Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/06/13 - Agenda Packetna n cm M;m M i CITY OF `�s 1 ��Rr►r7'�u\��CHO cTt,��Ci(;���lUNGA /�� �� / ���\ j� t- p iLAINNI � \J' VVl�yy�'�YJVi AGENDA ENDA inn WEDNESDAY JUNE 13, 1984 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMKUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LM RANCHO CUC&MONGA, CAUFORMA L Pledge of Aliegisnoe IL Ron Can Commissioner Barker_ Commissioner Stout u , �'V: IV. Approval of motes March 28, 1984 April 25, 1984 May 9, 1984 May 23, 1984 V. Consent Calendar �:3/A-CK� Commissioner Remoel Commissioner McNiel The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversiaL They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -12 - L DER. - Reapplication for design review o modifications to the architectural designs for a preschool to be located on the northeast corner of Church and Turner - 11PN 1077- 271 -08. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 10246 - ASSAD - A custom lot subdivision of ter, acres of land into 15 lots located in the R- 1- 209000 (Single Family Residential/20,000 square foot lot minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven Avenue - APN 201- 111 -14. VL Public Hem ings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. ?lease wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. ALL such opiniors shall be limited to 5 mimztes per irdfifteat for each project. C. HOYT LUMBER - Consideration of a request to expand a non- conforming use and structure located at 7110 Archibald. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT E. F. YEACMEV 154 -U:) - VANNA - fne estaoustimenL oI a recreational vehicle storage yard on 2.4 acres of land in the Love Residential District generally located on the south side of Base Line, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN 1077 -051 -40. £t. building in conjunction with a church, located at the southeast corner of Banyan and Beryl - APN 1- 02- :381 -1. California Government Code a revision and update to the City Housing Element. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 5786 - CROWELL BROTHERS - A L.:-Asion of 7.249 acres of land into 2 pp.-eels In the Office Professional District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian - APN 2!'7- 031-28. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8568 - BARTON -- A division of 4.1 acres into 3 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea r), located on Utica Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Aspen Avenue - APN 208- 351-21. 1. 19th STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS J. LOW - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEA" T STANDARDS &. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM L. Vffi. 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. 1$ Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. CNI"M WIRYATIONAL AIR/pIr Cl7Y OF RANCHO CL" &rAof A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meetirg March 28, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of Fancho Cucamcnga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting aaz held at Lions Park Community Center, 9151 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL CO`1MISSICNERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry Mc Niel, Herma.^. Rempel, Dennis Stout COAiMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Frank Dreckman. Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner A %NC'JNCE�SNTS h /ck Gomez, City Planner, announced that two additional items woulei t� added to this evening's agenda: Item F, a discussion of the Caryn project proposed at the northeast corner of Milliken & Highland within the City's sphere of influence; and Item G, an appeal of Temporary Use Permit 84 -12 for a carnival at thz U-:ited Methodist Church on the corner of Church Street and Archibald Avernt, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: :Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the February 8, ?984 Planning Commission meeting. R CONSFNI CALENDAR. A. TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 AND 12237 -1 WOODLAND PACIFIC - Reapplication for Design Review of 36 single family homes on 55.95 acres of lard in the Very Low Residential District located on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVc TRACT 11793 - MULLIN /BLISS - A custom lot subdivision of 47 lots on 15.9 acres in the Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ac) located on the east side of Amethyst, between Highland and Lemon - APN 1002 - 561 -04 and 1062 - 571 -04. Motion: Moved by MoNiel, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINSS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS% NT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1243E - X & 3 - The development of 432 semi - attached manufactured homes on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Community Plan, designated Medium and Medium -High Residential, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - A portion of APN 227- 081 -06. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, advised that staff was seeking continuance cf this project to a later date. He explained that the applicant had made revisions to the project and submitted them to the Planning Division at the early part of the week. Further, these revisions would alter the description of the project, thus necessitating readvertisement, and additionally would require Design Review Committee review prior to resubmission to the full Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this item be removed from the agenda, to be readvertised and rescheduled at a later date. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12588 - OMNI BUTLZ -1 S - A total development and subdivision of 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising 22 single family units in the Very Low (less than 2 du /ac) district, generally located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road APP1 201- 083 -4. Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman_ Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 28, 1984 Tom Davis, 9581 Business Center Drive, represented the applicant and advised that the applicant had concerns regarding.the cul -de -sac street light required on page 5 of the Standard Conditions and requested elimination of that condition. Additionally, the applicant requested an explanation of the 20 -foot dedication required on Hermosa. He pointed out that this was also a condition of Parcel Map 8007 and wanted clarification that this would not require two separate offers of dedication totaling 40 feet. Mr. Davis also questioned the need for review of the rock dwelling by the Historical Commission and asked for discussion concerning the westerly cul-de -sac street if Tract 10047 is never built. Janine Tibbets, 7957 Gardenia, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in .:;,port of the project. Vic Cherbak, 9820 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in support of the project and additionally stated that he did not believe the rock dwelling in question is old enough to be considered a landmark by the :iistorical Commission. Allan Tibbets, 7957 Gardenia, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in support of the project. There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rempel stated that this project is an example of what happens when one project is submitted with a half cul -de -sac, like the one proposed for Tentative Tract 10047, and the adjacent owner has not given his consent to the design. He further stated that it forces a certain criteria on adjacent properties and that those property owners should be consulted. This is the reason, he explained, that he has requested in the past that when projects are brought before the Commission for review that the surrounding properties are also shown on the maps. Chairman Stout addressed the issue of the cul-de -sac and asked if an agreement could be entered into which would release this applicant from the street improvements if Tentative Tract 10047 is not .^onst : : ^ucted. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that a condition could be placed on the project which would require a lien agreement that would contain a release without construction o° the cal -de -sac street improvements should Tentative Tract expire in December of 1984. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if this would be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 28, 1984 Gary Sanderson, engineer for the applicant, expressed concern regarding the construction of an exterior wall which would have to be torn down and be redesigned if the adjacent tract expires. Mr. Gomez pointed out that a temporary wall might be a better solution than building a permanent walls. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the area of the cul -de -sac bulb could be temporarily constructed until such time as the situation with Tentative Tract 10047 is resolved as to whether it will or will not be constructed. Mr. Sanderson agreed to the lien agreement condition. Commissioner McNiel referred to the 20 -foot offer of dedication on Hermosa and asked if this condition had been duplicated. Mr. Gomez replied that the languages can 1.d be clarified on this condition to read "any needed" dedication rather than the 20 -foot dedication stated in condition 2 of the Resolution. Commissioner Barker referred to the removal of the street light condition requested by the applicant and asked if this condition would then be deleted. Commissioner &empei replied that this condition should be deleted. Ted Hopson, assistant City Attorney, referred to Planning Division condition 9 and asked if the intent was that building permits not be issued for parcel number one or lot number one until the issue of the stone cottage preservation is addressed. Mr. Gomez replied that the intent was that building permits not be issued for lot number one and stated that this should be chauged on the Resolution. Mr. Hopson asked the Commission what their intent was regarding the Historic Preservation Commission's review of the stone cottage. Chairman. Stout suggested that language be added that would require the Historic Commission to report track to the Commission within 90 days on the merits of whether or not the cottage should ba preserved. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12588 with the deletion of the condition requiring a street light at cul -de -sac "A ", a condition requiring a lien agreement for street work connecting Tentative Tracts 12588 and 10047, review of the stone cottage by the Historic Preservation Commission within 90 days, and language clarification proposed to 7lanni.ng Division conditions 2 and 9. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 28, 1984 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, •JUAREZ, STOUT (TOES: COMM SIGNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried - 8:10 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. SITE-APPROVAL - ARROW PART{ - Located on Arrow Route, between Vineyard Avenue and Hellman Avenue. Dick Mayer, Park Planner, presented the park plan for Arrow Park. Commissioner Rempel expressed concern with the dead -end streets coming into the park area and asked Paul Rougeau if something should be done at this stage in the park's planning to provide cul -de -sacs. Mr. Rougeau replied that the reduced cul -de -sac standards which have been developed for dead -end 6t -eets where the land use has changed would be appropriate especially on the streets to the north to provide a turning radius for cars. it was the consensus of the Coi=issicn to approve the park plan and that it now be presented to the City Council a t it x F. CARYN COMPANY - A proposed residential development at northeast corner of Milliken and Highland within. the City's sphere of influence. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, presented the Commission with a written report on the Caryn Development Company. The report was received with direction to staff to present the item at the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 1984. a ■ a � m G. APPEAL OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 84 -12 - UNI'.'' -'D METHODIST CKURCR CARNIVAL Commission b:cNie1 abstained due to corflict of interest and stepped down frog the podium. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 28, 1984 Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that the Planning Division had received an appeal of the Temporary Use Permit for a carnival at the United Methodist Church located at Church Street and Archibald Avenue. Chairman Stout asked if the persons appealing the use were contacted regarding tonight's meeting. Mr. Gomez replied that he had contacted Mrs. Satterfield, who appealed the use, and had been informed that she would be unable to attend tonight's meeting. Chairman. Stout opened the hearing. Glen Larson, pastor of the united Methodist Church, addressed the Commission stating that the Church has always attempted to be a good neighbor and that the carnival provides funds to improve the church property. He presented the Commission with a petition signed by adjacent property owners in support of the carnival. He advised that the nosiest rides had been moved to the Archibald side of the site and small children's rides and a slide were the only rides remaining near Jadeite. Further, that the Sheriff's Department had approved the traffic flow and that a uniformed security guard had been emp:.oyed to ensure the safety of not only those attending the carnival but the adjacent area as well. There were no further comments, therefore the hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant had miti -ated the concerns expressed in the appeal in the areas of noise and security. However, Commissioner Rempel suggested that the generators be surrounded with plywood to help buffer the noise. Chairman Stout referred to the issue of parking and the suggested posting of "No Parking" signs in front of the church property and asked the applicant if this was a feasible solution. The applicant replied that this posting would severly impact the carnival parking. It was the consensus of the Commission that the posting of "No Parking" signs in front of the church property would cause undue hardship. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried, to deny tie appeal based upon the mitigation measures taken by the applicant to meet the intent of the Development Code. AYES: CC:-DIISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL NCES: C014MISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COM1MISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COWMISSIONEP,S: MCNIEv - carried- Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 28, 1984 **} *: Commissioner McNiel returned to the podium. Prior to adjournment the Planning Commission presented a commer. resolution to Michael Vairin for his years of service to the City. ADJOURNMENT notion: 'rcoved by McNiei, seconded by Barter, unanimously carried, to adjcurn. 9:10 p.m. - Planing ^ommission Adjcurneri Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 28, 191'4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 25, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. "Se 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, Herman bempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Addie Juarez, Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer a a a a a ANNO'UNCE'MENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that the staff recently had been made aware of property ownership problems associated with the projects scheduled as items "H" and "I" on tonight's agenda which would necessitate continuance to a future Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that the Commission might consider moving these items to the first opening during public hearings. a a R a a CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7350 - W g E DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Located on the southwest corner of 6th and Utica Streets. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -05 - FORHAN - The development of an industrial building totaling 36,916 square feet on 2.26 acres of lend in the General Industrial area (Subarea 14) located on the west side of Hyssop Drive, south of 7th Street - A portion of APN 229 - 283 -49. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by. Barker, carried, to adopt the consent calendar. * t r ; f PUBLIC HEARINGS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8547 - R.C. LAND COMPANY - A division of 111.4 acres of land into 2 parcels in Victoria Planned Community located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenues - APN 227 - 081 -06. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1243' - F' & B - The development of 180 single family detached units on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Planned Community designated Medium (4 -14 du /ac) and Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac:), generally located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN 227 - 081 -06. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments: therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, carried, to continue 'arcel Map 8547 and Tentative Tract :2433 to the May 9, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. a * • s t Chairman Stout announced that the following items would be beard concurrently. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AMENDMENT 83 -07 - ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES - A Development Districts Amendment from Medium Residential (8 -14 du /ac) to Lox - Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) for 4.5 acres of land located on Archibald Avenue, south of Victoria - APN 202 - 181 -15. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES - The development of 111 zero lot line homes on 14.5 acres in the Low- Medium Residential District, located between Archibald and Ramona at Monte Vista Street - APN 202- 181 -05, 06, 15, 16. (Continued from April 11, 1984 meeting.) Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mike Hemley, addressed the Commission advising that the applicant had not yet arrived at the meeting. Be asked if the public hearing could be continued to a later time in the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 25, 1984 It was the consensus of the Commission to postpone the public hearing for these items until later in the agenda. E z a • 0 Chairman Stout advised that the following items would be heard concurrently. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES_:Z N AND VARIANCE 83 -05 - BLANCO - A request to reduce the required rear yard setbacks to allow the development of a 41,181 square foot self- storage warehouse facility on 1.96 acres of land in the GC (General Commercial) District, located at the southeast corner of Helms and Hampshire - APN 208 - 261 -57. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -22 - BLANCO - The development of a 41,181 square foot self - storage warehouse facility oa 1.96 acres of land in the GC (General Commercial) District, located at the southeast corner of Helms and Hampshire - APN 208 - 261 -57. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the sta°f report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jack Gall, represent_ng Blanco, addressed the Commission stating the applicant's concurrence with the staff report and resolutions. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gall how access would be obtained to maintain the landscaping at the southeast property line. Mr. Gall replied that a gate would be provided to allow access. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if he would object to a condition being placed on the CUP to require the maintenance of this landscaping. Mr. Gall replied that he had no objections as this was the intent of the applicant. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Waver by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 83 -05. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditioaal Use Permit 83 -22 with an added condition to require maintenance of the landscape buffer at the southeast property line. a i : i 3 G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-02 - HARP - A request to maintain a 350 -400 bird aviary at 9110 Carrari Court in the "VL" District - APN 208 - 781 -19. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 25, 1984 Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Lyndon Harp, 9110 Carrari Court, applicant, addressed the Commission urging approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Harp advised that his birds are kept for genetic studies. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit based upon noise, appearance of the aviary, and odors: Terry Apel - 9111 Hidden Farm Road - Rancho Cucamonga Tony Apels - 9111 Hidden Farm Road - Rancho Cucamonga Albert Distefano - 9125 Carrari Court - Rancho Cucamonga Frank govacevis - 9154 Carrari Court - Rancho Cucamonga Pat Br -nner - P.ancho Cucamonga Joe Davis - Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that this project has a long history of complaints over the course of several years. Further, that he was also able to hear the birds in Mr. Harp's avairy at his home and understood the problems faced by the adjacent property owners, therefore could not vote in favor of the permit. Commissioner Hempel stated that the number of birds is the problem and that probably no one would have complained if there weren't so many. He further stated that if the avairy had been a block enclos,%d structure it would have retained the noise much better. Chairman Stout stated that when the Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit process during review of the Development Code, it established the maximum limit of 25 birds as a reasonable number allowable before the necessity of a Conditional Use Permit. 7-a advl=ad that criteria was then developed requirirg the Commission's review of a Conditional Use Permit application to determine compatibility with the surrounding area on a case -by -case basis and to establish further conditions regarding allowable amounts. However, he could not approve this permit because 300 -400 is not a reasonable amount of birds to have in a residential area and that the use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Motion: Moved by Barker; seconded by Hempel, carried, to deny Conditional Use Permit 83 -22. AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPE"i., STOUT NONE JUAREZ, MCNIEL - carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 25, 1984 a a • s i 8:05 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:20 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened f i • ■ a Continued public hearing for Items. C & D - Ar. ^bald Associates Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing. Randy Poag, representing Archibald Associates, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant had met with members of the City planning staff and had submitted a revised site plan which he felt addressed the concerns of the Commission their previous meeting of April 11. Tom Bra %.lord, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission expressing concerns with additional traffic on Ramona. Larri Lewis, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Ct >mmission expressing concerns with the proposed storm drain system, as weal as runoff being channeled down Ramona Avenue. Lew Shriner, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission stating that the zero lot line homes were not compatible with surrounding single family residences. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that a good faith effort had been man' by the developer of this project to mitigate the concerns expressed at the last meeting. However, he stated, he was still not comfortable with the access situation. He pointed out that the access had been changed from Ramona to Archibald to appease the adjacent residents, however, Archibald is a heavily traveled street and was not comfortable with forcing the traffic from this project entirely onto Archibald. Commissioner P.enpel stated that he shared these same concerns, however Lining the street up with Monte Vista would deter a lot of the traffic in the lower half of the development. He suggested that the City Council could :sic the Sheriff's Department to patrol Ramona a little more to slaw down the traffic on that street. Chairman Stout stated that it would be easy to make the popular decision to close off the access at Ramona, however, there are 111 families to consider who will be living in this development and are not here to present their points of view. He suggested that lots 1 -9 be constructed in Phase I. He additionally expressed concern that there was nothing in the Resolution which referred to the revised site plan in the areas of eetbacks and .treet lccations and suggested that language be added. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving ;.�velopment Districts Amendment 83 -07. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HEMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO24ISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Hempel, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12532 with the added condition that the approval was for the revised site plans regarding setbacks and street locations, and that lots 1 -9 be constructed in Phase I of the development. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL Commissioner Barker stated he voted in favor of the Development Districts Amendment because he had no problems with a down -zone; however, could not vote in favor of the tract because there were additional problems he felt should have been mitigated. J. ENVIhONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12544 - LYON - A residential tract subdivision consisting of 870 lots on 154 acres of land in the Planned Community zone, a portion of the Victoria Planned Community, located south of Highland Avenue, west of Milliken Avenue, north of the Pacific Electric Railroad, and east of the Deer Creek Channel - APN 202 - 211-8, 12, 13, and 34. Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Hempel asked if Planning Division condition 2 requires every lot to have a wall. Mr. Dreckman replied that the intent was that garde^ walls would be required around each lot in the 4,000 to 4,500 square foot lot neighborhoods. Commissioner Hempel stated that he had concerns with requiring all of those lots being divided and surrounded by walls. He pointed out that this does not provide much open space. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 25, 1984 Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, addressed the Commission stating that he had understood that the park phasing plan was being required to be submitted to the City Council within 90 days, but apparently staff is now requiring that it be approved within 90 days. He asked if this would requira a public hearing. Mr. Gomez replied that there were no hearings required for Terra Vista, therefore assumed that a public hearing would not be required. Chairman Stout stated that he felt that 90 days would be a reasonable condition. Mr. Ford expressed the applicant's concern with Engineering condition number 4 which required an irrevocable offer of dedication of right -of -way for the realignment of Highland Avenue at the time of development of lot 853. He stated that the problem is that the applicant does not know at thiz time what the possible realignment might be. He expressed further concern regarding Engineering Conditions 7 -A and B and asked that bonds be posted for the required street improvements. Mr. Rougeau replied that normally the condition is worded to include the posting of surety bonds and that this language could be added. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel stated that the Commission is continually addressing the need for open space and could not agree that each of the lots in the 4,000 to 4,509 square foot lot area be divided by walls. He additionally stated that the bicycle lanes provided on thin map are in conflict with the approved Victoria Planned Community Text and need to be brought into confor- -,sce. Carlos Alba, representing Hall and Foreman, the engineers for the tract, addressed the issue of the bicycle trails stating that the trails bad be ^m altered for security reasons. Commissioner Hempel replied that the Victoria Plan was adopted with specific guidelines for trails and that the tract needs to be designed in conformance with that text. Commissioner Barker referred to Planning Division conditions 3 and 4 and asked for clarification of lot 853. Mr. Dreckman replied that more specifically lot 853 was located at southwest corner of Milliken and Highland. Commissioner Barker stated that this should be clarified in the Resolution. Commissioner Hempel stated that there were so many inconsistencies between this tract and the adopted text that he felt that it should be continued and the applicant directed to address the areas of inconsistency. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried, to continue Tentative Tract 12544 to the May 9, 1984 Planning Commission agenda. 3 i 0 f i 9:45 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 10:On - -m. - Planning Commission Reconvened i ! ! f i DIRECTOR` REPORTS K. ENVIR021MENTAL ASSESSFENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -04 - DAVIS - The development of a 20,000 square foot medical building on 1.07 acres of land in the industrial Park category (Subarea 6) located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Street - APN 201 - 381 -01. Frank Dreckman, ,assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked for public comment. Leonard Santos, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission expressing his concern with the Engineering conditions which required shared access with the adjacent parcel. He stated that allowing a 20 acre to place ingress and egress on a one acre parcel places an undue hardship on the smaller parcel. He pointed out that this is a medical building and that access will be used by emergency vehicles. Don Stephenson, representing Lusk Development, the adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission concurring with the applicant's request to remove the shared access requirement. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Barker asked the applicant if the colored elevation boards had been brought to the meeting for the Commission's review. Mr. Santos replied that he did not realize that the boards had not been submitted. Commissioner Barker stated that this was a concern and the Resolution should be further conditioned to require the submitting of colored elevations for approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Rempel stated that he could see where there might be problems with shared access for this parcel and the adjacent parcel and would be in favor of deleting that requirement. He pointed out that the 20 acre parcel would still have two points of access to Haven Avenue. Planning Cvnmission Minutes -8- April 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84 -04 With the deletion of the shared access condition and an added condition requiring submittal of the sample of exterior materials for approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building materials. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, HEMPEL, STOUT NOES: commISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL i i f t f L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEH 84 -02 - LINCOLN - The development of three warehouse distribution buildings tctaiing 463,210 square feet on 22.09 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial zone (Subarea 9) located at the northwest corn.- of Rochester Avenue and 8th Street - APN 229- 113-08, 09. Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the sta.' ' report. Chairman Stout asked for public input- Bill Shubic, representing Lincoln Properties, addressed the Ccmmission concerning the drill -w ack easement required under th3 conditions of approval. Mr. Shubin stated that this is not a condition which the railroad company would accept unti? someone desires use of that access. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied Pacific Play and cessiiswprovided for in certain subareas by the be right to allow this property to develop without a rail easement so that future properties would not be able to connect with the main rail line. Chairman Stout explained to the applicant that the City mould have to make rail connection provisions for the property to the north. He pointed out that if provisions are not made, a northerly property owner may need that rail access but be unable to obtain it from this property owner. Mr. Shubin asked if there would be a means to enter into an offer of dedication similar to those required for street improvements granting this applicant some relief in paying for 150 feet of track which the properties to t,be north would also be using. Mr. Rougeau suggested that the language could be adjusted to require an irrevocable reservation for a rail easement so that the northerly properties could connect with future lead or drill tracks. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84 -02, Lincoln, with an additional condition requiring an irrevocable reservation for rail easement providing access for the northerly properties. Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 25, 1984 AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s a * t 0 REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NONE JUAREZ, MCNIEL M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 64 -06 - COCA COLA - The development of two (2) warehouse additions totaling 26,400 square feet on 9.10 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 5) category located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Utica Avenue - APK 209 - 411 -16. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reaiewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comments. No one addressed this item. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84 -06, Coca Cola. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • i f ! i DIRECTOR'S REPORTS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, Si OUT KONE JDAREZ, MCNIEL N. STREET STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPJENT Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, and Rick Gomez, City Planner, presented the report to the Commission. Chairman Stout referred to the street width recommendations and suggested that the density range be broken down further to include two or less dwelling units per acre, to be followed by 2-4 dwelling uni,:s per acre. He additionally suggested that the garage setback should be e::tablish,ed at 18 feet so that enough space is provided on the driveway apron to allow the parking of two cars without parking on the sidewalk. Commissioner Rempel suggested that staff take a closer look at driveway widths. He additionally suggested that some means of alternative parking should be explored i1 higher density areas, even if is means losing a lot. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like to Vurther explore the policy issues when this item comes back before the Commissic::. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 25, 1984 The Commission was in concurrence with staff's suggested areas in need of review regarding private streets and directed staff to prepare policy resolutions and amendments to the Development Code. These are to be presented to the Commission at the next available Planning Commission meeting. * • 3 @ f 0. BUII DING USE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE IIZDUSfAiN1. st rc;ir s� r .euv - Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, presented an overview of recent problems associated with proposed and existing building design characteristics and use requirements. Mr. Beedle advised the Commission that these guidelines would be further studied by staff and a report would be presented to the Commission at a later date. The report was received by the Planning Commission with direction to staff to proceed with the study. 4 f t 0 t PUBLIC COMKI ;S dim Barton addressed the Commission regarding Haven Avenue. He stated that Haven Avenue will be a gateway to the City and that standards and policies need to be established. Rick Stenton addressed the Commission reiterating Mr. Barton's comment and stated that setback and landscaping standards along Archibald also need clarification. Chairman Stout directed staff' to prepare design guidelines for architecture and define what the City's definition of office/business park development. He suggested that this preparation be completed and presented as soon as possiblo. Chairman Stout also stated that there is a definite hole in the density range of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre as they relate to single family detached emits in Development Code and needs to be re- examined. Mr. Gomez replied that this would require a special meeting and staff would prepare this for the Planning Commission's review as soon as possible. DJOURN?M Motions Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to adjourn. 11.35 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 25, 1984 l RespectfNIly submitted, t. Rick Goinez, Deputy Planning •♦ Minutes -12- APril 25, 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA PLANNING COMMISSIOI Regular Meeting May 9, 1984 CALL TO ORDER 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 the Lions Parr, Community Center, 9161 Ease Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COI•Il'7ISSIOt?ERS PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Addie Juarez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ■ * * i i ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Stout stated he had received a letter of resignation from Planning Commissioner, Addie Juarez, effective May 4, 1984 and has forwarded the letter to Mayor Jon Mikels. Chairman Stout asked that a Commendation Resolution be prepared for Commissioner Juarez. The Commission concurred and staff was directed to prepare a resolution. � t +t • r MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve ;:he minutes of the March 14, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the April 11, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission_ Minutes 1 May 9, 1984 CONSEST CALENDAR Commissioner Barker asked that Item A be removed for discussion. Chairman Stout requested that Item E also be remcied for discussion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by L. Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Items B, C and D of the Consent Calendar. B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11549 -1 LEWI'� HOMES - Reapplication for design review of 27 single family homes on 17.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the east side of Etiwanda, south of Summit Avenue. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9539 - PLAZA BUILDERS - Reapplication for design review of 19 single family homes on 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the west side of Sapphire at .'ennet Street. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 9649 - LANDCO - A custom lot residential subdivision of 22.4 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Hermosa and Wilson Avenues in the Very Low (VL) District - APN 201 - 172 -14, 17. t � ■ � a A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACTS 9441 & 11609 - CRISMAR - Reapplication for design review of 84 single family homes on 47.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the south side of Wilson, east of Archibald. Commissioner Barker asked if the developer was present. Mr. Pete Peterson, representing Crismar Development, replied that he was present. Commissioner Barker asked if the CC &R's for these tracts will include the keeping of horses. Mr. Peterson replied that they will file CC&R's that will include this provision of keeping and maintaining horses. Motion: I',oved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -41 and approve Item A of the Consent Calendar. E. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11550 - NEEVA - A total development of 508 condominiums and 8 single family dwellings on 65 acres generally located on the south side of Wilson, east of Haven Avenue, in the Low Medium District - APN 201 - 191 -07. Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 9, 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA PLANNING COMMISS101 Regular Meeting May 9, 1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting Has held at the Liens Park Community Center, 9101 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Berman Re:npel, De,,.A_s Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Addie Juarez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer ANNJUNCEMENTS Chai ^man Stout stated he had received a letter of resignation from Planning Commissioner, Addie Juarez, effective May 4, 1984 and has forwarded the letter to MVyor Jon, Mikels. Chairman Stout asked that a Commendation Resolution be prepared for Commissioner Juarez. The Commission concurred and staff was directed to prepare a resolution. # # # # # MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempei, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempei, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the April 11, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. # # # # # Planning Commission Minutes 1 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that at the time it was approved by the Planning Commission, the General Plan did not contemplate Banyan continuing all the way through to the Etiwanda area; and, it is his understanding that the County's Foothill Communities Plan does plan for an extension of Banyan across the barrier that would subsequently align with Summit in the Etiwanda area. Chairman Stout further stated some type of stub should be provided at that portion of Banyan . Commissioner Barker stated his concurrence and asked if Mr. Rougeau would have any problem with this. Mr. Rougeau replied there will not be a problem. Chairman Stout asked if flagging this would be appropriate action to take. rlr. Rougeau replied it would be. Mrs. Bruce Ann Hal:n, 9939 LaVire, stated she has a problem with density in the area as there are 11 homes for sale and she would like to see the area downzoned. Chairman Stout explained what steps the developer has taken and the meetings which were held with the people of the Deer Creek subdivision to the north. Commissioner Rempel explained the amenities of this development, its p7rks and open space areas. He indicated there were many meetings with Chaffer College in order to satisfy their concerns regarding the development and that this project will not be an apartment complex. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -68A, approving the time extension for Tentative Tract 11550. f i i N s PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8547 - R. C. LAND COMPANY - A division of 111.4 acres of land into 2 parcels in Victoria Planned Community located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenues - APN 227- 081 -06. (Continued from April 25, 1984 meeting.) G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12433 - R & B - The development of 180 single family detached units on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Planned Community designated Medium (4 -14 du /ac) and Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac), generally located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - UN 227 - 081 -06. (Continued from Ap: '.1 25, 1984 aeeting. ) Chairman Stout advised that since Items F and G are related, they would be handled at one time. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 9, 1984 City Planner, Rick Gomez, asked that Item F be continued to the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission meeting to alloy: staff enough time to complete their analysis of the proposed parcel map. Mfr. Gomez stated that Item G had been continued from the last Planning Commission meeting because of a conflict between the arplicant, K & E, and the property owner, the William Lyon Company. Mr. Gomez indicated that the William Lyon Company had stated the two firms have not come to an agreement and the William Lyon Company has asked that this be taken off of future Planning Commission cal ^ndars. Further, it would be staff's recommendation that in order to take action in regard to the property owners' request and also meet the legal requirements of State lax regarding the tentative map processing time limits, that the Commission_ take action to deny this in order to eliminate any potential problems. Chairman Stout asked if the continuance of Item F was at the request of the a nlicant. Mr. Gomez replied that the Engineering Division is asking for the extension, of time for Item ^F °. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant is in agreement with the continuance for Item F. Mr. Gomez replied it is his understanding he :s. Chairman Stout requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the necessity of consent of the land owner in Item G for the approval of the tentative tract and the consequences of appealing the tentative tract approval. ?yip. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that Item G involves a tentative tract man which involves certain constraints on the Planning Commission. State law imposes a requirement that decision mpking bodies act within a certain time period to zpprove or deny a tentative tract., Mr. Hopson stated that this was continued from the Last Planning Commission meeting because staff thought there had been an engineering mistake which might explain the conflict between the land owner and the developer and was not settled within the past :.io weeks. Mr. Hopson indicated that the Commission cannot anpro:•e Tentative Tract 12344 in the face of the fact that the land owner prote: its covering land on which he does rct want that tract approved. Mr. Hopson stag :d that rather than running into the time concern of continuing Tract 12344, the Commission should deny the tract which would be without prejudice to tte land owner and the developer working out their differences and coming back to the Commission in a modified form. He further indicated that the Cos,ssion could see by the difference in the kinds of development approval sought that Item F tarn easily be continued, while Item G should be denied. Planning ("o=mission Minutes 4 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Steven Fcrd, representing the William Lyon Ccmaany for R. C. Land Company, stated he would answer any questions. Chairman Stout asked if it is his wish to continue Item F to May 24, 1984. ,Mr. Ford replied that he would like to have it continued to some indefinite time. Chairman Stout advised that if the problems are worked out, this item could be brought back. There being no further comments, the public heari. ^.g was closed. Commissioner Barker asked what an indefinite period of time is. Mr. Hopson stated that with regard to Item F, R. C. Land Company has that right and that he would have a problem continuing this for an indefinite period of time because it does not satisfy the public action and public hearing requirements imposed on the City. Further, it can't be continued indefinitely, but it can be withdrawn and then republished at a later date. He indicated that there would be no problem with withdrawing the item : om the Plar.r'ng Commission calendar and then republishing and reposting. Mr. Sops.::. asked M.^. Ford relative to Item G if he had indicated that the tract map did cover land owned by the William Lyon Company and that there was no agreement with the tentative tract map being proposed that covered the 5 odd acres. Mr. Ford replied that they have no agreement with K g B to purchase the property or to develop it in any way. Mr. Hopson asked if they like what is being proposed for their land and if they want it. Mr. Ford replied that they do not like it nor want it. Mr. Hopson :faced his recommendatioa is to withdraw Item F and deny Item G. He indicat -ci that item F could be readvertised and brought back at the applicant's request. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to withdraw Iten F from consideration at the request of the applicant and brought back with the requirement for readvertising at a later date. Notion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to deny Item G based on the City Attorney's opinion and Mr. Ford's remarks that the tentative tract map is inconsistent with the ownership of the land and the owner's request not to process the tract map. Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 9, 1984 H. - - - �����,�:•• euvu _aivltii us zxei'r 12 -4+{ - LYON - A residential tract subdivision consisting of 870 lots on 154 acres of land in the Planned Community, located south of Highland Avenue, west of Milliken Avenue, north of the Pacific Electric railroad, and east of the Deer Creek Channel - APN 202 - 211 -8, 12, 13, and 34. (Continued from April 25, 1984 meeting.) City Planner, Rick Gomez, asked that the Commission consider a request for a specific workshop so that staff can present an analysis of the issues that were brought forward at the last public hearing, such as green-aays, passeos, trails, etc., on the Victoria Planned Community. Further, other topics could also be included in the workshop if the Planning Commission desired. Mr. Gomez suggested that the date o£ May 30 was available for a workshop if the Commission wished to hold it in this room. Commissioner Rempel stated that he thought a workshop to be a good idea and several other items could be tied in at the same time. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like discussion on the Victoria Planned Community to include the trails, drainage and expectations of the Planning Commission as to where it is going, concepts, policies and trends of the whole Planned Community's presentation to date, and clarification of the issues involved. Commissioner Barker indicated that at the last Planning Commission meeting he stated that some of the language in the plan may be ambigc:ous. Further., through a meeting of this sort, the Commission can give clear direction to staff and the developer. Chairman Stout stated he would like this workshop on the specific project to be a ,enerai review of how Victoria is working out. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gom ^z if it is the intent of staff to cover this or a specific project. M.^. Gomez replied it was intended to cover this specific project and the specific issues relative to this project as outlined by the Commission at their last meeting. Chairman Stout stated that the trails should be addressed as Commissioner Rempel earlier stated as well as the philosophy of the plan and how it does or does not meet that philosophy. Further, design or other related issues, yards, streets and whether Victoria Parkway needs to be modified without a trail. He indicated that this particular project has design —oblems and grading problems. Commissioner Rempel stated that on the issue of yards, whenever you have a slope of over 1 -2:9 it becomes necessary to orient streets to the north and south rather than from the east and west and this is one factor with lot separation. Commissioner Rempel stated further that passeos, parkways, lot configuration, street configuration, and the way the back yards and the streets are ending up should be discussed. He indicated he wanted as much open space as possible. Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that hoer was not involved in the actual discussion of Victoria when they brought the project in, but if the Commission feels that there are critical areas they Should be looked at during this workshop. Further, any ambiguous language mast be addressed. Ms. Gomez asked what specific areas Mr. Stout was interested in regarding the tentative tract. Chairman Stout replied that if there were major discussions in the Design Review or Development Review Committees, he would like to know what these issues were. Commisloner Mc Niel asked entire project as well. seconder ^ily wanted Chairman Stout replied that at the workshop he would like to discuss the specific project itself and secondly, he would like t� discuss the entire Planned Community at a later date. Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission should indicate to staff that they :rant another review date. Commissioner Hempel offered a suggestion_ to the William Lyon Company that they bring the slides that were shown to the Commission at the time of the Victoria hearing so that the newer Commissioners could see the same thing. Mr. Gomez asked if the applicant would agree to a continuance to May 30. He indicated that the request would be followed up by a letter. Chairman Stout stated relative to Tract 12544, the public hearing is open. Mr. Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon. Company, indicat_d he would answer questions. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Ford would consent to a continuance to May 30, 1984 for a workshop study session. llt -. Ford asked if the workshop could ere scheduled sooner. Chairman Stout replied he did not think anything realisti.:!. Mr. Ford stated there would be a problem with that date inasmuch as the regional manager and 'himself would be attending a Pacific Coast Builders Conference. Chairman Stout replied the Commission will try to accommodate their schedule as best they can. Planning Commission Minutes M_^. Gomez stated if the Commission wants to set the workshop for the 5th of June, staff would work out the location. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to tentatively continue this item to June 5, 1984 for a workshop. t t ,� ■ f I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -07 - IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH - A request to operate a church in an existing 2,000 square foot building on 4.39 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 4), located at 8968 Archibald Avenue - (Willows Professional Center) - APN 2G9- 171 -15. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, r. iewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if when this particular center was proposed there was a master plan for parking on the unused portion of the land. Further, that he is curious as to why there is a parking problem because originally there were enough spaces to cover and with the restriction of hours, is it an indication that there are not enough parking spaces during the day. Chairman Stout asked if this proposal is a more intense use than what was originally proposed for this center. Mr. Coleman replied if iz. Chairman stout opened the public hearing. M.^. Clark Hamill, the Engineer for the Baptist Church, was present to answer questions. Chairman Stout asked if he understood and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hamill replied affirmatively. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commiss4. =Pr Rempel felt this to be a good use in the facility. Commission Banker was absent during discussion and vote. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -43 approving Conditional Use Permit 84 -07. � s ■ � � Paanning Commission Minutes 8 May 9, 1984 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -07 - AJA - The development of two 51,250 sq. ft. industrial park office suites on 8.18 acres of land ir the industrial park zone (Subarea 6) located on the we;': side of :raven Avenue between 6th & 7th Streets - APN 209- 261 -17 through 20. Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report and showed slides of the proposed project. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant was not yet present. Mr. Jeff Sceranka, executive director of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, advised that the Chamber has not met on this project and that he was speaking as a former Planning Commissioner. He spoke of the intent of the industrial Specific Plan, problems the City is having along Archibald with specifically designed structures which tend to draw commercial uses, and what specific support really is relative to professional uses. He indicated that if designs such as are proposed for this project are permitted along Haven, it will dilute the character of office professional along this corridor. Further, there are no assurances that as tenants change, the use will remain the same. There being no further comments, the oublic hearing was closed. Mr. James Barton stated that the applicants were delayed but would be here. The commission postponed further discussion on this item pending arrival of the applicant and went on to the next agenda item. K. GENERAL PLAN IC-DIAN ISLA*ID POLICIES City Planner, Rick. Gomez, and City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs, presented the staff report and showed slides illustrating some of the problems with street widths and median island requirements. Mr. Hubbs explained that the City Council requested input from the Commission on the use of median islands along Base Line Road, west of Haven to the City limits; Archibald Avenue; Arrow Route; and Rochester Avenue. He indicated that medians are designated along Haven, Milliken, Victoria Parkway, 6th Street and 4th Street. Ct- irman Stout stated that this is not a public hearing but asked if anyone in Lhe audience wished to comment. Mr. Jim Barton stated he can ,Liders:;and median islands on north /south streets but they create problems on can'. /west streets as they present additional structure and drainage problems. Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 9, 1984 Mr. Jeff Sceranka stated the Chamber of Commerce discussed median islands approximately three months ago and had a lot of input from the merchants. The consensus of the merchants is that they have gone this long without median islands so it was not extremely important, and additionally were concerned about installation of medians on Base Lire because of possible access problems. There being no Further comments, Chairman. Stout closed the comment portion. Commissioner Rempel stated originally the Commission wanted the median islands because of problems with left turning and traffic congestion. He indicated that if merchants say they are unaware of the possibility of medians, the fault lies with the developers and the merchants themselves for not checking. Commissioner Rempel stated that there would not be as much a problem on Base Line with trucks turning as there would be on Arrow because of street widths. He felt that there are areas which would not benefit from medians because of the street widtlr but felt that some type of short median should be provided to permit left turns. Chairman Stout stated that if medians were put in at the time of building, it would eliminate the problem. Commissioner Rempel stated that there was such a requirement but it does not totally eliminate the problem. Commissioner McNiel stated that there are some places where a left turn should be designed in so that there is controlled chaos rather than uncontrolled chaos and there are at least one —half dozen locations where a median would apply for safety reasons. Chairman Stout stated that the median on Archibald north of Arrow is dangerous because you always see people running into it. Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the problems there is that people try to get from the service station and that the median on the south end sticks far into the intersection. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Hubbs where there are partial medians for safety reasons, are they really practical. Mr. Hubbs replied that they are and they also provide character to the intersection. Chairman Stout asked if medians are sometimes included on streets that don't require them. Mr. Hubbs replied that he did not believe so because most are required on secondary or highway streets. Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated he agreed with Commissioner Rempel that there are some streets which should have partial medians because of safety reasons. The Commission concurred. Chairman Stout indicated that the Commission would make its recommendations known on the individual streets. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to have the requirement for 'medians removed on Base Lire west of Haven. Chairman Stout asked for a motion on Archibald Avenue. Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Hubbs if a study could be made of intersections which may require medians to be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Hubbs replied that the problem is interpreting what is required on a particular street. He thought it more des;.rable to deal with this on a project by project basis. Commissioner Rempel stated that may time there is a major route that carries traffic through the City as Archibald does with its configuration and number of driveways, there is a serious problem. He felt there would be difficulty in placing a median in Archibald although sevoral years ago he had voted to put medians there. Further, there would be a problem with any street that is 72 feet curb to curb, and Archibald, except where there are safety requirements, should be exempted frora medians. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to remove the requirement on Archibald for its entire length except where required for safety reasons. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to d ^fete the requirement for median islands from Arrow Route. There was discussion on Rochester Avenue north of Foothill. Mr. Rougeau stated that there is a street master plan which requires the street to be 72 feet wide north of Baseline and may require four lanes. Commissioner Rempel stated that north of there, the Commission should look towards eliminating truck traffic. Further, it may be valuable to have a divider. Mr. Rougeau replied that it will be a 2 -Zane collector and they are proposing to upgrade it to a 4 -lane road north of Highland. Commissioner P.empel stated that he would really like to have Rochester pulled off of this to see what the design is really going to be. He felt that truck traffic should be prohibited on Rochester north of Foothill. Planning C.-.=mission May 9, i0184 otion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to delete the median requirement on Rochester south of Foothill except where indicated for safety reasons. Commissioner Rempel stated that since they are deleting median islands the length of entire streets, the Commission should also authorize staff to install medians wherever necessary for safety reasons. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to so authorize. Mr. Gomez stated that staff could also devise a policy which could be incorporated in the General Plan regarding medians for safety reasons. 8:27 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. � a a ■ a The Planning Commission went back to Item J - Environmental Assessment and Development Review 84 -07 - AJA. Chairman Stout stated that the staff report had previously been presented and the public hearing previously opened. Mr. Richard Stenton, the applicznt, explained the design of the project as an office park with spaces for professionals such as attorneys, accountants, etc. He described the building design, landscape treatment, and the fact that they are seeking to transition this project with the industrial users off of Haven and the complex at Foothill and Haven in an attempt to create affordable office space. Mr. Stenton stated that he has provided enough landscaping and has tried to buffer the dock high buildings that have high truck traffic and warehousing. Mr. Bob Garrison with Mission Equity, the project manager, presented four photographs for the Commission to review of various other store front type office /professional buildings for comparison purposes. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel asked whether parking is recessed in photograph No. 3. Mr. Garrison repli6,; that the property is lower than street level and they :could have an eren lower level of parking in this project to conceal as mucil as possible the cars from passing view. He indicated that they wish to create a campus -like atmosphere. Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 9, 1984 Commissioner McNiel stated that from the renderings that are being shown, this project looks like a commercial center. He asked what the percentage of landscaping is. Mr. Stenton repliei that it is between 18 -20 percent in the front of the single stories. He indicated that they have created a boutique -like effect and they will have restrictions as to who they will rent to to as well as a sign program. Further, there would not be any use of neon lights. Commissioner McNiel stated that if the landscaping is as extensive as the applicants say it will be, the project will be difficult to sea in the first place. Further, that it would appear that the buildings are well screened and they have accomplished what subarea o requires. Commissioner Barker stated that the quality or attractiveness of the project is not the question but rather compatibility with the Industrial Specific Plan is. He indicated that he agrees with Mr. Sceranka and he is not sure the applicant can enforce precisely the type of clientele it wishes to use the buildings. Further, the concept is that of a boutique and will attract commercial uses and end up being exactly what the Commission does not want to have in the area. Commissioner Rempel stated that Commissioner Barker has stated it quite well. Further, the appearance of the structure plus the design tell that `his is a commercial establishment and he has the same problem. Chairman Stout stated that they are trying to discourage strip commercial on Haven to the point where it will be eliminated. He indicated that the problem with this project is that while it is an excellent design, it would set a precedent that the Commission does not want to set for other developers who might come in with a similar design that are not as beautiful as this. Chairman Stout stated that since this looks like a commercial center it will be an attraction for persons to come in. He further stated that this is a fine design and he would love to have it elsewhere in the City, but not on Haven. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would argue Chairman Stout's point in that anywhere that a group of buildings are as stretched out as this project is, it would take a major type of store around it. He further stated that this would not work with the amount of square footage that it is taking and that the second floor office area is indicative of a commercial center. Commissioner Rempel stated that the shops are ancillary to the other spaces in this building. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -44 denying Development Review 84 -07. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that some time ago there was a project which required referral to the Historical Committee. Further, on May 3, 1984, the Committee acted on a request to have the Cherbak residence located at 10009 Hillside declared suitable for historical designation. The Committee determined that this residence is not suitable for this designation and Chairman Stout indicated that the Planning Commission should, by minute action, accept their findings. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded acknowledge that the Cherbak house was and would not cloud Tract 12588. by McNiel, carried unanimously, to unsuitable for historical designation Chairman Stout stated with respect to the Design Review Committee and the resignation of Commissioner Juarez, it will be necessary to make some changes. Because of scheduling problems, he sugge .qted that staff give consideration to holding the Design Review meetings at aziother time. Mr. Gomez replied that the Commission, may want to have a subcommittee to meet within the next 30 days to discuss this and make some determination so that staff can develop a program and bring this back to the entire Commission. Commissioners Barker and Stout volunteered to act as a subcommittee. Chairman Stout asked that Mr. Gomez be a part of the subcommittee. Commissioner Barker stated that he is the actu *al member of the Design Review Committee and that Commissioner Hempel is the alternate but the change would occur on July 1. # # # # # ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Hempel, secondee by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 9:15 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. # # # # # Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning Commissi�-.^. Minutes 14 May 9, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 23, 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, 9561 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer t • a a a ANNOUNCEMENTS Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he would like to clarify a statement which he made at a previous meeting. He advised that there is a time limit on the approval of parcel maps as well as on tentative tract maps. However, either time limit is waived when the developer desires to extend the time limit. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11734 - AMERICAN NLTIONAL - Reapplication for Design Review of modifications to the architectural product for 98 condominiums on 8.5 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow and Vineyard. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -20 - SHARMA - The development of a 3,691 square foot elementary schocl and two temporary trailers on 3/4 acres located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard - APN 208- 241 -05. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11663 - MARLBOROUGH - A development of 383 townhouse units on 40 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald, south of Church Street - APN 1077 - 341 -01, 1077 - 133 -08, and 1077 - 631 -03. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATTVE TRACT 12171 - STEPHENSON - A custom lot subdivision of six lots on 3.3 acres of land in the Very Low (VL) District, located at the northwest corner of Rlusman Avenue and Wnirlaway Street - APR 511- 06 -07. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -11 - MACBETH - The deveioprant of an 80,332 square foot mini- storage facility on 3.56 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) located near the southwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue - APR 209- 03 + -43. Commissioner Barker requested that Item "E ", Sharma, be vemoved for discussion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the remaining items on the Consent Calendar. f f * * i B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -20 - SHARMA Commissioner Barker stated that the,ee were a number of items of concert when the project first came before the Commission whir' 5asulted in conditions being placed on this project; however, these conditions and requirements have apparently been ignored by the applicant. He asked Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, if the trailers have been removed. Mr. Coleman replied that had been removed last week. Commissioner Barker asked if there were other items in violation o_ the conditions of approval. Mr. Coleman replied that on his last visit to the site some land4caping was not completed and a chain link fence across a portion of the parking lot had been extended. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Sharma to come forward. He asked Mr. Sharma if his intentions are to restore this facility with the same type of urchiteeture or if he was planning to change that concept. Mr. Sharma replied that he has recently employed Andrew Barmakian to work on plans and a decision on the architecture has not been made at this time. Chairman Stout asked '.f 6- months would be a realistic time in which to complete these plans an,l submit them to the City. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 23, 1984 Mr. Sharma replied that it would. Mr. Coleman stated that if the Commission did grant a 6 -month extension the applicant would have to occupy the temporary trailers within 6- months or have building permits issued. Motion: Moved by Barker, second ^_d by Stout, to deny to time extension request for Conditional Ise Permit 82 -20. Motion failed. Motion: Moved by °smael, seconded by McNiel, to approve the time extension. Commissioner McNiel advised the applicant that the commitments and agreements made should be followed through because the Commission's deadlock now is for that reason. Lotion failed. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if an affirmative action cannot be taken by the Commission the Conditional Use Permit for this project proceeds until it expires on the date first estr-blished. Chairman Stout asked when this project expires. Mr. Coleman stated that based upon Mr. Hopson's statement, the Conditional Use Permit expired on May 1o, 1984. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIR01MATAL ASSESSMENT OD TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A residential development of 225 single family lots on 147.16 acres of land in the Very Low Residential district located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of the Hillside Flood Channel, and north of Hillside Raod - APN 201- 121 -16. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker stated that many of the letters received from homeowners within the existing Deer Creek project contained statements that promises were made to them by the developer that the one acre concept of the existing tract would carry Lhrough the entire development. He asked Mr. Hopson if the Commission is in a position to enforce those promises made by the developer. wed H. ?eon, Assistant City Attorney, replied that while this may be a civil wrong which could result in litigation betwee:: the humeowner3 and the developer as to breached promises, the Commission is n-- t in a position to :sake a determination as to who made promises to whom. Further, that it is not part of the material to be considered before the Commission, as thekr responsibility 13 to determine if a tentative tract is in compliance with existing codes, ordinances and General Plan designations. Planning Commission Minates -3- May 23, 1984 Commissioner Barker advised that, based on this direction counsel, the public comments would be best directed to the Commission on :;,ether mitigating factors are present which would not make this project compatible with the existing sr.•roundings. ,:hairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Vairin, 9524 19th Street; Rancaia Cucamonga, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating their concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Stout referred to Mr. Vairin's letter to the Deer Creek homeowners dated April 12, 1984 and stated that reference had been made to the unit size as 2900 -3900 square feet, yet Ms. Vairin made reference to 2500 square foot units. He asked Mr. Vairin what would be the minimum unit size. Mr. Vairin replied that determinations on u^iit sizes are premature at this time, as the units have not yet been designed. He advised that the 2900 square foot figure evolved from a unit which the applicant had recently completed design on and is proposing to construct. Chairman Stcat askel what the applicant's position would be on a set minimum square footage for residential units. Mr. Vairin replied that the current CC&R's for Deer Creek contain a minimum 1800 square foot minimum. He advised that architectural plans had not been developed for the full phase and would like to hale an opportunity to discuss this minimum with the owner. Further that the developer plans to build some of the homes existent in the current tract which are within the 1950 -2200 square foot range, and this minimum would prohibit him from doing this. Commissioner Bark-:- asked if the applicant had worked with the Deer Creek homeowners on the placement of equestrian trails. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant worked with the Trails Committee on the equestrian trails and intends to retain the same trails cone,--pt in the new phases. Commissioner Barker asked if a parks credit had been given for the trails. Ted Hopson stated that a determination had been made several years ago that private trails that are not accessible to the public at large woule receive 50 percent parks credit. Commissioner Barker stated that in light of the fact that the applicant is not requesting park credit, would it be safe to assume that the applicant would not object to a condition being made that no park credit be given. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant would agree to this. Planning CommissioL Minutes -4— May 23, 1984 The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the tract based upon incompatibilities with the existing development and expressing concerns with property values, avid that the developer might sell this property. Additionally, three conditions were recommended by homeowners. (1) the name "Deer Creek" not be used fcr the-new phase; (2) a greenbelt be provided to separate the two phases; and (3) that the north /south streets be cul-de -sac streets. David Britton - 10920 Beachwood Drive - Rancho Cucamonga Donna Card - 10915 Hillside •- Rancho Cucamonga Nancy Oakland - 10761 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Ken Aldridge - 10938 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Joyce Juliana - 10781 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Richard Smith - 5381 Valinda - Rancho Cucamonga Dr. Balakrishnan - 10856 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Barbara Balakrishnan - 10856 Hillside - Rancho Cue:&=nga Patricia Berona - 10918 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Ralph Daigle - 5235 Mesada - Rancho Cucamonga Genevieve MacDowell - 10518 Peach Tree - Rancho Cucamonga Bob Glennon - 5675 Canastil Rancho Cucamonga Bill Hoard - 10721 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Jeri Lee - 10923 Hillside - Rancho 02camonga Weldon Sewell - 10521 Apple Lane - Rancho Cucamonga The following individuals address-,;, the Commission in support of the project based upon the reputation of tae: developer to build what was termed ^qualit °° homes, the .feeling the new project would be detrimental to their property values, and stated that a one -acre lot is too expensive to maintain. Anne Calir_sky - 5468 Valinda - Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Wilcox - 10802 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga '. - Hedgpeth - 10565 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Mr. %irakossian - 10688 Beachwood - Rancho Cucamonga Dr. Fisgus - 10876 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments and the publi: hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker referred to the homeowners' request that the new phase not be called by the name Deer Creek and asked if the Commission has this right. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that he did not believe under the Subdivision Map Act that the Commission has the right to say what a development can or cannot be called. Commissioner Barker states that nary of the homeowners expressed concern that the developer of Deer Creek: might sell this property and the nomeowners had suggested that the developer post. b�_..ia for a juality development. He asked for Mr. Hopson's comment. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 23, 1984 Mr. Hopson replied that the City ca=ot prohibit a developer from selling his property. He advised that bo:9s can be required for items such as off -site improvements, but that a quality development cannot be bonded for but can be assured through the City's design review process. Chairman Stout stated that he nould not accept this development if there was not a minimum square footage set on the unit size and suggested 2500 square Peet. Commissioner Rempel suggested that language be added to the Conditions of Approval which requires that the new tract be architecturally compatible with the existing tract so that compatibility will be assured when the specific designs go before the Design Review Committee. Ted Hopson, Assistant City attorney, advised that the Commission not only has the power to condition thi! oroject to be suboitted to the Design Review Committee, but also the power to require it to come before the full Commission. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like the property owners be notified when the project comes before the Commission for de:aign review. Commissioner Rempel advised that design review items are not generally handled as public hearings and requiring this project to be har_dled as such may be setting a precedent. He suggested that a language could be added to the conditions which would require notices to be sent to property owners within the existing Deer Creek tract. Commissioner Barker referred to the homeowners' concern that the lot widths t_ould limit the house designs. He suggested that a randomly selected lot be dropped from each of the four northern levels to allow " ?e flexibility to provide lot widths of 140 feet. Chairman Stout referred to the homeowners' suggestion of requiring all of the streets in the new phase „o be cul-de-sac streets and advised th2t this would place too much traffic on °aven Avenue. He stated that even with the increased density of this tract adding an extra street would allow a balance of traffic that would charnel some of the traffic onto Faven that normally would have gone onto Hillside. He further stated that eliminating the circulation pattern would unduly be placing a burden to the residents of the new tract who are not present to voice their opinions. Commissioner McNiel advised tnat requiring cul-de -sac streets would also present a problem with emergency vehicle access. Chairman Stout referred to the issue of the greenbelt suggested by the homeowners and stated that he did not feel that the two tracts should be separated. Further, that the nua:.ity of the existing tract would be forced higher than if it was allowed to be acted off. He advised that through careful scrutiny and the City's Design Review process, tta tracts can be made into one contiguous project. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 23, 1984 Chairman Stout reiterated the conditions suggested by the Commission to set 2500 square feet as a minimum unit size, requiring public noticing of design review, and lot removal and asked the applicant if lie would like to comment. Michael Vairin, representing the applicant, stated that the developer stands on his record to build quality homes and that normal design review procedures required by the City would assure well designed homes; therefore, did not see the necessity to notice homeowners when the project comes before the Commission for design review. He did also express concern with establising 2500 square feet as a minimum unit size. He advised that this would to in conflict with the CCAR's for the existing tract which will also be used for the proposed tract. Fe stated that the minimum unit size stipulated in the CC&R's is 1800 square feet. He added that some of the homes within Deer Creek are 1950 square feet and that setting the unit size minimum at 2500 square feet would make those units non - conforming and would require an amendment to the CC&R's. Further, that he did not believe that setting a minimum unit size was a provision allowed by the Subdivision Map Act. He additionally expressed concern with the condition to drop a lot from each of the four northern tiers and stated that lot lines could be adjusted without removing lots. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not see why the CC&R's would have to be amended becau::c the Commission was not requiring that the minim size go below the 1800 square feet first required. Additionally, he advised that it would be in the developer's best interest to loose four lots in an effort to make the development work with the existing tract. Commissioner Barker stated that the 2500 square foot minimum was a compromise down from the 2900 square foci the applicant had originally referred to and that the intent was to assure that smaller homes would not be built. Regarding the loss of four lots, he responded that this was the only solution available to provide variable lot widths. Chairman Stout stated that the conditions would b,3 the City's assurance that the proposed tract is compatible with the existing tract to the south. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12650 with additional conditions requiring: 0) the submittal of precise designs, architecture and plot plans to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits; (2) notification of each property owner within the existing Deer Creek development of the date the project will be reviewer. by the Commission; (3) all future residential units be a minimum of 250? square feet; and, (4) removal of one lot is each of the `our northern tiers to provide a random number of lots with a minimum lot width of 140 feet. COMMISS?ONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CC*TSSIONERS: Planning Commission Minutes i i • ! f 9:40 - Planning Commission Recessed 9:50 - Planning Commission Reconvened i f f i * G. - A public hearing regarding pertain aspect pertaining to the Terra Vista Planned Community. City Manager Lauren Wasserman reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, tberefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, secondsd by McNiel, carried, to recommend that the develcpmert agreement proceed to the City Council. f f t ■ ; H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND - SVELOPMENT REVM 84 -09 - BATES (ASIrvil ,L/HAWKINS) - The development of two office /industrial buildings totaling 29,184 square feet on 2.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and 7th Street - APN 209 - 411 -01. Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report and presented staff's recommendation for denial of the project. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Chris Bates, Irvine, California, applicant, stated that prior to submittal of this project to the City he purchased a copy of the current Industrial Specific Plan and Had attemped to follow tbs guidelines estab..ished in that document. He questioned condition one of tra Resolution which 3tsted tnat the project did not conform the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attom -ey, advised that Section 17,06 of the Development Code supercedes the requirements specified in the Industrial Specific Plan. Mr. Bates stated that he was not informed by City staff that there were other reference documents other than the Industrial Specific Plan on which to base guidelines for development of a project. Further, that the Resolution specifically states that the project is inconsistent with the intent and objectives of the Industrial Plan and asked for an explanation. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 23, 1984 Mr. Hopson advised that staff does not make findings and explained that Section 1 7.06.020 -F -if. the Development Code establishes findings that must be met in order for the Commission to approve a project. Charles Doskow, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the statement in the staff report under the facts for finding is that the project is inconsistent with the Industrial Specific Plan. The applicant's question, he stated, is just what aspect of the project is inconsistent? Mr. Hopson replied that development standards exist within the Development Code which are required prior to Commission approval. Gene ishwill, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the parcel is 300 feet by 300 feet and is a difficult site to work with. He advised that the intent of the building design aas to provide transitional uses from co=mreial to service professional uses catering to the industrial area. Be asked how the issue of an office and administrative project in a campus like setting would be addressed when the back half of the project faces a warehouse distribution use. He stated that he felt the proposed use would be a good transitional use for this property in this it has a different problem than other properties that front on Haven Avenue. Chairman Stout stated that apparently the applicant views the property differently than the City does and that in order for it to be developed es envisioned by the applicant a zone change to commercial would be necessary. He further stated that when he views the layout of this project as proposed it looks like a shopping center. Mr. Ashwill replied that the configuration may look like a shopping center to some, but when the depth ratio of the buildings and parking is considered the project is not proposed as a shopping center. Chairman Stoat stated a guarantee could not be made that this applicant would always own this piece of property and that the glass store front lends itself to commercial uses and that people who are looking for office professional spaces would not be dram to this type of center. Commissioner Rempel stated that a disservice had been done in not stating in the Indistural Specific Plan that the intent of the office park category was to have 30 percent service commercial and the rest developed in offices. Further, that the City can't allow the service commercial ancillary •-nes to take over the office designation. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 23, 1984 Mr. Ashwill stated that this presents a problem to the brokers who represent this property as service commercial and that he did not see how office projects could be forced on an applicant when the area will not support more offices. He additionally stated that guidance was . t given by the City as to the intent and objectives for the industrial area tn� interpretation does not exist in the Industrial Specific Plan. Mr. Hopson replied that under the Industrial Park category for Subarea 6 of the Industrial Plan states that the land is reserved for industrial firms seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment. Mr. Ashwill stated that he did not think the ave-rage man on the street would interpret the Industrial Specific Plan in this way and suggested that a problem exists in the Plan's language. Chairman Stout advised that the City is currently undergoing a study of the Haven Avenue corridor to see if problems do exist. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel stated that a lot of work went into the development of the Industrial Specific Plan, and no doubt there are areas which need to have the language tightened up. He advised that the City's intent was that projects located along Haven Avenue would be offices with their warehouses and plants located in the back and the other permitted uses would be ancillary to an office park. Further, that it was never intended that nothing but commercial would be located along Haven Avenue. Additionally, the configuration of this project lends itself to commercial uses. He advised that this project could have been designed with an office building located in the front and the other commercial buildings in the back. Commissioner Barker suggested that copies of the Haven Avenue Corridor Study be made available to brokers and investers with an interest in property located along Haven. Commissioner McNiel advised Uhat the City's position or.. Haven Avenue is very rigid and that the approach to Haven Avenue has always been well defined. He stated that when the applicant left the Design Review Committee meeting ttey had a good idea of what was expected of a project on Haven Avenue, so this should be of no surprise this evening. Mr. Hopson advised that the Commission's position that the design of this project is not consistent with the function or appearance of the Subarea !n which is located is documented within the language of the Industrial Specific Plan. Additionally, that it is not the function of the Planning Commission to indicate how a project is to be designed, but through their comments made th_s evening help the applicant redesign his project. He advised that the Commission has a professional staff at the City to more specifically guide the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 2_, 1984 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt• the Resolution to deny the project.. AYES: COMMMIOKERS: BARKER, MCNT_EL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE f i $ • t DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. BASE LINE MEDIAN DESIGN Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff's recommendation for the Base Line Median Design. Mr. Coleman advised that the ---commendad construction drawings indicate 15 gallon Goldenrain trees planted 20 feet on center, with underplant!.ngs of Oleander and Natal Plum shrubs. Additionally, he advised that the median design is proposed to include stamped concrete in a pattern resembling alluvial granite stone. Further, he stated that a shrub spray head irrigation system is proposed; however, it was staff's recommendation that soil moisture tensiometers be included to adequately control watering. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, carried to approve staff's recommendation by Minute action. t 4 i • i OLD BUSINESS J. CARYN DEVr-.LOPSE.NT (COUNTY PROJECT) Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the Caryn development project proposed within the City's sphere of influence north of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan, between Milliken and Rochester Avenue. Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission and commended staff and Commission for their input into the project. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried to concur with staff's recommendations to the County and that the project proceed. • � • a • Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 23, 1984 PUBLIC CCFMEBT Commissioner Rempel stated that -he would like to have a review conducted of the City's grading requirements, specifically in the areas where grades are 4 to 5 percent. He advised that he would like to see a Commission policy reflected in a Resolution to reduce grades in those areas. Jeff Sceranka, Executive Director of the Chamber of Cuamerce, addressed the Commission and asked that one Commission membe- be appointed to serve on the Haven Avenue Corridor Committee. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adjourn. 11:25 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 23, 1984 C E 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 13, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -12 - - Keappiication for oesign review ,�f modifications to the architectural design for a preschool to be located on the northeast corner of Church and Turner. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of revised e eva—i t s, in particular the roof design. This project was originally approved by the !Tanning Commission on August 11, 1982. II. ANALYSIS: III A. General: The elevations have b,� redesigned with a new roof esign, as shown on the attached Exhibit "0 ". In addition, the applicant has revised the elevations pursuant to the Conditions of Approval regarding siding and office entryway. S. Desi n Review Committee: The Committee recommended approval of the proposed elevation changes and roof ucsign and determined that they are consistent with the original architectural theme and concept for the building. RECOMMENDATION: If the Committee's recommendation, bt in ordeer ttf,glAy submitted, Rick nez City nn RGI�DC:jr Attachments: J Commissi -on concurs with Design Review approval of the elevation changes would Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations - approved Exhibit "D" - Elevations - Proposed Origi4al Resolution of Approval Resolution of Approval for Design Changes ITEM A I OQ _ — NORTI i CITY O RANCHO CUGMN- IO::GA i LANNI \G DIVISION iTL\1: "G" (G- V.PBZ -rZ) TITLE- 6=4mnQ muF=o E- Nlill3lT- _SC%L-E• Q _;Z C El 0 !r_r i ;. ® RESOLUTION NO. 82 -77 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -12 FOR CHILDREN'S WORLD PRESCHOOL LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TURNER AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET IN THE A -1 ZONE WHEREAS, or, the 4th day was filed by Lederman*: Architects project; and !WHEREAS, on the 11th da Planning Commission held a public project. of June, 1982, a complete application for review of the above- described y of August, 1982, t.e Rancho Cucamonga hearing to consicer the above - described NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Corrrission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findirgs can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, anG the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvem?nts in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on August 11, 1982. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -12 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. The exterior materials used on the oroDosed building rrist be consistent on all elevations to unify the building design. As per Design Review Committee recc.*slei,uations, the lowar portions of all elevations must ne stucco below the horizontal fascia board. Wood siding must be used above the horizontal trim on all sides. The final ravl.:ions must be submitted s -G Resolution No. 8 '7 Page 2 t-J to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The office entryo_y on the south elevation must be orovided with an overhead canopy or trellis structure as per Design. Review Committee recom- mendations. Details of ti�is structure must be submitted to ano �Ioproved b_i thL Planning Division prior to issuance cf building permits. 3. Some existing palm trees within the right -of -way at the southwest corner of the site must_ be saved and replanted at or rear the southwest corner of the project. Details of the enact number of trees to be saved and replanted must be submitted with the master plan of existin trees required as per standard condition number C2. �. The 6' high block wall on the north side of the playground must be located on the property line. The existing eucalyptus trees may be removed if replaced by another species of eucalyptus. De- tails must be shown on the detailed landscaping and irrigation plans submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The block wall at the southeast co•.ner of the parking lo.: shall step down in height so that the view of cars exiting the parking lot is not obstructed. W;thin 25' of the Church Street property line the - eximur height shall be 4'. ENGINEERING DIVISION 6. The intersection of Church Street and Turner Avenue shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. The existing storm drain on Turner Avenue shall be extended easterly to the proposed catch basin. The proposed catch basin shall be designed as a curb opening type per city standards. APPROVED .4ND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1982. PLANNING COM1iISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA E 9 -'f 11 E Ic Resolution No. 82 -77 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and rriaularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, it a regular meetiry of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of August, 1982, by the follcwing vote - to -Hit: AYES: COMISSIONERS NOES. CDVISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Barker, McNiei, Stout, King None None fi' d v e � N N = G. r 4 = �• L V N V C N L. �� .s. � c N yEr N s4�...- c qr Je' o. �•, n -� Y.c •' J r _a M n � _vim � : v o � - =_ t °$.T.i� Z o.o oM � - � 4 `c° L `• .s. °o�4 c i" _'•'° qc.��G.. 'N' � .°. L 4 O r � ° q N •� V r V <_ r l r q N O G p - •J� wa w a - RUC Tj .°.. V ^6c.NU - c- � °�._. r E P OL .Y.0 = - 6 D «�� L r V<i JG Y•.. _L6 P GL'+° q N w r r� � Y q 0 6 v ° N •_ y Y� G a i j .. ✓ q p +° 9 .i r GJYq C >� ��" °y= V 4L d =V °eOG6�r -VU 1 O L G N V r G a.Y L r - t° - P C .7 Y r 6 O ^ L •� P! t.6- V N_ C _ O r G • u ° d G 3 O n q V 6 Y O .J7E' o` « .L.. OLi C O _ t _ G C r ° V V C C N = u n✓� b _ n O L C . q y V r N r r C C y J.T. 7 6b = r _ L i k e v _- - 4. 'w y4oc.i - . "' �.°.: _ _° pr L J .. .•' O V r � V � C .. �` 1 V ° "s - = S.._iG. 013. q .9 ~ u . 7 ° .L. ` r n r _ r b .• ° I a r O 0 ° v � q r '^ 0 N n -O M L i E � 4 a c Ijlf � ° � G .<i � >• P q n Y � � N >'' r fE� V 4 ' �J O L .. W OV 1f z G GT a .°.0 V y I S`S•! 2 c p_ raa a ° Tr N V\ - J - O _ O 9 SI Cy YL 3q N_ CVO "J« r OvV rT-t _ V7 I ,11 N LV Yr ( OC y✓. Cq -q0 Cr n.° t"'np V ..V q Vr q« Op -1 Ley wu �1dyy rOi G O --72 V G.°.. O � �� 1 � V-• I G •V b N c NV n_ r G � O �_ G z i C T � r�' q N 1 c ai bo �vr » :-,. c� ::° xa &o� ko gco ..Yr -. u ?.• �I �� V e LI �> q.J. m °u ._'• i4a `o °b= "a° �� G`_� c.J. -°.' N ny 6_ 1� I� � V _ a 0 Gq O q L � •O P i 6 3 ` =_ J_ V r- V t C V �^ _ O I ` 4= C' _= ° P w L d C � y O � Y L « C O � r r .°..._.. q N •� ` ° T O Y ���L -_ C+ .nY �O= Cw°Gi° S �04 1W `I.YL.r `p.. S• 0-� - -O C` lC� V < Y_ >1 JZi EfV gdli aL -4Q =4w r VG9 rN49 M _.2 L N f N G = O O E E a r •f � r r' D _ U r ~_ r rN Y V J _ ✓ -- a rL -r O u Y u L "� ✓ 4 9 C r ••' I I= L, C LN L i i U a G O d Te = L e• ` p - L c a r .O.r O G. N V L V O •- V ` a N r 9 ci Zz ^ -N � 9c Nv- ce �i e e c I - ✓�aY I � N. Liu C J P L > Y l q� , V N I� � •-i Y 7 L G L '•' V�-( y G _- �°i'c V °moo o - .r.Y a I OE c i `� L• I b �0 3i4 - - dc.e ._ °a °� _ v L _N> F � S °. cL.M �s r 1 �i -• --,• J•- �r 6 ✓ L _ L =4 d_ D O V rC� .O..L G IJO V - ✓V_S LOr y A ✓NO � r= r9L EVCea 9 �� p 96 -O r O w^ L' i rr0 - ~ v 9 L` O Y N N •' L= y a L p = D p_ i � C V r _ oz o- -�•O.• `C .2 E= = 9 nC6 N 9 =� C V 0 1 a GO j i IN49 N - ✓ �c �•riL `CC P9 �� g tL- ri i.4i�C L 7� ✓� a rCC _ ^G N d6f �� OY > VrC C n Of- rVeJCN j E d C' L r �_ ✓✓ C O 9 4 L � f >� C �Vj E i I V 7 y a O -J Y P ✓� G� O C C y T v 4 -I GN N C CS= <6Qa r9 <� OV Gw L � 9 -`� G_• _ >O O CI -�9 NO L =�V S�N•O� P p ^I ^I O ✓ a c ✓ i a � 9 =y C r ON =G u -4 t-- C 9_Ly Lu N 9`. 7Nr 6�r S� cc u_- r - °r�� -� - O � V ✓._ (� 9 S- •= O v i C i 'J a_ 4 _O N" V N C L � V C 7 � V d V O •O. �' ' L V r T T 9 C_ O �` 4 L 4 a � � ✓ r _ + •• - t - V e _ ✓ { 2-z O r - V - L C - , 4 a - - L V ~ n - 4, E N M G - L i q O r q L N 4 C C p C• L O D N -JV TLr r r 3 • O -O•. G N 6 r 3 V w = _ - - 9 N.+ =y�j C n� V V N .r6 N W_ Y �✓ u L __' -J V' _- q L �1 ? L .• Vb_ L_UO OV CV9•'••4. L.v ' G •J O G .n O O 7 L N U= O N �^ D< r U G -' a r O C.V.. - c- N r• rC _ -.] x�=J __4 Lq Or_C L ✓ Ni MS_ _C O _ i _ J C r- •i O [• l C.2 DPV 9OCa r4_Y -O HO Yic O_ -�� -✓ V Y N C V a = O N L C O V O L �' •CV r .p.. q V FF b C r C r ... - t. �?i _ r - _ _��r _� rNYr =v E =p •:•vN Q <.or -rpr a. -L cv NCO w:. .L- Vnr. -uP GY.n >. 9 a P w ✓ �. `^ y Y. � C L O q .7 r- r 2 � r O Y« n v` Q' � C i- C O Lr 1 a'• OdC .L PC_+y �V•a � G _ < LCU�T- _ �� -ice �w� v .�$ :ems - E9- ._✓ ._` e: °'v .°,. zEE r� < o. < s � ... S p � <c V.d o.r —o .ri+avr. < +o to <Pn »:•�S os <�oi: �c M .O N V O E° C 4 L r ivI y w 9 P � V P ✓ `a V 9 �✓ = _ C r 4- ` O g> E •-i OE- C V P O p Va 00• 9a - VODC O G 4 w C D r a V 4 P> G Pn D ✓ L O v 4 a s I J r V L u T C � C� ° O L� • Y I 2 v L, _ = L F 4, v 9 � i %fin L aaL ni= a•o4 .LC �: �`p N_`_° 4. �_ tijj � I � 4c � �� °�i °4N ✓•au _= °�I� �•°� dG .N. _a> _mo �W'-Vi coca S - I en - - NN°a v-_•c n _- - >f, Lr9 vV LwL >> c- = ._ 1 �_-�., a .>. � I c �9>�d✓ E � V VC:C Y 9P > C' 09� y .d.. Ca.�a _ �„ -C 9VV � UwN � T,w ✓ -_ �� 16A r _ Tl e_ ` .>G �e `r�C]M � L a2 - - 77 -o - - - c oL - y 2e.:2 - 9r- `ra d° _a urc- oI ?.,. o L -`.a Na aD CO N' r �G d 0 ,pnVC 97CJ aD�VN •v 4 1 � V � v � G ✓ V�.Q.r O >I ` V= J =' L J I r C L E LN 6 9 G a 9 � caL L •e", 9 9 6 - _l = - - pp LeoN d D O .-• . Y C -J Pa L� 9 V L L r r nJ '� I I V O G �] L O O` V y M` V r �I T .un S Y Y p r, W e O frj O N J 9 o c -,--o C V i E L N O MV_� wL wdC dCr YL✓ w -O iy 6q •Oi _.-,n r >4 "Z2 V✓9 °4�� � 61 �� n.7 _ •� V i � `?- QV V,-n O'V =>CL_ -N,n L? NO LO__pC r -.J Y� - O.. 4U•, G•_.>. nca w0 of J ?a; `q� 6V� NwaCd 2 r C I _d_ __ �9 9>C L V Nae Or 6 Or� G WV•... V '� I V 4VlOJ w.O o VL 9r ` C4 - OlG I GL y` I ` __ u0ay 6N 6i ❑U.,O. q y vL c4 O I _ _ N \1 �i <V 11 %III r Y- - ... �. = ✓� � r �p 'JOw °''' T b C6Aa CVS a LET - c °'�_ ='c >e__ °£ v =v o_om °✓ 'a c Gr-- : _ 4e_. _ �c GV CZp i�Tp NV�V> - - °a �9r Oar ,nq T'.f0 E p < -r .n -_ ., O_ UOG4 W ae✓ zy -.� Z. Z_ �= °- 4i- LCV yE L•ry`,n LS ? -y� Ca _J �r� 6 Cu= O`_C � -e`V yC 4, VO 4J S= y' `i=0 .G= •4.O.e �Uy4 `O7r wC-. r 4_ G v O C �D ^ 7 S L 9 O -rl�•y 4wq` r � -T VJ 7_7 O .., �_ U ,n __ a� N O P �_ = ''. O ,n G C T � ` _ -'.IVr `� y �9LG 1 n L_ v O\ -a CL n ✓ZrJ .J Ci •. _ 00 V ✓7 O -4C� - -s4 �Dr+ _C LG` __- Q CdUOV C•,•UC v ' =E E- .•P _ JGiV d d P �� _ ,l O > O w✓ y __� _� O r .• O Y» _ O � a -_ C Z R .w VQ R ' �°• -'�_u �4'- °� =.-n e`r �OJ -e °q�_ e r ev cd - -3 c_r ° >'coc :• =..nJ' Nev_ r-°._� ° ::i c = co -.= °_° -c -�-a °_� Tyr e - -_� -'- Ca oyoYr ooc•� __ _r - a r «> >1 °u =mac_ - -" •^c -=a r n.- ^= m r��" u� - -r�4. >JO r r_ YT.J O °T G'�r� V w SG O7 2_Sa__L =- 2 L__.. -v�'p" - n•n -qvE G4C,n N O.r� c. -_ aLNLIG _L'E 4e �C Cc •^od 4 a0•e',n o, a =_90 ,w L - G F - _ a• _ na O r 22 2 = -^ V C L G .,O• r a O O- ` r _ _ ev '.'. c .N y. ��a.°. 2�'.v -•� - =t L= _ ✓o✓ r o u ur r V =-`� '> > � ? y ' _c - v 4 i ` °r2•i °4� •6 -r -OC.G. 4ae .n c N - r >N rl E .� �_•" =�So $ c_ _- T sz y�rrC f• J -1 -�J4 l_T6 OU__- •• �_ - -_ � •S NC O� MIL. L`Oi0 OZ_ _4 G O S .. r L v �-'� � O � tx- U r y L�� N .. U N - O. O - w r -. G O U/ 6SarG V V 4 y CZ7V N Dy J` r� •- < _- _ __ C �; G >I O = u ,-•�. r-°n d P Vr GI ✓ M .e � _ u J a r O 1 7 c r e a O G J w w q q n r .j x c \ 1 q 3 u c L P �V 'eL 0 q V � 6 dri aG' L V O c u G r O d N M c O N bd n= O y v y c 7 � `9 L R C o L� r~ L V 4 v o 4 � or S j ^ e L c^ e� C U O V �• L = G od � L L T V c =� G N L L ; w u T q O ^ V _r y o � P w i Ti G _ y � V V O O r _ 3 7 'J c u O � %C G ° a_ - o G Vuj O� c= L C V r vv 7 C T 4 � = n �r a 'G V c 0 G_ . _ Y L J L C^ L c ' N - T N � T c i = L L 7 V j v r C L J V Q O _ � _ r a 1 + 7 9 O O N w O l 4 4 v c ✓ d i. ry•^ C O +•✓ ow cy Lu c < n c y a w V � •° d _ qo o✓ .b.: S� va .•.� 4c •L..I = _C -J 3 w 0 uJ 420 =V- r w _ a_s w_q O_Oy C O j � p V V -+• L nT• G u v_ S L �q S` -•' 4 V >` •f u p .�_ YlL hN O q _ � V i' ,?I ' O � �^ r `\'jIII �_ I� rG r I•.-�. C v I N S I _.I \� �< ! I I L � 1 1 I i r I 1 I 1'11)11 I I 1 � I 1 I { I I I C � � ' _ r Fo o f •- C 7 O X� e _ CSC 7 ✓r 7 ` V 7 � —.,._ ! =0 Se_ T? Y C +l 4 r = 4 d +J y L O C COa G� VO 7I I �� /1 I J�j} �- Z c c � v is i-. o° ✓ e Y q 3 u c L P �V 'eL 0 q V � 6 dri aG' L V O c u G r O d N M c O N bd n= O y v y c 7 � `9 L R C o L� r~ L V 4 v o 4 � or S j ^ e L c^ e� C U O V �• L = G od � L L T V c =� G N L L ; w u T q O ^ V _r y o � P w i Ti G _ y � V V O O r _ 3 7 'J c u O � %C G ° a_ - o G Vuj O� c= L C V r vv 7 C T 4 � = n �r a 'G V c 0 G_ . _ Y L J L C^ L c ' N - T N � T c i = L L 7 V j v r J V Q a 1 Cu r• O N n Nc cN 71 +•✓ C _ qo o✓ .b.: S� _C -J 3 w 0 uJ 420 =V- r w _ a_s w_q O_Oy C O j � p V V -+• L nT• G u v_ S L �q S` -•' 4 V >` •f u p .�_ YlL hN O q _ � V i' ,?I ' O � �^ r `\'jIII �_ I� rG r I•.-�. C v I N S I _.I \� �< ! I I L � 1 1 I i r I 1 I 1'11)11 I I 1 � I 1 I { I I I C � � ' _ r Fo o f •- C 7 O X� e _ CSC 7 ✓r 7 ` V 7 � —.,._ ! =0 Se_ T? Y e 2 -✓ con.a ..2 4 _� •O � Q O O O `�_ Q q L_ bn° T O l ✓ l G V Q 'J O q —_ >Y CUr V C �idG -� p y •n LO 2 E ^V O V ✓ d E r ic` G A P O P7 � � V V gg i trG �'L Y TLS V_ S q _ 7 G V L. w4o� G� 37 LC C - �-• V r � 1 C "' � G V G C _; N u La V �` - 4 d R _ ~ c •. r� u L w- _ r _ N - _� R4 6r :, ."j COa G� VO l I �� /1 I J�j} �- Z c c � v is i-. o° ✓ e n a c i 4 V q✓ e L` _ C V c✓ � b C Y � I O� O C O C✓ O - V O 9Cr � ` ✓ L r I rur q 3 u c L P �V 'eL 0 q V � 6 dri aG' L V O c u G r O d N M c O N bd n= O y v y c 7 � `9 L R C o L� r~ L V 4 v o 4 � or S j ^ e L c^ e� C U O V �• L = G od � L L T V c =� G N L L ; w u T q O ^ V _r y o � P w i Ti G _ y � V V O O r _ 3 7 'J c u O � %C G ° a_ - o G Vuj O� c= L C V r vv 7 C T 4 � = n �r a 'G V c 0 G_ . _ Y L J L C^ L c ' N - T N � T c i = L L 7 V J C _C -J 3 w 0 uJ 420 =V- r w _ a_s w_q O_Oy C O j � 4 q= O r •-• G7 � 0 0 •�` • -_ � C4 -f C • +^ 6 i G ` V ✓ j0 p n e G 4s q _° J c -q _ G � w� VG G O ^ C _E •wN =q v -M C o _ P L V C 7 j � _N.. ?' r _ i1 q U V P _ <— -" `r P N .7 C v_ S L �q S` -•' 4 V >` •f u p .�_ YlL hN O q ✓_ � a C •w C = � 4 r .. V i' ,?I ' O � �^ r `\'jIII �_ I� rG r I•.-�. C v I N S I _.I \� �< ! I I L � 1 1 I i r I 1 I 1'11)11 I I 1 � I 1 I { I I I C � � ' _ r Fo o f •- C 7 O X� e _ CSC 7 ✓r 7 ` V 7 � —.,._ ! =0 Se_ T? Y e 2 -✓ con.a ..2 4 _� •O � Q O O O `�_ Q q L_ bn° T O l ✓ l G V Q 'J O q —_ >Y CUr V C �idG -� p y •n LO 2 E ^V O V ✓ d E r ic` G A P O P7 � � V V gg i trG �'L Y TLS V_ S q _ 7 G V L. w4o� G� 37 LC C - �-• V r � 1 C "' � G V G C _; N u La V �` - 4 d R _ ~ c •. r� u L w- _ r _ N - _� R4 6r :, CC _- ° ^o°• _ �_ 7 O -' "> O _ _ O r+ v �• =6 e C 4 ^ n_ L' _ �_ u _ Y..a q ° o ✓� C r r V V V I �� /1 I J�j} u 3� 4 a 6 _ 7 > J C C O U V L v 7OGT �. 4 U 42 4. c — rr n � � r vice V � — O i wV VL �Cr C O G r O O = w = C l •9 e G = c o L��al i• G N O O G 7 C U O � 3 30� e 4 0= -ry M� O� C > E ipy u _ur c. c P` C q n E-] E 6 _ bGU V I p � 7 OCC I O� C a �L LV— 4 V O S _ O — is i c o M u Eye c c e— z: r9r r Owl 9 w _ L IL V I O;w 94 I OO CVO °_' Or v c— 9u PGa' C. O _ I 9 C •� r c_ � ._ 9 a. •_ � O O r O r P O L_ = C J d _ _O 9 _G _ ° a' 9 r a r 7 Cr ' r40G GC y « ` US `944 P1�9 L. '^ e�no L ace va e_o_ ru n E-] E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -12 LOCATED On THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHURCH AND TURNER IN THE LOW icIiSIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 4th day of May, 1984, a complete application was filed by Ken Ledermann for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 1 3th day of June, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Plannir-g Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: Thdt the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Levelopment Code and the purposes 10 of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Conditional Use Permit 82 12 is appro%ed sub —'ect to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: 1. Compliance with all Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 82 -12 contained in Resolution 82 -77. APPROVED AND ADOPTEC TNIS 13th DAY OF JLNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman 0 ATTEST Amok Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary i, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Catm7.;sion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certi *ry that the fore9cing 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 -.1 the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: *15 -J C U ►�I DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT June 13, 1984 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner located it the VL (Very District, at the southwest Avenues - APh 201-111 -14. FE TRACT 10246 - ASSAD - A W acres —07 into Tr To ts Low, 2 du /ac) Residential corner of Haven and Hillside I. E4CKGROUND• The applicant, Luther Alha:.rh, for Assad Development, .; requesting a time ercension for Tentative Tract 10246 as described above. fie ?rojezt was originally approved by the Planning Commission on .Tune 9, 1982. II. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and has compared- ompare the proposal with the development criteria outlined in the City's newly adopted Development Code. Based upon this review, the project meets the Basic Residential Development standards for the Very Low Distrint except for the minimum net average lot area which roughly calculates to approximately 21,926 square feet. The Development Code r---quires the minimum net average lot area to be 22,500 sq;are feet. III. RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Division recommends a final extension of two years. In granting the final extension for the two year period, the Planning Commission is finding under Section 17.02.02OC -7 that subdivisions and developments of property pursuant to a tentative tract map or tentative parcel map which has been approved pursuant to the provisions of earlier ordinar may be continued and completed in accord with tiie provisions o: the approval, provided it is completed within the time limit in effect-at- the time of its approval. y sub^+.i tted, Pic Est nn, RG:rD:ns iAt :achments I ITEM B �w s. .y. ry v 'a n r Sri i _ T j � C L 11 — CITY OF R -XcHO CUC ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 9, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: NLKHASEHIASSAD - A custom lot residential subdivision of ten acres of land into 15 lots located in the R- 1- 20,000 (Single Family Residential, /20,-00 square foot lot mini mn) xLne on the southwest corner .,f Hillside Road and Haven Avenue - APN 201- 111 -14. mm PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This application is for a custom lots resi- dential subdivision in the Al-to Loma area north of Chaffey College. The site is currently vacant and void of any significant natural features. The land is relatively fiat with an approximate 10% slope to the south. The parcel is zoned for sing% family use with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, as is a'.t the surrounding land. The General Plan designation is Very Low R¢sidertial (2 dwelling units per acre or less). ANALYSIS: This item was first heard at the May 12 Planning Commission ^eting. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding drainage .;i the site, as well as the proposed street configuration. At that time i`: was requested that the Applicant propose sore alternatives that might mi?igate both the drainage and the street pattern concerns. The hearing was continued to May 26, 1982, and subsequently to June 9, 1982. The Applicant has, in fact, prepared three possible alternatives to the original submittal. After reviewing the alternatives, the Engineering Division has stated that the original submittal is the best alternative as far as drain- age is concerned. Further, all of the alternatives would decrease the lot yield b. at least one additional lot. A lot was deleted earlier in the review process in order to enable the dedication of the Community Trail along Haven Avenue. The following is an outline of the pros and cons of each alternative, including the original proposal. ME Tentative Tract 10246;Aikhasen -Assay Planning Commission Agenda June 9, 1982 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE 1• (Exhibit A) Pros: o Provides a curvilinear street pattern. Cons: o Increases severity of drainage prcblems. o Decreases lot yield by at least one lot. ALTERNATIVE 2: (Exhibit B) Pros: o Slows traffic speed substantially. o Provides a break i:, length of the street. Cons: o Creates a more disjointed neighborhood with _evera', odd ;;zed and shaped lots. o hoes not improve drainage situation. a Decreases lot yield by at least two lots. o Creates a new drainage Groh ?em at the yew knuckle. ALTERNATIVE 3: (Exhibit C) Pros: o Provides a curvilinear street pattern. Gon_ =_ o .es not improve drainage situation. o Creates several abnormally deep lots. o Decreases lot yield by at least two lots. ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL: (Exhibit D) Pros: o Is best designed for facilitating method of handling drainage. o Creates a good sense of neighborhood. o All lots are relativel. uniform in size and shape. Cons: o Creates a straight through street. (However, as it is only approximately 700 feet long, it is unlikely that it world promote an increase in traffic speed. Also, none of the surrounding blocks have curviliniear streets.) DRAINAGE: The Engineering Division has studied the drainage considerations of Fac5 aaTter...tive in detail and has discussed them in a memorandum which is attached F:•; Y.'-jr review. ' M. E El Tentative Tract 10246 /Alkhaseh -Assad Planning Commission Agenda June 9, 1982 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that elements o t e project and all input ation, the Commission can support the ditions of Approval, then adoption of of a Negative Declaration would be in pectfully submitted, I.r RICK $OMEZ City Manner R6: AT: jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "0" Staff P.eport the Planning Commission consider all on the project. If, after such consider - facts for findings and recommended Con. - the attached Resolution and issuance order. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Original Proposal ^f May 12, 1982 ,B -s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Drainage System for Tract 10246 The natural drainage of the area within the subject project presently flows southerly and easterly along the wall at the south tract boundary. This runoff eventually flans to the intersection of Mayberry and Nilson, adding water to the already undesirable situation of pcnding at that intersection. All the alternate designs of the map as presented have incorporated the design feature that will reduce the runoff `o a certain degree going to that intersection the original submittal being the least contributor of runoff. The developer is also proposing to install a storm drainage system conveying the runoff from the proposed street to !Maven Avenue. The location and alignment of the pipe will be determined later on in consultation with some affected property owmers. One alternate alignment will be along the southerly tract boundary. The other alter- nate will be through an existing developed lot at the southeast corner of Mesada and Poplar Streets. The second aiterantive is more preferable provided the necessary easement can be acquired from the existing homeowner. At the intersection, of Haven and Wilson, the developer has agreed to construct the missing portion of the concrete gutter for proper drainage of runoff across wilson Street. It is our opinion that the drainage improvements as mentioned above will mitigate any adverse drainage impact to surroundsng areas due to this development. Two conditions of approval should be added to the resoiuticn of approval for the Commission's consideration in order to adequately address the drainage considerations, as follows: a. Installation of a storm drain system to intercept and drain all runoff from the tract to Haven Avenue, shall be required prior to recordation of the map. b. The missing 6' wide concrete gutter across Nilson at Haven Avenue shad be ccnstructed for proper drainage of the intersection. Respectfully submitted, Shintu Bose Associate Civil Engineer SS:bc J J � - -- K , SCE -- —� I I I L -- I - i 1 I u PMLAR WILSON u I I I-� title; CITY OF'RAINCHO CLCAMONGA y. ENGINEERING DIVISION �i Lim " DRAINAGE MAP PaB 9 H1LLSE)E I I v i I 1 tLV -dJ -DSO I %f 014 r- -1 I � :1 / S!TE I ZG✓- ,a.o/J RCI�T�Y�/�C F ii...C►NINNG L:1 M i.7M 1 \t 1 r --- 1 xo�- sw.cr,� 1 I I I i I I I 1 ZI liJ C 2 1 I �. .. • ■ • Alt ' 1 E L. -J w CC F-. _ I a w C'e \t 1 r --- 1 xo�- sw.cr,� 1 I I I i I I I 1 ZI liJ C 2 1 I �. .. • ■ • Alt ' 1 E D 4) HUSIDE i - L -1 I I - i _ -- PROJECT t 1-E- _ r -1 ' 1 � I 2. Lu > n ` avi fN-o /r I L — J �aT r ro.•,N�.. I Li' L'i ; I I 2.5./- 9.r•C.'3 C /- Ati-C /2 I i NORTH R CITY OF RANCHO PLANNING MISION c HILLSIDE Imp- ia�ot� L_ J za -.w -aka 4 r -; 3 ta/ -/O aG/ 0 Y P.1ZEP— ritaTiVE $t S i /s l 0 y O ID 1 N J � 0 E So-.. z u L__J wt L- � a• cn! I mi- sw_oo� Lu 2.:✓ -9N -CV NORTH CITY OF i oz RALI`�CUCAMO GA TniE: i i1MMI G DI Y My ExHia l = jL SCALE: r,?&Au* A -e So-.. E 11 E 0 CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TP,ACT 10246 - ALKHASEH ASSAD - A custom lot residential subdivision of ten acres of and into 16 lots located in the R- 1- 20,000 (Single Family Residential /20,000 sq. ft. lot Minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven Avenue - APN 201 - 111 -14. The Planning Commission, at its May 12, 1982 meeting, continued the public hearing on this item to allow further study on the hydrology of the site. Planning and Engineering staff have met with the appli- cant and the project engineer to discuss the various alternatives. We are presently reviewing these options to discuss the pros and cons of each design. Because of the lack of time between meetings, we were unable to complete a comprehensive analysis of those alternatives for the Commission's consideratior. at tonight's meeting. Therefore, the applicant has voluntarily consented to the continuation of the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1982. RECOMMENDATION. It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public Wiring on this matter to June 9, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Rick G&r,�z Ci y Planner RG:MV:jk CITY OF P.& CHO CUC ONGA STAFF REPORT 1977 DATE: May 12, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10246 - ALFjHA�tH /AJJAU - A residential custom lot subdivision of ten 10 acres into 16 lots in the R -1- 20,000 zone on the the southwest corner of hillside Road and Haven Avenue - APN 201 - 111 -14. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This application is for a residential custom lot subdivision in the Alta Loma area, north of Chaffey College. The site is currently vacant and void of any significant natural features. The land is relatively flat, with an approximate 10% slope to the south. The parcel is zoned for single family use with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, as is all of the surrounding land. The General Plan designation is Very Low Residential (2 dwelling units per acre or less). A:,ALYSIS: The proposal was reviewed by the Design Review :nd Growth Management Committees and was given a point rating of 46, ,ihich exceeds the required threshold of 43 for custom lot subdivisions. The proposed tract was also reviewed by the Equestrian Re-.49w Committee. Equestrian Feeder Trails are proposed within the tract. In addition, a Community Trail is being provided along Haven Avenue in accordance with the General Plan and adopted equestrian standards. Corner cut -offs for the Feeder Trails and a proper radius at the corner of Haven and Hillside is required. Conditions have been included in the Resolution to correct these items. DESIGN REVIEW: The Committee was concerned about the view of the trail and stree*_scape along Haven and offered two suggestions, which the devel- oper has agreed to, as follows: u TT 10246 /Aikhaseh /Assail Planning Commission Agenda May 12, 1982 Page 2 1. The rear lot lines of lots 10 -15 are to be planted with trees to provide privacy to the homeowners without the need for fences or walls. 2. Any fences or walls that are constructed by the property owners along Haven are to be of uniform design and materials. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Initial Study, Part 1, completed by the developer, and Part II, completed by staff, is on file. The Initial Study revealed no significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed development. If the Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: 1. The application proposes a development density of 1.E dwelling units per acre, which is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of Very tow Density Residential (2 dwelling units per acre or less), and is consistent with the zoning classification of R -1 -20. 2. Equestrian trails are being provided per the requirement of Resolution 81 -52. 3. The or000sed subdivision, together with the attached conditions, is in compliance with the adopted Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The application has successfully completed the Growth Management Assessment System by receiving a point rating exceeding the threshold requirement. CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed development, and was duly advertised in the Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation in the City and published in Ontario, California. To date, no correspondence has been received fro^ the general oublic regarding this application. r TT 1024E /Alkhaseh /Assad Planning Commission Agenda May 12, 1982 Page 3 0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all elements of the project and all public input on the project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the facts for find- ings and recommended Conditions of Approval, then adoption of the attacheu Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. `uliy submitted, ___X RICK GOMEZ C%ty Planner Rd: AT: jr Attachments: Resolution with Conditions of Approval Exhibits "A " - "F "` - Reductions of Proposed Tentative Map and Related Plans 11 � iy ® RESOLUTION NO. 82 -54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT 11AP NO. 10246 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract trap No. 10246, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Luther Alkhaseh, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property, situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven Avenue being ten (10) acres in size into 16 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on June 9, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the ?lap subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Plannina Divisions reports; and 14HERF,�S, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 10246 and the "lap thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause s::bstantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. 82 -54 Page 3 BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISIIN 9. Modification of the drainage structures and locations will be required in order to provide the following: (a) Equestrian trail structures located on the up -hill side of the easements. (b) Provisions to transfer water from the up- hill side to the downhill side where necessary. (c) Provision for an energy diss4pator at the vicinity of the southwest co - er of the property. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF I � BY: L JefTxle. ing, ha'p ATTEST: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ann I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of June, 1982, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Stout, Remoel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Y,inn .a E LJ 11 � O Y � 75 q � a w C N V • C q J V T U � V � C Y l� ` C V 5.=� � f•�L� V C= C N O L•vO G ` 4.. 4 l u U •O ` ° T _Jr _ .` O` O L y .• _ Y �G V O VC' F•a 9 C 7 u.- y _ N n -° ] ✓ G �° L r L O r 0.= � N J L �] C 6 n J V L �^ �' C � Yy e°.. _V ' q y �Fc:__N Cu u ° V JY V °CYd w r• FVV � n uy yq'..• - =.N D. �` y _ Lu O Cr�uY �'Gp UO G ^ ^ ✓ + VV v °• N•{F� _ �,C..•Y N` E -L > L J °MC c y uVG4T r _ r VpLU G_ ^�Or CLL r t `l L+ Vn O .dru •V° Y -O V6 L n` C= N•' s_ uru�YE VC NyY A'�grj C�dC � N '� 9 v 6 OO- °iv ^C nO .nC L On ° °nOnL VGC L L dCV 7r{']"OC C w. l O, ° N L N J r+ N T N+ v N� Y = J q > F• C O- v C C° I P us dC .COO ✓C l ✓ N[r O.j yC V v CV V- c V � -v N Y N[S6 r CEN °, � � L^ °� ne OV .LV., ry�K '>u iV OVC Nu VSO uV�vVr V C� r ° OJ u_ }w TO C•O •Ce ✓C LVE 4�� V uC�T P.-r, V`VV y F ` L P U ° O V 6 E O °j - Y - o L _ r. v N ✓ ` - r te a rG « N 6 C o N O N <� r � u °p W 2 r Y � J u✓ y L u � L r• Y N I „°. E' r UG. n � l °' ` _ V - d7 = p 'ei G; O C CO` cc I O G+, O V C •e O, N N R Y L > C ` C V _L O •O r G . j O r G_ j� FS - C C r q C° Y G .V.r q � r C TC 1O T V O �� ✓4 �U�J� O v O Cii � I� �s >_ +V °,is Nc a°iN �� L V° .P G � � i �L. ✓°i c� _` drq G„� � qn �+ _ o`er � .. c $ ° e° roL o O G °, C �`✓ O T. T tJ C Y Y .-r, •a L ry ,n V > ° G L O l Y q C am= N C t. N N F ° O .n c u Y n✓ 8 6 O O E O � F` .Y, T -J' �✓ @� N G N Lf.6 C°T p) W �' Y TO,T On dO SO� __P <vY 6 C_V ° S =_V C.O.•rw LJ N� _4 r . 3 - V gc u 5 r ° LL .°°L °c �°. ,i J_� F N .... _o_ ,GG� rN w n a. Z3 o N r o� E N e•� G.+ _w NNE +� _ L r vOO >✓ LOV dp> —> �Cr <C r J � N= �qC 4,O Owy GJ OVO y >' ••Cr V� O � Y C N N+ ¢ <✓ r r¢ H> M � 4 t. F� °>= w � t . C w O .G..� C Y C = .rq„ Y r V N n � N O O• p v c; e 6 N E C P o Y .. c e - o L ,• Iv C _ .ri• r K� q V � y J u � -rq ✓•V 00 �u rb N !•.V. I d N r` q OLrL -_ q C - L C . G ^ y C V V u �• L O __ G .C.. ✓ G � J. V y Sb � �+ C✓ -r50 q ✓ w• � �L- r C O 2 P •� u O F- - � L J n �! L O L w n_ 4_ -. ✓ S C P q C > r L L q O _.. d n ` q T .L•• a C C• I � n C.r� V C✓ O V ^> r0. b .0 _ q S r w v r r i O O J J I � ✓ P vn z _ _ •Oa 4 V� O tO. Gq° e N _ - ���V��J L V E N> rq � � P� rq S -IJr 1d N -ZrC ✓^q �<' r c r =L °c_ E a I1r. 10 I... c c. o: =-•�- c s e N o �Lr_4 -<.� <�°, + IL b rL Lr _ V a G �fC)r y s G< O O •• r N r y �r. v�Y L -L-.✓ p V u r jy N b� 4 CJ ua V l �- d L q rl • G^ C t� �. => N l tp C d yJ coo IY Ld.� uuo °c - �.- 4 �—. �.°o .Y.� cL•dn rn qr $ qsg n:_ °°, �. 1 'i °. 1L C r I U`C� NLq Ml� ��C C ✓r .•� O C 1 '�O = C QN Cd6 C rn P .N4 c� .�.` 4 _ o �.. '°4.. c cc •.q �i•- o`cN _" vv ✓ u .L -i+°• c✓°. r.`..� c -ic < °' � n �td d q t� e_ l-= r�._i' ccm r2-q° .•`no n`3ry t -Non - h n W c ^ o g c - b q_c c.ao. `.z.4. ✓ c cL. co o qu °b is L� N,L °�.•2- =mac c� G - .�. `•' > ei= t N V O ~ _ O• ° V q Si •p •. ti 0. VO __ C_ J C i ."' y r .C.. 4VN qV _Opp `Sy •�^✓ Gr4 C �L + 40�n 2^ L G6 d 1 O -O -t L�•Vj� �4- Co Ca�c w� aOP i�0o u d= T r N d Pb O ° r 2 C G V e N Y - �r � u f •4 f V i� a d✓ G 4° O C y L -• N u C - O G' O C C J L ( 2j <T y L rd. n C q +'° O CC 4 a GL 40 OuV ^Or G+ C q 6 �4A'O� C¢ � VSwuL.. O. r �G YIVY i�VV �S V V E O •Op f dL �L_p2 CV OY Y>�< C`G q N �b b vS ^`C=b'�� = � °iy �N4L u :5,;: ` L� 4 q 0 O r u Cb q0� ^ y L 55 } l VG GG<•�Ga L S _ M S O <a. 9 L� _q QPO d� �r6Y <� GCO Lr •p G CG \O�O NpN �p ^V v_ •) S � w ° {L NY °rya N =� q•J�6 ��G ✓�^ N C d � N 4, Y P S V V -_ S V N V_ .aa N O� ' =.r r J M Y L O N - O ai ✓� _ P 4 u_ O C R ✓°• G Y i 4 O g b Z. C C^ 4 N N ✓.G y Y V N ' r^ upN ` F ✓4• G q % e r � + � .�= -iL• bP CC NYV q n4P YY � 9tr v7✓ °~ NN�041�tiP 5 G ^C Y VSV � „b >� ✓•Nru O •cn�0 b� O/V'� E.Ei•P2w - _ 6 V ^- Z V- L b l t ^= u ^ Y Q.5 w 0 T Ca M Q O V W Y V Prup N ijJM C Np. t0 O V C w Vp0 ` C i>GN \� CCOl, �.5 TJ M Y9 O P • • h ^{ � N E C to • � _ L O V r Y f r C Z.; i =1 C V V J � d d P r_ L G r.- G_ C� r � L' ._ I I t. .w •[ L'r O.n ° G' C > r -" ` � a I - VC ` u r a •ru I V L � -•. V C >. G n a. 0 - e V 1 J V C i y P <O C J r CA 6 < �_ r r O 1 1 1 S ^ • .n C> t _ .n C O � C L I V V V n 4 N L_PC 2`P qVL CE' i0� 7Z � I , C � • V C< PL w v O a Z r I � � _ _ C. V`� L _ >9 .� -_ 4i' .�. '4 C4 t v ` a•y V > I � C 9 � 9 G � y y 9 J' � V G O — ~ r b < C l b I �• f V r ? L u � i y L. �co O - V = C < P V• � M � I w a O O O w 4 w L " V V y O P� j � 4 C C U yl Jr FlN VV �- wr SO .n •' 6 l O.V. '� Cr '"V•°i SC9 _ f ° •1 -C - V - - �O d dLyr P' -.n V'n 4 ~ °, Iw� tJ - ^ L,L� J' P • O S' L y` O y i L.. C .n w` C fC�r '• 'Irl y w< � V L d O Y wV =q w` L'.O 4 • Ye ..r •i ��� VOy i >4r_9 CO3i `Ou < ^C d G' -- •< �}G O L C S r] L$ °� - L I V'° C J S .- E V C- Y 9� ]1 61 V � G >-• ' Vu P=O r LJ I - p -t 4r L S G ° I VY` w C•CPV O_+ C >o` 1 I L - a >O C -_TV •Vi C r � VGr L.r6 �r S- 6NOC. -n �O r qY C= � L0r QN QN <` CL I L wUw 6 9 L V - N wl _ V• O O r '• N e off V 2J N re C V 1 U V 4 4 4 L 4 C Riau �G.r • C _ ...G° EM _ p c __ o - C- � = ° = �w" 4 V — E D r • 4r. L � - 4 v � < .—i. L � � r .—...' tVi O C— — ° L rw4N .°L• G_ ` r: T '^ir° C rLyw C�CV Obr irO CV'Vr _ L.., f� V F ✓ �� _ _ _ _ u u•. r- -r _ u L��LL -nn -V bZ pp 9r CL O f2.w V`_ -- C • r_ r+ 2 E' L i 8 yy..L E` VGO > qD. VL` wUV G V •L Cry P 9 r r V_ V V_r °V \C 9N V GV -ZL Vr O.nr9w 9. rE�O _r p�Op • ay P - ° : =T =7 - <:.O SC6 COC °� v- tV J- 4 GC 1°r0 _4Li.Vry1 `a O Lry •9.9�> r ° C4• LN wr `IOL + P >r 4= .n G = PC P >` V rV w Ptlf Vp L- °'� J G r G •- 3 _ Cw V9 J y�w< �b C~C OJ TP EC�d� °�_ �4 -• OJ�7i >C •°i y •rV � � -_ �[O O a�•�O bw V- D � 6C r 9J_q = F -+ :r wP ' e9L8"� ^L _- rLO � d—•. :.0 � —s.. yL a °, rE dv S.2 r y G V 4 G C L r S w r C'. V —p 1 C ([ a I V V 22!: V •L . _wY O L r G V = M O ' L = w _w — r> V¢ G O w Z L r C . i s Ow Lr i ` w° V O q tL �G• OL : V+ Y L G� V w�� C s •. V Cw r O •Q � . w O T `. ft0_ •—.r G� .n L� G_ ti r %— L 0 Y r 4 -- � O 1 y �' y rs — •- y �s tr — O•VU pCyC CECY r�`S14 7T >w =OL V ZL. �°`� �.r L• —L �6 V CwV G. —C C L CTL L — Y Y ` CC G013E�i •—.��L VL r � r_J L.Ir N.. r•.7.0 Lwr� 6 YJOi,•� O yVV•L r y —P'• _. — V 6°SrIV M O� CDO ' G� Vti r r9' m of NI O �i 4 O 6 • C f- I ?� c u I y P W 1 C� I �V V o n v O� L 'r_ S J n tia 0 C V O V U V Y � i 00 e o�- i «e>j C 7 V •n r G - � r T V O Y G > P V C L o H i q _ n r r � Y � _ i > ; =i <= 0 4 o P G•-cv I �" v O G V t J ' O 1 I c l _ O j y i d y J C � i Y n "- V O V •n C. i c.•.i I C O C - w •� G `• y l .Tr y � V O ,n CCU r.- - Y C r � �• � - C _ • 1 O fi r` u C ` � C> d C O V V J 4 �•� .or au _r�q � I � o nt G'r EZ 22 f . Qy V <v 9p I V U 3 _ n dV I V O I 4 >_ = -_ C G C IF -GV C n „~ ° e �• IJeo P. S 9 \ a P Pr O r C V V= _ T r •n � 9 � 7 C O o �•' \VV V uu d SW L c n .'� Iy.2 y_ - Y-JO OVA =C GC G-J � CV T_•• -�O - C T �,. p a —�— c• o u c T-.7 e c .u.— •"'OL V � C `� u� I r w o N • C f- I ?� c u I y P W 1 C� I �V V o n v O� L 'r_ S J n tia 0 C V O V U V Y � i 00 e o�- i «e>j C 7 V •n r G - � r T V O Y G > P V C L o H i q _ n r r � Y � _ i > ; =i <= 0 o P G•-cv I �" v O G V t J ' O 1 I c l _ i d y J C � i Y n "- V O V •n C. i c.•.i I C O - w V V _v G `• y l .Tr y � V O ,n CCU r.- - d C O V V J 4 �•� .or au _r�q � I � nt G'r EZ 22 Qy V� <v 9p I V U 4 n dV I V O I 4 >_ = -_ C G C ' C n „~ ° e �• IJeo P. S 9 \ a P Pr O r C V V= _ T r •n � 9 � 7 C O P Y \ r V V - O V i y L c n .'� Iy.2 • C f- I ?� c u I y P W 1 C� I �V V o n v O� L 'r_ S J n tia 0 C V O V U V Y � i 00 e o�- i «e>j C 7 V •n r G - � r T V O Y G > P V C L o H i q _ n r r � Y � _ i > ; =i <= V V ^ W r T V i Gc u ' a .. w y 'u o _a c � w P O O r _ 0 u- w � P I I o P G V V ^ W r T V i Gc u ' a .. w y 'u o _a c � w P O O r _ 0 u- w � P I I G t J 1 I c l _ d y J 4 i Y n � M •n C. i � v r °i C O V V _v W U J� _ CCU r.- - d C O V V J 4 nt G'r EZ 22 i <v 6 CyE•.ny T 4 >_ -> -_ C G C `O_ _ _ y - G r C G V � V= _ T r •n � � _ J rE y_ - Y-JO OVA =C GC G-J � CV T_•• -�O - C T p 4 ji VC o 1 � r1 w 0 • T- zi i r �I T- V V ^ W r T V i Gc u ' a .. w y 'u o _a c � w P O O r _ 0 u- w � P I I _9 7 rV w - u N 2 u c C V C E 0 11 d y J 4 i Y n � M •n C. i � v r °i C O V V _v W U J� _ CCU r.- - d C O V V J 4 nt G'r EZ 22 i <v 6 CyE•.ny T 4 >_ -> -_ C G C `O_ _ _ y - G r C G V � V= _ T r •n � � _ J rE - Y-JO OVA =C GC G-J � CV T_•• -�O - C T p 4 y P VC o _9 7 rV w - u N 2 u c C V C E 0 11 \� Ll �} k= E £!_! ;!7! f� \ ) %\\ |!j{k Ik)�� �§{ \} \� +z ■ {\\ {� } \{ k:_ -§ \ \ \ / / � $ } { � f k \ \ i y @ ) } }� < �| � n =- _ -� - \�/ ;_ , ;■! � n 0 RESOLUTION NO.. A RESOLUTION OF THE RA19CHO CUCA.MONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10246 - ASSAD WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.83(b) of Ordinance 28 -B, of the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described Tentative Tract 10246. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following iM ng A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for residential projects. B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to record the Tentative Tract Map at this time; C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension tor: Tract Applicant Expiration 10246 Assad June 13, 1986 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ® ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary �a� Resolution No. Page 2 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by t.e Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .- -2lY 0 E 11 E 11 11 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CM OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 13, 1984 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Planning Commission review and consideration to ai ow an expansion of a non - conforming use and structure (Development Code Section 17.02.1330). B. PPuu�r os�e• To add an additional 8000 square feet to the existing _1+,200 square foot retail cornnercial home improvement center. C. Location: 7118 Archibald D. Parcel Size: 2 ± acres E. Existing Zoning: Office Professional F. Existing Land Use: one -half of the site is developed as the 3.M. Hoyt Lumber any /Home Center, the remaining one -half is vacant. G. Surroundinq Land Use and ionin North - Southern Pacific Right- cf -Way South - Vacant; Approved 219 unit senior citizen project East - vacant; Approved 240 condominium project West - Vacant; Aluminum can company and Alta Loma School (Elementary). H. General Plan /Development District Designs -Project Site - Office North - Medium High Density Residential South - Office Professional East - Medium High Density Residential West - Medium High Density Residential II. ANALYSIS• ' cant, S.M. Hoyt Lumber Company /Home the Commission's consideration to expand non - conforming retail home improvement center ITEM C ions: (14 -24 du /ac) (14 -24 du /ac) (14 -24 du /ac) Center, is requesting an existing legal consisting of 11,200 PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT Hoyt Lumber June 13, 1984 Page 2 square feet by adding an additional 8,000 square feet of retail floor area. The building was originally approved by the County in 1978 in accordance with the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. T he issues the Planning Commission must consider are three -fold: 1. Does the applicant`s request for expansion present an impediment of the City's impiementaton of its General Plav and Development Code. 2. Does the proposed expansion represent a detriment to the surrounding properties. 3. Doee the expansion allow sufficient use of the remaining portion of the site to implement the General Plan and Development Code goals and objectives. In regards to the first issue, it is the intent of the Development Code to limit the number and extent of non- conforming use and structures by regulating their expansion and /or alterations. The Development Code has provisions which provide the opportunity, for the Planning Commission to review requests and, as in this case, to determine if expanding any non - conforming use would be detrimental to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Development Code. The General Plan and Development Code designate this site as office /Professional land use. The intent of the General Plan was to develop a neighborhood center concept for the area of Base Line and Archibald which would provide for neighborhood commercial, office, and higher density residential. While the Hoyt Lumber Center existed prior to the City General Plan, it was the City's position to designate the site as an Office /Professional land use as opposed to carving up the site with one -half relating to the existing commercial /retail home center use and the residual as office. This request does limit the implementation of the City's General Plan /Development Code goals and objectives for Office Professional uses for this portion of the site. There is no mitigation to this limitation to the implementation of the City's General Plan and , evelopment Code. This use is relatively new and, if successful, ,. 11 remain on this site for some time. The second issue relates to the impact to surrounding properties due to the applicant's requested expansion. The proposed expansion is contiguous to the Southern Pacific right -of -way. iiorth of the C:- a- PLANNING: COPEriISSION STAFF REPORT lisyt Lumber ® June 13, 1984 Page 3 Southern Pacific right -of -way is a mixture of other non - conforming uses (rental yard, contractor's office and yard). Along the west property line are 72 market rate apartment units which are part of the approved Calmark project. East of the sire, across Archibald, are 290 residential units setback approximately 200 feet from Archibald. In addition, the existing hone center is set back 72 feet from Archibald. The southern one -half of the site is vacant. The proposed expansion does not propose to extend into this area except possibly for a fire access lane and additional landscaping. The proposed expansion does not appear detrimental to the surrounding properties to the north due to the separation with the Southern Pacific right -of -way and the nature of the existing nor,- conforming land use. The residential project to the west seems to be separated by a proposed setback of 36 feet on the home center side and 20 feet on the side of the apartment project. As a comparison, any commercial project adjacent to a residential zone ® provide a 30 -foot setback in conjunction with a height limitation of 25 feet within 100 feet of any residential district. In addition, the site seems appropriate to handle the expansion. Currently, there are 58 parking spates for the existing 8000 square feet. This meets the current parking ratio of 1 per 300 square feet of retail area for lumber yards, excluding outdoor display. The additional area of 8,500 square feet will require 26 parking stalls for a total of 63 spaces. Providing only a deficit of 5 spaces, which could be eliminated with redesigning the existing parking stall layout. The final issue is focused with the southern one -half of the parcel. The residual portion is approximately 35,000 square feet, approximately 100 feet wide X 350 feet long. The Development Code requires a minimum parcel size of 40,000 square feet (one acre) with a minimum width of 200 feet and a minimum depth of 175 feet. At first, this residual portion would seem to be deficient to meet the r. Amum Development Code office /professional standards should the applicant want to develop the remaining portion in a permitted fashion. The only mitigation to this is that the entire parcel be conceptually designed as an entire center with the appropriate easements for access, parking and maintenance. 02-3 PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT Hoyt Lumber June 13, 1984 Page 4 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission, can concur that the proposed expansion will not be detrimental to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Development Code and will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to surrounding properties, staff would recommend approval of the applicant's request with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant prepare a master plan for the entire parcel illustrating the expansion of the home center conforming to the minimum Commercial Development Standards and the conceptual development of the residual portion conforming to the Office Professional use regulations and standards. In addition to the requirement of Commission review of the project because of its location on a Special Boulevard (Archibald), that the master plan be brought to the Commission for review and approval at the same time as the Commission considers the expansion design review. 2. The expansion be limited to no more than 8000 square feet subject to provisions necessary for on -site parking and improvements for both the home center and development of the souXhnn portion of the entire site. lly submitted, Rick RG:jr Attachments e --el 11 OL ft LVA E. n u S. M. HOYT LUMBER COMPANY 321 - 323 Eon Molt Blvd. Ontario, California Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commisoion 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91701 Chairperson; Telephone YU; on 6 -2721 March 99, 1984 The S. M. Hoyt Lumber Company Moms Center would like direc- tion From the planning commission an to the procedure to add to our present building which is a legal non- conforming use build- ing. We presently have a building of 119200 square fact located at 7110 Archibald Ave. It is a retail Node Canter. We plan to add approximately 89000 square feet West of and attached to our present building* and will Follow development and review proce- dures. Our understanding is that the building would be a legal non- conforming addition and not detrimental to the master plan. In the Future if the building cases to be used as a retail Moms Center, it could smaily be converted to a conforming use with in the master plan. We would be pleased to most with the commission and dis. cuss our plans and ideas in more detail as soon as convenient. Si sly, filer- . chard W. Nelson Meraager S. M. HOYT LUMBER CO. HOMES CENTER 0- -m HEADOUARTERS FOR CONTRACTORS AND BUILDERS EVERY NEED ' Mx �' °E 2 r i2 f Z .2 C� i AY' •R �Y L IMr. /• •.'ter, +�YY* �L 7;A �f /ir�r r e..c /Z . 17 L OH /TA COURT � � lj C ,WORTH CITY OF rrE\I: RANCHO CL"CAMaNGA TITLE: PLt MUgG DW SM E1CHM- SCALE: lJ 11 i j �^ n Ci i IZZ {tt I lj C ,WORTH CITY OF rrE\I: RANCHO CL"CAMaNGA TITLE: PLt MUgG DW SM E1CHM- SCALE: lJ 11 ® CI'- I FY Ur RANCHO CUCA MONGA - L Y VUG TrV SR rm%I: M G V NORTH SCALE-. Ri alk NO Juacr � � � �� �.�_' ••.� .tom,. .:'� .. J par. I IL21 AM: J ` - u rgr)ER cc*15T APPZ*D "K6 • SOIL t� �r f�;!'r ..Gf.1O�; � r ♦ ; A - � -. . ,� I , �]�{'' . `• t• I �r ' �• ^sII •1.��t�• .mw.• 16t c3 : �• .: °e "sue• L _ :�_ �-\� �.. — .aria_ r© I CCVAKER e :g 1 •r' � ..1 s t mow_ ��� ¢•:I .� _ /� .ar''�Q � � � J ��- = l .rT r � + •mil -�. A . ® CI'- I FY Ur RANCHO CUCA MONGA - L Y VUG TrV SR rm%I: M G V NORTH SCALE-. g F7 j Section 17.02.130 S. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided said activities take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on any day except Sunday, or between the hours of 4 a.m. and A p.m. on Sunday. 7. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal law. F. SchooIsLChurches, Libraries, health Care Institutionscial Provisions. It shall be uNaw�u� for any person to create any raise w ch causes the noise at any school, hospital or similar health care institution, church, or library while the same is in use, to exceed the noise standards specified in this Section and prescribed for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital, church or library is lc°..ated. G. Administration. Any act creating or permitting the creation of a noise disturbance asas defined by this Code, not otherwise excluded by the preceding section of this Code, shell constitute a violation of this Code and shall be abated as such. Ii. Prima Facie Viclation. Any noise exceeding the noise level standards for a designated noise zone as specified in this Section shall be deemed to be prima facie evidenco of a violation of the provisions of this Section. Section 17.02.130 Uses & Strnztiaea A. Purpose. This section is intended to limit the number and extent of non- conforming uses by regulating their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and the alteration or restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. In addition, this section is intended to limit the number and extent of non - conforming structures by prohibiting their being moved, altered, or enlarged in a manner that would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards prescribed in this Code. N. Continuation and Maintenance 1. A use lawfully occupying a structure or a site, that does not conform with the use regulations or the site area regulations for the district in which the use is located shall be deemed to be a non- _onforming use and may be continued, except as otherwise limited in this Section. 2. A structure, lawfully occupying a site, that does not conform with the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height, coverage, distances between structures, and parking facilities for the district in which the structure is located, shall be deemed to be a non - conforming structure and may be used and maintained, except as limited provided in this Section. 3. Routine maintenance and repairs may be performed on a non - conforming use or structure. -133 - e-f Section 17.02.130 C. Alterations and additions to Pion - Conforming Uses and Structures 1. No non - conforming use shall be enlarged or extended in s::ch a way as to occupy any part of the structure or site or any other structure or site which it did not oem py at the time it became a non - conforming use, or in such a way as to displace any conforming Le occupying a structure or site, except as permitted in this Section. 2. No non- conforming structure shall be altered or reconstructed so as to increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures, distances between structures and parking facilities as prescribed in the regulations for the (f ' strict in which the structure is located. D. Discontinuatim of Non-Conforming Use. Whenever a non- eonforning use has been changed to a con orming use or !•as been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days or more, the non - conforming use shall not be reestablished, and the use of the structure or site thereafter shall be in ; onformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located, provided that this section shall not apply to non - conforming dwelling units. Discontinuation shall include termination of a use regardless of intent to resume the use. E. Restoration of a Damaged Structure 1. Whenever a structure which does not comply with the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures, distances between structures and parking facilities as prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located, or the use of which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God, or by the public enemy to the extent of 50 percent or less, the structure may be restored and 'he non- conforming use may be resumed, ptuvided that restoration, is started within one year and diligently pursued to completion. When the destruction exceeds 50 percent or the structure is voluntarily razed crs required by law to be razed, the structure shall not be rstored except in full conformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located and the non - conforming use shall not be resumed. 2. The extent of damage or partial destruction shall. be based u} ,)n the ratio of the estimated cast of restoring the structure to its coii6tion prior to such damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates for this purpose shall be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and shall be based on the minimum cost of construction in compliance with the Building Code. F. City Planner. Any request for alteration, expansion or restoration of a non -conforming use or structure shall be reviewed by the City Planner to determine compliance with :he provisions contained in this section, or refer it to the Planning Commission as specified in Section 17.02.:10 -G. The City Planner shall notify the applicant and surrournding property owners of the decision. The decision of the City Planner may be appealed by any aggnevoed party within ten (10, calendar days of the decision. -14-0--/0 11 Section 17.02.140 G. Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to section. 17.02.110. The Planning Commission snag review each case and all matters of fact. The Commission may grant the request, grant the request with modification, or deny the request. The Commission shall state that the request will or will not be detrimental to the goal- and objectives of the General Plan and that such request will or will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Section 17.02.140 Definitions A. Poses 1. The purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in ttee application and interpretation of these Development Regulations. The meaning and construction of words and phrases defined in this chapter shall apply throughout this Codes. except where the context and gage of such words or phrases clearly indicates a different meaning or construction intended in that particular case. B. General Interpretation 1. The cord "shall" is mandatory and not discretionary. The word "may" is perm &ive and discretionary. 2. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of any provision and any caption or illustration, the text shall control. 3. References in the masculine and feminine genders are interchangeable. 4. Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, words in the present and the future tense are interchangeable, and words in the singular and plural or interchangeable. 5. Unless the contest clearly indicates to the contrary, the foUowiag conjunctions shall be interpreted as follows: (a) "Apeir indicates that all connected items or provisions shall apply. (b) "Or" indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply fly or in any combination. (s) "Either ... or' indicates that the connected items or provisions shall apply singiy but not in combi.-aation. S. The wort: "used" small include arranged, designed, constructed, altered, converted, rented, leaved, occupied, or intended to be utilized. C. Definitions A ABU I I NG: Having lot lines or zone boundaries in oommon. ADDITION: Any construction which increases the size of a building or facility in tersite coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area. -1s- �J E 11 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 13, 1984 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner - DANNA the establishment of a recreational vehicle storage yard on 2.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District generally located on the south side of Base Linz, eat of Hermosa Avenue - APN 1077- 051 -40. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re nested: The applicant is requesting approval of a n it:ona use for the above described project. B. Pur�)ose• To operate an existing recreational vehicle storage .yar,r - C. Location.: South side of Base Line, east of Hermosa. D. Parcel Size: 2.4 acres. E. Existing Zoaiing: Low Residential. F. Existina Land use: Single family residence /vehicle storage yard. G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - e home par , zoned Low Medina residential. South - Single family residential, zoned Low Residential. East - Single family residential, zoned Low Residential. West - Single family residential, zoned Low Residential. H. General Plan Designations: raj ct ite - Low Dente Residential, (2 -4 du /ac). North - Low Medium Residential, (4 -8 du /ac). South - Low Density Residential, (2 -4 du /ac). East - Low Density Residential, (2 -4 du /ac). Best - Low Density Residential, (2 -4 du /ac). ITEM 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 84-05 June 13, 1984 Page 2 I. Project and Site Descri ti on: The applicant, Danna, is seeking approval a a n bona Use Permit for an existing recreational vehicle storage yard located on the south side of Base Line, east of Hermosa Avenue. As you may be aware, this u-e has been !n existence for the past seven Years. Initially, in 1977 the applicant approached the County, and the newly formed City of Rancho Cucamonga, in order to secure a Conditional Use Permit. At that time, the City was in the process of adopting the General Plan and thus a Conditional Use Permit was never processed. As illustrated on the site plan, Exhibit "A ", the existing recreational vehicle storage yard consists of an unimproved parcel surrounded by a chain link fence designed to acconmcdate approximately 109 recreational vehicles. In addition, a three foot retaining wail and drainage facilities are located contiguous to the southerly property line designed to convey drainage to Hermosa Avenue. Various plant materials are located contiguous to Base Line Avenue, in addition to a mature Eucalyptus windrow. Lastly, an existing single family dwelling (Danna residence) is located adjacent to the &;ahicle storage yard to the east. Please note that the use is located contiguous to Base Line Avenue, a Special Boulevard, and should relflect the City's highest design standards. II. ANALYSIS: A. Do—sign Review Committee: Mie Design, Review Committee was primarily concern w screening the existing recreational vehicle storage use from Base Line Avenue. The Design Review Committee recommended that masonry wail (scored or split face block) be located contiguous to Base Line Avenue with crushed riv,— rock details, designed to screen the existing use. In addition, the Committee recommended that extensive landscaping be placed along the Base Line street frontage, (including street trees, mounding /meandering si3ewalks, etc.) per Special Boulevard standards. The Committee was also concerned with screening the southerly property line and recommended landscaping contiguous to this edge. Lastly, the Design Review Committee recommended that all recreational vehicles be set back 45 feet from the ultimate right of way line, in order to screen from view recreational vehicles which may extend above the recommended masonry screen wall. 0 0 -a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit CUP 84 -05 June 13, 1984 Page 3 B. Develo nt Review Committee: The Development Review Committee was primarl ly concerned with street improvements avid recommended that curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drive approaches, and other improvements be provided contiguous to Base Line Avenue. The Development Review Committee was also concerned with existing drainage facilities lying along the southerly property line and reco. '2nd that a drainage study be prepared by the applicant to assure drainage of the parcel to Hermosa Avenue. C. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee has granted conceptual grading approval for the above described project. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed y the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts related to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. If the Commission concurs with these findings, 40 issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based upon review of the site and -information p-vided by the applicant, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The DailyTeport newspaper and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and conduct a public hearing and receive all pubiic input on this natter. If after such considerat'= the Commission can support the findings and conditions of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance cf a Negative Declaration is recommended. Rick City P anrer RG:FD:ns :Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan i Exhibit 'B" - Vicinity Map 1 Initial Study - Part I 40-3 var...m Base Lane Avenue - I - 1 RI S,D c ,cIE CITY OF P-..�\CHO CUCANIaNGA INNING DIVOO v R aik . rrENI- TITLE: Exl- MT= _ _ SCALE- 10-41/1 G� 0 m LJ y is © 19.06 LM 1 �ZS4 p �• = y a+fc y acrfo L aO- I II �� J _ ) l '�1 vrr •• it ref �• IN ki i L-41 q� •�".' �__I_j.r —'.�., w ,.... .401 ! — �' Y �� �.- �.,,: a� ..tea 1 2• 1 .:1.� �tO`' Ida' 7• . 4 T.._1� '�7 i '111 '�.Z32 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this fors must be completed and submitted to the Development Review committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt Of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: L AND D R.V. STORAGE YARD APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: (714) 98JV632 0 LEONA DANNA 10191 BASELINE ROAD RANCHO SEC. NAM, ADDREaC. TELEPHONE CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: CALIFORNIA 91730 (714) 987 -3 OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED LEONA BA \?vA 10191 BASELINE RANCY.O LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND AASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 10191 BASELINE ROAD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, -r - ASSESS LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FRO'.! LOCAL. REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AC ENYCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NONE I -1 e_ 6 11 C 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : TO ACQUIRE P C U P �w e xT�Ti *t( FariT.iTv ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 2.4 ACRES OF 9R0? -iTY AND 2400 sq. f PRIVATE RESIDENCE INCLUDING GARAG' - - DESCRIBE THE ENVIROPR' =NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION CN TOPOGRAPHY, PT.,ANTS (TREES), ARIMALS, ANY CmTT"R -AL. HISTORICAL OR SCEN IC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING ;:—, yRTIES, AND TEE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): THE YARD IS APPROXIXIATLY 1.2 ACRES OF GRAVEL COVERED BARE GROUND SSICTH A A n. AAD A FOOT RETAINING WALL AC 0 OJ OUNDAR TO CAT_ RU r. VEGATAZVE SCREEN Re..F cur ew TRAFFI Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individuallys -call, may as a whole have significant environmental imp NO ! I -2 D- Explanation of any YES answers above: THE CURRENT ZONE IS FOR LOW RESIDENTIAL USZ. I AM ASKING FOR A C.U.P TO ALLOW THE !G USE TO A GNO_RED DURING THE GEPTEPAL PLAN AND ZONING, IN ENVIROMIENT EQUIRE ADM I BELIEVE NO ENVIRON QE gAt L` PACT IS NEE=_AJ 11-LDORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information regaired for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. '1 DateZZ ��,:C F lSignature Title '� * 1� ✓� ✓=� _r1- 3p �� 0 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO _ =L 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? XXX 2. Create a substantial change in existing — noise or vibration? XXX 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? XYX 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? WITH A C.U.P. _ XXX 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? XXX 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: THE CURRENT ZONE IS FOR LOW RESIDENTIAL USZ. I AM ASKING FOR A C.U.P TO ALLOW THE !G USE TO A GNO_RED DURING THE GEPTEPAL PLAN AND ZONING, IN ENVIROMIENT EQUIRE ADM I BELIEVE NO ENVIRON QE gAt L` PACT IS NEE=_AJ 11-LDORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information regaired for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. '1 DateZZ ��,:C F lSignature Title '� * 1� ✓� ✓=� _r1- 3p �� 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 140. 84 -05 - DANNA - FOR A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BASE LIKE, EAST OF HERMOSA IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 1st day of May, 1984, a complete application was filed by Leona Danna for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of June, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which th?� site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimentai to the public health, safety, or welfare, or mzterially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on June 13, 1984. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -05 is approved subject to the 7o7owing corditions: 1. A six foot masonry wall with river rock details shall be provided contiguous to Base Line Avenue from the Edison substation to the existing single family residence. In addition, the wall shall extend approximately 80 feet to the south, contiguous to the single family /recreational vehicle storage edge division. 2. Tall recreational vehicles (six feet or mare) shall be set back 45 feet from the ultimate right- of-way line. a-� Resolution, No. Page 2 3. The existing drainage facility, located contiguous to the southerly property line, shall convey all storage yard surface runoff to Hermosa Avenue. No concentrated water shall drain to the butting southerly parcel. 4. All vehicle storage and parking areas shall be paved with slag, crushed aggregate, asphaltic concrete, or concrete. 5. Standard condition M -4 City Council resolution a median island on Base shall be applicable pending reaarding the requirement of Line Avenue. 6. If the operation of the recreational vehicle storage yard causes adverse effects upon adjacent properties, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. 7. Expansion of the recreational vehicle storage yard beyond 109 vehicles shall require the approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit. 8. A dense landscaped buffer shall be planted adjacent to the southerly property line. APPROVED AND AOOPtEO THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick z, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: 11 11 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 10-/& «�W�y °.•�� odd» q3 o: =B g «L�sayo 0��5 �Sov •.• „ p C M ••• = r '= F , A 9 6> q C Y. 11 O J `L. 9_ _ V dC.rc P> > u LO oa � ^JVAm Pg —M dLM Y��$ Z vbs° �2 °z N��o �$Y wCv }qq}u1a �.cr e P O w i'$ ii kiYrOrr ►.'�+^ pNL Fio_ O «7wq 'oY `o �o. s ,S„ O VCCV� CYCC1 O J d'•>. L�'L M O �N OraP"6_CL OVY•�� `� LVw'.$ C4AV Q. �_ •ry 6 xOJr L °Vr fd `GGG Y Ce N^ CN6 CyCC ;p�eCCCA CSCy $... QS OVc C L w�Or t k t Y R O. ■' _g y QQ wA.F. vVy rC± i � °^ V TLL .rU.rMV� ` E O •ra n O_ �V �V Cn_+F y C 9 • yu y- L -Y- L C i 31O�1 4 9C iO yg y w p Gr� y•"• C tN C L V r ° ^o j{t{�[�[��[ T O C « W4 —2 w Y3 N o. N « Vr VPV N er °_ O „C y4. &'NOV}V ACC °G�r QL +��MN_UVJY•00 YCC JCCyO ^ ■ ° N V y1 p^ 9 a Y i C^ N = L _r G vCyVy_ ifv��L .r w „� SYyVG °C 6POr\•V _YV� yC < ■< ���C Cr .BOO O CC f L O^ C .°.dV�r�CNr� r � yyyO�{. Y OL � Y�y •Y/•i ^ °01 yp�N q�J _ M °l G rC9V0 �uTdn $Y— '.. ip1y Y�Y� 6C+ YV •4s >_ n) ^OCr>,O r� L Nr_C^ 6 •�Y�PVV Or ^_ NN�� VP LY g° � LL Cpl CC V yC p1t pp Q fj P�i L Nb V L 1�000r OC V� m i N L g `a g O 11 V e u1 s � P> a J v €c V Y e C F W� F �IN �I �Iz 6I r Y. z �Q ga a J s >-o _figg bNS y �E C O Y P � V S 6 J y � O Sr O r V y 3�5 O ` U NN N NLr L ,QF Z1a N 9'L �gy > ^C O 9 — Y L 87_ °T N r N ! I�i 4 ' 9 ° �■ V N i° V r� r CC L r Cd O N_ i( q w Y C w �N Y. •'rte ^t y0 C S I g� L q gi'� °moo =o C ' d J e z q =� ���0•r�dw� L e `x�T y Ss y L Y w � r •/ C =` Vc W Y N Wy Y yy y Oy y �'1 e V N C w. +• N r N ! I�i °r 4f O 2 f� U 0 L CI CT>•V Pdf�L.�- 6q ^ 5 O G yEC y_yly�' $'rsr VC z p ..O dM p uTV C• S_ c �w V V= `� a A; O f C= L— `O y y c 4 ` P _ L Y 2 t Z= r• O Y d M MD �g AS— N :a Nr Npy� euodcr —u, `o eycye �_ § YqA° 'e ry o dQ.`o. Ng ra _ On pA 9V{� V O J4� V A T✓ N r a O N n C y Y qu `PU. q q Q O L _d Oqo JLL.AO +r CC �SV� O�, �— AO Z`L dV S V € cp` 22; �_ "° A� dc9r� d.L.._ re c A c 4`d.° V c =3= A c2" w`00`9•�O_L�n G.Sn_ar mod° `6".' d V�>y E ,J edd.�r OTd v OR�Q � C g >WJ ALCoL = NC"„wc A r R y �FV`N T�0°•rV Vr VVr .�q�! A.OiN �{.iV� ^6 �ddC .— -O4 dC O e `= Pi C V LLV .•d v9d Y —ccr LJ�>. —yd�N raca� r� i Y cq n r— o ^— r• r NNn Yr�,eq —ww N N. L yC w. A N O �. .L• V — p O d r E d v C J e ._• A V •O• V N 6 C 1 r` i � Vr . C 6 N � L C _q -N'a jyid� Z.'Z v = C d V= u A S V V r L R f P l d r g C N O T p Q d N y N T V J g q ! j V =�C[ry V• opN P VvC SN d9_ C'J—Iq It= O J _p �+ � V T W d � A A S 61•C ^` P L .• L — V V A -• 6 6 p 9- V CV CC NLNr�i l L .°n VV L.-. nV V C— d Ol.V• .. P9.Ti —�j„t� L E� D .i d aoi Er � C C .n d �j ` wO. N N 1 r c W.— 2 � C < C pV <� •J•. O < A �`r m 61� I N T I o L; �O 8�C °�N eL w 9L .y9\4 ..• W d L C yy O Y -J f L C S r N q L C� � GG �' —> A O E V O O = •O.. V S A C q� en, MJ>� pA� O T fNSr L�r OML Ta�VV V —O C �ClOT O Q Vp C� ,p NycY ` LTV Tp r AW -yOV p. CV ` N L r " O cO�•.. C C ^ Y ^ O\ C A C N � Q O g e— r r .8L M N� = c 'e -• C 9 P a 9< c. r A Y " � B V � N pT� T V c C•_i. C c C= ° •°a O V 2~~ � W L p 1 �2 ��" w C w s n O T V TC i O T H E_ V L� C C D w L Cy C C > C L — •.� �' —N LO .e O cY6, .d.•`.zC CS Hy — e�— CC. O TC Ar Yzy " O L• L' i CO-•A FV1 CV C :'Zg=�O. c w� O O A_OCF. OC 9 0 A P C.- O N r C A 4 4 O�ZfC Vy{�, 7 P ^Vr >r .� t P - -A YLp p>i•O V w V— W 1>EV> o�t�Z.Ni.— cOf` C —CP .O V —NO H.CNC <�w° ��� �i V��•O'S�L4L.. �•� F�iwVV VC6-.!l y �o{ -• < V � r O a V A� wr r C 1 � r i< A f <� +� E u N E P 4• w t l c Y R _ L b LYY C- L T L 7` D +u q_rL _y �c�a c -N.di =car =gj- CC ' VLy V+Vii G J�uV � eLQr Y aJ WVA ON- bN L�p` C ANN Vag c L �yyj O r O4 C JLirL rr Ca -C P Tb V C M - A _j •J AiCC q L V DT.•+'^ 5 V _ - y N Y '0 C Y q q .r1 V-Jy P<L c ND _A i�Op ?Or Lqn rceb VO. L7 i Cr-r � q • - i � L - C � - C d L - � O q . _ f�q rC V:d_ O'NN CYO � M 6 O� - L1l C- L _ V °�L x >r '2 Fr P �L W 'q p H ' N =` Qr S 4 p O V l A L.r °Cd C C. �^ C 9 -- P A V IZ `O $ V 9 4° y A� C 60.0 ZO AiVV O�nr =0 r. 6rJ P -Z Pp�r N .Y/' p Or Cy Cr . :E q NW A A ✓ O ` L N D L L L •^ J L C C O Oc9 y V N V YC Cy V Y y -- C -` C t c O NT- - CG nN A.E � O n t V .r O e n N r p Z- ^I ml 2 `VT I N c I do:_ Ps C- O pY p= rOlE ILC.°. + `r'p Cq 2 ^c Y r « P$ s b°0> -Lb,. r 6 G 4 I .;;q x C aL ° P6= lam! 5572 11(I w i t C V br— W�Nj O. ti V C AC CV. ` q>fe LAy=�'yi Ci0'N ii YON �- A Cs CO Or G q aI o �- Y S•' -� L c o P ° co V• Mr ° °°ii Ory NL ce �: � A� y�°, �N =r �_ � _ •ice gam€C ° � 6 p r i - V�rY A�r°.• °4Y /CVi� rNQ O 4 Y cc O ND a epp � d 0 p w YC- r�q 726 �. Gr L A C an Vi V` C ° C CMV L -`.r >q IOP w�q COY { AU ��� °N qrN V r Oip+ V�NV =0A7y -= C• V �j\ I QLJ C` VPL `r d 'r' LP Vv 4V Vq r.O L `ir N L Lr =M °` - `o s� c•dg V10 a..n �' LO pry r CA N r0 Lr �v` `YO �rPr 4V Or AO N• 1r V °Nr= F r D, nL r O �Y Ra > __r YC �8Y jr a •L =Z C L r yJ� -J >V 6T 1.d`V �A V1rOV Mr �YAY r w r �_ r -_ - s r Y o f r O. +- O Y f R t M L L V$ •` M 6CM Y p H6M CLJ - L .VC1 TOLL LO ^OM -A L L p q CMGA Y.rMCni P Z 41 U Q� L a CEO I ;OS L4 L ; da pC4 La P bPY ]� r y Cgymd V C1{� p„ tC ar O c... Ld 9b @Cyqe cy0i G1NJti VV9 = N c9 _ Vr V V G I V✓ V V G Q i C __ u e S ppL ` C. � C p ) Y cft Y� O d0 `dU J • T6 aV S' d0 yy✓ �J °a p`-.N �Gp_ d r✓ W � T r m`" M E y6 LJ ONr O L ,I sr a a ry 0 °L"cw p C i� iyL"_ ii c ✓� a ee � Na o a rw Vd Y �y �Z d cd.� •c: =� p� W` r_ P <.i.�4 >C V 9 'u•O �� �� N� dcJ6L VO= Od O d�+G_ r°V�Y 9fiAy d AV 9 Y� Y6 _ y aEVqq °Vy CO' Wu _ y D Y V�pV Qjy yEC °yC iO a L� °� V9_V L_ O Vv OdOJi _ °L 7a G v `yd AC M Y y J CO6W` d 9 Y .V°aw E.2 d. NC Y C WW N FF A q 9I W E N V` G p O G W d N j ��Vy C N C N I V Y N V _ " -. >`H` ✓ a'U+ dI VCC CLN cr �u°. PE��Ld NO V • PN Oy rN au '.•• r Jd LJ6a�rN LC0.4yy Y-.Orm N 6VA OV W O p WVU �O. �L V 6) L' 6r Ni O• N NI ^I •I ^I Oi d:� I N� I L� I 9I Q 1 V r � L 4 V � r C� V N r 9 ✓� -' p r0 EL Y d ) rp N �'V � Gi.� I WL �`C d.0i. � q ✓�� 9 >O C.•^ yV �dG r ...Vj 7 ° Ga r GGi 2 v. _d9 ✓ N� O a V.L.•° � C Y i - N G? °E `ON "�O I� I i= A L� 6C0 � CZQC1♦ SCO AO L `C L I f'9 pNyE !u � N_ C�G > LG'rY'x CLO p � � •0 O r SN F L 6�� G. E C V �. A I E V° .,1. � 6_ O E— C O2 O y N L ✓ ryE I O t O M N 4 i 7 y d r O G` N j IV S_ CC O pd G 6•'� AyV at �Ci C" V NE L� _ �O� T 4 �� �' ■ E O � V V O A N r r _ u �_ [O r_ C L V � r O G6 � W L CC V 1U )'A VV PNC .n GNryL �Ca ° �c '° � `cc �= e_ ...die✓ dLVP N _ YGmy` L"9i _ L• Y� d�W P_L Ltd O��pjj qG O ✓ t VC Ce- Yp0 M L� MO•d1< F d O Nyi �' 3L e°r - e. 41 O\ •I �� N .'f N IO1 • N �O �I C7{ I I OI 1 I I / / \�� / i u� w e a -� v GN aNre NMUP = 5 4 p V V U -e VO J �p V ••O_ Q - N 4 V c N l L C w Y d< 8O _ 1�yv� 7 V FF C OQQO N V V 2 L y O v Nn C d T •J Q C < � _�' I•� I I O d � N P- 0 L" N O O E a •^/ C C p •an- - L r ..r w I° q d V. t+ i •O � ' N .Vu Y O Q i° S °' I �� a ` .u. Lr a °qTO •°.- `'S v o. -L c. C» 6- C E i i �_ 6 � a- b� N V -j L • b V I � v NM� N N� •+ _ Q O ii n N b r O t- VS > J L b1 L N I �M I <L C � � V-J <O ¢•.nGi6 6Vr 6 <O'L ui V N¢ 1 u t O O P L •J 4 T l O w w. L O C C P O N � •� s_-•d ac °n -- dP O �T�� LCNw C Vr .0it� p LML9 i °,• is p PYmu vw c G bu i- �c r- r 4 O drV 'e -Od� , V°�O Gl C •� O_° -L v r O S O m > Y M ry C a L••' u L p- O •S pw -V� wC b >g C �NC�°. rc rC jOC rYp ECJ p�dr Q�OO Jpl.°..O °61� -NOp P ri CO °_ N N L d y l O =5Z Y r n c..!: U� _ � 0.00 Ck p >O�n •cyq VV Nc t`. 0 r9 EM OP G °0 °i d O•�r C a � L.'] V Fi dN rp a _ O T �c0i O r` d^ r C. N p. Y O P V •- �� a V� 0 J P. C 4 N q r S .• e = CO P O -O � �G�� C nV i= .V..Y q V C» _O P _ C•p P yC V I "•JV >pP COr LO O O. � -N l <OV Oy 00 O O i F V Q i d EO 6 O LLOD VV V �t V< r r 0 ' V G O 9 O f L 4 -<V .r 2 _ud �. z l i rc d N d rr � e Y L J O aCi � O � O .. W •Vi ^ 0 V.. C I r 9 e $p T Q � p JI ••• O/ L .0 D O �U P O = N S L y! V e N wDr u Yu 62 e 4 O u « r r c ` " V Z• d `y� `d r & a6 N6L�'5 q V dOY...c — V o j L - °w0 V N TO r.JN G l� y C •`L u Vu r L L y p N Q - u d « rj W« diur O. `c <C — p j °•+ r J Pr G L S L T r I V y� y d `� O� •(i O �yl* I v —_ C i= r C A N �. — C =- o " 4 g V.<.. OgQtr dV V emir °P di qn O � CN I C ed T Nr L r O �r a N p� q J qr rL y p • E > Q 6 °� ✓� ° JO LV�Ir it N C u E ✓L �L f� P �L CYe Q r= J = LPL \a NSA r. _d `k C O \ a V q '• L d a C 2 ( O Z Y i 1 O — 6 r C 9 V V T21 Q C CLp� N _ V °aC 9.2 Y 8I p'e C L I °•JL p�8 V N y rrr Cy W T YN V �� O C �d N V V r` y N «r J J r` y Or e C< d Z r 1 d_ � V �` r y �• Y � 6V O � LtJ i6 LiC �e I r.r <6N < _ i G L�r V4J 6� ur «I d ql V— � � V ❑' C d C V< r r 0 ' } O 9 O f L 4 -<V .r 2 _ud �. z l i rc d N d d V.. C I r 9 e $p T Q � p JI ••• O/ L .0 D O �U P O = N S L y! V e J 62 V Sl O V Z• d `y� `d r & a6 N6L�'5 q V dOY...c — V o j L - °w0 N TO r.JN G l� y C •`L u Vu r L L y p N Q - u I W« diur O. `c <C — p —rT r q q •(i O �yl* I v —_ E o i= r C A N �. — C =- M I _W_ T Nr L r • E > Q 6 d V` V ° C uCA LV�Ir L � N C u E ✓L �L .--. r. _d `k r J \ O — NY °aC Y 6r P O LV rr V4J r d V— � � V < Y 1 L L «V NOW V^ < O• NOrr N'> ❑' C �v CN L Y O 'c° o o _ `T y o r 4> e 1 I a •Pi T I I d -'� d c L o N 9 C L L C I I •C y 6 u •' P— OAT � `Gtr 9 ° I O d `•-u i V - O I OT Ca rfI OI ° Cc C O .0.. P.�. C T P V P> L p• opN I •OnV �- � L9 Ned Sr0 t` e d q Va L S =r O Y •+ d C 09_ -Y r N �r o O O V .••. yy d � N 1 I G •J Q N O_ �� r• L ` y 4 L N .rG• V v I 4 e V N S V V > Y �C -•'n N I I I y♦ �L C"O OLy L `�Tt.• Zo _ V I Vi lV SV r� ai O COO VyrpCy• O M q I � «r L•1 q O -r d r� a C g - I S `^ C � d 4 Y r S d -• C N- I ^°'�° .ri•d I I T`o �Ya _r s� NN -v CS vpPr 9 L P r I I i ° r O V ^J Op y_ N Y •� �° ^ N Y O� L �'s Or 1 I I tr O r SOY _A 7A Gr 6V� 7NY N m {7 aI WN w, 1 1 0/;7 T � a — o T > y T N u ° F � v ` C y M T T O •y d O C C ` o d SI Q C O � J Y r y Ve�I 0. 7 y r L C L � I a n CJ E E CY'1'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Jcne 13, 1984 70: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -08 T. PETER /ST. PAUL - A request to allow the operation o a preschool in an existing 11,645 square foot building in conjunction with a church located on the southeast corner of Banyan and Beryl. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION_ A. Action Requested: The applicant is requesting approval of a CItiona use Permit in an existing church facility. B. Pur se: The operation of a preschool in a-t existing 11,645 square root building. C. Location: Southeast corner of Banyan and Beryl. D. Parcel Size: 4.95 acres E. Existing Zoning: Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) F. Existing Land Use: institutional (church) G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Sing le Fami .y Residential; zoned Very Low South - Single Family Residential; zoned Low East - Single Family Residential; zoned Low Nest - Single Family Residential; zoned Low H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) Borth - Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 du /ac) South - Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) East - Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) Nest - Lew Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) ITEM E II. ANALYSIS: The applicant, St. Peter, St. ?au) Church, is seeking approvalY f a Conditional Use Permit for a preschool and day care facility for approximately 120 children, to be located in an existing 11,645 square foot church tuilding (Exhibit "A "). In general, the facility will consist ri six classrooms with twelve children per room (Exhibit "$ "). Classes will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Parking consists of 218 parking stalls which have been provided on the project site. Current parkz.ig standards require one (1) parking stall for each staff member, plus one (1) for each five (5) preschoolers. Ample parking has been provided for the preschool use. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based upon review of the information provided by the app scant, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. The size of the buildings, the existing playground, and parking area will provide adequate service for the proposed use aid is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land use. TV. CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in The Daly Report newspaper and approximately 50 public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. W. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and 0opt the Resolution of (Approval w Conditions. R:s / *t- jally su fitted, �3ck city ft er RG:FD:jr I jAttachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan t Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions e- :1 LJ El El El E t 4 IE-nf,.NY^N STREET Ii f0 y Zx Z, 3 CITY OF rrF-\I- RANCHO CUCALNIONGA, ,-nu: PLANNM DWSM EXMBrr SCALE- f -3 MINE,.- Z CITY OF RAINCHO CUCANI0X1CA FI.AI`T1I.NC DIVISCN X I/ ;FORTH rmxl: 0 TITLE: EXHiBrr :— scALE- A Co Prrrrrq:n ..n''_ activit; SChvdole St. Peter nr_d St. PuUl PrrSc *' :o1 brine and educational coals for the growth of individual postive self - esteem. Emphasis on tY_e -- ociral c'.evelopment of the chili: opens the academic doors of the wonders of God's world. Throunh our Christian environment the child gains the ability to feel good about himself /herself and learns to accept and give to others. 8:30 Entrance (Director will give each child a sr-cial greeting and a health check. No child should 'ne left until he /she has been received by the Director. Child will then go to his classroom for greeting by his/ her teacher.) 8:45 Morning Group Time (During this time the teacher will involve the the children in the flag salute and morning. ® prayer. Discussions and demonstrations can be emphasized at this time throuc;h conversation, sharing or through a story.) 9:00 Learning Centers 1. Block and Trarsnortation Center - TI%s center encourages larre and small mi:�-s.e development, cooperative play, language development and creative thinking. 2. Science Center - This center will offer to the child science displays and /or demonstrations. This will be a touching center and a discovery time. 3. Library Center - This is a quiet Glace to rest or to browse through one of our many books. Ccokinc Center - This center will give the child an Opportunity to .i:'Ip p, epare our snack on some occasions. This center will enccurar�e language development, following directions, taking turns, measuring and textures. 5. Fousekeevino Center - 1'he op- ortunity o£ role playing, cooperative play, lar -e and s -n21 muscle activities, 1--ini u;: s!e devetop=cnt z_nd just plain fun is unlimited in this cc! -to: -. 6. Tnt-le Activity Center - This center offers to the chill. tc:e s7. :.11 rn:n cie an:! eye 7: rc9 � 'S Cre,ittirr to fur±cti.n in'.n. ^ ^ ^'ntl•f %re z4d:icd bcr__fi= 7. SJCCial Activity Center - This center will of "t-r ?^ art activity nr Soiree as LIV16y sucn as Dlaydough. 4: 115 Clean-up . ire (All children will learn to help himself /herself and others so that the classroom will be returned to order.) 10:00 Batnroom (All children will have the opportunity to go to bathroay and to wash up for snack.) 10:15 Nutrition Time (Each child will try to pour his /her own drink and pass the food basket. Self -help will be en- couraged. Before each snack a prayer if thank- fulness will be said as a group. 10 :30 Group Time (This will be a language development time where an activity such as a story will be presented and discussed. Teachers will plt= this time carefully for content.) 10 :45 Outside Time (Active and creative play will be encouraged. At this time every child on everyday will have the opportunity to paint as an additional creative art activity.) 11:15 Music and Movement Time (Music will be offered everyday and once a reek a special music teacher will visit each classroom for further music opportunities. :' Music programs will be presented twice a year.) - 11:50 Bathroom Tame 11 :55 Closing Time rThis will be a time when -lie teacher closes her classroom sctivitiea with a prayer ,:r_:i /or religious story„) 12:J0 Lunch Time (t i -. .t, r ^L`:2 . :ice_ t; tt - .n ,,r:,.,ti u- we ° - -..c ti:i .;,. :�.... L 1 C] !• side on the Picnic benches and when fi- iishe�i they t.:'- r l:: aL .a' '.t.. .: S.1 a'7 "l:'2� a:� " _1 'S• "> at 12 :30 Dism1z. - :i1 - Extended Day Frognim. (nap ti-:c) 12:30 Bathroom Time - Rest Period (Each ci-ild will have his own blznket and sheet with his /her name on it. A child will be required to rest but not sleep if unable.) 2:00 Best Period Clean Up (Ea.ch child will help to put away his /her blanket and sheet.) 2:15 Bathroom Time 2 :30 Outside Play Time 3:15 Bathroom Time (clean -up for snack) 3:30 Nutrition Time 3:45 Group Ganes and Story Time 4:00 Learning Centers 5:00 Music and Movement Time 5 :30 Quiet Play Time 6:00 Dismissal Tine _school Closes -------- -------- ----- -- ---- --- --- - - - -- Morni ^Q Activity Schedule - Extended Daycare Program 7 :00 Morning Greeting (Lea,. -Ang center activities will be L_ad for the morning. See explanation of these centers on previous page.) 8:20 Greeting by Director tEach child will Lhen go on to V:eir own clacs- roew to be grected by his /tier teacher.) List Of Equip:1CY- Director's Lice deck and chair bookshelf office paper supplies Medical and Sanitation Supplies file cabinet chairs (2) -r t first aid kit (one for each classroom and one for Director's) paper towels soap tissues ?Nutrition SuaeS trays spoons napkins cooking utensils bowls he- ndiwioes Art Siinnlies colored paper glue paint scissors felt pens crayons Music Supplies record players (6) records (30) instruments (6 sets) Bathrooms roll of paper stencils paint brushes Plastic bucket glitter steps (have these made) pitchers plates scarves Music books (5) calendars tisrsue paper liquid stzrch easels (3) newsprint Classrooms (Each room will have exactly the same a,uipmert.) individual cubbies library shelf tables rug for sitting chairs play si:ove, cupboard, ref_igerator bul'etin boards (2) small play table end chairs dtaol?lsbtdgey shelf doh .-Mth Mirror books g15) blocksl tea at coo::in_g set train. set (wooden) cars ccmail a~i is-,2) b-iby stroller ifor dolls) art shelf IM 11 11 11 Ll- 11 Table Toys 1 (a!:e 1 -!gel will be taken into account before placing In Lett -r wooc4 bl-ack:. plav fzlmily kitty in `1,e ke-Ts peg boards t irke rt oys parquetry blocks Qutsid- Eeuinment trikes (4) water table dryin.r� rack (2 ) clothespins 1:_ r le lice nut. -° c lL: ted•9v bear--- counters loc;t L:. Dc;_.; shape builders jumbo beads number blocks counting, scale shape stack fence (enclosure of yard) Big Toy climbin and play structures �9 Snack ' ?cnu For Ore fleet: Mrnday - 2iorning (oran,re juice /rra -am cr :,c' :ers ) Aftern ^on (ap lc juice /cclery wit reara: bit ) Tuesday - Morning (pineapple juice /cin-iamon toast) Afternoon (milk /apple slices) Wednesday - Morning (gape juice /cheese on crackers) Afternoon. (milk /cookies) Thursday - Morning (milk /applesauce) Afternoon (orange juice /pipcorn) Friday - Mor-ning (milk/ muffins ) Afternoon (water /half of an orange) L-1 r4 a LJ 1 -1 a C WALKING DISTANCES East Side of Parish Hail Room 1 door to South grass area -- - - -- - - - - -- 259 feet Add 22 feet per roots for rooms 2 thru 5------------- ---- -- 88 feet 347 feet total Room 1 door Lo tennis court -- - - - - -- -- 2P1 feet Add 22 feet per roots for rooms 2 thru 5------ - - - - -- 89 feet 77 feet total West Side of Parish Hall Room b to South grass area— - - - ^-- — 307 feet Rood 6 to ter -xis court -- --- - - -- 347 feet Covered picnic table area---- 23 feet by 38 feel 1334 square feet 1 ' ' M'. • 1 Y18 u _. PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIR0V- MT•AE, CHECKLIST 0 FILING DATE: LOG NUMBER: Ca-4F E:5 4"'-0 8 PROJECT:_ Z- -s" F- P ?J)J£C1 LOCATION: Zt� y`a AsoL I. r- WIRO'NiMENTAL DeACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required ot1 attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: is a. Umstable ground condicions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction cr burial of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground sur:ace contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique Reologic or physical features? L e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off / site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? rZ g. Exposure of people or property r-3 geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h. /1n increase in the rate of extraction and /or use oY any mineral resource? 2. drolo . WL11 the proposal have significant results in: Page 2 YES )MYBE NO a. Changes :r. currents, or the course of direction of flowing strer.s, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels: b. (wages in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the raze and amoeat of surface water / x1=ff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? _ f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the q— !jtity of groundwateri, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? ® '•iction h. The rs in the amount of water other- vise a.ailable for public water supp'iea? 1. Exposura of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Qr- ality. W11 the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions frog mobile or indirect sources? Srationary sources? 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 temperauu.-e? _ 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? w_ b. Reduction of the cumbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of r' mts? _ Page 3 YES 14AYBE No c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of -- p. nts into an area? . d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural productivu? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the charact-- tstics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals: b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare / or endoagered species of animals? c. introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or res l t in a Larrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat ": _! S. Population. Vill the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human populat ?.on of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 6. Socio- Economic factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic 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 Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. i substantial alteration of the present or planned lani 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'. Page 4 YES MAYBE NO ® 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation cf substantial additional vehicular sovment? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for c. new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or dP drm nd for new parking? / d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? _ e. Alterations to present patterns of c.'rcula- tion or movement of people and /or goads? £. Alterations to or effects on present and f. potential water- borne, rail, sass transit or -- g. air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, f bicyclists or pedestrians? L ® 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, l paleontological, and /or historical resources? L 10. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of Nazar =ow substances in the event of an :akzident? / d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? _ 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? 11. Aestbetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstru.:tion or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. ?Jtilities and public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications Zystems? d. dater supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i- police protection? J- Schools? k- Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, incl-iding roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Enersty and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal bare significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in dc==d upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? 4r- /4/ P Page 5 YES MAYBE NO — L tz L — — f- -- L — f E- E rage 6 YES MAYBE $O e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural reaource ?. 16. Kandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the 4:itential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fi:h or wildlife population to drop below self austaiafag 16 --?s, threaten to eilm!i Pte a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important exaaples o.` the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project bav� the potential to achieve short -term, to the a:sadvantage of long -term, eaoiroamental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- ter impacts will endure well into the future). / , c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cu=&Iativel.y 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). _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIROlKES'fAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). %7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA;40NGA Pl.;NWNG COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE ?ErMIT N0. 84 -08 FOR ST. PETER /Sr. PAUL CHURCH LOCATED 04 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BANYAN AND BERYL ?k THE LOW RESILENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, an the ist day of May, 1984, a complete application was filed by St. Peter /St. Paul Church for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on t!:e 13th day of June, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resorted as SECTION is That the following findings car: be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the puraos =s of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each t the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on June 13, 1984. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -08 is approved subject to the following conditicns: 1. All State laws and regulations regardirg the licensing and operation of preschools and schools shall be complied «ith prior to opening of the school. 2. Expansion of the preschool beyond 120 children will require approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit. 3. Prior to any use cf the building or business activity being commenced thereon, the existin5 building shall be made to comply with current Uniform Buiiding Codes and State Fire Marshall Regulations. The applicant snail contact the City's Building and Safety Division and the Fn,thill Fire District to discuss these requirements. Resolution No. Page 2 4. If the operation of this school causes adverse effects upon adjacent properties, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration and passible termination of such uses. b. Precis: design and site plan review will be required for all proposed future phases. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. i'. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances. 9. Prior to any use of the project site, or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. APPROVED AND ADOP'1'EL THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNTIG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, L airman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I' Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the fallowing vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: c'P 191, El E E 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 13, 1984 TO: Ci: airman and ilembers of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REJISION OF THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT 1V'- _ I. ABSTRACT: This report outlines the basic content of the Draft Housing Element, including excerpts from the Technical Appendix and a brief c:escription of the housing programs. In addition, background information on State iegisla6 on and a sum,.ry of State comments on tht City's Draft Element arr, provided. Tne Commission should revie-a the document and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding final adoption. Ii. BACKGROUND: A. New Legislation: California State law requires that each local jurisdiction adnpt a Housing Element with their General Plan. This requirement first became effective in 1969 and detailed Housing Element guidelines were substluently adopted by the State in 1977. The City's Housing Elemer.' h;t prepared under these 1977 guidelines and adopted with the Generz, Flan in 1981. Since that time, the State revised the guidelines to maPa them more detailed by adding provisions for: 1. Development of a 5 -year action program for meeting local housing needs. 2. Incorporation of a proportional share of area housing growth (Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Allocation Model, SCAG /RH.AM Forecast). 3. Identification of governmental and non- governmental constraints to the productions of adequate housing. 4. Identification of energy conservation measures. When the new guidelines were adopted, the State also required that ?ach jurisdiction update its Housing Element every five years and esta:lished a deadline of July 1984 for the first update. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 Page 2 8. Housing Element Contents The State has identified the attainment of a decent home and a satisfying environment for every resident of the State of California as a goal of highest priority. Recoonizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this goal, and to insure that local planning effectively implements statewide housing Policies, the legislature mandated that Housing Elements contain three basic components as follows: �. An assessment of local housing needs and an inventory of local resources and constraints relative to meeting lecai needs. 2. A statement of the zzmmunity's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. 3. A program that sets forth a 5 -year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. C. Review Process: .'s the Commission may recall, portions of the Ho;� g ?Te`ment were reviewed at two previous meetings. Following a brief overview of the document by the Commission on March 14, 1984, the Housing Element was forwarded to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to undergo a mandatory 90 -day review Period. Comments from HCD were received in late May and have beer incorporated into the document where possible. Section IV of this report describes HCD c-imments. Following review and recommendation of the Element by the Planning (ammission, the document will be reviewed by the City COUP-il for final adoption in July. III. ORGANIZATION: The Housing Element contains three chapters which separ� the technical data from the housing objectives and programs. This format was chosen so that the importance of the City's programs is not lost or diluted with the calculations, graphs, or other technical information. Chapter One contains a brief synopsis of the information presented in the Technical Appendix, while Chapter Two contains -:he required 5 -year action program. The action program i. -Intended to achieve t!'2 Cit'v's housing goal and includes objectives and programs. The objectives are statements of inteit which relate to a particular aspect of the overall goal ?;d guide future actions in specific topic: areas. To implement each objective, programs are provided which set forth specific courses of action and establish Ll E PL..NNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 Page 3 quantified targets, where applicable. The third chapter contains in detail t;;e technical data and calculations. The information provided is based on the best available background data and acts as a framework for the City's identified housing reeds and subsequent policies and programs. IV.. TECHNICAL APPENDIX: The following discussion provides -- brief overview of the ii, formation presented in the Technical Appendix, Chapter 3. A more detailed summary is provided on pages 3 -11 of the Housing Element. A. Demographics: As of January 1984, Rancho Cucamonga's population was 61,624 according to the State Department of Finance. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) expects the City's population to increase by approximately 4.6 percent per year to a total of about 127,500 persons by the year 2000. As of 1980, an estimated 10 percer -. of the heads of households live and work in the City. B. Housing Characteristics: As of January 1, 1984, the ® Department of Finance estimated that there were 19,205 existing dwelling units in the City. Overall, the housing stock of th? City is in good condition. This is attributable to the fact that all but 2,250 dwelling units have been constructed since _360. it is a timated that one percent of the City's housing stock is in a deteriorated condition. The City has identified four older areas of the community to be targeted for rehabilitation assistance. During the next five years it is estimated that 3,028 new units will be constructed. The demand for new housing will bp spurred by emplr.-nent growth in the City which is expected to create above -,100 to 7,100 new households. C. Vacant 'ands: The City contains approximately 6700 acres of vaca:,t residential lands in eight different land use districts, with the -)otential for approximately 40,609 new units. Adding this number to the January 1984 estimate of existing units (19,205), the City will contain 59,814 units at buiidout, which is anticipated to occur around the year 2010. Vacant residential land within the two planned communities or Victoria and Terra Vista equals 1,785 acres. D. Housing Needs: According t;, the 1983 SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM), `here are 1,746 lower income huuseholds who are payino.dispi-nportionately high percent.ges of their income on housing. The RHAM also projects that 12,442 new units must be adied to the housing stock by 1989 in order to avoid an impactei housing situation. The RHAM establishes that 43 percent of these new units should be .3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. Draft Housing Element ,iune 13, 1984 Page 4 2 af;ordable to households earning 120 percent or less of the established median income (currently $31,101 per year). As of October 1982, the City's Dousing Assistance Plan.. (HAP) Prepared in conjunction with the Community Development Black Grant (CDBG) program id;ntified 792 small families, 213 large families, and 97 elderly families needing housing assistance. E. Constraints to Housing Development- The cost of housing, including financing an Production rosts, have increased more rapidly than household income thereby pricing potential home buyers out of the Lower interest rates for construction and purchasing would be a significant asset in providing afforeable housing. Residential development fees in ';ie City increase the cost of a median priced home apFruximately 8 percent, but are necessary to maintain an adequate level of services for new development. Inadequate and ,on- existent storm drair, and channels represent a major constraint to development in the City and w.11 require lc4ng- term financing commitments. V_ 08JE1'7 T,IVES AND PROGRAMS: As mentioned p-ev;)usly, State legislation mand a *.es that cities commit to a specific 3 -year action progr ?m which is designed to alle+iate identified housin; is needs =.nd to achieve o;rerall housing goals q.ie City's 4ous-Ing goal has teen broker down into seven objec.ive areas. The objec*_=ves and corresponding housing programs are based cn present and anticipated resources of th4 City and siiould represent the most feasible action which the City can take in order to satisfy the identified Needs as described in the Technical ANpendix. The following is a brief ovsrview of the prorosed objectives and programs. Objective 1 and the corresponding programs are intended to increase the number of nersons who live and work in the City. Tnirty percent of Pew household formations is established as a goal for this objective. Objective 2 deals with the conservation and improvement of the existing housing stock. The programs inciude senior grants for minor home repairs, law interest loans for housing rehabilitation, and installation of public improvements in target areas. Funding for the programs is orimariiy from the Community Development Block Grant except for the proposed Redevelopment Agency ReLabi I i ration Loan Program specified in Program 2.2. Objective 3 deals with permitting a wide range of housing types throug Td use regul-tions and with maintaining a balanced supplY of -ental and -,wnership units. Pru;ram 3.1 identifies the amount of vacant ic:reage in each residential district and 7 -� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 ?age 5 indicates the expectel� number of dwelling units to be constructed during the next five years. The projection is based upon estimates provided by the Financial Plan consultant, with input fr ---, local developers and City staff. Objective 4 is provided to promote energy efficiency in residential developments through the implementation of the State Energy Guidelines and Development Code provis uns requiring passive solar design techniques and a::tive solar energy systems. Objective 5 deals with providing housing for households with low and moderate incomes and special needs. The emphasis of the programs is on mortgage and financirg revenue bonds for both ownership and rental units, and promoting affordable housing citywide and in the planned communities. The target numbers shown are based on a combination of factors including identified housing needs and current realistic projections. Objective 5 basically identifies the City's efforts to eliminate unfair and discriminatory housing practices. Financial support ® for the program is provided by Community Development Block Grant funds. Objective 7 regards eliminating governmental constraints to the development of housing. The programs deal with financing methods for major public improvements and fir.acial assistance by the Redevelopment Agency for projects which help meet the City's housing needs. VI. HCD COMMENTS: Following presentation of the Draft Housing Element to the Planning roinission in March, the document was sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for its mandatory comment. As identified on the attached letter, HCD's primary concerns daalt with providing quantitative objectives for the 5 -year time frame of the Housing Element 984- 1989). In response to this comment the RHAM, which projects future housing needs, had to be extended one year to 1989. The revised numbers are indicated on Table A -9, page A -44. Revisions were also necessary to the programs, in terms of identifying specific numerical 5 -year goals, such as estimating the number of new units to be built in the City by 1989. A final copy of the Housing Element will be forwarded to HCD following the City Council's adoption of the Element. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The initial Study, including the Environmental Checklist, "gas beer, completed and staff found no is significant environmental impacts which result from adoption of the Housinq Element. The Objectives and Programs contained within the document are designed to represent current goals and policies 3e S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 Page 6 E of the City and no changes to residential densities or conflicts with approved plans are proposed which have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. In addition, further environmental review will occur when development projects are Proposed since site specific environmental analysis cannot be considered at the policy level of the document. If the Commission concurs with these findings, a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. VIII. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commissio:. review the Housing Element at a public hearing to receive all public input and testimony. If af`cer such consideration and comment the Commission determines that the document is adequate, adoption of the attached Resolution recommending approval of the Housina Element to the City Council would be appropriate. Re4r­tfuli u fitted, City Planner If f/RG: CJ: jr Attachment: HCO Comments Initial Study Resolution of Approval Housing Element 406(*W fVJD%F?AK oe..e STATE Of CALIFORNIA r DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ne- IP921 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445 -4775 L� May 21 1934 Mr. Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Wasserman: RE: Review of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga's Draft Housing Element. Thank you for submitting the City of Rancho Cucamonga's draft housing element, received March 14, 1984. As you know, pursuant t� i-.crnnent Code Section 65585 (b) this Department is required to review draft elements and report our findings to the locality. Telephone discussions with Rick Go:nez and Linda Daniels of your staff have facilitated our review and this letter summarizes the conclusions drawn from :hose discussions. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's housing element contains a thorough description of the City's housing market including the existing stock and Current demand. The element also projects housing neecs and establishes an ambitious five -year schedule of program actions. However, in our opinion, some rev isions.3re- necessary before the element will comply with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Following each recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Govern -ment r-ode. dhere particular program examples or data sources are listed, these are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that Rancho Cucamonga may choose other means of complying with tie law. j -7 Mr. Wasserman Page Two 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's quantified objectives and programs cover the period 1984 -1989. However, the City's needs projection encompasses the period 1983 -1988 (consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional rousing Allocation Model). in our view, the needs, objectives and programs of a housing element should be prospective rather than retrospective. Therefore, the five -year time frame should begin with the year of adoption and extend five years into the future; i.e., 1984 -1989. SCAG has developed a methodology by which localities can extend their projected needs figures through 1989. We recommend that the City extend the need figures through 1989 to coincide with the time frame for the City's objectives and programs. The City may choose to use the 1983 -1988 time frame, but the element should be updated when the need projections lapse in 1.938 (Sections 65583(b) and 65588(b)). 2. Rancho Cucamonga has revised its share of the SCAG- defined regional housing need. include within the housinq element an analysis of the factors and ci-cumstances based upon acceptable planning, methodology, with all supporting data, justifying the revision (Section 65584(c)). 3. Describe, within the element, those programs the City will implement to promote equal housing opportunity for all persons (Section. 65583(c)(5)). For examole, the City could disseminate information on fair housing laws, and refer complaints to the district office of the Ceoart_ment of Fair Employment and Housing. 4. Establish the maximum number of housing units to be constructed and conserved over the 1984 -1989 time frame (Section 655S3(b)). For example, the City may establish maximum new construction objectives based upon the implementation of all housing element programs and anticipated buildout of your two planned communities through 1989. The conservation objective may be based upon the number of existing housing units that will be preserved through the provision of more stable Zc-ling for mobilehone parks, apartments, or other housing types. 5. Describe the City's effort to achieve the public participation of all economic segments of the cormunity (Section 65583). accordance with requests pursuant to the Public information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the State of California, Department of Justice. C `4 - G 14 - -C • ;7 - co.N.v7ENT 5 1 11 - Mr. Wasserman Page Three We commend your efforts and hope our comments will be useful in the implementation cf your housing program. We also thank Rick Gomez and Linda Daniels for their cooperation during the review. If you have any questions regarding our comments Please contact William Pavao of our staff at (516) 323 -3182. Sincerely, Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Chief Deputy Director RAQ:BP:bat cc: Jack Lam, AICP, Community C,eveiopment Director R;--k Gomez, City Planner Mark Pisano, Southern, California Association of Governments Ellyn S. Levinson State of California, Department of Justice `77 - H- G. Z). 4C4,41AZ 775 L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFOR.MIATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be cor..pleted and submitted to the Development Review Co=.- through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial St::dv. The Development Review Cor-nittee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Comzmittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further infor a- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITTLE: Housing Element Revision APPIIC ?tiT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NP.IME, ADDRESS, TELEPHCNE OF PERSON TO 3E CONTACTED CONCEPNING THIS PROJECT: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGION.zL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .. .. .� ACP.EAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUI_.DINGS, IF ANY: N/A DESCRIBE THE ENVIRGN :- =-NT=,- SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOR.t-Z�TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANI-ALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCT:}'RES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) -.- tJ Is the croject part of a larger project, one of a series of c=ulati•:e actions, which although individually small, r.-.ay as a whole have significant environmental impact? LI I -2 - y —/f/ WILL THIS PROj `nm_ YES NO X I. Create a substantial change in nt contours? _ X 2. Create a substantial chance in existing noise or vibration? i_ X 3. Create a s:.nstantial chance in municipal services {police, _ire, water, sewage, etc.) ? _ X 4. Create chances in the existing zoning or generai =1.- <,: designations? _ X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potent:aily hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fla- mmables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: I.��ORT?tiT: If the project involves t'.ie construction of resi-ential units, ccnple.te the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and in °o_ ^...ation reauired for this initial evaluation to the best of -y ability, and that the facts, _- _tements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledce and belief. I further understand that additional ir.for- -ation .^..av_ be recui red to be �ubmi -o. be£cre an adeeuate evaluation can be made by the Dev�e_ment Review Co=ittee. Date Sig.i =tore Title City Planner 1-3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI;`H OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the California Government Code; and, WHERAS, comments from the State Department of Community Development have been received and incorporated into the document where feasible; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the State Department of Co:imiunity Development comments, and the content of the Housing Element including housing policies, objectives, and programs; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental impacts of the Housing Element and recommends to the City Council approval of a Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the General Plan Housing Element to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM04GA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do here-by certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopter by the Planning Commission of the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 0 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: `7'` 'l& El E. CITY OF RANCHO CUC_4MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 13, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Fngineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician 1977 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 5786- CROWELL BROTHERS - A ivision of acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Professional District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian Street - APN 207- 031 -28 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map. B. Purp -se: To divide 7.249 acres of land into 2 parcels in order to facilitate separate building ownerships. C. Location: The southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian Street. D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 .661 Parcel 2 6.588 77247 acres E. Existing Zoning: Office Professional District. F. Existing Land Use: Parcel 1 - vacant Parcel 2 - Business Center (Exchange Building) G. Surrounding Land Use: Nort - ommerc!a Center South - Existing Single Family Homes East - Flood Control Area and City Park West - Commercial Center H. Surrounding General Plan and Code Designations: NcrLn - Neignoornooa Lommercian (NC) South - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) East - Open Space !OS) West - Neighborhood Commnercial (NC) Site Characteristics: Parcel 1 of this site is vacant. site of e existing Exchange Building. ITEM G Parcel 2 is the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPuRT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 5786 June 13, 1984 ,age 2 iI. ANALYSIS: Crowell Brothers, owners of this site, have submitted this parcel map to divide the property to facilitate separate building ownerships. Parcel 1, which is vacant at this time, may be the site for a future restaurant. Parcel 2, containing the Exchange Building, is fully developed. Plans for the development of Parcel 1 will be submitted to Planning Commission for approval prior to building permit issuance. Easements for reciprocal ingress. egress and parking will be required prior to the recordation of the map. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the ,proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding Property owners and placed in the Daily R -port Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recorunended that the Planning Commission consider a 1 input an elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully submitted, r L$H: :jaa Attachments: Map - Tentativc Resolution City Engineer's Initial Study & Vicinity Repc -r 6 -a E, �J 11 2 C 0, E TENTATIVE I SWAT 1 G/ 1 :CATS i'Ai %LAm,j MAP NO. 5786 / .. l5=CC1411• IYGIMIf If ' O.riJW CilAOIMY 1OF C3T; Ay( Q(/IQ(I BF3JL 1 D3VL•� Q a4 , ! 6 MNOF V IC YYEV. G LCCJOCI •. ILLTCCL r✓. '•1 /� OFF At .g wli5 b • <r, {t=![R p/ l.li [yyTT 6 $MI EAi1,f0I10. 5148 6 ;ALL7fV31 k7 .fMSSIKG •I s✓!ro rrr:L JfLIlT.Jfratn n. Vr'L: .[w .r< M'Lw.CL LrY•: 'I,vGft !_•...._• ..: •'•t Mly/./ L/Ifi: r.. A/°Ar. I. C/Tf�1<• >"� 13/ �' wtJUV:w.nr w.l. 1•.r /< AL`a[ Lp 4 l� v " X R Q n� BASELINE !<!wl.� .arn Q ,,r �.9.`•� YIII�t .,'y0 �/ilr -ve_w. ;�� NOT 1 '�/1/�° 1..•J�: PiRT f. t�I A w•p 1 I � SIBVCTW •5 .G1c3 i I . r<r.<• WWKf WrYlr,�.,Yr. rrW. .... .`...rt -. J / r W; i S r .I� 1 .J i . if LI 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Develo_ment Review Committee through the departmenz where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial. Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the Project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1; The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Parcel Map 5786, The Exchange APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: C/L Builders - Developers. Inc. 5.21 North Mountain Ave., Suite A., Upland CA 91786 (714) 981 -1041 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT:_ Gary D. Himes, C/L Builders - Developers Inc. 521 No. Mountain Ave., suita A inland CA. P1786 (714) 981 -1C41 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Southeast Corner of Intersection At Carnelian and Baseline Road.; Assessor's Parcel No. 28 of Book No 207. LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None. Full Supporting P• 1' and P -iv to Improvements are complete per- oricr City Review and requirements.. I -1 6 -s PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Divide land to facilitate separate commercial building ownerships. ACREAGE OF PROJMCT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Far. 1= 0.661 Ac.; Par 2= 6.588 Ac.; total Parcel area = 7.249 Ac. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTB.L SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLAITS (TREES), ANIMALS, AW CULTURP.%, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES 201D THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SFEETS) Site ts. Ccc=ercial Bui ldinG that is use to and west, residential to northwest and south. A Flood Control Speading Basin Borders the Project to the east. Is the project of cumulative may as a whole No. part of a larger project, one of a series action._, which although individually small, I ave significant environ=ental impact? I -2 6 -6 r 11 11 STILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? x 3. Create a substantial chance in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? x 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? x 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? _ x 5. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous r.•iaterials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? is Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and irfo� ration required for this initial evaluation to the best of :,.y ability, and that the facts, statements, and irfornation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional infcrmation may be required to be submitted before an adecuate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Comnittee. Date Signature 4, LL �. Title I -3 G- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5786 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5786) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE AND CARNELIAN STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Nur„ber 5786, submitted- by Crowell Brothers and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the southeast corner of Basf, Line and Carnelian Street being a division of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 4869, as recorded in Parcel Map Book 49, Pages 46 and 47, records of San Bernardino County, State of California; and WHEREAS, on May 4, :984, a formal application was submitted requr,cing review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 1984, the Planning Cormnission held a dily .dvertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAM,ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 40 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on June 13, 1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 5786 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary �'d Resolution No. Page 2 1, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1934, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: G -9 11 11 L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: Southeast corner of Base Line TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 5786 and Carnelian Street DATE FILED: May 4, 1984 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 4869, as recorded in Parcel Map 49, Pages GROSS ACREAGE: 7.249 46 & 47, Records of San Bernardino County, ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 207 - 031 -28 State of California DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Crowell Brothers same Associated Engineers 521 N. Mountain Ave. 316 East "E" Street uite A Upland, CA 91786 Ontario, CA 91764 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. -1- X 6. All existing easements lying wi "iin future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. Suret- 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property_ 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recording for and /or prior to building permit - issuance for X 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for Base Line Road. See condition 411 on Page 5. 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcel: to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for and /or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Rarch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and /or buiiding permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pa, -,t, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street light_ c:n all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way sail be constructed for all half - section streets. 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to recordation for Prior to building permit issuance for Street Name Curb Gutter A, Pvmt. i e- Walk Drive IStreet I Street i A. C. Median AOp'pr.j Trees Li h•�s over lay Island* !Other 1 � *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter -2- �l L� L 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office, in addition to any uther permits required. 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power Doles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. 8. Install appropriate street name sion,, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. E E 4. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. DrairaQe and Flood Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptarce,and disposal OT surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drair. shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the nap, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall he submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- G -1a Grading• X 1. Gradina Uniform grading substan plan. of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Building Code, %ity Grading Standards and accepted practices. The final grading plan shall be in tial conformance with the approved conceptual grading X 2. A soils 'report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. _ 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. _ 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committea and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other _ 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provid-- all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. casements to C.C.W.D. are required for sewer and water. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Contrnl District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. x 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 11. The condition requiring a lien agreement_ for future ® construction of a median island on Base Line may be waived pending resolution by the City Council of the median island policy. K] X 12. Access easements through the drive or parking areas Jesignated by "hot A Part" on the map shall be provided by the C.C. &Ks. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLO'i' B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: _5- G1y ri 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO ?:GA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 13, 1984 _, 7 - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krail, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8568 - BARTON - A division of 4.1 acres into 3 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located on Utica Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Aspen Avenue - APN 208- 351 -21 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map. B. Purpose: To divide 4.1 acres of land into 3 parcels. C. Location: Westerly side of Utica Avenue between Aspen Avenue and Cwic enter Drive. D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 .935 Parcel 2 1.971 Parcels 1.194 47I acres E. Existing Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 7). F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use: Ncrt -Law an Tustice Center South - Industrial Park Condos East - Vacant West - K- -Mart Center - H. Surrounding General ?lan and Development Code Designations: North - Industrial Park District (Subarea /) South - Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) cast - Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) West - Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) I. Site Characteristics: There are no existing structures. The site slopes approximately 20M from northeast to southwest. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8568 June 13, 1984 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: The owner, James Barton, has submitted this Parcel Map to divide 4.1 acres of land into 3 parcels within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. -Street improvements with the exception; of drive approaches. sidewalk and street trees have previously been constructed. The missing improvements will be constructed at time of building permit issuance for each parcel. Prior to any development, Site Plans will be submitted for Development /Design Review and approval. I1I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on she environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Nearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION- It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input an elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully submitted, Map - Tentative Resolution City Engineer's Initial Study & Vicinity Report )w a E 11 lu rOR NOLLVAR OR COrArERC.AI PURPOSES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 8568 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM.ONGA SAN BERNARDINO CO-RJTY• CALIFORNIA _ w. arr ..+ra r• � fu LirJ� Via.::• / -.. .. +../...... '.;,.�o :!:... ....ww ice: �u _. ti. <"..`�...r .. ,cn,ra ..ufC a....�.r.w.. r. sraur•.W . � � ` \fit �.�/ � \��_ \\�,\ V� t N -3 � C • I("� _ _ 00'vLEVgRp S )/1 Por hr) 9 r 4'•4" nC ZL Cv ' JI CEN)EC r/:•L'.65^ it .. sX q 62i r- ror � • a'• � n 209 AOU)E- °`�� `110' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN IONGA d P r T• 4A ENGINEERING DIVISION 1w" --- VICINITY NIAP 1077 N title; PaReH- 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Stuffy. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have nc signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a signif;.cant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Civic Center Office Buildings Barton Plaza One APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: James E. Barton NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: same as above LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR P:_RCEL NO.) 0205- 351 -21 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Driveway Permits by City of Rancho Cucamonga. I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Constrnntin- n{ of =irn n.. <1_7ing- ACP=AGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 4.10 Acres 5.nilding = SR1'aro Foci- o� "f,n DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONK -ENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INC: UDING INFORYATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR liSE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): the project part cf a largar projecc, one of a series cumulative actions, which although individually small, as a whole have significant envirommertal i.'apact? The envlro =mental 1!Lpact for this project and surrounding development has been approved "Negative ". WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, wate" sewage, etc.;? X Y 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or aerieral plan designations? X _ 5. Remove any existing trees? Flow many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of tt potentially hazardous raterials such -s I toxic substances, f la=mables or explosives? 11 Explanation of any YES answers above: I:LDORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional i formation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Developmentt Review Committee. Date April 27, 84Sigi,hture J _ AM S E. ETON Title 1-3 A/ -� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLU','TON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or- RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8560 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8568) LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Af1D ASPEN AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8568, Barton and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Aspen Avenue, be 3 of Parcel Map 6725, as recorded in Parcel Map Book rezords of San Bernardino County, State of California; submitted by James E. westerly side of Utica ing a division, of Parcel 67, Pages 4 through 7, and WHEREAS, on May 4, 1984, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on June 13, 1984. SECTION 3: The.t Tentative Parcel Map No. 8568 is approved subject to the recommiended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ® BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Pick Gomez, puty Secretary Resolution No_ Page 2 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular neeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of Juen, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E 11 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: Utica Avenue between Civic Center TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8568 and Asoen Avenue DATE FILED: May 4, 1984 LEGAL DESCRIPTIOU: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 6725, City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of GROSS ACREAGE: 4.1 San Bernardino, State of California ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 208- 351 -21 DEVELOPER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR James Barton same Frank Scarborough 8409 Utica Avenue 132 Laburnum Lane Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shorn on the tentative map. 'c. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on _ additional feet on 3_ Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. -1- X_ 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -gray are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Ea;�:nents for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surei X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to to building permit issuance for individual parcels. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, - guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for and /or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and /or building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to building permit issuance for each parcel contiguous to that parcel. Curb & (Gutter j A. C. 1 Sicl_-', ^.-ive Street Street A. C. Medianf Street Name ; Pvmt_ i Walk I Aop, . Trees I Lights !Overlay I island* 10therl Utica i j x X x X Aspen X X i Civic Ctr I X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter 0 -2- /7'f� ® X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the Public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered C4vil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of i2KV or less fronting the property shall be uncergrounded. 3. install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Unders'dewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a `ydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention .basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3 - -� a Grading X 1. Grading of the subject ? — 4 J Property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shell be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application o° grading plan check. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and aoproval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. Y. 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Div sion for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agen ies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer end water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required p,-ior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. C 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrdns /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. ME 1 -13 E E 11 X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does nzit guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. S. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in ac ordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time if final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies cf recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 11. Street improvement plans shall be revised to show drive approaches, sidewalks and street lights prior to issuance of building permit. -5- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B_ NUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: 141-ly 11 A CITY OR R INCHO CUC,.,MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 13, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program Attached for Commission review is the proposed Capital Improvement Program for 1984 -85 fiscal year. The program is divided into three segments: 1. Pipeline projects which are in process and pending construction $5.5 million. 2. Projects proposed for budgeting in the 1984 -85 fiscal year $1,050.00. 3. Long Range programs prioritized for future year construction. Elements of each program follow the project lists approved for the 84 -84 budget with the following exceptions: 1. Etiwanda Drainage Master Plan proposed. 2. Archibald Avenue Railroad Crossing has been added to correct bottleneck situation caused by development activity currently in progress. 3. Addition of Archibald and Sixth Street traffic signal to budget. 4. Establishment of cooperative projects funds including completion of Hellman Avenue Widening. 5. Base Line project at Hermosa Avenue has been expanded to widen the south side sufficient to accommodate four lanes of traffic. 6. Modification of 8eautifications budget to include work on Foothill Blvd., Archibald Avenue north of Foothill and a contribution to completion of the Archibald utility undergrounding. These modifications result in $1,050,000 remaining for programmling of projects yet to enter the design process. Staff's recommended prc� ;am is attached for your review along with our suggested revisions to the Long Range Program which has remained substantially the same. ITEM K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Capital Improvement Program June 13, 1984 Page 2 The proposed program and budget were approved by the Advisory Commission on May 29, 1984. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the 1984 -85 Capital Improvement Program. Attachments K- oZ C 11 11 PROGRAM FOR COI%=Il IITY IM?ROVE`IE \TS 19E4 -19S5 PROGR?M TITLES 1114 LVUl6 V IGIIIICI ITV QU with Crossings at Hillside Road and Wilson Avenue Base Line Widening and Reconstruction East Avenue Reconstruction Archibald Avenue Widening and Railroad Crossing Protection at the Southern Pacific Railroad Haven Channel Fencing at Church Street and Base Line Road PROGRAM D- c5CRIPTIO% CGrlstruuLion of road crossing in conjunction channel construction on the Alta Loma Channel Assessment District. Estimated Cost: 5250,000 Reconstruction ano widening from Hermosa Haven Avenue (cooperative project with developer). Estimated Cost: 5350,000 East Avenue reconstruction from Highland Avenue to Summit (cooperative project with developer). Estimated Cost: $240,000 R If Explanatory. imated Cost: $200,000 imated Cost: $10,000 PROGPWM COSTS $1,056,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, GAS TAX 2106, 2107 K-3 PROGRAM FOR CW01UNIT:' IMPROVEME \TS 19E4 -1985 PROGR_40M TITLES . Bear Gulch Place Amethyst Avenue Sidewalks Turner Avenue North Town Street Improvements Phase IV PROGRM DESCRIPTION Construct Bear Gulch Street north of Arrow Route to Elementary School - Improvement Adjacent to Arrow Park. Estimated Cost: $1.00,000 Construct sidewalk on Amethyst Avenue east side fro-, Base Line to Lomita. !Estimated Cost: $35,000 lWiden Turner Avenue south of Feron St. to the (AT &SF Railroad Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding. Estimated Cost: S. _ :, 000 ,Design of street improvements for Acacia, (Belmont, Cottage and Eight Street (CDBG 1Funds). Estimated Cost: $15,000 I t I i A. PROGRAM COSTS S300,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S) PARK DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (CDBG, SB 821 (Sidewalk Grant)SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT /(_y LJ 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 13, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 197% SUMMARY: During the past year, the City has seen an increase in applications for single family detached subdivisions in the Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) district, particularly in the 6 -8 du /ac optional density range. In reviewing these proposals, the Planning Commission has consistently raisEd concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, transition of density and design quality. The Planning Commission has directed staff to re- examine the Low - Medium density standards, with empahsis on strengthening the development standards to address these critical issues. This report presents the causes, problems and alternatives for the Planning Commission's review and consideration. Following tonight's discussion, staff will prepare appropriate amendments to the Development Code as directed by the Commission. ANALYSIS: The Low- Medium residential standards and policies were planned to provide assurances of high design quality while being flexible enough to allow innovation. These standards must be used in conjunction with the Absolute Policies and Design Guidelines (see attached) which set forth the City's goals for residential development. The Low - Medium standards were specifically intended to foster creative design solutions to those critical concerns expressed in the policies and guidelines, such as neighborhood compatibility, density transition and design quality. Clustering around usable open space areas is an example of how moderate densities can be harmoniously integrated with lower densities while retaining density as shown in Exhibi "E". Developers complain that our land prices and market demand call for single family detached houses; however, market demand can change drastically in a relatixely short period based upon numerous market forces. PROBLEMS AND SYMPTOMS: The main problem with smaller lot single family detached subdivisions is uniformity or the lack of variety that creates a feeling of a "sea of houses ". In addition, these tracts are characterized by streetscape monotony, reduced setbacks, reduced street sizes, unusable yard area and, depending on location, excessive slope heights. These characteristics are a function of density increases ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Low- Medium Residential Develcpment Standards June 13, 1984 Page 2 above that of a "conventional subdivision" with 7200 square foot lots. Small lot tracts gave lo*_ sizes ranging from 6000 down to 3000 square feet as density increases from 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Street patterns become more grid oriented to maximize the number of lots along any given langth of street frontage. Density increases result in reduced street rights -of -way and pavement width which typically become privately owned and maintained by a Homc Owners Association. Wiere the existing topography is greater than 4 -5 percent, large 2:1 slopes become prevalent in the rear yard which reduces the usable rear yard area. The setbacks are also typically reduced to accommodate a reasonably sized house which exacerbates the effect of the already narrow streets. The narrow lot widths and front loaded garages located close to the street create a "tunnel effect" dominated by asphalt /concrete, garages and cars. ISSUE: The key issues associated with development in the Low- Hediujm Residential District are: o Product type /land utilization o Uniformity /rigidity o Lot usability o Design quality o Neighborhood compatibility /transition ALTERNATIVES: There are maiy design techni ,7ues that can be used to resolve the problems or symptoms associated with single family detached Low- Mediu- density projects. A brief discussion of these techniques follows. This se -tion presents a shopping list of ;sign solutions that can be used individually or in combination with other- design ': echniques tc achieve community design goals. Product Mixture - Providing a mix of 2 or more dif gent product types eg - singe ,amily detached and attached) can achieve variety, increase open space areas, and facilitate a proper transition of density, as shown in Exhibit "F ". The intent is not to divide the site, rather it is to provide a rnix throughout t!)e site. Transition of Densit - ;his can ase upon the site circumstances street or a rear yard ?): be achieved through several means, (eg - is the transition across a o Increase open space as a buffer between land uses. C Provide greater setbacks. o Architectural compatibility (scale, materials, style). o Building orientation (no 2 -story overlooking 1- story). o L:,,ndcapi ng as a buffer. o Lot width and depth. o Lot size can be increased to place larger lots abut`.ing larger single family lots. Qr� 11 E C PLANNING COKmISSION STAFF REPORT Low - Medium Residential Development Standards June 13, 1934 Page 3 House Plotting - The location of the house on the lot influences the u timate streetscape appearance and can be varied to achieve different design goals as follows: o Zero lot line (can increase distance between houses o Skewed (plotting house at an oblique angle to street provides interesting streetscape). o Reverse plotting can be effectively used with zero lot line homes to allow greater separation between houses` and allow side -entry garages and combined driveveays- o Up front versus rear garage locating a portion or al; of the of theSe provides prov estgreater archit cturaga interest�h r along the street, as shown in Exhibit "G". Street Besi n - Varying the ;treet pattern or width can reduce monotony a ong the streetscape. o Single- loaded streets (houses fronting on only one side of street reduces monotony), as shown in Exhibit "E ". o Curvilinear o Cul -de -sacs o Side -on cul- de -s --=s (reduces the impact of density along project boundary or open spaces), as shown in Exhibit "H ". o Sidewalk location (parkway strip versus curb adjacentwalk). o circumstances s were o width connections areuneeded. limited Parkin Areas - If the driveway depth is less than i3 feet, it is de- s ab a to provide adequate guest parking in proximity to the dwelling units. Off- street parking pods or adequate distance between driveways should be provided to satisfy the City`s requirement of one guest space for each four units (Exhibit "I "). Garaae Placement - AlterinC tie garage placement can reduce its omination o t e streets !-ape. o Side -entry (allows hammerhead driveways and combined driveways). o locating in the rear yard area (allows the house to set the character of the street instead of garage doors), see Exhibit -3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Low - Medium Residential Development Standards June 13, 1984 Page 4 o Combined driveways and hammerhead driveways (allow greater separation between driveways for parking), see Exhibit "J ". Skewed Lot Lines - Angling the lot line toward the street allows the house to be plotted at an angle to create interest and variety, see Exhibit "F". Setbacks - Providing varying front yard setbacks reduces monotony along the streetscape. Setbacks can be increased for transition of density. Architecture - This hecomes critical where setbacks are reduced to maintain esign quality along the s*_reetscape, see Exhibit "K": o Architecture should be upgraded through increased delineation of surface treatment to reflect a high design quality as a trade -off for the increased density. o Architectural treatment of corner sides and 2 -story elevations backing up to public streets is even more important than in conventional subdivisions because of the narrower lot width. o Tapering back the second story element from street to avoid large mass adjacent to street. o Altering roof design can provide variety and increase "openness" between houses. Landscaping - Enhanced exterior landscaping (along perimeter streets), front yard landscaping, and slope planting can be effectively used to offset the increased density, provide proper buffering of density, and soften the appearance of "engineered" slope heights, see Exhibit "L ". The Development Code contains exterior landscaping and front yard landscaping requirements that could be expanded and incorpprated into the Development Code. Grading: In areas where the natural contour is 4 -5 percent or greater, slopes greater than 8 feel: may occur. C Slope planting can soften the appearance of 'engineered" slopes. o Contour grading anc rolled slope edges, varying slope grade wh= possible, L.n create more natural appearing slope. E o Special arading techniques may be neressar: to preserve usable yard areas. is o Site grade differential can be taken up g-adually through oper space /greenways. PLANKING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT t Low - Medium Residential Development Standards June 13, 1934 Page 5 Usable Yard Area: Current City grading standards require a minimum 15 feet flat, usable rear yard area. This standard could be included in the Development Code - residential standards. 0 en Space: The size, location and amenities of open space areas can prov�a buffer between different land use densities and provide usable recreation and aesthetic amenities for residents. The smaller lot sizes become, the greater the need for common open space areas and recreation facilities. The Development Code currently requires 5 percent common open space area under the Low- Medium District Optional Standards (6 -8 du /ac range). Detached or attached houses can be clustered around open space areas and greenbelts, as shown in the atta&ed exhibits. OPT1Gt,Z- If the Planning Commission considers single family detached as inappropriate in the 6 to 8 du /ac range, regardless of design mitigation techniques, the Development Code could be amended accordingly. 9owever, this would preclude future design innovaticn (see Exhibit "G ") that could rt:solve problems and maintain design quality. 1. Amend Low - Medium Standards to include appropriate design. is mitigation techniques for single family detached product. 2. Amend Residential Use Regulaticns to provide for single- family detached and attached houses in the 4 -6 du /ac range and limit the 4 -6 du /ac range to enly attached products (i.e. du -, tri -, & 4- plex). 3. Combination of options 7. and 2 would eliminate problems associated with single tinily detached in the 6-8 du /ac range and also strengthen development s*_an-jards for all development in the Low - Medium category to ensure quality design. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the alternative design solutions and options and provide staff with appropriate direction regarding the issues. -I Resp ctfuliy subn tted, Rick' G1, r City P ner RG:DC:j *' Ash PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Low - Medium Residential Development Standards June 13, 2984 Page 6 Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit W - nBn - ac" - UDe - NEc - "Fe - %Gn _ alln Ulu NJ" _ nKa ni Y V Residential Use Regulations Residential Development Standards Absolute Policies Design Guidelines Cluster Concept Product Mixture/Transition House Plotting /Garage Location Side -On Cul -de -Sacs Parking Pods Combined Driveways Architectural Treatment Landscaping .6 4 C1 C 11 E ► , E Section MOLWO Residential De+elogmmt Districts These districts have been created to implement the goals, objectives and land use designations of the General Plan. In addition, each district is designed to implement the density lami S of each district A. Very Low Residential District (VL)- This district is intended as an area for very low density single family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross ac: e. B. Lew Residential District (L): This district is intended as an area for single family residential use, with s minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a maximum reside= tial density of 4 units per gross acre. C. Low - Medium Hasidential District (LK): This dstrict is intended as an area for low- medium density single family or multiple family use with site development reg,;•tiocs that assure development compatiDie with nearby single family detached neighborhoods. Residential densities are expected to range from 4 to 8 units per gross a=a maximum. D. K.ediurn Residential ,District (M): This district is intended as an area fen medium qty multiple family ese, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities are expected to range from 8 -14 units per gross acre maximum. E. Medium -High District (MH): This rlistrict is intended as an area for medium -high density multiple family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatibL with nearby lower density residential development Residential densities are expected to range from 14 to 24 units per grass acre maximum. F. Fligh Residential District (H3- This district is intruded as an a ea for high density multiple family use, with site devalopment reohstion, that assure development compatible with nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities are ea, ected to range from 24 to 3, units per gross ace. Section 17.08_030 use Regaticos Uses listed ir, Table 17.08.030 shall be allowable in one or more of the residential districts as indicated in the columns beneath each residential district heading. Where indicated with the letter "P ") 'he use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with the letter "C ", the use shall be a conditional use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This section shall not be construed to supersede more restrictive use regulations contained in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions of any property or dwelling units. However, in no case shall uses be permitted beyond those allowable in this section. In the event there is difficulty in categorizing a given use in one of the Districts, the procedure outlined in Section 17.02.040 shall be followed. TABLE 17_08.030 USE REGULA17ONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE VI, L LM M MH H A. Residential Uses 1. Single Family Detached P P P P*. - - 2. Single Family Attached - - P P P (Du-,Tri- and Fourplex) 3. Multiple Family - - P' P P P Dwellings 4. Mobile Home Parks C C C C C C Note: Symbol a indicates permitted in conjunction with optional development standards only. P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Permit required i A a Sectiork 17.08.040 Site Devel%.ment Criteria Section 17.08.040 The Site Development Criteria are intended to pi. ide minimum standards for residential development. These site development standards should be used in conjunction with the design guidelines which are set forth in Section 17.08.090 of this chapter. This section shall not be construed to supersede more restrictive site development standards contained in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions of any property or dwelling unit. However, in no case shall private deed restrictions permit a lesser standard in the case of a minimum standard of this section or permit a greater standard in the case of a maximum standard of this section. A. Development Standards. The development standards for residential development are arranged into two categories: (1) basic development standards, and (2) optional development standards. These standards are used in conjunction with the absolute Policies and Design Guidelines during the residential land development/design review process as discussed in Chapter 17.06. Each residential development must conform to either the basic standards or the optional standards. 1. Basic Development Standards: These standards are intended to provide basic standards which wiii ensure good quality and compatible projects. A residential development over four units per acre is generally limited to the mid -point of the density range for which it is designated. These standards, as well as the density limitation, are intended to create a development which will be compatible and provide for proper transitions from more serzitive or less intense residential development. 2. Optional Development Standards: These standards are intended to provide high standards for the development of projects of superior quality and compatibility. The optional standards allow development at the higher end of the designated density range. however, the standards and development expectations hate been increased above and beyond the basic standards in order to ensure proper transitions and buffers from lower* intense residential uses. The ultimate density allowed in any residential district shall be determined through the residential land development -esign review process and public hearings as described in Chapter 17.06. The Planning Commission sball :lave the authority to reasonably condition any residential development to ensure proper transition and compatibility to adjacent residential developments; existing or proposed. 75 ; r �f M r. LJ Section 17.08.040 B. Basic Development Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040 -B sets forth minimum development standards for residential development projects filed up to the mid -point of the permitted density range. TABLE 17.08.040 -B BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C c CKM. Met Ragzt" Vy Lal ... )r NR 8 Lot AMC ;" ,y Minimum Net AM-We 22.500 f,901}', 6,000 •R!R ^ 14 /R ". N1ft : vlimmum Net 20.000 5.000 - ` :iCS00' ?. SIR NfR- Number of Deeding caitzF Up to ' :3¢:f0 a Up to U; to npta.' . (permitted per acre) 19 2Z; - liie3mom Dwelling Dmt SiM f' Single mammy detached h w 900agf ., 9oe,�t h d.euinga only Sat Dimsnaoto ' :^ Nimmum Width 9DaK ., 6save.'• { °avg ,. ,BP N/R 'y' rtgtured front VarytIO v V&-y'-5 6atbam0 , y 51in. corner lot width 100 '.T 50 �..�a , ^I NIR ism 311rurn= depth ISO '.S'OQ- "'"- 90 IOp :jr, NIR NfE Minimum rontap 50 , :46 � 30 '� :; 6i �.� NIR . NIR' (a front property line) y Min. Dag lot frontage 70 LQ 20 :; 30 =ti R " IiiR (g front property line) :• - :_ ® SetbaelQb Front Yardc•° 30avg . ZQq* F 20avg �: 15&n - NIR RJR varyx5 ,. seey3:6 ° vary'5 Corner side Yard 15 ::£5 10 ". sS N; R MR.: Lnterior Side Yard 10713 ._,.5FI9' S : :, IO�I N/R VR RM- Yard 310 15 ' - 19d : ... , N/R v:8 Private Street 25° �20.° 108 5° 5° (variable. but no lea then) ZOfs - .V.ISa�Sd :: 15dl5d 1515TO At interior 3015 •��,. 15/5 . Site soundary (Dwelling Unit/ Aceeaory 3W9J Hesklmiiai Building S'p,,et�— Front to Front N /H; "lam -s`I: 25 50 -. 30 30 other N/R XM1 ' ". 10 25• 15 IS Hdght Limitations 73 .= 3i' :.4;r; :'= 35 -.:;SS 43, SSf y t Co"Wage 25% 30x 59% (Xa%imum %) open spree Rs meld& Private C-nn Spare 2300 N/R ' "; 1C8 rWi 3001150 :- 225= 1501100 150:1.09 (Ground Floor/ Upper Story Unit) Common Open Sparta NIR -NfR N/R S0% 30% 30% (Nlvtimum Usable Open Spare° 65% 6^ 40% 3595 " 35% 34% (Private A Common) Raesaatkm ArewFatility NIR Nr'R ' : N!R Required Per See. 17.04.046 -G Leaftospang g Re;dred per See. 1T.OL610 -F Q. Fsdludmg land netessar9 for secondary S %reetz and artertals. b. As measured from ultimata rxght- f +ay line. m V -sable front yards Wowed pursuant to Seetie4 17.08.060 -H d. Add SO feet if adjacent to Vt. L or LM district e. Las tlaa 18 feet from bads of mdeealk regrdrea automatie garage Carr Openers- f. Limit 1 story within SO feat of VL or I, Distnr_ f. perimeter latrUCapi g and interior street trees. fam� d8tadwd tg less then 900 aqua-'° feet +rill regr' the approval of a Conditional 7dwtul IL IIa� _76_ O _ q C c Section 17.08.040 Cv. Optional Development Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040 -C sets forth minimum development standards for residential development projects filed up to the madmum density permitted by the density range. TABLE 17.08.040 -0 OP71ONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS e� MR w Not awyArew M10—Am Site Am Natiber CC Dwailhs Unite (permittad per acre) _ 18ihiewm Dwoi>ing UC. & Single family detached lot Ilimaaidaes minimum Width (4 required front setback) Minimum, De0L1 Local street (average min.) P -ivate Street (variable. but M las than) At Interior Site Boundary (Dwening Unit' Front to Front Other Height umitat)os Private Open Space (Ground Fl=I Upper Story Unit) Common open Space' (minimum %) Usable open space' (private and common) SAC - "wit ' :.;;" NIR required in single family n" Up to ". :Uvlts: piar'ts 5e =ShcSd-F 900agftg lOta4ftR` 13 /5 required in single faaWamdll -- :80123 :y 20113' piar'ts 5e =ShcSd-F 20dlSd .YOISt 13 /5 ;.v NIR 35F 25 �1' SF'30.:' 150/100 SS* 35% 40% 1D00stU8. 3001150 y p�o . 5% . . :i0� '✓ 45% N/R Up to 26 N/R a( A!X N/R Up to 36_ HIS N41t 26dlSd Nix 1561106. 40% Sacreatfoa Aeea/Famlity NJi 777 -- Requited pursiasat to Section _37.08.04B-o _ Landscaping Required ouraLmR to Section 17.08.460 -F 1R40at Yard LasitWpcR "t�ii tad pursuant w... " :.!;. Section 1TAL"C -1 anoew Censerint om ,.. .%*It •.. -. Required patsaka2.: to Section 17.0 -t40 -R X. Excluding land necessary for seconGry meets and arterialz. b. As measured from ultimate right -of -way line. Refer to Table 17.08.040 -D for additional setback information. n Limit 1 -story wiinin 50 feet of VL or L District. d. Add 10 feet if adisornt to VL. L or LM district e. Lew than 18 feet from back of sidewalk regw.ms automatic garage dear openem. 1. Pe- .meter landscaping and interior street trees Z. A single family detached dwelling law 0= 900 Square feet will require the approval of a condit=ul use Permit per Section 17.04A30. _Y7_ E. E El 30/25 =ShcSd-F 20dlSd N18. NIR 35F 400 �1' SF'30.:' 150/100 SS* 35% 40% a( A!X N/R Up to 36_ HIS N41t 26dlSd Nix 1561106. 40% Sacreatfoa Aeea/Famlity NJi 777 -- Requited pursiasat to Section _37.08.04B-o _ Landscaping Required ouraLmR to Section 17.08.460 -F 1R40at Yard LasitWpcR "t�ii tad pursuant w... " :.!;. Section 1TAL"C -1 anoew Censerint om ,.. .%*It •.. -. Required patsaka2.: to Section 17.0 -t40 -R X. Excluding land necessary for seconGry meets and arterialz. b. As measured from ultimate right -of -way line. Refer to Table 17.08.040 -D for additional setback information. n Limit 1 -story wiinin 50 feet of VL or L District. d. Add 10 feet if adisornt to VL. L or LM district e. Lew than 18 feet from back of sidewalk regw.ms automatic garage dear openem. 1. Pe- .meter landscaping and interior street trees Z. A single family detached dwelling law 0= 900 Square feet will require the approval of a condit=ul use Permit per Section 17.04A30. _Y7_ E. E El 6 Section 17.08.040 D. Streetscape Setbacks. It is the intent of this Section to create streetscape standards for landscape, building and parking setbacks that help to identify the function of streets and to improve the scenic quality of tile community. The following tab'_e, Table 17.08.040 sets forth the minimum setbacks based upon the street classification in the Circulation Plan of 'he General Plan. These setbacks shall be required of aL' developments which contain or abut on any one of the inllowing street classifications. TABLE 17.08.040-D STREETSC&PE SBTBAC$S STANDARD FEATURE BUILD^KG PARKING LANDSCAPE & WALL 1. Detached SFR a) Major /Special Blvd. 45 ft 18 ft. 20 ft. avg, 18 ft min. b) Secondary/ Collector 35 ft. 15 ft. 18 ft. avg, 15 ft min. 2. Attached SFR and MFR a) Major /Special Blvd. 45 ft.'s 30 ft. 45 ft. avg,-30 ft min. b) Secondary/ Collector 35 ft 25 ft. 35 ft. avg; 25 ft min. Notes: a. Setbacks contained in Table 17.08.040 -D shall be measured from face of the ultimate curb location. b. On existing lots of record, parcels less than 175 feet in depth, need not pro-ride a setback or landscaping greater than 20% of the depth of the property (excluding right -of -way area). C. Add 10 feet within M, MH and H Residential E. Front Yard Landscaping. Where requited, in Table 17.08.040 -C front yard landscaping shall include, at a minimum, one 15 -gallon size tree, one 5- gallon size tree, seeded ground cover, and a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer Fsior to occupancy. This requirement shall be in eddition to required street trees. -78 -- /� Section 17.08.050 F. Landscaping. Trees perform many essential functions for the community: beauty, shading, wind protection, screening, noise buffering and air filtering. Plant material should be selected to achieve these purposes, while tolerant to factors such as wind, heat and low water. All trees used must be consistent with adopted tree palette pursuant to the General Plan. The following table, Table 17.08.040 -F, sets forth minimum standards for the number and size of trees, both on- and off -site, as required in Tables 17.08.040 -B and C; however, does not apply to single family detached or duplex dwellings. TABLE 17.08.040 -F LANDSCAPE STANDARDS DISTRICT FEATURE LII. M MH H 1. # trees /gross acre 40 50 60 70 2. % box trees 10 20 30 30 3. % 15 -gallon trees 80 70 60 7C 4. % 5 gallon trees 10 10 10 0 G. Recreation Area/Facility. Where required, in Table 17.08.040 -C developer shall provide recreational amenities in coriunction with common open space, such as, but not limited to, swimming pools and spa,, court facilities (e g. tennis, basketball, voileyball), etc. Ln addition, enclosed tot lot facilities with play equ:r 7nent, and large open lawn areas are required. All recreation areas or facilities required by this section shall be maintained by private homeowner's associations or private assessment districts. H. Energy Conservation. where required, in Table 17,08.040C this Section sets forth requirements for energy conservation features. 1. New residential development shall be provided with an alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy shall be the primary energy system unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency 2. All appliances and fixtures shall be energy conserving (e.g., reduced consumption shower heads, water ^_onserving toilets, etc). Section 17.08.050 Absolurte Policies The Absolute Policies are intended to address the most critical issues associated with residential development. These include assuring neighborhood compatibility, compliance with adopted plans, adequacy of public facilities and services, and protection of the environment and public health. Each project must satisfy all absolute policies before approval can be granted. These policies are used in evaluation of a residential project as described in Section 17.06.030 of this Title. A. Plans do Policies 1. The Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, Land Use Plan, Development Code, and all applicable Specific Plans. 2. The Project is consistent with the adopted Piaster Plan or trails. -79- },[ -/-.;� Vim:` yle, rmr ` V , l is l pie Section 17.08.050 3. The Pre' _ct is consistent with the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan. 4. The Project is consistent with the adopted Circulat on Plan. B. Neighborhood Compatibility 1. The Project is compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural design; scale, bulk and building height; identity and neighborhood character; building orientation and sett,ack; grading; and visual integrity. 2. The conflicts that are presumed to exist between the proposed development and surrounding land uses as described in Table 17.08.00 -F pertaining to "Land Use Conflicts ", have been effectively mitigated in the project design. 3. The Project is designed so that the additional traffic generated does not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development. C. Public Facilities & Se:- +ices 1. The Project includes school facilities or adequate sc -hool facilities exist which are or will be capable of accommodating students generated by this project. Written certification from all affected School Districts is required within ninety (90) days prior to the final map approval in the case of the subdivision map or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential Cprojects. 2. The Project includes sewer end water facilities or adequate facilities exist which are or will be available to serve the project. Written certification from the affected sewer and water district required within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of all ether residential projects. For projects +;sing septic tank facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board and the City, w_itten certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained and submitted to the City. 3. The Project includes street improvements and will generate traffic volumes resulting in a service level equal to or above level D (defined as a 85 -95 percent volume to capacity ratio by the DKS traffic study). 4. The Project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles. 5. The Project provides storm drains, master planned drainage facilities or special drainage facilities necessary to adequately dispose of surface water runoff or alleviate grading constraints. 6. The Project provides for a Homeowner's Association and/or Maintenance District to ensure both on -site and off -site maintenance. 7. The Fe.:;ect conforms to the access control policies of the General Plan r regarding arterials. T� 8. The Project provides, local feeder trials and community trails as required by the General Plan. -so- D. AMOL Public Health 3c Safety 1. The Project lies within, or partially within, an adopted "Special Studies t Zone "; a geologic report has been submitted which locates the presence or absence of actual fault traces in accordance with the provisions of the Alquist- Priolo Act, and special engineering precautions have been taken to overcome those limitations or these areas have been set aside from development. 2. The Project lies within areas subject to geologic hazards (i.e., slopes greater than 40 %, slope instability, soil erosion, ground failure), as identified in Figures V -1 and V -3 of the General Plan; an adequate geologic or soils engineering investigation has been submitted, and special engineering precautions have been taken to overcome those limitations or these areas have been set aside from development. 3. The Project lies within areas of Tujunga -Delhi soil association which may have soil bearing capabilities that could limit deveio,')ment, as identified in Figure V -2 of the General Plan, an adequate soils P.igineering investigation has been submitted which indicates the soils c-.i adequately support the weight of the structure. 4. The Project is not on public sewers and lies within areas of Friant Escondido and Ramona/Arlington soil associations which mPy not be suitable for on -site wastewater disposal, as identified in Figure V -2 of the General Plan, an adequate site specific investigation has been submitted that demonstrates the soils are suitable and the disposal of wrste water will not degrade the / subsurface water quall'v. 9. The Project is located within a flood hazard area, as identified in Figure V -S of the General Plan, and special corstructior. features have oeen incorporated into the design of structures. 6. The Project is located within a fire hazard area, as identified in Figure `.7-6 of the General Plan; a program for interim fuel management has been included to reduce the risk of fire, and fire mitigation measures (e.g., fire resistent building materials, site design which enhances fire access, etc.) have been incorporated into the project design per the requirements of the Foothill Fire Protection District. 7. All projects shall be within a seven (7) minute response time from a fire protection facility. If the project is not within that response time, then provisions must be made with the Foothill Fire Protection District for adequate fire protections. E. Resource Protection 1. The Project contains iandforms of citywide s,gniiicance (i.e., foothills defined as having slopes greater than 10 %, and Red Hill) and the project has been designed to minimize alteration of the landform through proper site planning, clustering, and following natural contours. 2. The Project is located within a major groundwater recharge area, as identified in Figure IV-2 of the General Plan, and development has been clustered to promote infiltration and to maintain open space. -81- Section 17.08.050 3. The Project contains streamside woodland associations, identified as a significant natural resource in Figure lV -2 of the General Plan, and site investigations have beer. completed, and mitigation measures proposed (including clustering) to mitigate impacts upon riparian community. 4. The Project is locates on a site or contains a structure or• other feature which is designated as a historic landmark, and provision has been made for preservation of said landmark in accordance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. 5. The Project site is designated by the General Plan as Hillside Residential, and environmental studies have been conducted to determine land holding capacity and site development constraints, and the proposed density is no greater than two units per net buildable acre. o. The Project site is designated by the General Plan as Open Space, and development has been concentrated to preserve open space, and the proposed density is no greater than an average density of one unit per 40 acres. 7. The Project promot3s energy efficiency through the use of energy effi ^ient building design (e.g., south facing windows, energy conserving building materials and appliances, etc.) and site planning (e o., east-we--c aligned units, landscaping for solar access, etc.). F. Land Use Conflicts The matrix in Table 17.08.090 -F indicates the conflicts that are presumed to exist between land uses. 'The types of mitigation measures listed in the following sections are the design tools that should be employed either separately or hi combination to micgate exiting or potential land t:;e conflicts. The Absolute Policies require that such conflicts oe effectively mitigated in the project design. 1. Land Use Conflict Mitigation Measures (a) Open 3nace Setbacks. By providing an open space buffer between conflicting land uses conflicts can often be avoided. The width of the buffer required will depend on the severity of conflict and the extent of landscaping. To work effectively, the ownership, use, and maintenance of "be ooer� space buffer must be clearly defined. (b) Landscaoir. and To era his Chan es. As part of an open space bu er or as a treatment of land immediately adjacent to buildings, landscaping can be used to reduce conflicts. (c) Dense plantings of evergreens can provide a visual buffer. (1) Sensitive landscaping can soften the sharp visual contrast between two abutting land uses by subduing the differencez in architecture and bulk and by providing a gradual transition rather than a harsh edge between uses. (2) Dense growth of plants can be visually appealing but also can be used to discourage unwanted and unsafe pedestrian or bicycle access between '.and uses. -82- X" ception 17.08.050 (3) Landscaping can be used in combination with other mitigation measure„ such as reducing the width of open space buffer l required and soften the visual conflict created by safety and security fences. (4) Aecontouring of the land can alter views, subdue sounds, reduce glare, change the sense of proximity, and channel pedestrian travel. (d) On_ent: tion. The strict spatial proximity between land uses and the apparent or functional proximity car, . be very different depending on the orientation of buildings and activities in the two land uses. (1) The buildings themselves can cause a buffer to be created by effectively turning their becks on each other • orienting views, access and prind al activities away from the other land use. Care must be taken, however, that a hazardoz' _nd unaesthetic "no -man>" land is nct created in the process. (2) Alternately, the intervening space can be eiimir_ "ed altogether if the two buildings sh are a commor, back wall- (3) An entire site PUM can be oriented so that the activity a:.d functions are aligned hierarchically — placing those least compatible fort ?%est from the common boundary between land uses and those most compatible near that boundary (i.e., single story adjacent to single story). f L (e) Barriers and Alleviation. It may be appropriate and necessary to use physical barriers to prevent the undesirable attributes of one land use from affecting the people and activities in the adjacent land use. If Fences, walls and berrr_s can prevent the passage of people into areas that would be unsafe or insecure. (2) Light and noise can also be mitigated through physical ba -riers such as fences, wails, terms. screens and landscaping. (f) Architectural Camaatibili . lzn addition to the architectural considerations involved in mitigation through orientation, the architectural design of buildings can seduce conflict and promote compatibility- (1) Materials, colors, sca,z, and prominence of buildings in adjacent land uses cs,1 be coordinated so there is a gradual transition from one land use to another rathe* :han a sharp and displeasing contrast. Purely aesthetic details that are "tacked" onto a building to eover up land use conflicts, however, will cause more harm than good. (2) The architectural compatibility should rise from a total consideraticn c,i the function of each land use and the function _ of the space between them. -83- (/ _ � 6 Section 17.08.050 (g) Circulation. Streets and parking areas can often serv'toGuce certair. Types of IWId \se conflicts. Separation of con__cti uses with a street or parking area can provide a buffer. TABLE 17- 08.090 -F - LAND USE CONFLICTS nd Use Conflicts C 2 V 1 F Tyr)es Of ConfliCtS I In.«.eer • +sa..,n «*« O .d 1 VL I L& c L \t, rase. Cd0'. hcht. I N V p � ShCdCw Lai Uses , ° c a > c2stnettc5 :cave fi�Cr2C ion 4 c-- y 0 1 '. cccess f R2Sd2r1ttC1 srf Low Cens+N, L I 1 c � M c MUderCte LM 0 pens,ty rn 14--�� I _ L c Nm High Q°nsity'I';n:,c o J ii!Stlti:ilC ^Ci t N'' I '' `n I � l \ri Iwo_ i J \tom Ot t is m /- usi n255 II.. ind;: =.tno Rc'tocd -.^.t'1c. 11-0-'5 .4CCCrt Cnd CCU 2:'Ct S`. t2 °t Atter�Cl �tt2°t Section 17.08.090 J. Air Quality. No operation or activity shall cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, Tu -isles, vapors, gases ar other forms of air pollution which can cause damage to health, animals, vegetation, or other forms of property, or which can cause excessive soiling on any other lot. No emission shall be permitted which exceeds the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District or the requirements of any Air Quality Plan adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. K. Fire and Explosion Hazards. An operation or activity involving the storage of flammaole or explosive materials shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion and adequate fire - fighting and fire suppression equipment and devices in accordance with the requirements of the Foothill. Fire District Uniform Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code. Burning of waste materials in open fire is prohibited at any point. L. Fissi*nable or Ra&-- Artive Maierials. Nt, operation or activities shad be permitted which resin, at my time in the release or emission of any fissionable or radioactive materials irate the atmo_There, the ground; or sewerage systems. M. Licuid cr Solid Waste. No operation or action shall discharge at any point into any public street, public sewer, private sewage disposal system, stream, body of water or into the ground, of any materials of sucs7 nature or temperance as can contaminate any water supply, interfere with bacterial processes in sewage treatment, or otherwise cause the emission o' dangerous or offensive elements, except in accord with standards approved by the California Department of Public Health or such other governmental agency as shall have jurisdiction. Section 17.08.090 General Design Gui.aelines A. intent. The intent of the guidelines is to assist the developer in understanding and complying with the City's standards for building and site design. The guidelines are based upon community design goals as expressed :n the General Plan, and encourage the orderly and harmonious appearbrce of structures and prczerty along with associated facilities, such as signs, land3caping, parking areas, and streets. The guidelines e.> .abiish a high standard for design quality but are flexible enough to allow individual expression and imaginative solutions. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to slI development within all residential districts, unless otherwise specified herein. Any addition, remodeling, relocation or construction requiring a building permit within any residential district subject to Development,Design Review pursuant to Chapter 17.05 shall adhere to these guidelines where applicable. C. Site Plan Design 1. ExistinZ Site Conditions. Natural features should be used to rsr advantage as design elements; such as, mature vegetation, l�,sdforms, drainage cmxses, rock outaroppings and views. Conversely, undesirable site features can be minimized through proper site planning and building orientation. C Section 17.08.090 2. Building Orientation. Placement of the buildings shall be done in a manner i compatible with sur- oundi:.g existing and planned uses anebuildings. The se�5ack from streets and adjacent properties should relate to the scale of the proposed building. Larger buildings require more setback area for a balance of scale and compatibility with adjacent uses. Buildings should be oriented along a north -south axis, as much as possible, to encourage energy conservation. 3. Access /Circulation. The access and circulation should be designed to provide a safe and efficient system for vehieAes and pedestrians. Poir.s of access shall comply with city access regulations and shall not conflict with other planned or existing access points. Two points of access shall ')e provided for all but the smallest residential developments. The circulation system should be designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimize impacts on adjacent properties, combine access where possible, and provide adequate maneuvering areas. Curvilinear streets are encouraged whenever possible. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be separated, to Yee extent possible. through the use of a continuous system of public and privat-- sidewalks. 4. T'�:3n AreArea�s. Parking areas should be designed to minimize visual disruption o£ the overall project design. Parking areas should be screened from streets through combinations of mounding, landscaping, low profile wall and grade separations. The desira of parking areas should also ID minimize auto noise, glare, and increases in ambient air temperature. This can be accomplished through sound walls, screening with fences or hedges, trees, and separ,.tion of parking spaces and driveways from residences. �1 S. Landscaping /Open Space. Landscaping and open spaces should be designed as an integral part of project design and enhance the building design, enhance public views and spaces and provide buffers and transitions where needed. Landscaping should provide for solar -cess and shade to facilitate energy conservation. 6. Fencing /Screening. Fences and walls are discouraged unless ne --ded for a ..peeific screening or safety purpose. Where they are needed, cal .)r, material and variation of the vertical and horizontal planes are needed '_o blend with the site and building design. The use of any fencing or walls should be consistent with the overall design theme. 7. Li hz Ling. Adequate on -site lighting should be provided '.o ensure a safe environment while at the same time not cause areas of intense light or glare. Fixtures and poles shall be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with the overall site and building design character. 8. utilities and Ancillary £guiement. ^n -site utilities and equipment shall be located in inconspicuous area;:, away from public view. Where they are located in public view, they shall be screened with a combination of materiel that best suits the overall design theme. 9. Grading. Development should relate to the natural survDundings and _ I inimize grading ny following the natural contours as much as possible. Graded slopes should be rutinded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain. Split -level paa:. built -up foundations, stepped footings, etc., can be i in areas of moderate to steep gradient. Section 17.08.090 10. Fire Safety. Development should be designed in accordance with Fire District requirement.: for two points of safe and ready access. Areas designated as high fire haTprd areas should minimize fuel buildup around residences through greenbe:. :- cr cultivated fuel breaks. D. BLiiding Design I. Design Theme. A recognizable design theme shall be established which is compatible with surrounding planned or existing developments and should be based upon prominent design features in the immediate area (e.g., trees, 4andforms, historic landmarks). Subtle variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall character of the immediate neighborhood. It is not intended that one style of architecture should be dominant but that individual structures shall create and enhance a high quality and harmonious community appearwice. 2. Architecture. The architecture should consider compatibility with ro surunding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and roof line. Individual dwelling units should be distinguishable from one another and have separate entrances. Shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings contribute to a building's character while aiding in climate control_ Further, changes in ti _ :aof level or planes provide architectural interest. 3. Scale. The mass and scale of the building should be proportionate to the 40 site, open spaces, street locations and surrounding developments. Setbacks and overall heights should provide an element of operric -ss and human scale. 4. Materials and Colors. Colors, textures and materials shall be coordinated to achieve total compatibility of design. They should blend well with the environment and not cause abrupt changes. 5. Signing. Every building shall bt designed with a precise concept for adequate signing. Provisions for sign placement; sign scale in relationship with building and readability shall be considered in developing the signing concept While providing the most effective signing, it shall also be highly compatible with the building and site design relative to color, material and placemert. 6. Equipment ScreeniM— Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of building, Tr ground, shalt be screened. The method of screening shall be architecturally compatible in terms of material, color, shape, and size. The screening design shall blend with the building design. Where irlf°vidual equipment is provided, a c�ntirrous screen is desirable. -96- �J_d r 11 SIN 4 LS LCAV&t> d5WWT6 5 r .^'� FOT / '1 � I . ••.�. ; ',i ' , ^. �..\ . *; a /�,'-- •..--- •- - ' - \�. ` ' �II \� -, ( _ rrice - -1` �t \-- - L•r(�Fj e';� � '' � � � i — �. J lwf '' -� - �;Z'' i r c �S i- �- et'•'• �� , c•, / <' ` 1 rr`. �T�� Ii ti .a .. I � � I i�, '` L'r - -�.11 � �..- -_^'! ! t.l� l.� `,�. .�t ^; (/') /�` `'• . \..�rr, ` ' / •,C'�r Z �' � , \' � i i ; i i I -�`j 1. -•.. -(,^ ` �., a 1•"�:i�./ I t)� �l�til 1. . fl (' oll I. �- ��S`�� \�. ��� •� r'_ .'_. -' 1 '•` -. t/- ;?'.r• `�••t�" 1. �J :�.'•��:'',`�y � ,�(�� t Ili 1. lam/ `'a .i t �,�'_.��..•A�. { T ��I�.i '_ �i IV i-- -- -- -- - -- -- L, tom. rY' . _ ... . Cer��oN VTIWW 6 G� NORTH CITE' OF f %EM: � v-NING DIVISUN ExHlBrr= -�— scaL�- -- } a •fir - _. near Y � I oub bri s0` ��`'I a •4og '`C `�'ys'l o- •., ;� .. C%�tv',X�ae' Cam'` � � S r7'r � C•..: •i• � � . •� r. 3�L - - .� .tiyoFYXI.� �_ Ilj.�j�• 4 �•' �➢? E 'r »fit' •u, a .M �.e ; �w� °��CAO °��w s�`eaL� • euiim`: �I��`` •, �� .. ,*. .. e _ a 00 �%` \ �• iibYlre �� r m k an • Y •� 1 1 r, 1 V ;f w' =, C�,!'t'+"•' (7 ,.s�(t f; sicccfcr ',. i 1 ,� -�1� �� 1 -t ( {r_r1.� ti!� }L�1i'.yi r t f!,7� ',: �p ����5�'ra4- �7r�■� - ��7 r�°�.,•Vr � .�S 'Si'��,ux�- '.i •_ y � P +, • few E: �. `d _�• V ,M4 ilk -1 : 1 J 'f Jl i j� ti I N - 3. �• _ � �? �. .�- /•nom ^�. `� - N .r^ Se • �6 � � V v NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CL;CATOViOLGA PLAINN G Drys oiv : U. t •.. .aais► ��d.f% ^fir ».. =.Fw. ,. . � �� _ ,,�II�i ��7 � rl WHIM h�ha All �. a 1 ' a, s ` 6 •� V. L� +-; •• _ 'c " __: ::.f'!�1' yfM iti.GiY'`��,, C+ Vii! -F�'1— ..uF� :i y.�C =a_ .r X ,_.:�_ �� T '� ■��• t - _"'nrs•\' ,Q��m_ ��7�I '" r -. i� Il�llf�� ���m�nt� � �aR ,il +�t���tl•. — .• _ _ a � _ a � r' R \ I ii ;Iii ••••.._,�'f�.'� ->•°'� y"-_ I% w � � a ►•-� aG`w1A9 �Jf/ c.F •wry+' .a� - ' ,a c � I.i ■. ` ..w�l . t* i �.. U yQ �!3 _ NORTH %ITY OF ITEN I: Y - . I' • w ' 1'a •. . • • 6".. +I 1 I rl L1 1 11,11 1 � � PRUGtiLz.%' TITLES - Beryl - Hellman Storm Drain Ftiwanda Specific Plan Area Meter Plan of Drainage Fei Reimbursements PROGRA?: FOR COSMINITY I: zOVEM:NTS 19EG -1985 PROG=4 DESCRIPTIOS Construct storm drain channel from Hellman Avenue at Monte Vista Street to Beryl Avenue at Highland Avenue. Includes reconstruction of Beryl Avenue from Nineteenth Street to Highland and widening of Nineteerth Street at channel crossing. !Estimated Cost: $1,060;000 Complete revision of storm drain plan and phasing prograrn for drainage ;Etiwanda Speci;ic Plan. Area. Estimated Cost: °s7 ;,000 of the Payments to develop!ra who have installed Master Plan facilities and entered into Reimbursement Agreements. Estimated Cost: $191,000 PROGR&M cosTs 51,326,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S) DRAINAGE FEE FUND, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS fi -.7 s PROGRAM FOR co ?�.u%in.' T \rc3G� L It`:TS 19E4-1985 PROGRAM TITLES Archibald Avenue Church Street Reconstruct ;on San Bernardino Rd. Reconstruction Lemon Street Resurfacing Hermosa Ave. Realignment /Widening R PROGRAM DESCRIPTION' Archibald Avenue reconstruction and resurfacing from Fourth St. to Base Line Rd. Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Article 8 -SB325 Funding. Estimated Cost: $1,300,000 ;Church Street reconstruction, resurfacing and (sidewalks Hellman Avenue to Archibaid Avenue. �£stimated Cost: $100,000 San Bernardino Rd. reconstruction, drainage and curb repairs Winery Ridge to Archibald ;venue includes dip removals. Estimated Cost: $260,000 _emon Street resurfacing and miscellaneous repairs from Hermosa to Haven -- Avenue. Estimated Cost: $125,000 iermosa Avenue rea)ignment and widening at Alta Loma Basins. Work combined with equalizer box constructed with Alta Loma �hannel Assessment District. timated Cost- 5100,000 PROGRi, *t COSTS $1,873,685 JPDING SOURCE(Sz FEDERAL AID URBAN U) ARTICLE 8 (SS 325) !'UNDS f% 6 D 1 PROGRA31 TITLES Camel i an Avenue and Lemon Avenue Traffic Signals Nineteenth St.- Archibald Ave. Traffic Signal Foothill Blvd. - Hellman Ave. Traffic Signal Foothill Blvd. Signal Modification at Vineyard and Archibald Avenues Foothill Blvd. at Turner Avenue Traffic Signal Archibald A'renue at Sixth St. Traffic Signal PROMtki FOR co "=NITS I`I?ROVE`1ENTS 19E4 -1985 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Traffic Sig ^al. Estimated Cost: $60,000 CalTrans Cooperative Project. Estimated Cost: $45,000 CalTrans Cooperative Project Estimated Cost: 540,000 CalTrans Cooperative Project to modernize and add left -turn phasing. Estimated Cost: $80,00 iCalTrans Cooperative Project. iEstimated Cost: $40,000 [Traffic Signal. iEstimated Cost: $70,000 I PROGRAM COSTS 5335,000 FUNDING SODRCE(S) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, GAS TAX 2106,2107 FUNDS Y- 7 u PROGRAM FOR CO:Z%, ;ITY 1HPRO%,- !E% S 19E4 -1985 PROGRA.N: T ITT ES Base Li-le Road Beautifica•`_ion Carnelian Avenue Beautification Archibald Avenue Beautification Foothill Blvd. Design Element Archibald Avenue Utility Undergrounding PROGRAM DESCRI=01, j Base Lire Road from East City Li:nit to Carnelian Avenue. Landscape and irrigation,. Estimated Cost: $100,000 (Carnelian Avenue beautification from (Nineteenth Street to Banyan Street. (Landscape and irrigation and sidewalk. 'Estimated Cost: $150,000 Foothill Blvd. to Base Line Road, various ;locations. Landscape and irrigation. ,Estimated Cost: $50,000 iDeveloper plans for the median island and design theme for Foothill Blvd. Estimated Cost: 5182,345 Church Street to Base Line Rd. service connections. Estimated Cost: $20,000 PROGRAM COSTS 5602,345 FUNDING SOURCE(s) BEAUTIFICATION FEES �� 11 E J PROGRAA TITLES- Cooperative Projecr Fund Hellman Avenue Widening Fund to be Prograrsnej FROM-ill =OR CO'L`R:SITY I:^.PROi'E`: =_CTS 19 =4 -1905 I PROGR, %l DESCI.R ION Grove Avenue widening, drainage and railroad crossing protection upgrade - Eigth Street to Chaffey St. (Cooperative project with developers). Estimated Cost: $250,000 JFund available to join with development projects to improve substandard or 1deteriarated streets in conjunction with on- goina development projects. Estimated Cost: $150,000 Church Street to Southern Pacific Railroad in conjunction with Tract 12238 Estimated Cost: $50,000 $1,040,000 remains for program review and community prioritization. PROGF0,x COSTS $1,490,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUND GAS TAX 2106, 2107 FUNDS K -,� 1984 -85 PROGRAM FOR COMMl1NITY IMPROVEMENTS EXPANDED PRIORITY Priority Project Description Budoet Estimate 1. Hellman Avenue - S 55,000 Reconstruction for Sixth Street 600 feet north 2. Archibald Avenue - S 40,000 Lemon to Banyan Reconstruction and Minor Drainaae 3. Ramona Avenue - $ 50,000 Base Lire Road to Southern P ?cific Railroad Reconstruction 4. Hellman Avenue at Arrow Route 3 i0,000 Minor Drainage 5. Residential Street Reconstruction. - $250,000 West of Archibald Avenue south of Foothill on Hampshire, Devon Malachite, Klusman, Leucite, Jadeite, and alley south of Foothill between Archibald and Malachite 6. Residential Slurry Seal - (Etiwanca) S 25,0000 Pecan, Vista, Pinon, Los Cedros, Larrera 7. Hillside Road - 3 20,000 at Archibald Avenue intersection widening and minor drainage 8. Grove Avenue - $400,000 Chaffey to Foothill Blvd. Selected widening and signal modifications 9. Arrow Route - $400,000 Grove Avenue to Archibald Avenue Reconstruction. and Resurfacing 10. Ninth Street 5350,000 Grove Avenue to Archibald Avenue Reconstruction, Resurfacing Minor Widening and drainage TOTAL $1,600,000 !� is n J t. AN/ LONG RAFGE STREETS ARE, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRIORITIES Priority Proje %t Description Budget Escimate 1. Residential Street Construction and $300,000 Preventative Maintenance annually 2. Arterial - Collector Resurfacing $200,000 annually 3. Traffic Signal Priorities S150,000 annually 4. Etiwanda Drainage Program 5200,000 annually 5. HERMOSA- TURNER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Turner Ave. Storm Drain, Deer Creek $1,300,000 thru Foothill Blvd. intersection including widening and appurtenant drainage facilities Turner Storm Drain Widening and $1,200,000 Reconstruction, Foothill to Base Line Rd. ® Turner Avenue Widening and Drainage $400,000 Eighth Street to 26th Street Includes rail crossing improvement Hermosa Storm Drain Extension $1,200,000 Base Line Road to north of 13th Street including Base Line widening south side Cambridge to Kinlock, lateral drain east on Base Line to Ramona. Improvement of rail crossing at P.E. tracks Widening and Reconstruction of Hermosa 5400,000 Drain up Ramona to P.E. tracks. Improve rail crossing. Reconstruct Ramona from Base Line tc 19th St. SUB TOTAL $4,500,000 n J t. AN/ W 7. 8. 9. Arrow Route Widening and Reconstruction $500,000 Archibald to Haven Etiwanda Reconstruction - $1,000,000 Fourth Street to North City Limits LOWER. HELLMAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Storm Drain, Street Widening and $1,200,000 Reconstruction, widening, dra?nage and signal at the AT &SF Railroad - Cucamonga Creek to Ninth Street. Lateral Drains and Street Reconstruction $300,000 Eighth Street, Vineyard to Archibald Storm Drain, Street Reconstruction $1,000,000 North to Foothill Blvd. SUB TOTAL $2,500,000 UPPER HELLMAN -BERYL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Reconstruct Cucamonga Storm Drain $1,500,000 Cucamonga Creek to Amethyst Widen and Improve Hellman $1,500,000 ?.E. Railroad crossing. Construct storm drain in Hellman from Cucamonga Storm Drain to north of 19th St., street reconstruction Construct Beryl Storm Drain $1,000,000 from Alta Loma Park to Rancho Wash and Demens 2 Basin, reconstruct street rOden Lemon to Beryl SUB TOThL $4,300,000 fia u LONG RANGE STREETS AND DRAINAGE i 11 Budget Estimate $600,000 $100,000 :250, 000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $1,000,000 $300,000 X -/R IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ARTERIAL.- COLLECTOR RESURFACING NOW NEEDS Priority Project Description 1. Haven Avenue Foothill 81,.,d, to Wilson Ave. 2. Vineyard Avenue Arrow Route to Foothill Blvd. 3. Amethyst Avenue Base Line to hillside Rd. 4. Vineyard Avenue Carnelian, to Base Line 5. Baker Avenue Eighth Street to Foothill Blvd. 6. Ramona Avenue Foothill Blvd, to Nineteenth St. 7. Hermosa Avenue ® Nineteenth St, to North End 8. Turner Avenue Fourth St. to Foothill Blvd. 9. Fourth Street Hellman Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue 10. Rochester A -enue Arrow to Base Line i 11 Budget Estimate $600,000 $100,000 :250, 000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $1,000,000 $300,000 X -/R TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITIES 1. Base Line Road &• Fe^resa Avenue 2. Haven Avenue & Fourth Street 3. vineyard Avenue & Ninth Street 4. Base Lire Road & Beryl Avenue 5. Nineteenth Street & Beryl Street 6. Haven Avenue & Lemon Street 7. Arrow Route & Heilman Avenue 8. Nineteenth Street & Amethyst Street 9. Nineteenth Street & Hermosa Avenue 10. Nineteenth Street & Sapphire Street 11. Arrow Route & Turner Avenue /< -/'JT 11 C 11 El RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 1984 -85 PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEME14TS AND LONG RANGE MAJOR STREET AND DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITIES WHEREAS, on the 13th day of June, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the attached proposed Capital I mprovements Program; and WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission concurs in the recommended program as proposed; and WHEREAS, the proposed program conforms to the elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby: SECTION 1: Find that the attached Program of Community Improvements and Long Range Street Drainage and Traffic Signal Priorities are in conformance with the General Plan of Rancho Cucamonga. 40 SECTION 2: Recommends approval of the attached proposed Programs to the City Count of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for its adoption. SECTION 3: Further recommends that said Program be reviewed and updated on an annual basis as a part of the City budgetary process. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, U,,4irman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City o Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution rias duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 K- /'�5 El 11 A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Planning Standards Commission Policy on Street At the April 25, 1484 meeting of the Planning Commission, a discussion was held regarding street widths, right -of -way and private street standards, especially for residential development. The Commisson established standards and directed staff to clarify some points and return the final policy for confirmation. The attached resolution contains the policy set forth by the Commission, with some details on setbacks and parking to be more specifically determined in the revised Development Code now being prepared for approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the resolution be adopted to set policy at this time, thus giving firm direction to future applicants as —on as possible. lly submitted, LBH Attachments ITEM L E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOEGA, CALIFORNIA SETTING FORTH ITS POLICY ON THE USE AND DESIGN OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires that a high quality of living be assured throughout the life of new development; and WHEREAS, the establishment of clear standards for circulation is a critical part of this assurance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That a uniform minimum right -of -way width of 60 feet be established for all street types for densities of 3 units per acre and below. For densities above 8 units per acre, reduced rights -of -way down to a 40 -foot minimum may be allowed subject to Development /Design Review. 2. That private streets will only be allowed in gated communities where no through traffic or access to abutting properties_ is required. 3. That no private streets be allowed within industrial zoned areas without prior approval of the Planning Commission. 4. That standard street widths be established as follows: Density Range Street Width Conditions Below 2 du /ac (single family detached) 2 -8 du /ac (single family) 8 + du /ac (attached (housing products) 36 -foot standard; reduced width only with prior approval of tho Dlanning Commission and only in rural areas. 36 feet only 28 feet minimum Reduced width requires availablity of sufficient guest narkinn nliic minimum r_- on -site spaces as re- quired by the Develop - ment Code. Or street parking a'lcw_d; minimum 20 feet betwt.en driveway aprons Parking subject to rode and Design/ Development Review to insure adequate additonal parking. Resolution No. P2ge 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHD C:;CAMONG, BY: _ Denr is L. . tout ATTEST: Rirk GomF -, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June 1984, by the following vcte -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 3 E 11 11