 198» meeting to determine if a cen3ensus has been reached among the three applicants as to the preparation of a market study. If no consensus has been reached by that meeting, appropriate action would be taken at that time to continue the items for four weeks with direction to staff to prepare a site specific study. In that event, the Commission would then makE a decision on each of the projects in four weeks. If a consensus is reached among the applicants, on February 8 the Commission would recommend continuance for eight week to allow a consultant time to prepare a broad based study, after which the '.,ommission wou.? then make a decision on each of the sites. AYES: VV17:71JJ1VSa L11J: J1 VU., iivuiuu, nAJbE[. NOES: COMMISSIONER3: JUAREZ, REMPEL ABSENT: C0%'"24ISSIOt:ERS: NONE - Carried a a 3 i f 10:45 - Planning Commission Recessed 11:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened f ! * f i Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unar_imously carried, to continue past the 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. * t n • t E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEENT AND TE!:TAT11!a TRACT 1 The development- of 121 condominium units on Medium -High Residential District (14 -24 du /ac) Vineyard, South of Foothill - APN 208 - 241 -11. b.1 acres or Lana an Lne located on the east side of Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that condition 2 of the Resolution under Planning Division be revised to state that permanent easement rather than a letter of acceptance be required for secondary emergency access from the adjacent property owner. Additionally staff recommended that item 1 be amended to include revisions to the end elevations and the addition of treatment such as horizontal siding, false windows or hip roof treatment. It was also recommended that the upper story elevations be provided with architectural treatments such as corner windows, pop -out windows, or shadow boxes to create a shadow line. Staff further recommended an additional Engineering condition to require the applicant to acquire a private drainage easement through the adjoining property to the east prior to the issuance of any permit for development. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. P>anr,ing Commission Minute° January 25, 1984 Martha Schnieders, representing American National, addressed the Commission stating that the appl ^_t with the findings of the staff report and resolution. Commissioner Rempel asked the applicant if the wail at the back of the carports at the north and south property lire was solid or open. Ms. Schnieders replied that the backs of the carports are open. She advised that you would be able to view the trees and landscaping from the drive through. Further, that the trees were needed to screen the view and buffer the project. Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant expressed concern wit:: the hip roof treatment recommended by the Design Review Committee and asked if that concern had been resolved. Ms. Schnieders replied that it was her impression after that meeting that Design Review Committee members would visit the project that displayed the hip roof treatment and had received the Design Review Committee's acceptance of the lower roof element on the drive sides and on all of the buildings at the Trent of the project would have the lower roof elemen, at each end. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, recommended that Standard Condition_ L -1 be eliminated from the Standard Conditions form as it is no longer a necessary requirement. Motion: 'Moved by Tempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12490 with the following amendmer_ts to the Planning Division conditions: the requirement for a permanent easement for secondary access from the adjacent property owner; condition 2 of the Resolution. under Planning Division is to be revised to state that permanent easement rather than a letter of acceptance be required for secondary emergency access from the adjacent property owner; condition 1 amended to include revisions to the end elevations and additional treatments such as horizontal siding, false windows or hip roof, and the upper story elevations be provided with architectural treatments such as corner windows, pop -out windows, or the selective ns�.- of shadow boxes to create a shadow line. Additionally, an additional condition is to be added to the Engineering Division conditions ;;o require the applicant to acquire a private drainage easement through the adjoining property to the east prior to the issuance of any permit for development, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE - carried- Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 25, 1984 s F. ENVIROIMENTAL ASSESSMF.N- AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12577 - PILGFIMS - A custom lot residential subdivision_ of 16 lots on 4.24 acres of land in the ^L" District (2 -4 du /ac), located on the south side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue - APN 202 - 041 -03 and 52. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairmaa Stout referred to Lot 9, which is 14,900 sq. ft., and asked if the lot is designed to be split after the channel is constructed. Mr. Johnstor. replied that the lot is not designed to be split because there is a storm drain easement on the property and that the lot is not wide enough to split. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Joel Cooper, representing Pilgrims Enterprises, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant has tried to conform to the City's requirements and felt that the project would help solve a lot of drainage problems in the area. Sol Mendelson, addressed the Commission stating that his concern was mainly the drainage situation., but felt that this concern had adequately been addressed. Mrs. Mendelson addressed the Commission, advising that she trains horses and asked if a block wall could be constructed along lots 8 and 9 adjoining the Mendelson property and advi--ed that there would be problems with dirt from her arena. Mr. Cooper replied that the approval before the Commission this evening is for the layout of the project and that the actual involvement of the design issue would be addressed at a later date. Bernice Becally, 6830 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating that it was her understanding that a tract could not be constructed until the channel was completed and asked if this was correct. Mr. Hcpson replied that there is a condition on the tract which requires that the applicant bond for the channel construction. Chairman Stout explained that the applicant must comply with the conditions which are imposed on his tract prior to filing for a final tract map which is approved by the City Council; however, the approval tonight is for the tentative map. Mrs. Becally stand that she was not in favor of the tract and felt it would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12577 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES: CCMi SSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- Motion: Moved by Rempei, seconded by Barker, unanimously carriee, to continue past the adjournment time for consideration of the following item. New Business G. ENVIRONI-IENTAL ASSESSMENT ARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -40 - BARMAKIAN - The development of 13 industrial. buildings totaling 123,540 sq. ft. on 8 acres of land in the General Industrial /Rail Served category (Subarea 5) ln:dted on the northwest corner of 6th Street aad Center Avenue - APN 209- 2LI -07. Curt Johnston, A:.sociate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Pau'_ Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that an additional item should be checked off on the Standard Conditions Fora '. -2 to require 14 additional feet of dedication. on 6th Street_ There were no further cosments on tbis item. Motion: Moved by McI:,. Seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 83 -40 with an amendment to the Standard Conditions form to require 14 additional feet of dedication on 6th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: a ■ t a a Adjournment COMMSSSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT COMMISSIONERS NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE - czrried- Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. >lan-`ag Commission Minutes -12- January 25, 1984 � t • 1' J •` )tip. Planning Cormnission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, I: Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary .Y 4 • I i January 25, 1984 Planning Cowlssicn Minutes -13- ^r L! I I r { I 7 •F Q 1l1 Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission regarding the intersection. of Hermosa and 19th and asked hcw the residents would go about having a stop sign installed at that intersection. He explained that this is a school crossing and ch_idren are experiencing problems getting across 19th. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that he was not aware of a problem at this intersection, however, row that he had been alerted he would refer the situation to the City's traffic department. He advised that if the traffic department does see a need for further study, it will be reviewed by the traffic committee which is composed of representatives from each school Parent /Teachers Association, sheriff's department, school districts, atary .,d the ccuthern r� lire.. s= g,_ro� bile Club Commissioner Rempel suggested that Mr. letter to the City Engineering Division request for a stop sign. i a ! f 4 Lewis follow -up this discus °ion with a outlining the residents' concerns and Commissioner Remoel stated that he would like to sake a motion that would require staff to provide the Commission with an overview of adjacent areas in their review of all future development proposals that involve access to other properties. Moticm was seconded by Barker, unanimously carried. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNie3, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 22, 1984 r world be pleased with tae project. Motion: M ^ved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving DR 83 -u4' and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMDEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - ca. °ried- 7:50 - Planning Commission Recassed 2:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened • a � � ■ Director's Reports H. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT, PART I - TECHNICAL DEMOGRAPHIC HOUSING DATA Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, and Linda Daniels, Assistant Planner, reviewec, the staff report. Staff indicated that the intent was to provide the Co =iasioners wish the technical data this evening and Was not seeking direction from the Commission at this time. They advised that the remaining sections of the Housing Element would be presented to the Commission in March for their review and comment before being forwarded to the City Council. 8 ■ t ! i Public Comments Chairman Stout referred to a letter received regarding the Kaufman and Broad project from Jim Banks and the Citizens Advisory Committee and advised that he would like staff to draft a response on behalf of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Remr, ^1 stated that the response should explain the Design Review system and the steps a project must go through before it gets to the Planning Commission. Rick Gomez, City Planner, suggested the possibility cf a workshop between ..'e Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and staff could be set -up to exp'- -ain this process. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to draft a letter of response to the Citizens Advisory Committee. � f i ■ t Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 22, :584 to come back to the Commission with an alternate condition at a later date if the Assessment District is not ' naiized and this particular condition becomes a problem. Mr. Guerra suggested that wording could be added to the Resolution which would allow an alternate method to be approved by the City Engineer, which would eliminate the return of the project to the Planning Commission. Chairman_ Stout asked which method would be preferrable to the applicant. Mr. Lightner responded that he would prefer to complete work on the basin. _ d Li a' tL.. 1�•- •—.••. u in thn ^nnAitinn r ofjld he modified to Ifs . Il oageau JK',•CU Vtl6e V W.6uu8" include alternate work on the Alta Loma Basin subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Chairman Stout asked if this modification would be acceptible to the applicant. IR.r. Lightner responded that it would be acceptible. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiei, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution with the modification to the Engineering conditions to include language to allow alternate work on the basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: % r t a a New Business COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVZE6` 83 -44 - SUPRACCTE - The corstruction of a 29,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition to the existing manufacturing planfon 16 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) located at 11200 Arrow - APN 208- 351 -12. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if anyone would like to address this item. There were no comments. Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant was very cooperative during Design_ Review in accepting the Committee's recommendations and felt that they Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 22, 1984 to come back to the Commission with an alternate condition at a later date if the Assessment District is not finalized and this particular condition becomes a problem. Mr. Guerra suggested that wording could be added to the Resolution which would allow an alternate method to be approved by the City Engineer, which would eliminate the return of the project to the Planning Commission. Chairman Stout asked which method would be preferrable to the applicant. Mr. Lightner responded that he would prefer to complete work on the basin. Mr. Rougeau stated that the language in the condition could be modified to include alternate work on the Alta Loma Basin subject to review, and approval by the City Engineer. Chairman Stout asked if this modification would be acceptible to the applicant. Mr. Lightner responded that it would be acceptible. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution with the modification to the Enoireering conditions to include language to allow alternate work on the basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried - * a f ! New Business G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -11$ - SUPRACOTE - The construction of a 29,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition to the existing manufacturing plant on 16 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea d) located at 11200 Arrow - APN 208 - 351 -12. Michael Gairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if anyone would like to address this item. There were no comments. Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant was very cooperative during Design Review in accepting the Committee's recommendations and felt that they Planni "g Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 N Michael Vairin ad' ✓ised that the street is only conceptual at this time and may be many years or never implemented. He explaineO that it is simply planned for in the Industrial Specific Plan in case the need arises in tYe future. Commissioner Rempel stated that the maps that come before the Commission should show the effects on surrounding properties, such as the impact that the proposed Acacia street is going to have on tht. properties. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNie 1, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving the revision to Conditional Use Permit ~3 -17 with the language proposed by staff which would clarify that the conditions of the original Resolution are still is effect along with the conditions of the new Resolution adopted at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COIN-ISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE a a a a a F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 1 development of 35 single family homes on District (2 -4 du /ac), located on the north east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 251 -09. - carried- RACT 12523 - LIGHTNER - The 9.55 acres of land in the "L" side of Lemon Avenue, 600 feet Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. George Lightner, Lightner Development, 1365 W. Foothill, Suite 6, Upland, California, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the findings of tale Resolution with the exception of one item, which he deferred to Mr. Guerra I-o address. Dan Guerra, of Derbish, Guerra and Associates, 124 E. "F" Street, Ste. 12, Ontario, California, addressed the Commission .refer-ing to Engineering Condition 02 of the Resolution and asked Mr. Rougeau if he was aware of an agreement with the property owner to the south of the channel which did not require the participation of that property owner in the Assessment District, but allowed him to do restoration work on the channel. Mr. Rougeau replied that he did recall this discussion, however, the previous project submitted on this site had a condition which required building its portion of the channel. Further, idea of doing restoration work on the channel would be just as expensive as building the channel. Fe advised that the condition as it stands is the in the City's best interest and would prefer Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 22, 1984 Y Chairman Stout stated that the Virginia Dare Winery is a sate that most residents of th3 City des ?.red to see preserved, however the City presently does not have the funds to complete such an endeavor. He commended the applicant for developing a project which WLuld not only benefit their means but do something for the City as well. Motion: Moved by P.empel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8303 with additional wording added to the Standard Condition form #5 which would require the CC&F 's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Phase I of Conditional Use Permit 83 -07 with the additional language to Planning Division condition #i4 to require review and apprcval of the roofing material by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, Resolution 83 -79, the original Resolution approving CUP 83 -07, was amended to require recordation of the map or lot merger prior to subsequent phase constriction- 4 E f t i E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -17 - 84 LUMBER - A revisi_n to a previously approved CUP for the development of a 31,200 square foot building for 84 Lumber on 2.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea o), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, sot,th of Pth Street - APN 209- 251 -05. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, rev: -wed the staff report. Staff additionally recommended that language be included in the Resolution which would state that the original conditions approving the Conditional Use Permit are still in effect, as well as the new conditions proposed at this time. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Rickey, representing 84 Lumber, addressed the Planning Commission urging approval of the revision. Lee Von Valkenberg, Rancho Cucamonga, owner of the property to the rear of this project, addressed the Commission expressing concern over what the extension of Acacia Street would do to his property. He explained that his company, KVL, intends to develop this property in the future. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained that the 1SP circulation plan had been studied with this application and it had been determined that the street would definitely be needed in the future for circulation. However, the only place left the street at this time is along the KVL property line, which would require approximately 30 feet of dedication from KVL. Dave Jenner, owner of an adjacent muffler shop, stated that. is the street does go in as proposed it would eliminate his business. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 22, 1984 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIJE TRACT 11549 - LEWIS - A residential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots in the "!'L" District located between Etiwanda and East. Avenues, south of Summit Avenue - APN 225 - 181 -02 through 04, 06 through 09, 26 and 43. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Barker stated that he was ovarjoyed with the vast improvement in the design for CUP 82 -18. It f * f ! PUBLIC HEARINGS C. AND 13.1 acres into 15 parcels in the General Commercial at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and 1077 - 401 -01 and 03. ;SON - A division cf ;C} district located Haven Avenue - APN D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -07 - CHRISTESON - The development of Phase I or the Virginia Dare Winery Business Center, consisting of office, banl :_ng and restaurant uses comprising 2 buildings and a theme tower on 13.1 acres of land in the General Commercial district located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN !077- 401 -01 and 03. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that Resolution 83 -79, Planning Division condition #8 of the original Resolution of approval for the Conditional Use Permit, be modified to require a parcel map or lot merger to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits for subsequer: phase construction. It was additicnally recommended that Resolution 83 -79A approving Phase I, Planing Division conaition 4, be amended to require that the roofing material be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There wer•a no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner YcNiel stated that lie realized tha applicant has gone through a lot to get this project off the ground, but have come up with a fine project which everyone could be proud of. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, su8gested that additional wording added to standard condition 95 of the City Engineer's report approving the Parcel Map which would require the CC&R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and recorded concurrently with the map. Commaissicrer Rempel stated his appreciation to the applicant for thier efforts in developing this project. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 22, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 22, 1984 Chairman = >_nnis Stout called the regular meeting Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Lions Park Community Center, 9151 Base Line, Rancho C: =-r=an Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. CD' .MISSIOtiERS COM_MISSIONERS of the City of Rancho The meeting was held at Cucamonga, California. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant Planner; Frank Dreckm7.n, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner, Edward 3opson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Joh_iston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Se:retary; Pall! Rougeau, Senior Civil Engirc<r; Mich_ol Vairin, Senior Planner Rick Gomez, City Dlanner, announced :.:rt for the Planning Commissioners Institi.`e 29 and would be returning on Friday, Marc:_ CONSENT CALEND -R the Commissioners would be leaving ,'.r. San Diego on Wednesday, February 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -18 - HOWARD - A revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of God Church fir the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the "VL" District, locates on the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues - APN 201- 381 -01. Page 4 YES MAYBE NO 8. Transncrtation. Will the proposal. have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehici.lar movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilitieF, or demand for new parking? _ d. Substantial impact upon existing trz.nsporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people andior goods? f. Alterations to or effects on prei:ent and potential vater- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, pair-ontological, andior historical resources? 10. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Faf: tors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Fxposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous szbstances in the event of an accident? d. ?z increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or patherogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organis =s? e. increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? 141 X X X X _ x }; X X X X X X X X X X 11 0 C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production.? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Charge in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: �� a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- buticn, density, diversity, or growth rate of the h—an povulat:on of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Sor'O—= concmic ?ac-ors. Will the proposal have significant result; ir.: a. Change in local or regional socin- econo=-;c characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Flannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results iu? a. A substantial alteration of the present or Planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing Consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? I3 ?_ES 'WfB= ti0 X. X X _ X X X X ?ace 3 0 Y X X X Page 2 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? x Stationary sources? x b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or, temperature? X 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X or endangered species of plants? YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction .of fl-wing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface wz.ter runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Changp in the =Cunt of surface water in an body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water .uality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwat_ers, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with am aquifer? Quality? Quantity? X h. TI-Le reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for -�b_ic water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? x Stationary sources? x b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or, temperature? X 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X or endangered species of plants? CITY OF "t NCHO CUCAMO \GA PART IT_ - I%ITIAL STUDY ENV'1?O;?iNTAL CHECKLIST DATE: March 14. 1984 2.PPLICA%7: 0T SOS Paci fi c- FILING DATE: LOC NU.iBER. GPA A PROJECT: General Plan .nendment and DevelopTient District Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: N.E. Corner 19th Street & Hermosa Avenue I. ENVIRONMEENTAL FACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe' answers are required on attached sheets) . /r YES `L4YBE NO 1. Soils and Geolorv. Will the proposal have ® significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geolo .-ic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? x_ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water t. erosion of soils, affecting eitbar on or off site conditons? X e. f. Changes in erosion siltaticn, or deposition? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic ;azards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- _ slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? X Qge 2. Eydro102v. Will the proposal have significant results in: /r :I••s _ ................ i 6 _ F - - e r, wsv wa ® ®ww�w• �� amm _ - :; f� :::: _ •'.... ileE :.:•.• c •:. a GPA 84-C '•�:'.•� ' :: RESIDENTIAL VERY 2 < DU's AC LOW / � =' ..s LOW 2 -4 DU's /AC LOW- MEDIUM 4 -E; DU's /AC V EDIU -1,77' 4-14 DU's/ AC , 1EDIUDA -HIGH 14 -24 DU's /AC HIGH 24-30 DU's /AC ei I .. ........... s a•.. •: i ........... .I.I... CPA 4 -QUA :•: .., .............. .. .. . .. ... ............. V. : : : ••• . .._ _ • ... • • • •: E ......... ..... GPA 84 -01 C Surrounding General Plan. Land Use E41 �A VT .N ..pia 11 Ala ILI, - 4 ." i M _ ..� FC M M H L M OP M M OP PA sqmoj LM -I F- +44' .............. M LM MH L M H H LBA C�- UPI 'OP OP M 1.NC OP I rte, OF OP I L-41 N C. rVI U M LM GPA 84-01 C Surrounding Development Districts ukkq %% rr k%v SIm m H-li viec A D i � 1 J " O r a - p a 0 a� tP > 3 r U s� O° m� D —� D �? < n � 0 n� r� v Q S AVENUE 9 m z c m GJ • � An lGII1LOCK � 3 a ry AVE, IS F I d � _ (1 9 m z c m GJ • � An lGII1LOCK � 3 a ry AVE, IS F I ," Yt •�' � .�M` / wt a �: ¢ �3 � - M zi TE- C-1 LLJ a r, S t ZE N N y G •nf� r/t O c CL S LL! -- 1f? \3 }� ti c d O 7^ SV \ —�- -- --- - - - - -- — - - -- -- t�sow�r3x �- -= �- f- JERMOSA --�- — __ ___ OH,7ry7217 9NOK V0 J. —T — �� �I •I ff �• z ��7 TX cinl � 1 � U i v • L. _ a l/ P v G ' � � �¢ � Ix I •� - .,: -;= ,5_• rte- � - -,_ II � .. •t •N _ _ • {. •, ate){ ,' 7 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01A /OLYMPUS PACIFIC March 14, 1984 Page 6 l iy�;;bmi tted, i c k / Go*,,f it Planner RG:T°v:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "8" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Location Map Development District Map General Plan Map Initial Study Resolution of genial Resolution of Approval 9 J El 11 11 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -OIA /OLYMPUS PACIFIC March 14, 1984 Page 5 from the Medium Residential density located at the northwest corner of Hermosa and 19th Street. Medium Residential density• Under the Development District Map, Medium Residential Density would range from 8 to 14 units per acre. This category could be designed within the project site. It would be unlikely, however, that architectural and site compatibility could be attained within the density range. 11I. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of the General Plan Amen ment and Development District Map Amendment, decide that the change from Office designation would promote the Lard Use Goals and Purposes of the General Plan, this Amendment wou'd not be material detrimental to the adjacent properties, or cause significant adverse impacts, ;is listed under Environmental Assessment, the following are Findings that are necessary on approval. a. The the b. The c. The to Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of General Plan. Amendment does promote goals of the Land Use Element. Amendment would not be material, injurious, or detrimental the adjacent properties. IV. '.COMMENDATION: Should the Commission find an amendment to the General Plan and Development District Map is warranted, the following options are recommended for your consideration: 1. Approval of Resolution to consider amending Parcels 202 - 191 -13, 14, 24 to Low Density Residential at a time when all three parcels can be advertised for a public hearing. This action would also require a denial of the applicant's request. 2. Approve attached Resolutions amending Parcel 202 - 191 -13 'rom Office .Professional (OP) to Low Medium (LM) and at the .next available General Plan cycle to amend APN 202 - 191 -14 t,) Low Medium Residential. Approval of the General Plan and Development District Map amendments on these parcels would be subject to the provisions of the environmental assessment with specific intention to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential property. .5 1977 A r 1 1 0 %' APPROVED 5 -0 L II. "I QTY OF RANCHO CUCILMO \G.3 PLAINN' UNG CONENIISSIO AGENTU-4i WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1984 LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMOK-:;A, CALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioner Barker y Commissioner Jua:zz X Commissioner McNiel X Announcements IV. Consent Calendar r `°- L 7 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Remaei X Commissioner Stout X The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. Thev 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -1 to previously approved Condition Assemble of God Church for the square foot building on 5.5 acres of located on the northeast corner Avenues - APN 201 - 381 -01. B. TIME EXTENSION 8 - HOWARD - A revision al Use Permit for First development of a 9400 land in the "VL" District, of Archibald and Wilson 549 - LEWIS - it resneenaai tract subdivisior of b2 acres into 90 lots in the Very Low District located between btiwanda and East Avenues, south of Summit Avenue - APN 225 - 181 -02 through 04, 06 through 09, 26 and 4-^. V. Public Bearings The foilowi-?g items cre public hearZngs in which concerned individuals may voice th sir opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognizeri by ?rte 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 5 C. ENS "IROA` YIENTAL ASSES.c UMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8303 - Ri th requirement that CHRR3TESON - A division of 13.1 acres into 15 par:eLa `.., the CC &R's be reviet:ed by General Commercial district (GC) located at the northwest City Attorney prior corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN to recordation of map. 1077 - 401 -01,03. APPROVED 5 -0 with D. amendment to require review and approval of roofing material by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits & recordation of map or lot merger prior to next phase corst. E. APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 rewording of Conditicn #2 possible wor Loma Basin. APPROVED 5 -0 With F. Engineering to include on Alta CONDITIONAL F;3E PERMIT 83-67 - CHRISTESON - The development of !phase I of the Virginia Dare Winery Business Center, consisting of office, banking and restaurant uses comprising 2 buildings and a theme tower on 13.1 acres of lard in the General Commercial district located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenve - APF 1077-401-01 and 03. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -17 - 84 LUMBER - A revision to a pr eviousiv approved CUP for the development of a 31,200 sq. ft. building for 84 Lumber on 2.55 acres of land in the industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located on the west side of Haven, south of 8th Street - APN 209 - 251 -05. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT' 12523 - LIGHTNER - The deveiopment of 35 single family homes on 9.55 acres of land in the "L" District (2-4 du/ac), located on the north side of Lemon Avenue, 603 feet east of tachibald Avenue - APN 201- 251 -09. VL New Busirt= G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -44 - Si? Q ACUTE - The construction of a 29,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition, to existing manufacturing plant on 16 acre- of land En the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) located at 11200 Arrow - APN 268 - 351 -12. VII. Director's Reports REPORT RECEIVED H. DISCUS'31ON OF HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDLX - Review and comment from the members of the Commission of the information contained in tte Technical Appendix of the Housing Element for the "1984 update required by P_B 2853. VIII. 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. 8:30 p.m. M Adjo=meut 771 Planning Commission t,as adopted Administrative Regulations that set an IZ p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA -2- MARCH 14, 1984 5 -0 -0 to continue C. ENIMONNIENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT to 3/28/84' 12588 - ONINI BUILDERS - A total development and a subdivision of 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising 22 single family units in the VL (Very Low - Less than 2 du /ac) District, generally located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road - APN 201 - 083-4. Approved 5-0 -0. Appli- D. cart to cone in 90 days prior to expiration of CUP in event an extension is required. CONDMONAL USE 84 -03 -SAN GAIBRIEL ALLE LABOR ASSOCIATION - A request to locate a ;20 sq. ft. (12 feet X 60 feet) traiiee for temporary office space on a 15.25 acre site in the "l1" District, located on the north side of Arrow Highway, west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, 8706 Arrow Highway - APN 207 - 211 -01. VL DisectWs Reports Rece i •;ed and filed, E. appendix for future Commission consideration. This material will be forwarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by California State Housing law. Review by the Commission will be made following HCD comments. VII. Public CormmeiAs This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be descussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. Adoournmenk 8:35 p,n. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment timy. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent_ of the Commission. y Q " Wit, CITY OF �- RA\CCl0 C[:CA%l0 \GA v PLIAN \J1%11 11V V. Z AGENDA 1V7; WEDNESDAY Ila: ch 14, 1984 7:00 P.M. IIONS PARK CObMN[UNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A C T I O N S L Purge of Allegiance I€. Roll Call Ccmmissiom�r Barker X Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Juarez X Commissioner Stout ---X— Commissioner McNiel K M. Anno:mcements W. Approval of Minutes Approved 5-0-0 - January 11, 1984 P January 25, 1984 Approved 5-0 -0 February 22, 1984 V. Public Hearings ne following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 mimites per individual for each project GPA denied 5 -0 -0 A. ENI G =tit A - :lL11nr VJ rm%,tr:i, - a request to 4 -1 -0 to table further amend the General Plan Land Use :tia.2 from Office to action ut�til after Low- Mediu*n Residential ;4-8 du/ac) on 4.36 acres of lam 19th St. corridor study located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa completed and recom- Avenue - APN 202- 191 -13. (Continued from February 8, 1984 mendition made. meeting.) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN GPA Ge, led 5-0 -0 enRFnTn. VhyT o, ,.. .- Ueneral Yvan Land Use�rom Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du/ac) on 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Road - APN 202- 151 -33. (Continued from February 8, 1984 meeting.) I. �I �? Q-I'i' OF > R.NINCHO CUCAZ IONC-1 FLAti i?ING C01 IN'IInS IUN, AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY Viarch 14, :984 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance 1L Roll Call Commissioner Barker_ Commissioner _:c,apei Commissioner Juarez Commissioner Stout _ Commissioner McNiel M. Anneameements Y. Ppp:oval of Mimtes January 11, 1984 January 25, 1984 February 22, 1984 V. Public Hearings The foiiowin -a items are public hearings in w:a�h concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All su:h opinions shalt be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN. AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDISENT 84-01 A - OLYMi'.:�-- PACIFIC - A request to amend the General Plan Lan: se Map from Office to Low - Medium Residential (4-8 dui ac} on 4.36 acres of land, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermon. Avenue - APN 202 - 191 -13. (Continued from February n, 1984 meeting.) B. FNVIRONMESe"' " ASSESSMENT AND G'.NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT C - ACACIA'-- A request to amend the General Pia: use Pleul from Office to Medium -High Residential (1= ju/ac) on 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Road - APN 201- 151 -33. (Continued from February 8, 1984 meeting.) 12. PLANNIING COMMISSION AGENDA -2- MARCH 14, 1984 C. AL ASSESSMENT AND TENT 1zt)ns - kjmrii rsuiLL)hktb - A total oeveiopmen: ano a subdivision of 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising; 22 single family units in the VL (Very Low - Less than 2 duhc) District, generally located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road - APN 201- 083-4. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 34-03 -SAN GABRiEL VALLEY LABOR A.SSOCIATI.ON - A request to locate a 720 sq. ft. 12 feet X 60 feet trailer for temporary office space on a 15.25 acre site in the "VI" District, located on the north side of Arrow Highway, west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, 8706 Arrow Highway - APN 207 - 211-01. VI. Directors Reports E. DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT HOUSING AND TECHNICAL APDFNTITX FT.FVPVrP nW TT-TW C7FNFRAT. PT.AN - Tho appendix for future Commission consideration. This material will be forwarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by California State Housing law. Review by the Commission will be made fol1lowing HCD comments. VII. Pubbe Comments This is the time and place for the general Dublic to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. Adjournment The PIanning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations Lhat set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. " f WO }A *IC mrEwx&r lhAL a.•!-QAT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM06WA <► . � ... CITY OF RANCHO CUCF?9G %1 :A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Reg "ar Meeting January 25, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Ran ^ho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman. Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COM°4ISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Pick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minu,:es of the December 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Juarez and McNiel abstained from vote as they did not attend that meeting. t * ■ a CONSENT CALENDAR A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPE FOR TRACT 12320 - TERRA HEST PARTNERSHIP - 116 condominium units locate-- on the southwest corner of Archibald and Victoria Avenues - APN 202 - 181 -c'7. Chairman Stout asked the reason for the requested change to this project. Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the project had `_een sold to another firm who was requesting a change to the architectural pacr:age for the tract. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. * ■ i r PUBLIC HEARINGS B. GENERAL PLAN OLYMPUS PACIFIC - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Low Medium Residential (s -8 du /ac) and a development district amendment to change the Development Districts Map from OP to LM, all on 4.36 acres of land located on the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202 - 191 -13. C. GENERAL PLA14 AMENDh7_ -NT 84 -01 B - LINCOLN PROPERTIES - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on 3.67 acres located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202 - 101 -21. D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01 C - ACACIA - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on 3.58 acres located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, approximately 500 feet north of Base Line - APN 202 - 151 -33. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that these items would be handled concurrently by the Comm_ssion. Mr. Gomez advisea that the purpose of the hearing this evening was to seek direction from the Planning Commission as to _hethcr an independent market demand study should be conducted to determine the demands for office /professional uses in the City in conjunction with the Genarsl Plan Amendments. He provided the Commission with either the option of emplowing a private consultant to conduct the market demand study on a city -wide basis, or having staff prepare a study for just the GPA's on a site- specific basis. He additionally advised that the cost of the market study conducted by the consultant would be shared by the applicants. Mr. Gomez .further advised that a study conducted by a private consultant would require approximately eie5ht weeks and a study conducted by staff would require approximately four weeks, which would therefore necessitate the continuance of these items accordingly. Chairman Stout asked if a decision would be made on the specific projects this evening. Mr. Gomez replied that .itaff was not seeking a decision by the Commission on any one of the projocts at this time, but was seeking direction as to which of the above options they would prefer. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a staff analysis had not been prepared on a projeot -by- project basis on which the Commission could approve the projects. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 25, 1984 Chairman Stcut opened the public hearing to comments regarding Item "B ", Olympus Pacific. He asked each of the applicant's their preference as to the type of market study to be conducted_ Don Kiel.y, represent_rg Gl�mpus Pacific, addressed the Commission stating that his preference would be for approval of the project at this time; cowever, would have to recommend an in -staff site specific studv be conducted. He advised that Olympus had already conducted market Z: +mard stzdies of the office/professional uses in Poncho Cucamonga and did not feel that any new information would be generated by an additional study. Further, that the time element involved would also be a concern. Mr. Kiely also stated that if this location was a good site for Offices, Olympus would build offices there; however, his opinion was that this particular locati•,n is rot a good site for office uses and that a residential use would be more compatible wit: the surrounding uses. He additionally stated that this project was proposed at too low of a density to qualify for HUD financing and is not proposed as apartments, but owner-occupied Units. T_.,e following individuals addressed the Planning Commission opposing this project based upon concerns regarding overcrowding of schools, increased crime, impacts on traffic and city services, and expressed concerns that this project may be a HLD financed apartment complex. Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Randy Warmdall •- 7037 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Walt Rube - 10253 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga Jim C.ovacky - 6739 Teak Way Rancho Cucamonga Jay Tranell - 10244 Ring - Rancho Cucamonga Ruth Parker - 7064 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Steve Yating - Victoria Street - Rancho Cucamonga Kent Wilson - 9790 Archibald - Rancho Cucamonga Fred Cory - 6729 Hermosa - Rancho Cucamonga Layne Douglas - 10123 Finch Avenue - Rancho Cucamonga Lois Mc {err. - 10266 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga Jennie Moon - 10253 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga Manny Politia - 10010 Mc.ate Vista - Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Halden - 6938 Teak Way - -Rancho Cucamerga P.K. Higg'ns - Carrari - Rancho Cucamonga Jane Grint - 9927 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Walt Pappas - 9800 Base Line - Rancho Cucamonga Christine Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Hubbert - 6735 Berkshire - P.ancho Cucamonga Judy Vidorsic - 6017 Burgandy - Rancho Cucamonga Barbara Deval.o - 676E Elmhurst - Rancho Cucamonga Darel Carlson - 8484 Hawthorne Street - Rancho Cucamonga Don Floyd - 9833 Mignonette - Pancho Cucamonga Dennis Stout - Ramona avenue - Rancho Cucamonga (No Stout) Betty Carlisle - 10152 Victoria - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Watkins - 6749 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes -3- relation to Chairman January 25, 1984 One gentlemen, Mr. Li-ndgren , spoke in support of the projeut stating that single famil• residences were not affordable to some people and that multiple family homes would be the only way they could afford a home. Elurther. that the desires of the entire City should be taken into consideration, not the o;inions of a few people. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing for Item "B ", Olympus, and opened the hearing to Item "C ", Lincoln Properties. Chairman Stout asked the applicant his preference to the two suggested options. Water Ingalls, representing Lincoln Properties, addressed the Commission s'_ting that market studies had been performed on this particular site by C c an and WaKefield and could not see the need for further outside study. H: suggested that- the Commission direct staff to prepare the study at the four w-:ek time frame. Mr. Ingalls explained that Lincoln not only builds their projects, but also manages them and that this project would not be HUD financed. The following individuals addressed the Commission opposing Item C, Lincoln. Properties, voicing concerns of impacts on schools, additional traffic generation, impac`•s on streets and city services, and low income housing units. Joe Hanna - 6"15 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Christine Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Fancho Cucamonga P.R. Higgins - Carrari Street - Rancho Cucamonga Margie Hanna - 6715 Jadeite - Rancho Cue-conga Jim Rizzo - 6001 Burgandy - Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Halden - 6938 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Randy Warmdall - 7037 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Ted H�lbbert - 6735 Berkshire - Rancho Cucamonga Jane Grirt - 9927 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Watkins - 6749 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Sol Mendelson - 6790 rellman - Rancho Cucamonga Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga 9:20 - Planning Commission Recessed 9:30 - Planing Commission Reconvened Chairman. Start opened the public hearing regarding. Item "D ", Acacia. Chairman Stout aske, Ale applicant his preference regarding the study. Rick Snyder, representing acacia, addressed the Commission stating a desire to work with staff and the Commission to resolve any issues at hard. Alan Weirick, representing Acacia, addressed the Commission stating he would be willing to - rK .:ith both staff and the Commission on this issue. He advised that :a market demand study had been conducted by Acacia which disclosed that too much available office space presently exists in Rancho Planning Commission Minutes -4- January P5, 1984 Cucamonga. Further, Acacia would not want to build anything that the citizens did not want and would be willing to work with the residents on the development of this project. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to Item "D", Acacia, voicing concerns of impacts on the City generated by high density projects, impacts on schools, increased crime, inadequate Dark lands, increased traffic generation, and impacts on City services. Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - F.ancho Cucamonga Chris Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Ken Wilson. - 6749 Cambridge - Ra=ncho Cucamonga Jim Rizzo - 6007 Bargandy - Rancho Cucamonga P.K. Higgins - Carrari - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Hubbert - 6735 Berks'.iire - Rancho Cucamonga Joe Hanna - 6715 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Root - 6939 Teal: Way - Rancho Cucamonga Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Coavisaioner Juarez asked if sufficient acreage exists in the General Plan for office /professional uses. Mr. Gomez replied that approximately 1 -3% of the City is designated for office /professional uses, including the industrial areas of the City, and the Terra Vista and Victoria Planned Communities. Commissioner McNiel stated that the issue before the Commission this evening was not the approval of the indivio%�al projects, but a determination on whether there is too ouch area designated for office /professional uses iz t1ie City or not enough. He advised the audience that their concerns had been heard by the Commission, however, they mast deal with the issue at nand. Further, he cou'd not see how a determination of this nature could be made without a study being conducted to see what impacts this decision would have on the City in the future and recommended that a market analysis be conducted. Commission Barker agreed that a third party should be hired to preoa.e an analysis which would determine if a mistake had been made when the General Plan was adopted by des;$nating either too macb ^r not enough office /professional space in the City. He additionally stated that he had difficulty with a project presented as a "down zone" when shifting fron an office professional uses to one proposing 292 apartment units. Co=issioner Rempel are' -ed that office professional uses should be near residential areas, espt�:ialiy uses such as medical, insurance, and attorneys' offices. He pointea olt that people would then not have to travel ali the way to Foothill and Haver, for these types of services, which is what will happen if the oficelprofessional designations are removed. He further stated that these sites are viable office /professional designations and did not see the need to employ a consultant to research the need as it is apparent that the need is there. Planning !'omission Minutes -5- January 25, 1984 Commission Juarez agreed that the designations should be retained and could not sce the ..cod for the developers to spend the money to biro - .,,,nnultrnt. '.zairman Stout stated there were few people around who advocate low density as mucli as he does; however, there is a practical need to have uses other than residential in a city. He stated that he desired to have a more specific proposal directed on these three projects on w._ch to base a decision. Additionally, his decision would not only have to be based on his feelings, but also what is best for the entire City. He requested that an analysis be conducted, which would not necessarily have to be done by a consultant, with recommendations as to what the appropriate designation should be on each of these parcels. Further, that the concerns stated this evening nhould be given high priority in the preparation of the analysis. He recommended that the item be cc,.itinued to allow time for the preparation of the analysis. Commissioner Rempel stated that in response to the comments regarding the park situation, the City does not presently have the funds to purchase land in the developed areas for park sites. He advised that the City Council would be placing a bond issue on the ballot in the near future and that a 90 acre park site is proposed on Base Lire, east of Haven. Commissioner Rempel additionally stated that in order for the intersection of ',9th and Hermosa to be improved, development will have to occur to finance these improvements. Motion: Moved by Rempel that these items be continued to March 14 with direction to staff to prepare an ara: ?is on these three sites along with recommendations as to the appropriat .! Nation died for lack of second. Mr. Gomez asked if Commissioner Rempel was requesting an analysis on a site specific basis and not an overview aralysia of L:.a entire City. Commissioner Rempel replied that the study area should be bounded by Haven west to the City Limits and study ,ites that are now designated office /professional. Mr. Gomez responded that four weeks may not be sufficient time to prepare an analysis of this magnitude and would be reluctant to commit staff's resources i.. that length of time. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that with a site specific analysis the Commission would not have the benefit of a study determining the future or present need for office / professional designations in the City becauoe ztaff does rot have the resources IC, conduct such a study. Commissioner Parker stated that if the study is done on a site specific basis, the ability to make long -range decisions would not exist and each site would have to be dealt with individually. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 25, 1984 Commissioner Rempel replied that there are not that many office /professional uses left in the City. Additionally, to clarify his motion the study would include those sites on Base Lire, north and there are nit that many .acant sites that remain. Chairman Stout stated that it is evident in the ncar future that time and resources will have to be budgeted to look at this issue; however, it seems that time and resources are just not available at this time. Mr. Gomez s.;ated that staff would have to Drogram a change of this magnitude with other large land use r:=,anges and budget the time and resources to look at the entire General Flan, which would more than likely not occur before one to two years. Commissioner McI1iel stated that as long as the office /professional designated sites are rot marketable tbere will be requests to change the designations to those which are marketable. Further, that he could not see how a sound decision could be made or three pieces of property when the future of the entire community is of concern and did not feel that a decision should be made when the Commission is ill equiped to make that decision.. Commissioner Barker s'.:ated that the Commission would not be functioning as long -range planners if a look at the future needs is not analyzed. Mr. Go,ne-° pointed out that it takes certain professional expertise to conduct a study of this nature and currently 'he City does not employ a staff member who possesses that expertise. Additiar_ally, the funding could not be borne by the City at this time, which is the reason staff recommended that a consultant be hired at a cost to be shared by the applicants. Commissioner Rempel stated that from Haven vast to the City Limits, and Base Line north to the City Limits there are only three other vacant sites besides the projects before the Commission tonight with office /professional designations. He stated that it would not be difficult to see that there would be a need for the office /professional uses in these areas in the future and that a consultant would not come up with any other decision. Commissioner Juarez asked Mr. Gomez if thousands of dollars were not spent in the hiring of a consultant to prepare the General Plan. Mr. Gomez replied that a consultant had been hired by the City to consider land use planning; however, the expertise of a marketing consultant was not employed. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Gomez meant that at no time was information prepared which re°lected just how much office /professional space the City would need. Mr. Gomez replied that this was correct. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconder by Juarez, that these three projects be atudied and revies :ed on a site specific basis. Chairman Stout asked if this motion would recommend review of these sites without the benefit of a market study. Commissioner Rempel replied that this was correct. Motion failed 2 -3. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, that a third party be employed, at a cost t> be shared by the developers, to conduct a study to give an overview analysis of demand and future demand for office /professional uses in the City. Mc +tien passed 3 -2 with Juarez and Rempel voting no. Chairman Stout pointed out that an agreement would have to be entered into between the developers to share the cost of this study. Commission. Barker stated that if the developers do not enter into an agreement. he would then recommend that the sines retain the office / professional designations. Mr. Gomez stated that staff would coordinate the agreement with the applicants and the City Attorney as soon as possible. Chairman Stout asked the applicants if they were agreeable to t,iij decision. Mr. Ingalls, Lincoln Properties, stated that his cliQnt did not accept the decision. Mr. Kiely, Olympus Pacific, stated that ris acceptance would be contingent upon the contents of the agreement. Mr. Weirick, Acacia, stated that he would accept the decision. Mr. Gomez sugCested that the public hearing for these items be continued to the February 8, 1984 meeting to allow staff time to work with the applicants and the City Attorney on the drafting of a agreement. At that meeting staff would either request a continuance of eight weeks to allow time for a consultant to prepare a city -wide study, or if no agreement between the applicants could be reached, the request would be for a continuance of four weeks to allow staff to prepare a site specific study without a market demand study. This would just be a land use analysis of each specific site. Mr. Hopson suggested that the motion be made among the three Commissioners voting in favor of Commissioner Barker's motion to recind that c,3tion to clarify the intentions. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNie?, carried, to recind the motion. Pla.aning Commissio„ "`i: e`.es -8- January 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried, to continue Items B, C, and D to the Febnuary 8, 1984 meeting to determine if a consensus has been reached among the three applica - its as to the preparation of a market study. If no consensus has been reached by that meeting, appropriate action would be taken at that ti^ e to continue the items for four weeks with direction to staff to preoara a site specific study- In that evert, the Commission would then make a decision on each of the projects in four weeks. If a consensus is reached among the applii: ants, on February 8 tLe Commission would recommend ccntinuance for e'-gat weeks to allow a consultant time to prepare a broad jascd study, after which the Commission would then make a decision on each of tn? sues. AYES, H -1-i.. ('�i ...1JJ _ ail,:.. ^.J: Mn„T^ �ADVED NOES: C0.M.MiSSIOAE =:S: JUAREZ, REMPEL ABSENT: C10M- MISSTO�ERS: NONE - carried m i t t 10:45 - Planning Commission Recessed 11:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened Motion: Moved by Barker, sectnded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to cc.itinue past the 11:00 p.m. adjournment: time. E. 12 -190 - The develoament of i21 condominium units or_ 5 -1 acres o. Lana in Lne Medium -High Residential District (14 -24 du /ac) locate on the east side of Vineyard, South of Foothill - P_PN 208 - 241 -11. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that condition 2 of the Resolution under Planning Division be r:vised to state that permanent easement rather than a letter of acceptance be required for secondary emergency access from the adjacent property owner. Additionally staff recommended that item 1 be amended to include revisions to the end elevations and the addition of treatment such as horizontal siding, false windows or hip roof treatment. It was also recommended that the upper story elevations be pro -. -2ed with architectLral treatments such as corner windows, pop -out windows, or shadow boxes to create a shadow line. Staff further recommended ass additional Engineering condition to require the applicant to acquire a private drainage easement through the adjoining, property to the east prior to the issuance of any permit for develcpment. Chairman Stout open:d the public hearing. Piarri.ng Commission Minutes -9- January 25, 1984 Martha Schnieders, representing American Natio:ial, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant agreed with th- findings of tht_ staff report and resolution. Co=rms= °_ ^ner Rempel asked the applicant if tha wall at the back of the carports at the north and south property line was solid or open. Ms. Schnieders replied that the backs of the carports are open. She advised that you would be a'lle to view the trees and landscaping from the drive through. further, that the trees were needed to screen the view and buffer the pro -ect. Commiss'_ - r McNiel stated that the applicant expressed concern with the hip roof t^ ,nnt recommended by the Design Review Committee and askea if that concern been resolved. Ms. Schnieders replied that it was her impression after that meeting that Design Review Committee members would visit the project t,at displayed the hip roof treatment and had received the Design Review Committee's acceptance of the lower roof element on the drire sides end on all of the buildings at the front of the project would have than lower roof elPmont at each end. There were r._ further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Paul Rougeau, Senior :ivil Engineer, recommended that Standard Condition L -1 be eliminated from the Standard Conditions form as it is no longer a necessary requirement. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimous2, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution atpr -•'ing Tentative Tract 12490 with the following amendments to the Planning Division conditions: the requirement for a permanent easement for secondary access from the adjacent property owner; condition 2 of the Resolution under Planning Division is to be revised to state that permanent easement ratLar than a letter (;f acceptance be reoui.ed for secondary emergency access from the adjacent property owner; condition 1 amended to include revisions to the end elevations anr4 additional treatments such as horizontal siding, false windows or hip roof, avid the upper story elevations be provided with architectural treatments such as corner windows, pop -out windows, or the selective use of shadow boxes to create a shadow line. Additionally, an additional condition is to be added to the Engineering Division conditions to require the applicant to acquire a private drainage easement through the adjoining property to the east prior to the issuance of any permit for development. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JIIAREZ, STOL*,". NOES: CCiEiISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE - carried- ?lanning Commission Minutes -10- January 25, 1984 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSESSMENY hNi; 1LN1A1ivc, rrcxci 1,:o11 — r_: let residential subdivision of 16 lots on 4.24 acres of District (2 -4 du /ac), located on the south side of 19th Hellman Avenue - APN 202• - 041 -0? and 52. Curt Johnston, Associate Kanner, reviewed the staff report. RIMS - A custom land in the "L" Street, west of Chairman Stout referred to Lot 9, whicc, is 'i4,900 sq. ft., and asked if the lot is designed to be split after the chanisl is constructed. Mr. Johnston replied that the lot is not designed to be split because there is a storm drain easement on the property and that the lot is not wide enough to split. Chairman Stout opened the public heari g. Joel Cooper, representing Pilgrims Enterprises, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant has tried to conform to the City's requirements and felt that the project would help solve a lot of drainage problems in the area. Sol Mendelson, addressed the Commission stating tat his cone;­ was mainly the drainage situation, but felt that this concern had adequately been addressed. Mrs. Mendelson addressed the Commission, advising that she trRins horses and asked if a block wall could be constructed along lots 8 and 9 �djoiring the Mendelson property and advised that there would be problems with dirt from her arena. Mr. Cooper replied that the approval before the Commission this evening is fur the layout of the project an, that the actual involvement of the design issue woulc be adar essed at a la *ci date. Bernice Decal!; , 6830 Heilman, addressed her understanding that a tract could not completed and asked if this was correct. the Commissior_ stating that it -as be constructed until the channel was Mr. Hopson replied that there is a condition on th- `ra.t which requires :hat the applicant bond fcr tae channel construction. Chairman Stout explained that the applicant must comply with the conditions which are imposed on his tract prior to filing fcr a final tract map which is approved by the City Council; however, the approval tonight is for the tentative map. Mrs. Becaliy stated that she was not in favor cf the tract and felt it would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimcusly carried to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12577 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES, COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, R&-IPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- * a t # 6 Motion: Moved by P.empel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue past the adjournment time for consideration of the following item. i Y � t,aw Business C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -40 - BARMAKIAN - The d�v,!lopment of 13 industrial buildings totaling 123,540 s0. ft. on 8 acres of lard in the General Industrial /Rail Served category (Sibarea 5) located on the northwest ccrner of 6th Street and Center Avenue - APN 209- 261 -07. Curl. Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that an additional item should be checked off on the Standard Conditions Form L -2 to require 14 additional feet of dedication on 6th Street. There were no farther comments on this gem. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 83 -40 with an amendment to the Standard Conditions form to require 14 additional feet o° dedication on 6th Street. AYES: NOES: ASSENT: Adjournment COMMISSIONERS: MCNII , BARKER, JUAREZ, REI-TEL, STOUT COMMISSIONERS NOME COMMISSIONERS: NONE - -carried- Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Crmaission Minutes -12- January 25, 1 0-34 11:40 p.m. — Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning rommis31on Minutes -13- January 25, 1984 F CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 21, 1934 Chairman Dennis Stcut ca?led the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cu,mmissi'.n to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Lone, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then 18d in the pledge of al_eg;nce- ROLL CALL COP�DSISSICNR3 PRESENT: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry Mckiel, He: man Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISS -ONERS EBSENT: None gTA?F PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopscn, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, ar:nounced that for the Planning io=issioners Institute 29 and would be returning on Friday, March f $ 8 * $ C0%SE11T CALENDAR the Commissioners would be leaving in San Diego on Wednesday, February 2. A_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -18 - HOWARD - A revision to a nrevicusly appro ed Conditional Use Permit for Firsc Assembly of God Church for the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the "VL" District, located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson +venues - APN 201- 381 -01. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATI`E TRACT 11549 - LEWIS - A residential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots in the "4L� District located between Etiwanda and East Avenues, south of Summit Avenue - APN 225 - 181 -02 throuflh 04, 06 through 09, 2E and 43. Motion: ;loved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Barke^ stated that he was overjoyed with the vast improvement --n the design for CUP 82 -18. 3 f } i F PUBLIC :r,RIMGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8303 - CHRISTESON - A division of 13.1 acres into 15 parcels in the General Commercial (GC) district located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN 1077 - 401 -01 and 03. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -07 - CHRISTESON - The development of Phase I of the Virginia Dare Winery Business Center, consisting of office, banking and restaurant uses comprising 2 buildings and a theme tower on 13.1 acres of land in the General Commercial dis�lict located at the northwest corner of Footni.11 Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN 1077- 401 -01 and 03. Rick Gomez, City Planar, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that Resolution 83 -79, Plann:Lig Division condition 48 of the original Resolution of approval for the Conditional Use Permit, be modified to require a parcel map or lot merger to be reccrded prior to issuance of building permits for subsequent phase construction. It was additionally recommended that Resolution 83 -79A approving Phase I, Planning Division condition 4, be amended to require that the roofing material be subxitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman. Stout opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that he realized the applicant has gone through a let to het this project off the ground, but have come up with a fine project which everyone could be proud of. Edward Hopsoa, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that additional w 'ing be added to standard condition #5 of the City Engineer's report approv -ng the Parcel Map which would require the CCgR's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and recorded concurrently with the map. Commissioner Rempel stated his appreciaticn to the applicant for thier efforts in develop'_ng this project, Plannir$ Commission Minutes -2- February 22, 1984 I Chairman Stout stated that the Virginia Dare Winery is a site that most residents of the City desired to see preserved, however the City presently does not have the funds to complete such an endeavor. He cori=ended the applicant for deve:oping a project which would not only benefit their means but do something for the City as well. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mctiiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel F".aa 8303 with additional wording added to the Standard Condition form #5 which would require Lhe CCbR's to be reviewed .and approved by the City Attorney's office. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carri-ad, to adopt the Resolutioa approving Phase I of Conditional Ure Permit 83 -07 with the additional language to Planning Division condition #4 to require review and approval of the roofing material by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, Resolution 83 -79, the original Resolution approving CUP 83 -07, was amended to require recordation of the map or lot merger prior to subsequent phase construction. 6 6 6 6 6 E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -17 - 84 LUMBER - A revision to a previously approved CUP for the uevelopment of a 31,200 square foot building for 84 Lumber on 2.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of 8th Street - APN 209 - 251 -05. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff additionally recommended that language be included in the Resolution which would state that the original conditions approving the Conditional Use Permit are still in effect, as well as the new conditions proposed at this time. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Rickey, representing 84 Lumber, addressed the Planning Commission urging approval of the revision. Lee Von Valkenberg, Rancho Cucamonga, owner of the property to the rear of this project, addressed the Commission, expressing concern over what the extension of Acacia Street would do to his property. He explained that his company, KVL, intends to develop this property in the future. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained that the ISP circulation plan had been studied with this application an-' it had been determined that the street would definitely be needed in the future for c`rculation. However, the only place left the street at this time is along the KVL property line, which would := =yu' -r° aanroxinately 30 feet of dedication from KVL. Dave .Penner, owner of an adjacent muffler shop, stated that if the street does go in as proposed it would eliminate his busi,."n. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 22. 1984 ;Michael Vairin advised that the street is only conceptual at this time and may be a =tee or ne�,er im�lemeIIted, Fr explained that it is simply planned W�ny year_ for in the Industrial Specific Plan in case the reed arises in the future. Commissioner Rempel stated that the maps that come befc ^e the Commission should show th-- effects on surrounding properties, such as th° impact that the proposed Acacia street is going to have on the properties. Motion: 'Moved by Rempel. seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving the revision to Conditional Use Permit 33 -17 with the lznguage proposed by staff which would clarify that the condi`ions of the original Resolution are still in effect along with the conditions of the new Resolution adopted at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: a � ■ � s F. C014MISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUARdZ, STOUT COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE development of 35 single family homes on District (2 -4 du /ac), located on the north east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 251 -09. - carried- �AGi — i.55 acres of side of Lemon Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report_ Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. LIGHTNER -- The land in the "L" Avenue, 600 feet George Lightner, Lightner Development, 136E W. Foothill, Suite 6, Upla.nd, Cali.fornia, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the findings of the Resolution with the exception of one item, which he deferred to Mr. Guerra to address. Dar. Guerra, of Derbish, Guerra and Associates, 124 E. "F" Street, Ste. 12, Ontario, California, addressed the Commission ^eferrirg to Enginee:,i.ng Condition #2 of the Resolution and asked Mr. Rougeau if he was aware of an agreement with the property owner to the south of the channel which did not require the participation of that property owner in the Assessment District, but allowed nim to do restoration work on the channel. Mr. Roue_ -au repliel that he aid recall this discussion, however, the previous project submitted on this site had a condition which required building its portior of the c'.,nnei. Further, idea of doing restoration work on the channel would be just as expensive as building the channel. He advised that thn condition as it stands is the in the City's best interest anc would prefer PlannLng Commission Minutes -4- February 22, 1984 0P i to come back to the Commission :jith an alternate condition at a later date if the Assessment District is not fi:,aiized and this particular ^ ondition becomes a problem. Mr. Guerra suggested that wording could be added to the Resol"tion anich would allow an alternate method to be approved by the City Engineer, which would eliminate the return of the project to the Planning Comissicr.. Chairman Stout asked which method would be preferra`le to the applicant. Mr. Lightner responded that he would prefer to complete work on the basin. Mr. Rougeau stated that the language in the n,ndition could be modified to include alternate work on the Alta Loma Basis, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Chairman Stout asked if this modification would be acceptibl to the applicant.. Mr. Lightner responded that it world be acceptible. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution with the modification to the Engineering coneitions to include language to allow alternate work on the basin to the satisfs:ction cf the City Engineer. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ■ � a � � New Business COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT COK4ISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN', AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -44 - SUPRACOic - The construction of a 29,000 so. ft. warehouse addition to the existing manufacturing plant on 16 a.:re3 e' land in the General industrial District (Subarea 8) located at 11200 Arr:w - APN 208- 351 -12. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if anyone iould like to address this item. There .;ere no convents. Commissioner McNie1 stated `.hat i.he applicant was very cooperative during Design Review in accepting th_ Cnmmittee's reuvium :dations and felt that they Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 22, 1984 to come bac°: to the Commission with an alternate condition at a late-- date if the AEseasment District is not finalized and this particular condition be:omes a problem. Mr. Guerra suggested that hording could be added to the Resolution which would allow an alters`- method to be approved by the City Engineer, which would eliminate the reuurn of the project to the Planning Commission. Chairman Stout asked which method would be preferrable to the applicant_ Mr. Lightner responded that he would prefer to complete work on the basin. Mr. Rougeau stated that the language in the condition could be modified to include alternate work on the Alta Loma Basin subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Chairman Stout asked if this modification would be acceptible to the applicant. M-.. Lightner responded that it would be acceptible. Chairman Stout closed the public }searing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resol::tiin with the modification to the Engineering conditions to include language to allow alternate work on the basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: New Business COITMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONEPS: BARKER, MCNIEL, JU:REZ, REMPEL. STOUT NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- G. ENVIRONYa,NTAL ASSESSMENT AND DE iELOPM-ENT REVIEW B3-4i - SLTPRACOTE - The construction of a 29,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition to the existing manufacturing plarx�on 16 acres cf land in the General industrial District (Subarea v) located at 11200 Arrrw - APN 208- 351 -12. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the sta.I' report. Chairman Stout asked if anyone would like to address this iten. There were ro comments. Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant was very cooperative during Design Review in accepting the Committee's recommendations and felt that they Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 22, 1934 would be pl -aased with the project- .Mol-2.0ne Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiei, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving DR 83 -44 and the issuance of a Negative Declaa,ation. niLS: NOES: ABSENT: f f i * i COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT COMIMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried -- 7:50 - Plannj:.g Commission Recessed 8:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened Director's Reoorts K- DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENTLPART I - TECHNICAL DEMOGRAPHIC HOUSING DATA Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, and Linda Daniels, Assa.stant Planner. -•ev_ewed the staff - epert. Staff Indicated that :he intent was to provio: the Commissioners with the technical data tnjs evening and was rot asaking direction from the Commission at this time. They advised that the remaining sections of the Housing Element would be presented to the Commission in March for their review and comment before being forwarded to the City Council. Public Comments C- nairmzn Stout referred to a letter received regarding the Kaufman and Broad project t -Om Jim Banks and the Citizens Advisory Committee and advised that he woul -I like zItaff to draft a response on behalf of t:,e Planning Commission. Ccmminsioner, Hempel stated that the response should explain the Design Review system and the steps project mist go through before it gets to the Planning Commission. Rick Gomez, City Planner, suggestea the possibility of a workshop between Citizens Advisory Committee, Plannini; Commission, an(, staff could be srt -up to explain this process. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to draft a letter of response to Vie Citizens Advisory Coassittee. k * a r • Planning Commission Minutes MIS Feb:sary 22, 1984 Larry Lewis, 5739 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission regarding the intersection of Hermosa and 19th and asked how the residents would go about having a stop sign :.nstallec? at that *_ersection He explained that this is a school croosing and children are experiencing problems getting across 19th. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that hs was not aware of a problem at this intersection, however, row that he had been alerted he would refer the situation to the City's traffic department. He advised that if the traffic department does see a need for further study, it will be reviewed by the traffic committee which is composed of representatives from each school Parent /Teachers Association, sheriff's department, school districts, engineering -:aff, and the Southern California Automobile Club. Commissioner Rempel suggested that Mr. Lewis follow -up this discussion with a letter to the City Engineering Division outlining the residents' concerns and request for a stop sign. e a g a s Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to make a motion that would require staff to provide the Commission with an overview of adjacent areas in their review of all future development proposals that involve access to other properties. Mctior. was seconded by Barker, ianimously carried. Adjournmen`.. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8:30 p -m. - Planning Commission Adjourr_ed Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning �ommissicn Minutes -7- February 22, 1934 k M I N U T E S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONuA REGULAR PLANNING CODiMISSION MEETING January 11, 1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeti:.g of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. He then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Bc^.rker, Addie Juarez, Larry McNiel, Herman Rerpel, Dennis Stout COMMISSInNFRS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT Shintu Rose, Associate Civil Engineer; Dan Coleman, Planning Associate; Rick Gomez, City Plarner, Ed.wa:-' A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan. :ruse, Administrative Secretary; Curt Jo'anstcn, Associate Planner; Paui Rcugeau, Senior Civil Engineer CONSENT C=%LENDAR Commissioner F.empel requested wiienever an item is submitted for design charge, the arev' :•..s iesign be included in the agenda packet so the Cc=ission will have some means for comparison. Motion: Moved by Re =pel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. A. R -EQUEST FOR rPPROVAL OF A NEW ARSRITECTURAL PRODUCT TiPE FOR TRAC; 12 1' l -M ':)MPAPY - Nir-ty -two detached single family units - located on the south side of Mignonette Avenue, west of Beryl - APN 202- 032 -71. B. TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - Reapplication for design review of 20 single family homes on :,5.95 =res of land in the Very Low Residsnt �1 district : xuted on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside, C. TIKE EXTENSION FOR CONDI',IONAL USE PERMIT 82 -12 - LEDERMANN - The development of an.. 11,311 square foot preschool facility on 2.93 acres of land in the Low Residential district located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Turner Avenue - APN 1077- 271 -08. PUBLIC HEARINGS D T�iT }T n�rnr 1TAT �1��CrC�ULITT A-" T pT.TT .^ —� u 1 .anaivL tRM l !G4D3 m N c- ine development of 450 single family manufactured homes on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Community Plan, designated Medium and Medillm -High Residential, located at the r_ortheast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - a portion of APN 227 - 081 -06. (Continued from 12/14/83 meeting). Pick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. He advised this item, which was continued from the December 14, 1983 meeting, has again been requested continuance by the applicant. Mr. Gomez asked the Commission to discuss the need for a continuance with the applicant prior to staff giving the report. 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Rempel steppes4 a ^ =r from the Commission table due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Clyde Lane representing R & B, the applicant, asked the Commission for a continuance to the last meeting in March is order to submit a major revision of their plan which would incorporate a product change. He indicated that they needed the extra time to do the work. Chairman Stout asked what the product change would be. Mr. Lane replied it would be something stick built of the single family detached category. Commissioner Barker asked if this item would then come back for review by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Gomez replied affirmat5vely. Commissioner Barker asked if there is an advanta?P hn going ahead with the continuance rather than nixing the project. Assistant City Attorney Hapson stated that the applicant would not have to pay another fee. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if they would be opposed to a multiple family concept. Mr. Lane replied they do not feel high density is appropriate in this area. Commissioner Barker asked if the applicant is talking about a change to the product as well as the site plan. Plann4ng Commission Minutes -2- January 11, 19811 Mr. Lane replied the size of the lots would be different, the open space would be similar and would be increased at Base Line and Milliken and there would be three neighborhoods as opposed to the two in the original plan, but the entrance would remain the same. Chairman Stout. asked Mr. Hopson what the legal procedure is in this case. Mr. Hopson replied the Commission has no legal right to postpone this item and could rake a decision on the project tonight; or the Commission could postpone the public hearing as the applicant requested to !arch 28, 1984. He indicated the decision is up to the Commission. Chairman Stout asked if the public hearing must be held on the request for continuance. Commissioner McNiel stated he saw no reason for not granting a continuance. Commissioner Barker stated under the conditions of charging the prodact, project and site, he felt that a continuanc= is fine if it fits in with the original plan and concern; of the Commission. Chairman Stout stated he would hate to see more time inve;t� that does not address some of his concerns as he felt there has been no guidance on what he feels some of the problems are. Commissioner McNiel stated it is his feeling that the only reason the applicant is requesting a continuance is because he has an ample supply of guidance. Chairman Stout stated one of his concerns has not been advressed. Commissioner Barker stated if the Commission were to stop the project, the applicant wound not have any additional guidance either. Mr. Gomez stated �f there is a point which the Commission wishes to discuss, now is the ti >_. Mr. i' .Dpsor., advised the Commission that there is no reason the public hearing should not be opened in order for the Commission to give guidance. Chairman Stout indicated that is what he would like to do and asked for a continuance to allow the applicant to make revisions. He indicated if anyone in the audience wished to make comments they would have tiae opportunity to do SO. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was Chairman Stout stated one of his problems wit'! i11- ;� _,.p�iczf .'" re4uest is it is of the single family detached nature. He indicated thac :his particular Planning C° is5ion Minutes -3- January 11, 1984 corner was selected ^nd divided into two densities, one being somewhat higher than the other, wit: he idea that the mixture in this area with the single f�,;, I- :t y det =shed �t w-r the dc..., y- io._ Chairman Stout stated he is not in favor generally of increasing density; however, in this instance he felt that in seeping with he City•s plan there should be some type cf multiple family units that are clustered in some way to allow open space rather than have the homes spread out as single family detached. He felt this would be more in keeping with what the Victoria Plan had in mind for that area. Commissioner Barker stated he could see Chairman Stout`s point. He slated that he has expressed his concerns regarding open space and amenities to { & 3 through the Design Review process. He suggested mitigation through variety of he-I &hts and additianal open space to allow children to play. He indicated that single family detached homes are selling and i is not his business to knot: what is marketable and what is not. However, if variety is nc• longer warted, the Cpmmi53ion needs to know what is wanted by the public in order to conform to the living document statement in the General Plan. Co=- Issioner McNiel stated he had gone to x & B's other project in Pomona and felt it to be pretty nice. He indicated there are people interested in living in this kind of situation. However, one of the things sacrificed in such a project is the open spare. His understanding, Commissioner McNiel stated, is that the people moving into the project were not those initially anticipated and he did not know whether everyone wants to live in an apartment type situation. He felt that one entrance and exit which would not increaso traffic would be ideal. Commiss-ioner Juarez stated she liked the open space. Chairman Stout, stated these are some of the kinds of things the Commission is loo'King for and he did not kmnt to send the applicant back without voicing the concerns. Motia: Moved by McNiel. seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the March 28, '1384 meeting with the understanding that there will be a major product change. 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Rerpe! retsrned to the Commission table. * * 3 I E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSaSSME1i AND ZONE CHA -%mE 83 - o8 - (TENTATIVE TRACT 12525' - TRUAX - A change in zone from Medium Density Residential (8 -14 du /ac) to Low Medium residential (4 -8 du /ac) for a total development and subdivision of 16.5 acres into 123 lots, comprising 122 zero lot line units generally located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Turner Avenue and Center Avenue - APN 209- 091 -10. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 11, 1984 Cii., Pla » »nw Ri n4 (_»mop, roviawed t}7e staff report. Chairman Stout asked why it is necessary to change the zoning when the applicant is requesting down zoning. Mr. Gomez replied it is because the standa. -ds in the new Development Code vary with regard to open space requirements an other regulations in different development districts, and this must be done for consistency with the Development Code. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant stated his agreement with the recommendation and indicated he d -c. not wish to address the Commission. There being no further comments, the public hearing waa closed. Motion: tioved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution_ No. 84 -01, recommending Zone Change 83 -08 and issuing a Negative Declaration. f ! f f i F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -23 - UNGER - A request for a fitness center to be located at 9507 Arrow r.ighway, Suite H, within the Cucamonga Business Park located on the routhwest corner of Arrow and Archibald (Subarea 3 of the industrial Area Specific Plan). Associate Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if the 35 parking spaces required in the staff report are additional after normal daylight hours. Mr. Johnston replied staff must look at the site not only at this time, but for what will happen in the future. He indicated that tine pa rking may demand all designated spots and staff can only say that 21 spaces are required during the day and 35 after hours, in order to be safe. Commissioner McNiel asked how many suites are llased. Mr. Johnston replied almost all are. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Linda Unger, applicant, stated the owner of the buildings, Henry Reiter, said during business hours she could use the parking which is available across the street because that complex is less than one -half rented. Flarther, Mr. Reiter has indicated he would soundproof the wall on the other side. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 11, 1984 Chairman Stout asked if Ms. Unger understood the implications of Condition 3 under the Planning Division relative to selling the business and the new owner having to come t, cv to the Planning. Commission. Ms. Unger replied she did. Chairman Stoat :Mated if Ms. Unger's business increased significantly, that too, could trigger having to come before the Commission. Mr. Hopson staff - - -d Condition 4 limits the class size to 25 students. Ms. Ungar asked that this be changed to allow 30 students since there is so much parking available across the street. Chairman Stout asked how many people she car. hold in the class. Ms. Unger replied 50 people can be accommodated. Mr. Gomez stated the Commission must look at the class size with regard to the parking allowed. Further, they are trying to be conservative and is the reason the recommendation was made. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker asked if it is possible to write some language in the Resolution which is dependent upon the drop out rate of the enrollees. Mr. Gomez replied it is easier to do it as proposed by staff rather than to have it keyed to the number of the people who at`end class. Mr. Hopson explained how it would be difficult if it were done on the number of people who attend. Additionally, if the parking becomes an issue because of class size it becomes a code enforcement di3pute between the applicant and the City. He indicated it is a lot easier to set a maximum size. Commissioner Rempel stated that a better solution, since this is a Conditional Use Permit, is if the owner comes to the Commission and says the applicant is taking too Wary parking spaces. This would allow revision to the conditions through the CUP process. Furher, the parking across the street is almost totally vacant most of the time. He indicated he understood the limit of 25 people but felt it should be based on cooperation of the owner who could ask for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner McNiel stated he has difficulty with what Commissioner Rempel has proposed. He asked what would happen if the applicant gets into a rift with the owner and stated that it is easier to enforce by stating a number. Further, that the applicant has asked that the number in class be increased to 30. Mr. Gomez stated giving the discretion to regulate the number of parking spaces to the owner takes it out of the Commissior_'s hands. He felt that the discretion should be kept by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -6— January 11, 1984 Commissioner Barker sta'ced he would like to increase the class size to 30 with a limiting of hours between 8 -5. He asked if there would have to be any change to item 5. Chairman Stout indicated there would not have to be any but that after hours perhaps the class size should be limited to 50. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bar;•er, ti approve Conditional Use Permit No. 83 -23 through adoption of Resolution No. 84 -02 with a change to increase class size from 25 to 30. C 1 1 i G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -21 - EN AGAPF. - Proposed 1530 sq. ft. addition to expand the offices and classrooms for an existing church located at 9101 19th Street - APN 202 - 041 -41. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, eviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Johnson, representing the applicant, indicated they were in agreement with the conditions of this request. Further, the leadership of the church does not at this time have full understanding regarding the dedication on 19th. He asked for discussion on the existing trailer stating it is necessary it stay until the classrooms are completed and requested an extension for it. He stated the curb and gutter requirement would add a cost of approxie;ately $20,000 and asked that this be delayed also. He further requested the drainage be allowed to complete at the time the storm drain is completed on 19th Street. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Johnson understood the requirement for a master plan of the site. Mr. Johnson replied he understood and asked if they would have to apply for a new conditional use permit. Chairman. Stout replied that when they talk about additional entitlements to the property such as building another building, it would have to be done prior to its construction and is not a part of this Conditional Use Permit. Dan Coleman and Mr. Hopson explained the Development Code provisions to Mr. Johnson regarding the property zoning. Mr. Johnson stated they need the additional room because of their Reachout Program and the additional conditions would hamper them. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if a 24 -month extension would be a reasonable amount of time for the extension of its use on the property. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 11, 1984 Mr. Johnson replied they would like it for that period of time. Mr. Rougeau explained to the Commission that t`- a- .� storm dram cr.annei is scheduled for next year and that a construction easement must be gotten from the church property that is about 150 in width. He indicated that after the construction the easement would be reduced and it is just a technique to get the needed easement for construction purposes. There being no farther comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gomez stated that the Commission might consider an extension of 6 -12 months after occupancy, with an additional 12 months after that, rot to exceed 24 months after th^ date of f_nal occupancy. He indicated this is the maxdmn that the Planning Commission has granted in the past. -�� Commissioner McNiel asked about the status of the adjacent propery which would ultimately be multiple family. Mr. Gomez replied it is in the Design Review process and must come before the Commission.. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if it will be built in the next two years or the next 20 years. Mr. Gomez stated they will finish the process, but he had no way of knowing when it will be built. Mr. Rougeau stated there will be a large City project ao i=prove the channel which will involve work on Beryl. He indicated it may be prefer -able to encourage the applicant to work with this project for a solid time frame and a condition_ for a lier agreement can be placed to coincide with this construction. Mr. Rougeau felt this would be preferable to waiting for the multiple family development to occur. Commissioner Rempel felt the trailer period, but that it should be gone Further, on the roadwork, he stated curb and gutter must be tied in. better price with the City's contras the other tract. Permit should be extended for a 12 -month within a 2 -year period after occupancy. in order to have the channel work, the He indicated the applicant would get a :t than he would with the development of Chairman Stout asked that there be additional language so that if there is any additional entitlement, it will require the work Of a master Plan. Commissioner Rempel explained the master plan is not something that cannot be changed, but rather, it will provide a conceptual plan for future building. Commissioner Mctiiel stated it should pro-.ride some organization and real goals. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 11, 1984 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution 84 -03, modifying the Conditions to allow the trailer to remain for 12 months after occupancy, add curb and gutter to be done in conjunction with construction of tgo storm drain and that ebiigation be secure dby either bond or lien agreement to the satisfctic: cf the City Engineer: and that a master plan, of the church site be provided. f a # i a 8:00 p.m. Planning ,c=issirn recessed. 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission .reconvened. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8250 - DAON CORPORATION - A division of 9.65 acres into 5 parcels of land within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the east side of Haven avenue, south side of Civic Center Drive - APN 208 -35 -03 and 11. Related Item - DR 83 -33 (Item m' ") . M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS01 -MT AND DEVELOPF -1ENT_ REVIFY; 83 -33 - SALTER - The development of a 34,754 sq. ft. commercial complex on 3.3 acres of land in the C -2 (Commercial) zone, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Stout asked if the concerns of the Design Review Committee had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Gomez replied thcy have been discussed with the project manager, architect, and the applicant. Mr. Jack Corrigan representing the Daon Corporation. addressed the drive off of Haven Avenue. He explained both of the out lets are restaurant sites and when they dedicated to Haver, Avenue, they did provide enough land for a right turn lane. Their plan is that s:.nce the restaurants will be for dinner use, the circulation would not be during peak hours of traffic. He indicated to the north of that, the Civic Center facilities will be built along with the Law and Justice Center, and the°e may be a point in time where traffic will back up. He indicated further anotrer reason why they requested the other driveway is to protect the irnt- :grity of the entire business park. He felt that the office proposal is more acceptable to what is going on across the street and is what they should be doing. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. -james Barton, applicant, felt that the driveway must go in on Haven. He indicated the use of that corner is totally different from that of a shopping center, and office personnel, restaurant patrons, and visitors should not have to go through a shopping center in order to have access. He felt the driveway should be done according to land use. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 11, 1984 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Ccv ::uissicner Tempel stated if yai really look at the good area to have an additional driveway. He felt e created by forcing traffic onto Civic Center Drive. not. be able to make left turns onto Haven, he did traffic. driveway issue, this is a rentually problems will be Further, since they will not feel it would affect Commissioner McNiel asked what the distance of the driveway requested will be from Civic Center Drive. Commissioner Rempel replied it will be approximately 340 feet. Mr. Corrigan stated it will be one - eighth of a mile. Mr. Rougeau stated it will be close to 350 feet. He explained the problems that would be created by leaving the driveway in that position by the southbound traffic wanting to get to he left turn lane on Arrow which would be at Civic Center Drive. He further stated it would create serious congestion on Haven because motorists will have to weave across three lanes. Chairman Stout stated these problems had also been discussed at 6th Street and Haven. Commissioner McNiel stated consideration must be given to the amount of traffic that will be carried on Civic Center Drive. Mr. Rougeau stated there will be a right turn only driveway between Foothill and Civic Center Drive. Further, there will be another driveway for the City Hall and County complex within the one -half mile distance. Commissioner McNiel asked if it is correct that if the driveway went in, there would have to be access provided through the median. Commissioner Hempel stated the rendering shows another cut about 150 feet from Haven at Civic Center Drive and he felt this is ludicrous. He felt the right turn should be permitted onto Haver.. Mr. Corigan stated the one on Raven is back 383 feet and the other one is 178 feet back and should be a right in and right out. Chairman Stout asked how people will be restricted from making a left hand turn even though it is proposed to be a right in right out. Commissioner Barker stated he did not like the access so clone to the Civic Center corner. Mr. Corrigan felt that if it is post--,;, it would prevent people from •aking illegal turns. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 11. 1984 Chairman Stout asked if a traffic light is scheduled for t':at driveway. Mr. Rougeau replied there is. Chairman Stout stated his inclination is not to put a drive-way in and run ail traffic through a controlled signal. Further, provisions have been made for an extra wide driveway and he did not think there should be another driveway that close to Haven on Civic Center Drive. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried to adopt Resolution 84 -04, approving Parcel Map 8250 with an amendment for a curb cut 3r0 feet south of 01"' is Center Drive, with CiJoinirig parcel numbers 2 and 3 sub Ject to the approval of the City Council. Chairman Stout voted no on this motion. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated if the motion was approved with the exception of the recommended change in the motion, implicit in that is that the inconsistent provisions currently recommended be changed, specifically item 4, relating to vehicular ingress and egress rights on Haven which will have to be modified in the final version to except as allowed at that one particular site. Commiasiorer Rempel stated that his intent in the previous motion is that this be modified. Mr. Gomez stated that on tIze parcel map there is a note that a 30 -foot wide access road is to be relocated. Mr. Corrigan explained that the into the shopping center off of the only thing that they have coincide with this parcel map. the requirement for the road as existing road is a temporary one and access Civic Center Drive will not be relocated and done is change the radius of that road to He further stated that he was unaware of how shown on the parcel map came to be. Mr. Rougeau stated that the reference is to an interior road. Mr. Hopson stated because of the confusion with the roads, the previous motion could be reconsidered. Motion: Moved by Rempel to recall the previous motion and amend it by aligning the commercial drive approach with the dividing line between parcel 4 and 5. Commissioner McNiel seconded the motion and it carried. Chairman Stout voted no on this motion. Chairman Stout asked the applicant for Item M to come forward. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 11, 1084 M_r. Dan Salter, the applicant, stated that the conditions for this item meet with his approval. Mr. Salter stated further that today he had brought in some revised elevations and this was one of the items to be reevaluated. fie asked that these be approved concurrently with approval of the Development Review. Mr. Gomez irdieated that staff had reviewed the elevations and they are satisfied that they can be approved. Mr. Jack Corriaan stated that this project is consistent with the master CC&R's for the industrial park. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seccndtd by Barker, carried unan- 1—cusly, to adopt Resolution 84 -C7, approving Development Review 83 -33 and issueya Negative Delcaration, with the corrected elevations and removal of Condition 4. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 5280 - INTERMETRO INDUSTRIES CORPOPATION - A division of 8.82 acres into 2 parcels within the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 3) located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Hellman and Helms - APN 209- 022 -01, 02, 03 and 04. Related Item - DR 83 -34 (Item "0 ".) O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -34 - UITERMETRO - the development of a 29,700 sq. ft. industrial building addition on 8.82 acres of land in the General Industrial category Subarea 3), located on Lhe south side of Arrow Route between F:ellman Avenue and Helms Avenue - APY 209- 022 -01. Paul ,kougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report dealing with the 'parcel Map and Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report dealing with the Development Review. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant, Doug Dean, stated his agreement with the Condtiors of Approval. There being no further comments, the public. hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by P,empel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -09 approving Development Review 83 -34 and issuing a Negative Declaration. Chairman Stout asked if anything could be done to screen the roof equipment. Commissioner McNiel asked if the equipment could be painted in a more subdued color to hide the equipment. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 11, 1984 The applicant stated they would ripaint the equipment in a neutral color. 8 it R fi ! 9:0'1 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:15 p.m. The Plarning Commission reconvened. t f * fi 3. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACTS 12364 and 12364 -1 - LEWIS HOMES - Located on the south side of Base Line, east of Deer Creek Channel. A change of design from 71 lots tc 72 lots for single family detached homes. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the requested revisions will affect the stub alor.- B Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that it will rot. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mi . Gerry Bryan, representing Lewis Homes, stated that they are in agreement with all conditions. There being -o further comments, the public hearing waa closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -84A, revising Tracts 12364 and 12364 -1. fi ■ a fi fi K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PND DEVELOPMENT CODE MENDMENT 84 -01 - An amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Title 17 c! the Municipal Code, amending Section 17.08. /040 -B and 17.08.040C to require a Conditional Use Permit for single family detached dwellings less than 900 sq. ft. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission approves this Resolution, it w,>uld affect a small home, for example, in the North Token area, or in old Alta Loma between Base Line and LaVine, if there were a fire which destroyed them and they had to be rebuilt. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 11, 198•' Mr. Gomez replied that If the damage is more than a certain amount, it would have to be reconstructed through the CUP process. If it were loss, it could be restored. Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission had gone through this in the Develop ^_eat Review process. Commission Rempel stated that this is a little different case than that. He asked what the charge for the Conditional Use Permit would be and indicated the lengthy process that someone would have to enter in order to rebuild an existing home of less than 900 sq. ft. if this Resolution is adopted. Mr. Gomez explained the percentage listed in the Development Code that addresses itself to such situations. Mr. Hopson stated there is also a building code requireme.it that :oust be satisfied. Commissioner Rempel stated it both--rs him that someone would have to go through a Conditional Use Permit process in order to rebuild. He also cited the smaller lot size aromas within the City where many senior citizens live and indicated that the City should not be burdening them with the extra cost of obtaining, a CUP. Chairman Stout stated this item had been r ferred to the Commission by the City Council for the purpose of saying yes or no. Mr. Gomez stated the Commission is following the legal process for Development Code amendment. Commissioner Rempel recommended the Commission send this to the City Council with provisions for rebuilding damaged homes in existing areas. City Attorney Hopson asked if that is for them to have some other process rather than a Conditional Use Permit in order to rebuild. Chairman Stout stated this is one way to get non - conforming uses into conformance with City Code. Commissioner Rempel stated if you worked under disaster conditions it could be a very costly thing to obtain both '.n terms of time and money. He felt that some other means, other than a CUP, should be examined. Chairman Stout stated if the Council wishes, they can make some provisions for emergencies. Mr. Gomez stated there are provisions for this under the non - conforming use section of the Development Code. He indicated that you can look to the Code for hardship provisions. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 11, 1984 Mr. Henry Reiter asked if as a landlord one of his buildings burns down, would he have to ao through the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Gomez replied fie would not, since his is a commercial use, and that particular thing is not considered non- conforming. Commissioner Barker stated the Commission should let the Council know that they have looked at the ordinance, it appears that the language fulfills their concerns, and request that trey allot* some latitude for an emergency situation. Mr. Gomez stated in the case of total destruction, the ordira.nce does not address the issue Commissioner Rempel raised. Commissioner McNiel stated he is inclined to agree with Commissioner Rempel. He felt that some provision is needed if a building is razed and new construction must take place. Mr. Gomez stated in an emergency situation, an appeal can be made to the City Council to eliminate the fee attached to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Rn.;oel asked what happens if there is an earthquake, would the victims have to get on the public hearing agenda in order to obtain the help they would need in a;. emergency. Mr. Hopson stated they would have to get their plans approved in any case, and that in itself would take time. Commissioner Rempel stated before they have their plans approved, they would have to get a CUP. Commissioner Juarez stated har agreement with Commissioner Rempel. Commissioner Rempel stated he is not ready to make a change; he is merely asking that Council look at this. Mr. Gomez stated phis will be addressed in the staff report that goes to Council along with the minutes of this meeting. Chairman Stout stated if Commissioner Rempel wants this change in the Resolution, he will probably vote against it; otherwise, it is all right. Commissioner Rempel stated in Section 1 of the Resolution, the Commission can state that they believe that furnishing a CUP requirement can be deleted by staff if this condition would create a hardship. Mr. Gomez asked the City Attorney if it is possible for the Council to exclude requirements for certain types of unit: other than those approved already and those existing throughout the City. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 11, 1984 Mr. Hopson replied he did not see why you could not accept perpetuation of certain non- conforming uses. He indicated that this is done now in the signs in tle r. i� y where there --wo certain .. ... -^. ^._ ^.f.'..r�ng ......... Mr. Hopson stated Commissioner Rempel wants section 2 of the Resolution considered by the City Council as to whether such relief should be included in the Development Code. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiei, carried, to address the concerns relative to emergency provisions in obtaining a Conditional Use permit as stated, changing section 2 to include this provision and adding section 3. Chairman. Stout voted no on this motion. : t * * a L. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10035 R. H. ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 15.7 acres of land into 39 custom lots located south and east of Redhill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN 207 - 101 -37 and 207- 902 -10 (Continued from 9/1 4/83 meeting). Assoc: ?fanner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report and presented slides o_ the property to the Commission. Chairman Stout asked if the Development Code specifies that this area be zoned commercial. Mr. Johnston replied the commercial zcne was the interpretation that was made when the Development Districts Map was approved. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. William Beverly, representing R. H. Associates, stated that the project was designed to maintain the existing topography to have a natural setting c.f single family homes. He indicated that when they acquired the property they were unax-are of any accesr problems. Further, since the hearing where these concerns were voiced, at the direction of the Commission, they met with the ?dndowner and had several telephone conversations with the conclusion that access is not feasible without destroying the concept of the hillside. He indicated that this is still what they prefer and asked that the extension be approved. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. He stated a lettc: had been received from a Mr. Hendrickson. There were no further comments, so the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiei asked if the people directly south of this pro .ject had been contacted. ?fanning Commission Minutes -16- January 11, 1984 M Beverly replied that McNav Realty had been contacted. Commissioner Rempel stated there is a problem and the drawings provided do not solve it. Further, there would have to be large cuts and fill ar:d he failed to see how access alternative one will e,a:° high fill without the existing road having it also. Commissioner Rempel stated there is no way to guarantee access except through another piece of property. Chairman Stout stated according to the Development Code that landlocked parcel is commercial and he was unable to see gaining access either thro ugh a resiJential area, either through this tract or Red Hill for a commercial area. Further, he did not see why the Commision should hold up a decision for any persons involved who did not see fit to appear at the public hearing. He indicated that as far as he knows, there is no one asking for access. Mir. Gary Jac:cscn, representing R. H. Associates, stated that the property in question that needs the access also owns 40 percent of the property that fronts on Foothill, and there apparently is some legal battle going on. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried to grant a 15 -month tim° extension to March 15, 1965, and adopting Resolution No. 81 -34S. Commissioner Rempel voted no or. this motion. a a a a a NE`d BUSINESS N. ENV.CRONMENTAL ASSESSMEEN'T AND DEVELOP Ni REVIEW 53-35 - ?AEI ER - The development of a 5,652 sq. ft. office building on 1/2 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 3) to be located on the southwest corner of Archibald and Arrow - APN 209 - 201 -30. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman. reviewed the staff report. He stated that the applicant late this afternoon dropped off a new site plan with a 7,200 sq. ft. office building instead. Further, that the increase in size would have no effect on elevations, but the change had not been shown to the Design Review Cosittee. Mr. Coleman stated the Design Review Committee had recommended approval of the original submittal but had not had the opportunity to review the new submittal. Mr. Colema- stated, based on the new submittal, this item could be continued in order to bring forth a recommendation from the Design Review Committee. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 11, 1984 Chairman Stout asked if based on the new size of the building, setbacks are precluded. Mr. Coleman replied that it did not, as the applicant has 9 feet annd 13 feet on the west and south sides, respectively. Further, that the applicant could reduce the area more and put it or_ the street frontage. Mr. Coleman stated that all the street frontage has been fully improved with intensive landscapi:F and mounding installed. Commissioner Barker s':ated he is confused on the setback. Mr. Coleman explains - -d originally a setback of 32 -33 feet from Arrow and the building was propossd. Commissioner Barker asked what it %•as in the original building. Mr. Coleman replied that it was approximately 49 feet. Commissioner Barker askeO 'tow mut-th L. required. aLr. Coleman replied the required setback is 32 feet. Cnairman Stow asked how much closer this building is than the original. Mr. Coleman replied that ix. is 7 feet,. Mr. Henry Reiter, the applicant, explained the setback requirements as set forth in the General Plan. Further, he indicated that some of the setbacks along Archibald are minim ---, he had always met the ^equiremencs, and this is the first time he deviated from a stafr requezt, and yet has met the requirements of the General PlPn. Mr. Reiter stated he has more than the required setback needed in the parking area, and he took advantage of this based on reciprocal parking rights; and although the building is increased, there is sufficient parking. Commissioner Barker stated chat his concern is that the change in project size had not gone througn the Design Review Committee. tie explained the preparation that goes into the review of a project by the members of the Committee. Further, that bringing socetbi --g in that had not been reviewed slows the process down, and is resented by him because it takes another 10-15 minutes of discussion at the Commission level. Mr. Reiter stated that it seemed like a logical move to make. Commissioner Barker stated that it was — from his perspective. Mr. Reiter stated that the item could be continued. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 11, 1984 Chairman Stout explained the Commission is expected to make some intelligent decision on the project uhen it had not been reviewed. Further, a determination also has to be made on whether there has been a significant change when the Commission is not adequately prepared to give a decision. Mr. Coleman indicated this item could be postponed to the next meeti,ig in January, in order to give staff time to do an analysis on it. Chairman Stout asked if the Design Review members wished to loot at this project. Commissioner Barker stated the building design is adequate as long as staff states that it meets all the e:ements required in the pas4. Commissioner McNiel added the design must not be significantly altered, either. Further, because of its size, the appearance of the building will change. Chairman Stout indicated Mr. Reiter is tLlking about the minimum setbacks, but the project he saw is set back about 40 feet. Mr. Reiter stated that the project is not the one he submitted. Mr. Coleman stated, for clarification, that during Design Review, the applicant brought in a new plan that proposed a 32.8 foot setback. The original plan showed 40 feet but what was reviewed by the Design Review Committee was 32.8 and was accepted. He indicated the Committee asked the applicant to give more landscaping to the project and what the appli.:ant brought in today is the second change to the project during the review of it. Commissioner Rempel stated the Design, Review Committeee accepted the 32 -foot setback, but were going to try to talk Mr. Reiter into pushing it back. Chairman Stout stated he did not understand how it could be accepted and then brought up for discussion. Mr. Gomez explained what had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee as a setback of 32 feet; that there were areas behind the structure that had options to recess the building into that area after discussion by the Commission if they felt It to be warranted for increasing setbacks. Further, Mr. Reiter has taken it upon himself to make that Lange and incorporate more buildings into that area. He indicated that the setback has not been changed. Commissioner Barker stated this has taken the Commission approximately 20 -30 minutes to make this decision, and it could have been done in arotber manner. Mr. Reiter asked the Chairman what his feelings are on the 32 feet. Chairman Stout replied that he did not know, and was unable to make an intelligent decision tonight on such short notice. planning Commission Minutes -19- Ja•.suary 11, 1984 Commissioner Rempel stated that the Resolution of Approval makes no mention of that item heir.- changed to 32 feet. Commissioner Hempel felt this is a part of tonight's agenda. He stated the building and setbacks are identical to what has beer- shown on the plan. Further, it was intended that this be discussed by Design Review at tonight's meeting. Mr. Gomez stated the reduction shown at tonight's meeting given to staff by the applicant is the first time that the 32 -foot setback was shown and is why it was not inzIuded in the Commission's agenda packet. Commissioner McNiel stated he hoped Mr. Reiter was able to see the Commission's position as they were not here to create an adversary position. He indicated the Commission has some misinformation and new information which is very confusing. Mr. Reiter apologized because he thought he had submitted a 3- -foot setback. Commissioner McNiel stated the Commission makes long standing decisions and has to make them based on the best facts they have. Mr. Reiter stated he knows that. He indicated he made a quick decision, but felt that increasing the building would not create a large problem. Commissioner McNiel asked if the building could be moved back and still achieve the parking. Mr. Coleman replied it would not affect it at all. Mr. Gomez stated the numbers for parking spaces are well within. the City requirement. Further, from the discussion that has taken place tonight, he was not sure how much more detailed staff could be if this item were to be continued. Mr. Reiter aelced that there be conformity in landscaping and that the General Plate be followed. Chairman Stout indicated Mr. Reiter may not consider this to be a ma;or change, but it is, and it creates problems in that the Commission takes the projects that come before them seriously. Mr. Reiter stated that he understood. Motion: Moved by P.empel, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 88 -08 approving Development Review No. 83 -25, issuing a Negative Declaration w=lh an increase in the original building size and no additional setback. Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 11, 1980 * ■ c R i P. APPEAL OF PARCEL MAP 6051 - TRAILS - An appeal concerning bridle trail locations within a subdivision of 3 lots located on the north side of Manzanita Drive, east of Vineyard Avenue. Associte Planner, Dan Coleman, - eviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if the Commission had received a letter today from the applicant, Mr. Nelson, and whether they had a chance to review it. Chairman Stout stated to City Attorney Hopson, this appears to be a Planning issue somewhat, but also a legal issue and he asked if Mr. Hopson_ would provide some legal advice. Mr. Hopson stated what the appellants of the Equestrian Advisory Committee decision are asking is for easements across three lots that they, or the general public could use. If the City were to require the owners of Parcel Map 6051 to provide an easement for a trail, the City would be in effect acquiring the eaement and the right to use it. The City would then take the obligation to maintain because ;,here is a quantitative difference in the three easements which run between the owners of the lots in Parcel Map 6051 which benefit and burden only those three lots and easements which benefit the City at large and adjacent property owners. Mr. Hopson stated that the Commission could recommend that the City condemn the land around the perimeter of these lots to be used by any member of the general public which would mean that the City pays and bears the liability of maintenance for the easement. Further, Mr. Hopson stated that to does not see that the City has any legal power to require the legal owners of Parcel Map 6051 to relinquish their property for the property comers adjacent to the Parcel map. A" " ionally, Mr does not believe the City has any legal right to acqu -- .or free what the appellants are requesting, because what they are requesting is of a much broader scope than what he anticipated they are requesting. Mr. Hopson_ referred to the applicant's letter where on page four it states that tb: City could issu•: a declaration that a bridle trail is for use by the public and access cannot be denied. Mr. Hopson stated that this is true, but the City would have to pay for it because you don't do it for free. Chairman Stout asked if anyone wished to speak. Mrs. Sandra Suhr, 8900 Wilson Avenue, stated she finds the City Attorney's position inconsistent with that of the General Plan. She further stated she e d not understand it when she thought the purpose of bridle trails was to provide a safe way to get around the street and indicated that the owner, Mr. Nelson, had asked for a deviation because this 7 acre lot was divided without trails prior to the City's incorporation. She stated that there is not any Hay in which to connect the trails even if they took the third option in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -21- January 11, 1984 Mr. Mika Nicolai, 8900 Wilson, stated he echoed what Ms. Suhr said, because when the 7 acre development subdivided, it was open. Further, that when they lived there, and rode their horses, they never anticipated it would .-row the way it did and the County never provided fir i. Mr. Nicolai stated that when this parcel is developed, they will be landlocked and if wuat the City Attorney says is true, there will not be an easement along the Sievers property either. Mr. Nicolai stated this violates the spirit of what t.^ City is all about. Mr. Nelson, owner of parcel Map 60-'1, stated they are not talking dbout a 7 acre parcel, they are talking about a 2 acre parcel. Further, ' :t the two people who spoke have shown concern i.hat their property will je landlocked from the north, whereas his property lies to the south, and :,:cess from their property across his property would lead them directly to the street, and his trail would not help in keeping the horses fro- the street. Mr. Nelson stated that none of the property owners have offered to participate with their own land in sharing the bridle trail and have not volunteered to give one inch. Mr. Nelso:i ,tated his agreement with the C+.ty Attorney and if the Commission goes with `ne Equestrian Committee's commenis, he would be satisfied. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Nelson if he intends to live on this property. Mr. Nelson replied that he does intend to. Chairman Stout asked if anyone in his family is an equestrian-type person and if it interested him. Mr. Nelson indicated that it did not interest him. Ms. Suhr stated in reply to not offering one inch of property, there is no way for them to connect. Further, the Eppeson's directly to the north could add a trail, but for them, Ms. Suhr stated, it would be totally private. Further, they would be willing to put in a trail all along the perimeter, but it would be private. Commissioner Barker asked if the CC&R's for the area surrounding prohibit equestrian usf_ Ctairnan Stout stated he lives in a Mark III home and people in his tract are allowed to ride in that tract. Chairman Stout indicated if the City requires that the property owner turn over his '_and for the easements, they would have to purchase the land and the City is not in a position to do that. Mr. F_opsen stated if it is a community trail, then the City must also maintain it. Planning Co=dssicn Minutes -22- January 11, 1984 After brief discussion, Mr. Coleman stated Mr. Nelson agrees to Option A. Mr. Nicolai stated they are wiling to negotiate an easement that could be used by adjacent properties. Further, that Mr. Book, his neighbor, is also willing to negotiate with Mr. Nelson. He indicated this may cause a hardship for Mr. Nelson in delaying the start of his construction, and they did not want to impose this hardship on him. He indicated they are willing to dedicate necessary easements to ensure that some trail might be installed. Mrs. Nelson stated tla Nicolai's property now infringes on theirs, by about 3 feet, and it would be difficult for the :Meyer property to dedicate any easements that would appreciably help because they eculd not give up their driveway or garage. M_r. Coleman stated the Nelson's development on the parcel map has been on hold since the appeal was filed. Commissioner Mc.7iel stated he was empathetic towards the horse o-arers, but he is not about to assume on behalf of the City the maintenance and purchase of these easements. Further, in the analysis it stated that easements should be obtained whenever logical and feasible, and he questions whether ir. this instance it is feasible. Commissioner McNiel stated in all probability the problem has been aggiavated by an adversary situation and the Commission is not in the business of counseling these kinds of things. Further, if he were to state a position, he would say he agrees with the Equestrian Committee's recommendation. Commissioner Juarez stated agreement should be reached betwean the property owners. Commissioner Barker stated he agrees, but does not think that should negate the people on the north from finding acerss. Further, on the south, only one owner could get out, and that is very unfortunate, but this is not anything that the City wants to take on. Commissioner Barker stated this must be worked out through negotiation of the property owners. Commissioner Rempel stated he agrees that the residents should work this out among themselves and from the tone expressed tonight, there may be a more conciliatory approach. Mr. Nelson stated if they are willing to participate through costs for the cul -de -sac, he will work with them. He stated the cost would be minimal on their part and they should be willing to share it. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to deny the appeal and ask the property owners to work together on this. Planning Commission Minutes -23— January 11, 1981 i } * k i Mo`inn: Moved by Rempel, �eccnded by McfJiel carried unan-4--ou--ily, to Continrrac beyond the 11:00 p.m. meeting tiu:e. i f i f Q. PROGRAM TO REIISE HOUSING ELEMENT Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report, informing the Commission of the time schedule necessary in order to forward the element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. ■ e ■ r. a R. CIVIC CENTER COMMITTEE SELECTION S. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised the Commission of 2r_ existing vacancy on the Civic Center Selection Committee. Further, it is time to shift the makeup of the Design Review Committee. He indicated Commissioner McNiel would now take over Commissioner Barker's position on the Design Review Commit, -e for the next 12- mo:_th period, wi -.h Commissioner Juarez alao serving. Chairman Stout asked who had previously served on the Architect Selection Committee for the Civic Center. Mr. Gomez replied that historically, two members of the Commission have served on the Commit'_�e -- the Chairman and another Commissioner. Commissioner Barker nominated Commissioner Rempel to serve along with the Chairman o:. the Civic Center Committee. The nomination was unanimously approved by the Commission. Chairman Stout stated Commissioner Barker would act as the alternate on the Design Review Committee. There being no further items, it was moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. i i f * ! ADJOURNMENT 11:10 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- January 11, 1984 E 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Fi DATE: March 14, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner By: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -OIA - DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84 -02 - OLYMPUS PACIFIC - A request to amend the General Fan LaTO usr a Map from Office to Low Medium Residential Density 4 to & du /ac, and the Development District Map from Office Professional (OP) to Low Medium (LM) density on 4.36 acres located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APP; 202- 191 -13. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested- Amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Development District Map from Office Professional to Low Medium Residential density (4 -8 du /ac). B. Location: Northeast corner of 19th Street anH Hermosa Avenue. C. Parcel Size: 4.36 acres. D. Existinq General Plan Designation: Office E. Development Designation: .OP (Office Professional) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant, undeveloped G. Land Use and Development Des - nation: North: Vacant, ow Me lum Resi entia , (4 to 8 du /ac) South: Partially developed with single family residence, Low Density Residential, (2 to 4 du /ac) East: Single family residence, Low Density Residential, (2 to 4 du /ac) West: Vacant, Medium Density Residential, (4 to 14 du /ac) H. Site Characteristics: Generally flat, no structures, un eve oped. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01A /OLYMPUS PACIFIC March 14, 1984 Page 2 r� II. ANALYSIS: A. history: Under Sao Bernardino County zoning, the subject parcel had been designated Office prior to City incorporation. The designation was retained on the interim General Plan as Mixed Use, and on the existing General Plan as Office. During the preparation of the General Plan the adjacent site to the north of the property was requested to be shown as Medium Residential Density by property owners. Upon adoption of the General Plan, the City changed the designation on the property to the north to Low Medium Residential density. The reason for the change was to provide a transitional land use from the higher intensity activities of office and because the Low Medium Residential designation could Provide greater design flexibility for the smaller parcel. B. Reason. for Request: The applicant has indicated that the OP designation wo ld likely not be developed because of its isolated nature in relationship to other supportive uses such as commercial centers. Furth:r, that the location is more suited to continue the Low Medium Residential density classification which exists on abutting northern six acres, 202-191- 13, hasp not bent proposeds by thehprope tytowner gas Pa go requested change. it is currently shown on the General Plan and Development District Map as Office - OP designation. Any change would necessitate consistency in that parcel to void an isolated land use.) C. General Plan Lard Use Goals and Policies. The Land Use Map of the City's General Pian supports the concept of urban centers of higher intensity land uses such as major intersections with higher residential density, commercial areas, or office designation, similar to the intersection rf Base Line and Archihald. Tire or -Ject site does not possess the same characteristics ;s other office locations which have surrounding supportive uses, thus this site tends to be more isolated. Moreover, within the description of the land use policy regarding office designation, there is language to avoid isolated office designation land uses. It could be argued that without a commercial center or greater intensity in the proximity of this office designation, it would be isolated from its main sources of activity. The applicant's request is for a Low Medium Residential density. The General Plan discusses Low Medium Residential density in the following: It would be "appropriate within Low Density areas to encourage greater housing diversity without ZL E C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -OlA /OLYMPUS PACIFIC March 14, 1984 Page 3 changing the single family character of the surrounding area. 11 The intent stated within the General Plan policy is to provide the opportunity for use of Low Medium Re_idential density in areas which are in -fill smaller parcels that are more difficult to develop with the provision that development would be compatible with the surrounding character. D. Environmental Assessment. Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist, Part TI of the Initial Study, and found no significant adverse impacts with the mitigation measures attributed to the proposed amendment. The following is a summary of the environmental effects and measures proposed should the project be approved: o Traffic Traffic volume counts would be lower with the Low- Medium land use designation than the Office use. However, because of the nature of the surroundino residential character, increases in traffic will have a noticable effect. The surrounding streets of Hermcs and 19th will need to be improved by increasing the pavement width and adding an additional traffic lane to both 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue. o Drainaqe Overall the site will not contribute significantly to the increase in storm runoff. The proposed amendment would result in somewhat less runoff from the site t;ian would otherwise occur in office uses. The surrounding area is subject to storm runoff propblem, occurring elsewhere. Major area wide storm drain system is necessary to correct the problem. o Services ehoo s: The proposed amendment would create the potential of adding 14 students to the Alta Loma school district. Sources from the school district indicate future school expansion plans will handle this additional growth. Parks: The increased demand in park and rEcreational uses are offset by the park dedication from the fee. The project area would generate approximately $25,000 thus lessening the effect of increased demand on park lands. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84- 01A /OL7MPLS PACIFIC March 14, 1964 Page 4 o Land Use oFe proposed General Plan amendment could provide for a broad range of housing types. ThE potential exists within the Low - Medium residential category for possible incompatible residential character with the existing residential area. Future resiciential development should be- designed to be compatible and corsistert with the surrounding single family residential area. E. Issues and Alternatives for Consideration. Clearly, the issue invo:ving this matter is the Land Use compatibility of the proposed General Plan change and additional environmental concerns, as pointed out in the Environmental Assessment. Regarding land use, the change from an office designation to a residential designation would likely provide an opportunity for more suitable land use designation, considering the fact that this site is relatively isolated from other office support uses. The Commission's alternative for land uses include Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential. Anything more intense than these categories would likely have no possibility of creating a compatible land use situation. Low Density Residential. This category would provide for clear consistency wi *_h the surrounding adjacent areas to the south and east of the project site. The nature of the subject property configuration is such that it would limit the ability to divide the parcel to fit into this desionation without including the lands north of this site shown as Low Density Residential. Therefore, a decision, to change the designation to Low Density Residential should include the larger area to the north (APN 202 - 191 -24 & 14) to assure for adequate area and parcel configuration. This means the action on this General Plan change could not occur until all three parcels (APN 202 - 191 -13, 14 and 24) are shown for this amendment, occurring at the next General Plan Amendment cycle. Low Mediu-m Residential. This designation would provide for the greatest range of dwelling type, including single family detached dwelling units on individual lots to attached town homes. Because of this range of dwelling types, it offers the potential for creating land use compatibility with the surrounding existing single family Low Density Residential character. Through the use of proper design control of architecture, and site planning, it is possible the project can be developed and designed in a single family detached residential character compatible with the surrounding property. Moreover, the project could provide a transition R 13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84- OIAJOLYMPUS PACIFIC March 14, 1934 Page 5 from: the Medium Residential density located at the northwest corner of Hermosa and 19th Street. Medium Residential Density. Under the Development District Map, Medium Residential Density would range from 8 to 14 units per acre. This category could be designed within the project site. It would be unlikely, however, that architectural and site compatibility could be attained within the density range. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of the General Plan Amendment and Development District Map Amendment, decide that the change from Office designation wo!ild promote the Land Use Goals and Purposes of the General Plan, this Amendment would not be material detrimental to the adjacent properties, or cause significant adverse impacts, as listed under Environmental Assessment, the following are Findings that are necessary on approval. a. The Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan. b. The Amendment does promote goals of the Land Use element. goc. The Amendnent would not be material, injurious, or detrimental to the adjacent properties. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission find an amendment to the General Plan and Development District Map is warranted, the following options are recd mended for your consideration: 1 ,^oroval of Resolution to consider amending Parcels 202 - 191 -13, 14, 24 to Low Density Residential at a time when all three Parcels can be advertised for a public hearing. This action would also require a denial of the applicant's request. 2. Approve attached Resolutions amending Parcel 202- 191 -13 frcm Office Professional (OP) to Low Medium (LM) and I-t the next available General Plan cycle to amend APN 202 - 191 -14 to Low Medium Residential. Approval of the General Plan and Development District Map amendments, on these parcels would be subject to the provisions of the environmental assessment with specific intention to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential property. Pi PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01A /0LYMPUS PACIFIC March 14, 1984 Page 6 Resppc-tfully ubmitt —ed—, ck Go / it Planner RG:TS:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "8" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Location Map Development District Map General Plan Map Initial Study Resclution of Denial Resolution of Approval r- L 11 . ^`_�Y• yf !'210 ��_ � fl1 `� � Iz o CT J° Z � N 1 • CL � � -s 0- % jmk • 1 ? 11 O "a Z 3 7c a -- - - - -a - -- w �_ - -- OH7fr:8 ' 9NOW7J J• ..T '_ ,— _( 'f 1•t � �_ \L� L 7.\ :;:A (a` °� �0. i • 71 I'd i 1 1' Cns l /jig I. Y_ :: `i 7 � T m O rn -r Nii �y T /V Lt1 n CJ 0 0� m Avii t -Z a' Ln � C � rn 0 rn I rt '7 �- 3 7- ol n Q 4 00 S AVctiL1S — _ V rnl �- �I a AVE. hm T- i r SC � N n Q 4 00 S AVctiL1S — _ V rnl �- �I a AVE. hm T- i r SC a4. l• 4 r^ I I/ I GPA 84 -01 C Surrounding Development Districts L•J AF 1" '�.�� Ch eff �• e i :_ e: ............ • •: y ••..••.• p .:.......s'..p :�' •t� 3 .. �....Ia.oZ •••,•• ••. •'..•• . . •e.s•,�tir ;.; •. • ., •r•. i•f. •:. i SPA $4 :::::::z ::::::::::::: e C4C4 _ Off RESIDENTIAL .•. .. _ ;;�: - : ::: : :. .. � : : : :. :: :ems: :: �... — LOW 2-4 DUss/AC ' s LOW- MEDIUM 4 -8 DU's /AC i NAIE IUM 4-14 DU's /AC IVIEDIUM'-HIGH 14 -24 DJ's /AC " HiGH 24-30 DU's /AC OPA 84 -01 C Surrounding General Plan Land Use Ib CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENCIROMNENTAT CHECKLIST APPLICANT: ply,mpus Padfic FILING DATE: 71/15/$" LOG - .N7:mBzR: GPA 84 -01 A PROJECT: General Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: N.E. Ccrner 19th Street &Hermosa Avenue 1. EN JIR "%N' =NTAL !%%ACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or_ in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or p,rysical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off sire corditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposore of people or proper r: to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extrar_ivn and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal }-ave significart results in: PI YES MAYBE NO x x x X X x a Page 2 i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? X b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? X 4. BiotA Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or nurser of any species of plants? .. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare i. or endangered species of plants? X YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? — X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? £. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? Y g. Charge in the quantity of grourdwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with ar. aquifer? Quality? Quantity? X h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? X b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? X 4. BiotA Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or nurser of any species of plants? .. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare i. or endangered species of plants? X _. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species cf animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals! c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or move=ent of anirals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will thr: proposal have significant results in: Page 3 YES MAYBE SO a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 5. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Charge is local or regional socio- econoaic characteristics, including economic or co=e cial diversity, tax rat_, and property values b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non- consumptive recreational opportc:ri ties ? 3 X X X X X W-4 m in x I 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? Page 4 YES MAYBE NO X X C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking: X d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? X e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion, or movement of people and /or goods? X f. Alterations to or effects an present and potential water -borne, rail, mass transit or ;,.:r traffic? X g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and;or historical resources? X 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of peo ?le to such X organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X g. The creation of obJectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or glare? X 11 11 E a YES MAYBE RD Page 5 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant ® results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? _ x b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? _x C. A conflict with the objective cf designated or potential scenic corridors? x 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant *teed for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? x b. Natural or packaged gas? X c. Communications systems? X d. Water supply? _ X e. Wastewater facilities? X f. Flood control structures? X g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? x I. Police protection? x J. Schools? x k. Parks or other recreational facilities? x I. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? Y m_ Other governmental services? x 13. E ?ierRV and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal l::;:e significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? x c. An increase in the demand for development of ® new sources of energy? x d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption c of non — renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? X II Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? v 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? i b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively btief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will erdure well into the future). Y c. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, out cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the inc remental effects of ar. individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). X d. ides the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON':EFNTA2. EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). See Attachment I 11 \r J III. On the basis of this initial evaluation: r—; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an / .attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DEC:.ARATION WILL BE PRE °ARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT I Date ���' LAYJ�__ I Page 7 l7 Part to Environmental Assessment - General Plan Amendment 84 -01 A SECTION IT: Discussion of Environmental Evalu at_inn The purpose of this section is to identify any potential effects which may have a significant impact on the environment and if possible, to discuss potentia+ gitig?.tion measures. 1. Soil and Gecic- Due to the n:,turc: of the gentle sloping terrain throughout Rancho Cucamonga, any development has the potential for changing the topographir, ar ground surface contour intervals, during preparation n` ; development project. The slope features on the site, however, ?-e within a 21" gradient, and future development would not lik:'y create any significant impact on the existing topographica'. features. 2. _qyqralogy Development within the site will contribute to additional runoff due to the increase of impervious surface areas. This will likely change the d: air.age pattern absorption rate, the flow, or surface water runoff. Currently now, surfaces are undeveloped in a largely natural state. Any project approval plans would require for adequate on -site drainage facilities in order to accommodate increased runoff. However, residential development will generally create less runoff than office type uses. Currently, there is no plan for underground or enlarged storm drain system in trie proximity of this project„ This -:ilange in the General Plan wiil not significantly add additic•:._1 water runoff or affect significantly the drainage patterns. 5. Population The proposal would introduce a new land use category. This land use category would provide for housing and create greater density of population in a permanent living environment than otherwise would exist under the Office Professional designation. The potential for the variation ;n housing type and land use density would result in a change of land use oattern from the surrounding residential character. This change, however, when compared to the addition of an office, or quasi - commercial environment, could be less significant. Further discussion of this matter is considered under part 7. 6. Socio- Economic Factors The proposed Land Use category will remove the possitility of receiving a commercial or business tax, as would occur under the Office Professional designation. Moreover, there is an increased service demand as a result of 'mpaction on schools, parks, and other services, which in of itself, would have an economic cost. This effect is discussed in greater detail under item 12. CI lur KI o The General Plan Amendment would result in a net reduction in the potential traffic volume from the existing Office desirgaiton. The Office designation would result ;n approximately 855 trips per day rate. The Low Medium residential designation would produce approximately 280 trips per day. Although the traffic volume would be less if the GPA was approved, the overall street pattern would need to be improved by expanding the pavement width and adding an additional traffic lane on both Hermosa avenue and 19th Street. 11. Aesthetics 7Fe mo3-7-i cation of the General Plan designation to Low Medium Residential Density will most likely create development which will affect the scenic vista or view scenic hillsides from certain property locations. The effect of this, however, in comparison to the development of an office, tr professional building, would likely be les= because of the effect of the office being well over the height of a traditional single- family residential architecture. l r 7. Land Use and Planning considerations The proposed Land Use designation is in conformity to those designated in the vacant lands directly abutting the north property line for Low Medium Residential density. However, it r ?presents a departure from the existing Land Use designation of Office Professional. Some adjacent property is developed under a Low Density Residential Land Use. The potential of diversity of development of housing types within, the category of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre, provides a very wide range of opportunities and conceivably conflicting with residential compatibility -- a prime obj ^.ctive within the General Plan. The purpose of the Low Medium Residential density was to provide an opportunity for greater residential diversity while maintaining residential compatibility. Because the predominant type of existing residential development is single- family detached, any other residential types may, in fact, be incompatible with the surroundinn area. To avoid impaction on the surrounding rcz;identiai area, development should be consistent and compatible with single- family detached structures, including the architectural design of the project and its site plan. S. Trans ortaition T;;e deve opment of the proposed designatior will likeiy change the effect of transportation in the area in two ways: o By creating change in the traffic pattern which would otherwise occur under an office designation. The traffic pattern would become more concentrated during the peak morning and evening commute hours KI o The General Plan Amendment would result in a net reduction in the potential traffic volume from the existing Office desirgaiton. The Office designation would result ;n approximately 855 trips per day rate. The Low Medium residential designation would produce approximately 280 trips per day. Although the traffic volume would be less if the GPA was approved, the overall street pattern would need to be improved by expanding the pavement width and adding an additional traffic lane on both Hermosa avenue and 19th Street. 11. Aesthetics 7Fe mo3-7-i cation of the General Plan designation to Low Medium Residential Density will most likely create development which will affect the scenic vista or view scenic hillsides from certain property locations. The effect of this, however, in comparison to the development of an office, tr professional building, would likely be les= because of the effect of the office being well over the height of a traditional single- family residential architecture. l r 12. Utilities and Public Services o Flood Control Structures. „urrently the area storm runoff system consists of the surface streets. Although the storm ru ^off flows are quite severe along Hermosa, this project area would not significantly contribute to the existing situation. The solution of the runoff problem requiring an are;k wide storm system to divert runoff water away from the surface streets. o Schools. Development of the proposed project would add approximately 17 students to the Alta Lora School system. Representatives c` the Alta Loma School District indicate that this expansion can be accononodated within the school district's plans. Currently the City provides for collection of school fees for the school districts, which assist in the provision of providing for construction of temporary classroom facilities. o Park Ind Recreational Facilities. The development of this site a a to the demand or tTie —amount of park area' Citv currently uses the Park Development fees for new development at a rate of 3 acres of improved park land for 1,000 new population. This project will create the potential of approximately $25,000 in park development fees which will provide for additional park and recreational facilities. Other Services: Development of this site as residential will require additional public services. Some services such as street lights, landscape maintenance, are paid for by is homeowners from a maintenance district. Others such as road inorovements, police, etc. are paid for either by special tax. such as the gasoline tax, or from the General Fund. It is unlikely that *_here w ?;' be any <_ignificant increase in the effect of the service requirements, over and above what would normally have been through the current General Plan designation of office. ` ~J ,::� C) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF is RANCHO CUCAhtONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AlIENDMENT 34 -01 A, OLYMPUS PACIFIC, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAT: L,,P ' USE MtiP AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM OFFICE TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ON 4,36 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF n. TH STREET AND HERMOSA AVENUE - APN 202- 191 -13. WHEREAS_ the Planning Commission held a public hearing -'o consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Co- onission has fully considered public testimony requesting amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the requested amendment is in conflict with the land usP polic=es of the General Plan and deos not promote the goals and objectives of the Lard Use Element. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission denies General Plan Amendment 84 -OIA to amend the General Plan and Development Districts Map from Office to Low - Medium Residential at the location of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202 - 191 -13. APPROVED AND :wOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF MARCH, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Go-iez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancno 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 :4th day of March, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSEN': COMMISSIONERS: E: 1 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of ine City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and 410 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March, 1984 by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: C0101MISSiONERS: NOES: CCIKMISSTONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: P-0- C J u 11 A RESOLUTION C. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01 -A, OLYMPUS PACIFIC, TO AMEND Tbc GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM OFFICE TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 4.36 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND HERMOSA AVENUE - APN 202 - 191 -13. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all public t <sti- ny regarding the requested amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the requested amendment does not conflict with the policies of the General Plan, promotes the policies of its land .se element and will not be mate-ially injurious or detr-'mental to adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning - omission ;:;.prov. -:s General Plan Amendment 84 -01 A as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission hereby recommends the issuan =e of a Negative Dec araticn for the General Plan Amendment and Development District Map Amendment based upon the completion of the findings in the Initial Study. SECTION 2: The Planning Commission recommends approval of an Ordinance by the City Council amending the General Plan Land Use Map in the area of the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue on Assessor Parcel Number 202 - 191 -13 to be shown as attached on Exhibit "A" and changed from Office Designation to Low - Medium Residential density (4 -8 du /ac) SECTION 3: The Planning Commission recommends approval of an Ordinance by the City Council -- •eciding the Development District Map in the area of the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue on Assessor Parcel Number 202 - 191 -13 to be amended as attached on Exhibit A, changed from Office Designation to Low - Medium Residential Density. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF MARCH, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CJ= CONGA BY: — Dernis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Mick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing nesolucion was duly and regularly introduced, pissed, and adapt =_d by the Planning Cormnissicn of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March, 1934 by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 11 ;:2q AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO is CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FOR ASSESSOR PAPCEL NUMBER 202 - 191 -13 FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DU /AC) ON APPROXIMATELY 4.35 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND HERMOSA AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and dete• mines the following: A. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held at the time and manner prescribed by law recommends the amendment of the Development District Map hereinafter described and this City Council has held a public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law has duly heard and considered such recommendation. B. That this amendment to the Development District Map is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. That this amendment to the Development District Map will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. Section 2: That the following described real property is hereby amended on the Development Districts Map accordingly: APN 202 - 191 -13, being approximately 4.36 acres of land located at the northeast of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue is changed from Office Professional (OP) to Low Medium (LM) Residential density (4 -8 du /ac). Section 3: They Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontar o, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TIHIS _ DAY OF , 1984. BY: Toil 0. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Or RANCHO =AMONGA. CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THAT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP BE CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 202 - 191 -13, 14 AND 24 LOCATED AT THE NCRTHE;., CORNER OF HERM4OSA AND BASE LINE TO CHANGE THESE PARCELS TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2 -4 DU /AC). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment 84 -01 A; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all public testimony regarding requested =.endment, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the requested amendment does have conflict with the policies of the General Plan; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the land use on said Parcels should be considered for revision to the General Plan Land Use Element. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs that a General Plan Amendment be prepared for the Land Use Element on Parcels 202 - 191 -13, 14 and 24 to consider a General Plan Land Use change on these parcels to Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac). APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF MARCH, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, C airman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Co- mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Com^ ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning C3=ission held on the 14th day of March, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: wee 0 El El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. STAFF REPORT DATE: March 14, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01 C - ACACIA - A requ3st to amend the General Plan Lan Use Plan from Office to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Road - APN 202 - 151 -33. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTICN: A. Action Re-uested: Change General Plan Land Use Map for subject sate rom 0 *;ice to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac? B. Location: North of Base Line Road on the west side of Ar -caTd Avenue. C. Parcel Size: 3.58 acres D. Development Designation: Office Professional (OP) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant, undeveloped G. Surroundinq Land Use and Development Designation. North - Vacant, Medium -Nigh Residential South - Shopping Center, Neighborhood Commercial East - Vacant, Medium -High Residential (4 -14 du /ac) West - Vacant, Medium -High Residential, Sen or Housing Overlay (14 -24 du /ac) I. Site Characteristics: Generally flat, no structures, low growing grass and weeks. II. ANALYSIS: A History: Prior to adoption of the General Plan, property owners requested that the pr ,)perty be given a commercial and use designation. The decision was to provide for an office designation in a location which 'gad adequate support services. The applicant previously tiled a General Plan Amendment similar to this which was considered by the Planning Commission on Sertember 28, 1983 and subsequently denied. a7 ITEM B PLANTING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84 -01C March 14, 1984 Page 2 B. Reason for Requested Change: Attached to this reoort is a letter from the property owner requesting the change to Medium -High Residential. Basically, the following reasons were indicated: (1) The site is a difficult location for off-,ce uses. (2) There is an adequate amount of office space available within the area along base Line. (3) The site is well suited for Medium -High Residential. C. General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies: The Land Use Map of the General Plan is a guide for development in the City throughout the entire life of the City's development period and represents a land use configuration for a fully developed and mature city. Within the development cycle, office uses tend to be the later phase of development in a growing community. The policy of the General Plan which relates to this states: "The Land use plan shows an arrangement of land uses at the time the City is fully matured ". Also, the office designations, even those more locally served, should be located in areas where there is adequate support uses, such as commercial centers and ' higher density residential. The City's land use plan devotes clusters of activity centers in both the develcped and developing areas through the use of commercial, higher aansity, and office uses which tend to be at major intersections such as Archibald and Base Line. More recently, the change of the office designation located east of this site at Archibald and Base Line to Neighbohood Commercial removes the potential for future office designations. This change enhances the need for an office designation in the proximity of this area. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of completed by the applicant. Staff has Checklist, Part II of the Initial significant adverse impacts attributed While no significant environmental proposed land use change would have the 00 the Initial Study has been completed Zhe Environmental Study, and as found no to the proposed amendment. impacts are expected, the following impacts: E F LJ 11 Ll PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84 -OIC March 14, 1984 Pape 3 1. The requested amendment would locate a greater density of population in a specific area, and as such would cause certain effects by concentration of this population.. For example, traffic to the area would, over the course of a day, be slightly less as residential than an office designation but would be none concentrated during the peak hours of commute time. 2. The need for public services by the increase in population as a result of a residential project such as Medium -High Residential would require a higher level of demand for such services as schools and parks. This change to the General Plan would have increased effects on the school systems over and above what has already been planned for in the General Plan. Representatives of the Alta Loma School District report that they have planned for additional student population growth in the future with the assumption 'hat future funding will be me.de available for school expansion. IV. ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES FOR COdSIDERATION: The General Plan request presents the following issues for consideration in '.h2 decision: 1. The issue faces the just; ' 'ication of changing the General Plan and removing the office esignation because of its short -term relatively low development potential versus loosing the opportunity to provide for a long -term goal of balanced community services at specific locations within the community. 2. The location of the office designation is in keeping with the General Plan goals and policies of providing locations where there are adequate support services, such as higher density residential and commercial areas. Moreover, because of the new expansion in the type of uses allowed in the Development Code under the OP designation, there is considerably more ope- tunity for numerous viable office and supportive commercial ventures to be located in this designation. 3. Alternatives of land use from the office designation would include those in the residential categories. Because of the location and proximity to more intense development, low density resideiti:? -oulo be inappropriate at this location. Either low medium or medium residential density could be designed within the confines of the specific site to adequately address most land use compatibility ouestions. Potentially, there could be conflict between the senior citizen project and greater land use intensity with the activities associated with a higher density residential project. The Commission paid specific attention to this issue in approving the Calmark Senior Housing project several months ago. i PLANKING COMMISSION STArF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84 -010 March 14, 1484 Page 4 V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: he Commission must examine and decide whether the amendnent from office to medium -high residential density would promote the land use goals and purposes of the General Plan and whether this amendment would be materially detrimental to the adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Should the Commission decide to approve the amendment, the following findings are necessary. A. That the amendment does not conflict with the land use policies of the General Plan. B. That the amendment promotes the goals of the land use element. C. That the amendment would not he materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. V. RECOMMENDATIOK7 The Commission should conduct a public hearing and consider all input in this matter. It is recommended that the Commission consider denial of the request for the change of the General Plan on the grounds that the office designation is in keeping with the General Plan land use goals and objectives and that the request to medium -high • esidential would not substantially increase or enhance those goals ind objectives. Resp /ctfully 54 mitted, Rick Gom I �ityt Planner RG:TB:jr 1 Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - General Plan Map Exhibit "Cu - Development Districts Map Initial Study Resolution. c�f Denial Resolution of Approval 30 E C E ALAN C. W tmacs, MA.I. MEMBER REAL ESTATE APPRAISER AND CONSULTANT AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF 2500 E. COLORADO BLVD.. SUITE 360 REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS PASADEVA. CALIFORNIA 91107 11 November 21, 1983 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 AttenLior.: Rick Gomez, City Planner Re: Dear Mr. Gomez: OFFICE TELEPHONE (213) 7964141 General Plan dumeadment for 3.58 Acres on the west side of Archibald Avenue commencinq 412 feet north of Baseline Road Parcel 1 of Parcel map 5792 Assessor's Parcel 202 - 151 -33 On November 15, 1983, we filed an application for a General Plan amend- ment on this property, requesting a change from office to medium /high residential use (15 to 24 dwelling units per acre). Acacia Construc- tion, Inc., with Henry A. Fredricks _.1d Rick Snyder as principal agents would participate in this project. They have many years of experience of building good condominium /apartment projects. We have been involved with them in other projects and know they will build a project the city W;11 ;,C p�c,ud of =na a D7:oject which wil: add to the Spanish heritage of the community. As added bac;nground, we have owned this property for many years prior to incorporation. We ,`._.d it with the thought to develop it with the use that best serves the needs of the com.-nunity. This 1-.ter is to present some of my personal reasons iar this requested amendz.:llt. These are as follows: 1_ Tae initial draft General Plan by Sedway /Cooke in 1980 proposed a medium /high residential land use on this parcel. At a hearing on November 17, 1980, 1 requested a neighborhood commercial use (the underlying zone) for consideration. This was denied and office professional was accepted. Accepting this future use is now con- sidered a mistake. The General Plan also added this office use on 5.4 acres directly across the street at a superior location in direct competition. 2. The General Plan designates Five principal office uses; administra- tive, professional, business support services, financial, real estate, and insurance. Three of these uses; administrative, profes- sional and major financial, can attract customers and employment 3( from outside the residential area. To be consistent With the goal Of the General Plan, these types of uses should be located along Foothill Boulevard or to the south, similar to the locations of general commer --ial. A better location for most of the professional uses would be adjacent to a hospital. 3. The other office uses; real estate, insurance, some financial, some professional offices and some business support services serve the populatiun by locating within a residential area. These uses do not need to locate adjacent to or be served by neighborhood com- mercial shopping. 4. In the subject neighborhood, the best locations for offices are along Baseline, an established office area, and at major intersec- tions. Shown on a neighborhood map following, at seven locations indicated by number, there are vacant land areas or underdeveloped sites, designated for office use. The total area of these vacant land areas is approximately 21 to 25 acres, not including the sub- ject parcel or the parcel at the northeast corner of Nineteenth and Hermosa. This 21 to 25 acres appears more than adequate to provide future neighborhood office uses. 5. The neighborhood map also shows locations colored in blue of the medium to medium high density residential uses directly adjacent AEL to other locations of neighborhood shopping centers. This appear to be good planning which reduces traffic and the need for parkin. . The Alpha Beta neighborhood center at the northwest corner of Archi- bald and Baseline. has only office uses directly adjacent. To this date, the Calmark project has lot obtained direct access rights to this retail center. This factor seems to be an inconsistency in planning. Consistency with the General Plan Land Use policies would be medium high density residential as the best use for the subject property adjacent to a neighborhood canter. 6. Medium high density for the subject property is compatible with the density of the 26.0 unit condominium project across the street to the east and the Calmark apartment project adjacent to the west at an inferior location. A vice president at Calmark has indicated to me a multiple residential project on the subject property would not by an annoyance to the Senior Citizen projece On their property. In conclusion, more than adequate office land is nearby and vacant to serve the future needs of the neighborhood. All of this other office land is superior in !_cation and would probably be developed before the subject property. As a multiple residential project, the subject property can be developed very soon and provide good sidewalk access for persons walking between the Calmark proje,:t and the Alpha Beta shopping center. Medium /high residential use is consistent with the original draft_ of the present General Plan. 3c-�, E I believe these factors mentioned above present some new material and data for consideration. After a thorough study by the staff, I feel you will reach the same conclusion and recc:nmend this change. Atl.:.chrent: Neighborhood Map cc: Construction, Inc. ?70 Layun� Road, Suite 100, Fullerton, California 42635 G Yours sincerely, Alan C. Weirick, General Partner Wei;ick Properties Limited, Owner 33 nr .. 3 141 a l '... (.� -� � '�• p UI `...off ; :,f[ It ;1,�1�. � � � =• it I?:� .y:._::,:.�Tt— I'. , ��: � t i .tom• -� s� j� J � ,� 'l� �.--� 1 �C}-rT �1 � f �i .� � � ^ � �7C.L%��F'Jr � ls. — � � /(••c r, I_ T Calmarlc 06velcpmen. Corperation CMS M n wlv.M January 24, 3984 Citv Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Ste. C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: General Plan Amendment #8401C Pear Sirs: At the request of the developer we have reviewed the project that has been proposed for the vacant property directly east of ours. It is our un6-rstan:2ing that this property is currently zoned for commercial office buildings. As a computable use this would be desirable if under this designation a small medical facility could be developed to offer such services as doctors and dentists. However, it has been cur personal experience that there types of professionals are not likely to occupy such a ® building, choosing instead to locate their offices in areas adjacent to hospitals. 11 It is based upon this experience and the review of their proposed project that we recommend you approve this request of modification. This project will further enhance the improvement and development of this intersection as well as the viability of the commercial that presently exists there. Thank you very much for your ccnsideration. Sincerely, CORPORATION Larry F-ersons Vice President LP:vs 2121 Clcvt rdield Blvd_ Suite 202. P.O. Box 2128. Santa Monica. California 90406 (213) 4553-17773 3,5 J 2-3 I sbc.sc Op�p Sv 35 aar J I STor�� D t EWER al I.zI CID Z y20 ----r ' I 1202 -181_ y- 44 3 Ap?P24-z�0a:P IL ate. �j m aE• O � ^ `' "' 75f 1202-1611. PC, a.,_4 _ �= 39 STtic nz —_ �. GPA 84 -91 C Exhibit A 3(-,-; i TO •••• go f RESIDEmi"TIAL [_ VE�'1 LOW <2 DU °s /AC LOW 2 -4 DU's /AC \. 7 .• ... •• .:. :... .............. LOW - MEDIUM 4 -8 DL S C MEDIUM 4-14 DU's /AC NMIEDll.riM-HIGH 14 -24 DU's /AC „x HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC 7 .,......... .. •............ . t!. • O . . .•-........ . ......... 1 •........ ......... 1 • .• • .............. •• •• ' ............. • .... e •... P. ........... .o. ........... 1 .... . .. .... : • ............... ............... • •::�. .. . GPA 84-01 a Surround General Plan Land Use N y Lw-m ?� kip% g •E RESIDEmi"TIAL [_ VE�'1 LOW <2 DU °s /AC LOW 2 -4 DU's /AC \. 7 .• ... •• .:. :... .............. LOW - MEDIUM 4 -8 DL S C MEDIUM 4-14 DU's /AC NMIEDll.riM-HIGH 14 -24 DU's /AC „x HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC 7 .,......... .. •............ . t!. • O . . .•-........ . ......... 1 •........ ......... 1 • .• • .............. •• •• ' ............. • .... e •... P. ........... .o. ........... 1 .... . .. .... : • ............... ............... • •::�. .. . GPA 84-01 a Surround General Plan Land Use N y Lw-m ?� kip% s1-e i•.� :•-. +-- �� r.� -i ,���� F - -i'u Ft m i FC m LM I l I J' OP CP�s OP &PA 89-01 LM 1 7_N4, 1 1 OS J' 1 - m LM T ^ i H OP MFi LI 4 PA Sal CI L w^ 1 MHO Lti :, L LM 1 -dP OP NC SOP r g I O. OP {� LM i r- •= f......1 .. i { • I � :..: 1 i . � �.. .:.:.� _ • • 1 * .• �jT'�jj� �i�]]]j {j,,,,,,j {jjF {1' • . �.-1� GPA 84-01 A Surrounding Devel.pment Districts 39 El f ITY OF RANCHO CUCArIONGA INITIAL STUDY PROJECT INFOR-KATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $8-1.00 For all pro ects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and subiaitted to the Development Review Com=ittee through the department where the project .application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Aunalysis staff will prepare Fart 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 groject is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three dete=inations: 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 ReFort 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: Casa Lomita (Tentative) APPLICANT'S NPME, ALDRESS, TELEPhZj'i +E: Acacia Construction, Inc. 270 Lacuna Road. Fullerton. Ca1iforni 92`5 714 9a2 -i13 NAb1E, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Snyder, Acacia Construction, Inc. 270 Lacuna Road Full rtnn Ca ifo -nip 971535 714 q02 -0,•Rfl John D. Rose 5 Associates, 770 S. Brea Blvd. Suite 230, Brea, California 92621 714 529 -9340 LOCATION OF PR0.7ZCT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) S-W. Corner o`_ Archil;ald and Lomita Court (202 - 151 -33) LIST OTIIER PERMI'IS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS Plan approval, building permits, etc., from the City. I -1 3q 11 PI:OJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project will be 80 one bedroom and two bedrom Ice the heritage oT the ccxT mlni r'y7 'TfiP rlAVal nnmr±n__c,F +h ���� rCi nign residential land use. This was the proposed use in the Sedway /Cooke ini.+_ial draft General Plan. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF %YTSTIING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS,. iF ANY; 3.5g pr ,_c DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SrTE INCLUDING INFOR*.ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS. USE OF SURROUNOING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF AICY EXISTING SYRUCTURES Fi3D THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY 'SHEETS) '11le property is fairly level with a gentle slope to the southeast. The only ..... �,,. as ua W t_.uc �uuz is a sully aeyejur2= -,a .-.a�^4- Fi%Pr, p e west are water tanks • i -with t units_ To the north is a }hardwares GYnm^anri « i,,x—; To Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have sicnificant environmental impa ,7t? No. 1-2 Yo r1 L rijIS PROJECT: YiS NO _ X 1. Create zi substantial change in ground contour' ? X 2. Create a substantial change in existinq noise or vibration? X 3, Create d SllbStdntlai Change in ui:.:'and for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? ri 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plcn .resignations? 5. remove a::f existing trees? slow many ?_ X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of -- potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Auk YES The present Zoniial is c —'. Explanation of any Y_s ar�wers above: The develoo r IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CRTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the at :aci-ed extibits present th,: data and information required for this initi -,l e,�aluaticn to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and colrect to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand th,t additicnal information may be required to be submitted before ar adeauate evaluation can be m:de by `he Development Review Com ittee. Date No ✓. 15 1983 signature Title f cry 1-3 w RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be pzovided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Divisio- in order to aid ir, assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the Proposed residential development- N.-.me of P - veloper and Tentative Tract No.: Acacia Construction, Inc. Specific Location of Project: S•«- Corner of Archibald s Ix)mita Court PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHAS-7 4 TOTAL 1. Number of _irgie family ui.�ts: II /A 2. Num.--r of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed zo begin construction: 4. Earliest date cf occupancy: Model W- and # of Tentative S- Bedrooms Price Range 1 550,000 + 2 S70,o00 + 80 6/84 + 10/84 t I -4 1 C 71 LA 11 ddML CITY OF X NCH(` CUCAMONGA PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIR0.%T. NTAL CHECKLIST DATE: March 14, 1?84 APPLICA^'T: Acacia Construction PILING DATE: 11/15/83 LOG 3 R: GPA 84 -01 C PROJECT: PROSECT I.ocATIoN: Fuse Line, Rd., West Side of Archibald Ave. APN 202- 151 -33 I. E` 71RONME`v'TAy ;;PACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answer, are r^ouired on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO I. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal t .ce Significant results in: a. Unstable ground condition:; or in changes in geologic relationships? r X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface conrour intervals? X d- The destruction, covering or modification of any ,:pique geologic or physical features? X e. Any lotential increase in mind or water erosion of soils, affecting e'the- on or off site conditons? X f.. Changes in erosion siltation, or detosition? _ X g. Exposure of people or propert7 to geologic hazards such as earthq•:akes, landslides. Wud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Eydrolorty. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in curren_s, or the course of directicn of flowing streams, rivers, or ephe =eral stream channels? b- Changes in absorption rates, drainage p=atterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in ary body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface cater quality? f. Alteration of g_oundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct :.dditions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aq_ifer? Quality? Quantity? Ii- The reduction in the amount of Ovate_ other- wise available for public .pater suppl_ °s? i. Exposure of people or pro ?erty to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Aix Quality. Will the proposal have significant x l r., in: a. Constant or periodic air emissiu-s from mobile or ir.'irect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or it--= ference with the attainment of applicable dlr quality star,z, -ds? C. alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movrment, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Charge in the characteristics of species, including di- ersity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species ofp ants? ='age 2 YES MAYBE IBC v X X X X X X _. X X X Page 3 YES NO c. introduction of new or disruptive species of — plants into an area? .X__ d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? X Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of an} species of animals? _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Detericration or removal of exis':irg f'_sh or wildlife habitat? X S. Poaulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 6. $OCiO- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results n: a. Change in lucal or regional sncio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial di-_rsity, tax rate, and property va' _es? X b. Will project costs be equitably distributed d^ong project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? X 7. Land Use and Planni::e Considerations. mill the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an ,area? b. . conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans cf any governmental entities? t1 c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive r recreational ��pportunitries? Page 4 8• Transpor•ation. Will the YES MAYBE No results — �roaosal have significant Generatioi, rf substantiel additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand £or new street construction.? c- Effects on existin demand £or new 8 Parking facilities, or parking - d• Substantial impact upon tion systems? existing transporta- e. Alterations to - — patterns of tion cr a- X movement Of people PeoP1e andior goods? oods2 £• Alterations to or effects on Potential water -borne present and rail. air traffic? ' mass transit or g• Increases in traffic hazards '•icyclists X or pedestrians? CO motor rehicles, 9- Cultural P,esources. Nill the X significant results in: Proposal have a• A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, Paleontological, and /or historical resources? 10. Health. Safer_v ana Nuisance X Facto_ W`11 the Proposal have significant results in: a• Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _ b. Exposure of people Lo Potential health hazards? X c• A risk of explosion or release c > substances in t!:e hazardous � event °f an ��•ident? d. An increase in the number of + _— or species of -ndividuals X vector or. Organisms o� the eeposurea�renogenic °- organisms? People to such e- Increase i existing — n noise levels? X Exp osure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X 9- The creation of objectionabl4 X odors? n• An increase in light or g -- �o are. X Page 5 YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesc.*.etics. will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? x b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors ?. 12. Utilities and Public Services. will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the follcwing: a. Electric power? - b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Co =urications systems? -X- d. Cuter supply? _ _ _ _ x e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? E. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? X i. Police protection? x J. Scbools? X k. Parks or oth_r recreational facilities? x 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? Y m. Other gov±rnmenl:al services? —x _ 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessi•.-e fuel or energy? x bo substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? X c. 9n increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? x i. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of _nergy are avrilable? x II. 14 Page 6 "ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA answers Lhe above questions plus a discussionNof(proposed mitigationemeasures). See Attac: men: 7 E El 11 YFSS MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of eny nor_renewable or scarce natural resource? Mandatory Findir.¢s of SiJZnificance. a. Does the project have the lotential to degrade the quality of the enviro'ziment, substantially red,±ce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, tLreaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantz.ge of long -term, er_viro- imental goals? (A short -term impact on the ervironrent is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. and probable future projects). X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X "ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA answers Lhe above questions plus a discussionNof(proposed mitigationemeasures). See Attac: men: 7 E El 11 DETER' NATION the basis of this initial evaluation, the proposed project COL'I..D NOT have a significant effect environment, end a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the anviro:=ezt, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been .added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BIL:. BE PREPARED. I find the proposed z -oject MAY have a eignizicant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIROI -M*NT. 1�_ACT REPORT is required. Title ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY, PART II - : :• °A 84 -01C 7. Land Use and Planning Consideratio -,,.: .ne requested amendment would result in s;.:i,stantiai alterations to present land uses in the area by changing from office to residential uses in the Medium -Hioh density range. The u•-:!rge of designation would eliminate 3.5 acres of office designation wh= r.• under the policies of the General Plan are intended to be provided f,:^ local service areas with adjacent support uses. Thus, this modifica :'sion would remove the ability to maintain uses typical within the Dr resignation, including office and quasi - commercial uses. Although this ° hange would not have a result in the short term, potentially the remov: :.; of this office designation would eliminate the possibility of enhancing tt.e nature of the intersection rf Archibald Avenue and Base Lina Road to be a community service center for the Alta Loma area. The removal of This designation from this site would counter the policies of the General P" an to maintain office for local services in area_ with supported land uses such as commercial and higher density residential. 12. Utilities and Public Services: The change in - esignation from Office tn Medium -High residential would increase demands for services such z- schools, parks, recreational facilities, and libraries beyond those required in office - related land uses. Schools: The proposed site will provide for an additional student population of approximately 21 students. Representatives of the Alta Loma School District have indicated that given the subject of continued funding for schools at the local level plans have been prepared for adequate school expansion with the increased population. o Parks: The ad6itional population resulting from the increased residential density will have an increased demand on park and recreational facilities. Currently, the City requires a park dedication fee from all new development at the rate of three acres per 1,000 increase in population. This rate would result in a net in development fee for parks of approximately $39,000. o Drainage and Flood Contrjl Facilities: The modification of the General P an esignation from Office to Medium -Hioh residential will result in a lesser amount of storm runoff volume heGg admitted from the site due to the lower ratio of hard surface area within the proposed land use designation. The overall effect will be slight in comparison to other factors contributing to to storm drain runoff. Any future development, either Medium -High Residentiai or Office, will be required to tie into the local underground storm drain system along the Archibald Street: right -of -way. Traffic- The resultant traffic volume would change from 705 trips per ay for office use to 504 trips per day for this General Plan Amendment. However, because of the nature of the residential density, the traffic volumes will tend to be concentrated in the morning and afternoon peak hours resulting in greater traffic flows during the S(f) 11 11 commuter peak times than would otherwise occur within the - ':i: :.' designation. Development of this location would require the addi ?'.,,1 improvement of street frontage to add an additional traffic lanr Archibald. ,( A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF( ANiENDMEVT 84 -01 C, ACACIA, USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL, NUMBER 202 - 151 -33, LOCATED NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD. )RNIA, DENYING GENERAL FLAN TO KAEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND DISTRICT MAP FROM OFF-,'E TO LOCATED ON ASSESSOR PARCEL ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARC�IEALO, WHEREAS, the Plannirg Commission held a public hearing to ^=cider said amendment; and, :lHEPEAS the 01 r. anrinn rn iccinn has fully co -, s idered pul,Iic s "7 testimony requesting amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the requested amendment is i- conflict with the land use policies cf the General Plan and does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Ilse Element. NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Pla7r.ng Commission denies General Plan Anendment 84 -01C to amend the Genera, Plan and Development Districts Map from Office to Medium -High Resident;p.l located on Assessor Parcel Number 202- 151 -33, approximately 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Base Line Road. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF MARCH, 1984. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCX`40NGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Fick Gomez, Deputy ecretary 1, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Cite a ^- Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was d ?:= .r• regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission iTe'.v on the 14th day of March, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r' A RESOLUTIO' RANCHO CUC'" i A AMENDMENT r -_1i USE MAP MEDIUM HI':" ACRES OF .. . AVENUE, N`._ WHEREAS, the P said amendment; and ZING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF :'= ORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN A, TO AifEIYD THE GENERAL PLAN LAND V :T DISTR ?CIS MAP FROM OFFICE TO DENSITY :3 APPROXIMA;F.LY 3.58 .L ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD !.INE ROAD - APN 202- 15'_ -33. 3ning Commission held a p4blic hearing to consider rWHcREAc� the Olanninn rnn issinn has considered all public testimony regarding the requested amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the requested amendment does not conflict with the policies of the General Plan and promotes the policies of this Land Use Element and will not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Olanning Commission approves General Plan Amendment 84 -OIC as follows: Section 1: A recommendation is hereby forwarded to the City Council or the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the General Plan amendment and Development District Map amendment based upon the completion of the findings in the Initial Study. Section 2: The Planning Commission racorrmends to the City Council the approval of an Ordinance amending the General Plan Land Use Element on Assessor Parcel Number 202- 151 -33, located on the west side of Archibale Avem•_, -orth of Base Line on apprc,imately 3.58 acres as shown on attached Exhibit "A" to be changed from Office designation to Medium High Residential density (14 -24 du /ac). Section 3: The Planning Commission recom - ends to the City Council the approval of an Ordinance amending the Development Distracts Map on Assessor Parcel Number 202 - 151 -33, located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line on approximately 3.58 acres as s},uwn on attached Exhibit "A" to be changed frog Office designation to Mc•_'ium High Residential density (14 -24 du /ac). APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF MARCH, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairmar, ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary 5_�? I, Rick Gomez, 0ep:.ty Secretary of the ?lannir„ Commission of the .^.ity of Rancho Cucamonga, de hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was euly and regularly introduce', passed, and adopted by the P'- as ^.ing Co..��.issior, of the to City of Rancho Cuca^tonaa, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of f!�rch, 1984 by the following vote -to -quit: AYES: CObiMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISS10:17 "S: '5(K 11 is AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCTL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ?ONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO •THE DFVELOR'FNT DISTRICTS MAP' FOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 2t'2- 151 -33 FROM OF;=ICE PROFESSIONAL T� MEDIUM-HIGH RE3IDENTIAL (14 -24 DU /AC) ON APPROXIMATELY 3,58 prREc OF LAND LOCATED OP. THE WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the A. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held at. the time and manner prescribed by law recommends the amendment of the Development District Map hereinafter described and this City Council has held a public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law has duly heard and considered such recommendation. B. That this amendment to the Development District Map is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. That this amendment to the Development District_ Map will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. Section 2: That the following described real property is hereby amended on tl:e Development Distr'cts Map accordingly: APN %62- 151 -33, being app ^oximately 3.58 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Base Line Road is changed from Office Professional (OP) to Medium -High (Mil) Residential density (14 -24 du /ac). Section 3: They Mayor si}ail sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Dail Report, a newspaper of general circulati n published in the City of ^t`T arioy alifornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEV THIS JAY OF 1984. BY: Jon D. Mi a s, mayor ATTEST: Lauren Wasserman, City C er 55 E E Ll CITY OF RANCHO CUC_0IONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 1984 TO: Mnmbers of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner 1977 SUBJECT: E'' "iRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANn 7th�Ai u� �rcN i i >zszs - uruv- �_�_, , -d hd. ,s,on of 12 res ou1LDCita - n w�a� deve Sops�enI a,. z s.: ac.. into 22ots, comprising 22 single family units in the VL ('JEry Low - Less than 2 du!ac) District, generally located on the southazast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road - APN 201 - 083 -4. In an effort to expedite and accommodate the proposed OMNI development, various infonmation items and issues have not been adequately addressed which are paramount to scheduling the project for tonight's Planning Comnission Meeting. Tie proposed OMNI project involves critical issues related to site plan /circulation configurations, street improvement/ded- ication requirements, and grading, /drainage, -which have not been fully addressed. Subsequently, staff has recommended to the applicant_ to provide and illustrate supplemental information related to these issues in order to provide direction to the Commission for final action. Staff is recommending that this item be contirac-d to the March 28, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting in order that staff may review tn, prcposal in a comprehensive fashion. Presently staff is mak . ^.g every effort to work with the applicant to` resolve these issues, and will be assessing and evaluating the supplemental information in an effort to present a complete package to the Commission. RG:FD:ns J ITEM C E E Ll CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlAONGA DATE: M4rch 14, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner —, RY: U-' t ct:,n.st0 , sls —. Dlannar SUBJECT: CO'dnITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -03 - SAN GASP.IEL VALLEY LABOR .ASSOCIATION - A request to locate a 720 sq. ft. 2 feet x 60 feet trailer for temporary office space or, a 15.25 acre site in the "M" District, located on the north side of Arrow Highway, west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, 8706 Arrow Highway - APN 207 - 211 -01. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reauestea: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Sections 17.04.070 (Temporary Uses) and 17.04.030 (C.U.P.'s). S. Purpose: To install a 720 sq. ft. trailer for temporary office space for the San Gabriel Valley Labor Association. C. Locat on: North side of Arrow Highway, west of Cucamonga Creek Channel, 8706 Arrow Highway. D. Parcel Size: 15.25 acres. E. Existinq Zoning. Medium Density Residential (8 to 14 du /ac). F. Existing Land Use: San Gabriel Valley Labor Association, which provides housing for seasonal farm laborers and their families. G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Multiple family dwellings within the labor camp exist rcr-th of the proposed trailer site, zoned "M ". South - Older single family homes exist on the south side of Arrow Route, zoned "M "; and General Industrial (Subarea 1) to southeast. East - Labor camp multiple units, Cucamon a Creek Channel, zoned "M ", and "FC" (Flood Controlq. West - Mobile home park, zoned "LM "; vacant property, zoned tamU. ITEM D PLANNING CGMMISSICN STAFF 'r, EtGRT CUP 84 -03 /San Gabriel Valley Labor Association, March 14, 1984 Page Two Ii. H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (4 to 14 du /ac) North - Medium Residential South - Medium Residential, General Industrial to southeast on Arrow Highway. East - Medium Residential, Flood Control West - Low Medium Residential (4 to 8 du /ac), Medium Residential I. Site Characteristics: The property is partially developed with mu tiple fami y units housing seasonal farm workers and their families. T+e trailer is to be 'ocated near the entrance to the housing area, approximately 600 feet north of Arrow Highway, A tree -i;red dhiveway from Arrow Highway leads to a small parking ?e*_ ir. front of the arcposed trailer location.. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to install an office trailer on a 15.25 acre site. The trailer is proposed to replace an office building which was recently burned down. The manager of the labor camp stated the facility will relocate in the next couple of years, so constructing a permanent building at this time is undesirable. 8. Trailer Location; The trailer will be situated where the previous bull Ong stood. Tha location is approximately 200 Yards north of Arrow Route and the trailer will not be visible to passing motorists. The plot plan submitted shows the trailer set back 10 feet fron the west p- opert_v line, adjacent to an existing mobile home park. Two units within the park back up o the proposed office. However, an existing retaining wall and wood fence along the common property line help to buffer the two uses, and *ho pad elevations of the mobile homes are raised up approximate ";y 4 feet from the office site. In additicn, the entrance to the office will be on the east side of the trailer, opposite :he mobile home park. EWE 0 E u E \J PLANNING COKIISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 84 -03/San Gabriel Valley Labor Association March 14, 1984 Page Three C. Expiration Date: Regarding the time limit for approval, the Planning Commission, has in the past approved the use of trailers for two years. By the end of this two year period, the trailer must be removed, or an extension granted by the Planning Comm %ssion. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use, together with the applicable conditions, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In addition, the proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which this site is located. IV. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the facts for findings, adoption of the attached Resolution permitting the trailer for a two -year period would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Cit; Planner RG:CJ:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Resolution of Location Map Detailed Site Plan Illustrative Plan Trailer Details Letter from Applicant Approval with Conditions sq A. SITr[ PLgN — Octadcd �J i ---.may if .li ni J .. _.._. -ci.AttEC 1 N ir iGah iPpnCt ' ae 141 —fN. e�` Z ZRAIILq � Ca cOhDOM.N.ur v� NORTH CITY OF ITEM: 4;�, _ ©3 RANCHO CLCA,NIO\GA TITLE: 4= -P?sW_Ad•!L_ PLANNING DR'ISION E.U-IMIT =- •,' ALE- (D(J E 11 0 � � IV�.�v.- �l�t`I• Z VPC-s r,17 Lp. , %D CITY OF RANCHO t zv �ff � 511 �i 'F I f ni 1. l CL "CrA1,I0 \GA PU:" ;N,1 \G DIVISON' �uull n7,�i�j j I C�j NORTH imm- C V-PA r/ -0'5 TjTLE= -ZP!!ZW&a2 MME PLO-SkY �i� r! s C.�;f ii!�T= SCALE- s &Z C, 2)LLUS"LRi1:>a�yE S%TV-: PLAN 1 rV W E S 5 +^ +rte r-+-.- ..-+• ....5, 5cai_. ♦ Q = e�siin5 lvv�e •.+eC. to ..w.�.. - ►wurir - ?wtu�afr { fff 9 TO ARxa, u�.av 20o ryas. t San Gab-.ok Val.iey 'baba.- ►.S�u[..; �.. 6-106 East �T It) 48L- 1La i � •w.cc Nanayv- Xa�a�v Pura NORTH CITY OF ]zeiis �v�° -ate R,A NC FD CUCIALNIG\GA TITLE: r � ® I'irlitl \TI. \+J DI%TIJ?0.N EYiiiBrr: a�r� SCALE: /.:� L I] 46.. ..wM1r.•,'Wu lVr n "�1 w.n�J.v., b, 1 ✓.w [a.,Cp tJMim..V YM�IL..m.. �✓... sueswo mrn.lo OC 11•u, -.1_-. 1_ wml•mrws rna.r.J - IJ ON.V V u'Vp'irnM.• lbG. wyyWM T ^ ul� L Nl.:im w.M :.mCwp Car r'v- w000'J.an W Mvq 1 rYlEwrt InN wr, in CCM,o,.IxJ �_ 1 019 rwnl:Y NUm,nYT..ln OJMK] M tAY.+wI� YT: V M.11. wa W. aa+n vim IILOIiW.uM CCW,.' Opi.0 61wn�lti OO CI'T'Y OF ITEM: RANCHO CUC-.MU GA pi.A�ti`tiI \G L?Ft'ISiCI� EtNtrx'T: SCE[ 61-�, SAP[ GABRIEL VALLEY LABOR ASSOCIA-TEON CUCAMONGA, CAR- IFOSela JA $1730 17%43 962 -4406 • 002 -3675 February 14, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Community Development Dear Sirs: Enclosed are all the documents you requested in the UNIFORM APPLICATION. The purpose of our request is to replace on temporarely basis our General Office that was burned down to the ground on November 6, 1983. We plan to remplace our building with a moble office 12'X60' which meet all our needs. This moble office is going to be pzrchased to an autho- rized agency that meet all the California Codes accor- ding to the law. Enclosed also is . brosure with those noble offices. We appreciate all your help. please feel free to call us. Yours truly, SAN G__Z3BRIEL VALLEY LABOR ASSN- _57 �e� Mar Encl- If you have any asestions CITY uF ITEM- -iO C� i�\G?i I LE RANNC T _ PL INNI,.._7 DINMO\ EXHIBIT:- i��. �ceI — SC,%LE: 456 i0�. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPRJVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -03 FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER LOCATED AT 8706 ARROW HIGHWAY IN THE "M" DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 15th day of February, 1984, a complete application was filed by San. Gabriel Valley Labor Association for review of the abnve- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of March, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, ; :;ENEFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comnission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable ti+ereto, will rot be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposeu use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -03 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION (1) The temporary office trailer is approved _r a two (2) ye,-r period from the date of approval. By the end of t::is two year period, said trailer shall be removed from the subject property or an extension granted by the Planning Commission. (2) Skirting shall Le provided around the base of the trailer and deck prior to occupancy. Design details shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior tc installation. P RESO!UTION N0: Page Two (3) No roof mounted ee:iDmment shall be installed on the trailer. Also, any air conditioners or other outside equipment which may create noise or a visual disturbance to the adjacent residents shall not be placed on the west side of the trailer. (4) This approval shall not waive compliance with other applicable City Codes and Ordinances, (5) &-could the installation or use of the subject trailer cause any adverse effects upon s-irrourding residents or properties, this Conditional Use Permit will be brought back to t.:e Co.. fission for reconsiderations and possible revocation of said per.ait. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF MARCF:, 1984. PLANIING COMMISSION OF 1-HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMGtiSA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Ric% Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary o: the Planning Cc- mmission cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoinig Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pl; inning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co=issien held on the 14th day of March, 1984, by the fol'iowin5 vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 11 t� J E U CITY OF RANCHO CtiCAMONGA ct,, ^W4 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 1984c�i TO: Members of the Planning Commission r! FROM: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT HOUSING AND TECHNICAL APPENDIX ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN — The stributior, of the Draft Housing Element and TecFnical ap;. ndix for future Commission ,'onsideration. This material will he forwarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by California State Housing law. Review by the Commission will be made following HCD comments. The Commission will receive at their meeting on Wednebday, March 14, 1984, the Revised Draft Housing Element, which has been prepared in accordance to the r^quired California Housing Element Law. This revision will be forwarded to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development, where it will undergo the required 90 —day review period. Following this review period, a public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the adoption of the Revised Housing Element. This hearing will be scheduled during the month of June. TJB:nas 67 ITEM E