HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/04/10 - Agenda Packet0701 -0 o 4-10 -8 ?C Agenda a I,of 1
My or
z�__ RAMHO CUICAIMONIGA,
p
LAAWING C
ACED
1977 WEDITESDAY APRIL 10, 1985 7:00 p.m4
R"K COMMUNITY C�NTER.
91SI 9ASS LINE
/,RANCHO CUCAMOAGA, �AWqR�I&
L Pledge of Allegiance
It. Roll Call
Commissioner Barker Commissioner Romp
ei
Commissioner Chitael�� Commissioner Stout
commlssioner.*-Wiel
Ill. Ann�t4eements
Presentation of comme �Edward Hopma
fidation Resolution to
IV. ALWaval Of Minute$
February 2 11, 198W
March 13,1985
V. Consent Calenda�!_,
The following Cons�V!4 474?endar ti6ms are expected to be -routine
andnoft-controversha Theyvilt be acted on by the-,Commission at-,
onetime without dtacussion. If- anyone has concern 6' any Itern,
over
should be �vmoved for discussion.
A- ENWRONMENTAL AsswMEN I T
ORECAST -The developme
b i dimp tot 20,000 square feet on 2.5 of Wad
the, o er
ei ea. 7) ot the Indus s
Plan cat t e south 02
of Civic Center Drhtej, east
Have e APK 208 2 J 7.
B. 'TENTATIVE TRACT 1-2414 - A-M COMPANY - R
e9pplicaition
new arch-i-tectural eleivations`for Ift
single f
10 on,12.3 AM* at land located'at the �souftt
side o
i onette, between 13eryl aild Opal ;- APX 202_,t&j,.3,
81thro 57 thr
g 65 throu 70; 1162-7 35.
C.
PER"
T
opm-ent a 3 % S
'Wh 0 (16V
t-4 _e;e -
Vt e .
J � 1
-
VL Publics ,ieari3ngs
f; The following items are pt?!I h��KnO in which concerned
individuals may voice their
opinion o}�V j,glated project. Please
f wail tQ a re ized by the Chai6an161
;dre5s the Cammissfort,
G by staYincr�,-your, name and address. ' ATl �'ctoh opinions shall be
F limited tcl 5 minutes individual for
per each project.
z ). I �WIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 84-12 - DAVIS -,The development of 328 apartments
on 27.79 acres of lan !'in the how-Medium (4 -8 duiae) and
° Medium (8 -34 du /ac)�Residentiai Districts, located at the
northeast corner of Arrow Highway and Et1wanda Avenue
"f
APN 228-041 -11. - (Continued from March 27, 1985 Planning
x Commission meeting.)
=r !
,;, I
E. VARIANCE 84 -02 - ASSURER MIWI- ftORACE - A request to
?
(';allow - -a reduction in the required' 5555 minimum landscape
coverage in order to construct a mini- storage fxeility on the
-
north side of 4th. Street and east of Turner Avenue in Subarea
&, Industrial Park designation - APN 210- 371 -03. (Continued
from March 13, 1985 Planning Commission meeting.)
F.' INVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
' ERM1T 84 -16 -- ASSURED iYIINI- STORAGE - Construetion of
t)� S mini- storage development, ,, with - caretaker's quarters,
totaling 32,850 square feet -one 1.44 acres of land in the
Industrial Park (Subarea 6) District located on the north side
of 4th Street r and, east of Turner Avenue - APN 210-371-03.
,
(Continued /from March 13, 1985 Planning Commission
meeting.)
G.`> ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT-84.-;20 - NATIONAL - The establishment of a 7,135
l square oot daycare acility for 140 students on 1.4 -acres of
land in the OP District (Office Professional); lncated�on the
south side of Base Line Ruai` approximately 200 feet �jPst of
Amethyst - APN 208 - 541-01.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOWi -41ND GENERAIt PLAN
AMENDMENT 84 -03-A - H&H - A request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (2-
4 du /ac) to lvtedium- �:gh Residential (14 -24 du/ac) on 13.5
r acres of land 3ocated ' on the south side of Peron Avenue,
between Turner and Ramona -< APN 209 -085 -02, 08, 14.
n L RWR.ONMENiiAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTA.TI E,TRAM
x r ? su89 SlC;it} - A custem Ion subdivision o€' 10 low afi 7A
Iaitd_in
+ acres of the Very,Low (less than 2 du/ac f
i
- generally located at the northerly etttension of Lauri. eta
nart�t Qf i4ianZanite Drive, west of � Amethyst Stree AP5
BL 43. -
SO-i f1
' KO
r1 ,z
'�!�,_�"�" z osxe.� ��..�s�"v..•z. ,, . .c ,..t'Xxkr^.
_Ij1
.�36a�
J. VARIANCE 83 -02 - BARMWI KIAN - A request ttt am, end a
previously approved Variance further reducing the required "
front yard setback of four industrial buildings on 1.57 acres in
the General Industrial category (Subarea 1), Iocated at► the
north side of 8th Street, wrest of Vineyard - AP,N 207- - 271 -53,
51 54, 55Y i
K. ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT &ND T -1,RRA VISTA
DEVELOPNFNT PLAN AMEND1MI EWIS - An �I
amendment to the Development Plan For the Terra Vista
Planned Community to change the bend use designations in
the "� )utheast quadrant to include (,% hospital and mixed I
commercial, office and residential uses,,
L. CONDITIONAI, USt `PERMI `82 -12 - LSDERMAN -
development of an 10,422 square foot preschool facility on 11
F 2.38 *ores of land in 'the Lora Resident4e District (2-4 dulac), i
located at the northeast corner of Church Street ant Turner F
a" Avenue - APN 2077- 217 -08.
l ti M. RNVMOXM.ZNTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE At 'DMENT 85-085 -01 _An amendment to the Rancho '
Cucamonga eveiopment Code, Title 17 of tiie Municipal' ii
Code, regarding Master;Plans. Ii
VIL Direetoes Reports
N. ENVIR09MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 84 -29 -THE KOLL COMPANY -The development o
an eight building industrial park complex totaling
approximately 104,980 square
Feet an 7.4 acres of land in, the
Industrial Park District ( SOarea 12) located on the east.side_
s f of Milliken, south of 6th Street - APN 229 - 261-58.
� 1\a,
a. PARKING REQUIREMENTS - A consideration of potential`
amendment to parking ratio calculations.., #,
1
V L Publie Comments
This is the tirtte. and plage,for the general public. -to nddress the
CommWon. 1„Ms to be discussed here are the §e which der riot` � ^�
ulrev4.y appear on this agenda.
UL Adjournment i.
1
The Planting Cam►nission has adopted Admirrlstrdtf Na RegxI w tts �
that set art 12 P.m. asljqurnan tt time. If' items-00 bo";�dndi I <
tirrl the shoo be heaiV ply with 7the consent €4 i ort��
r4 o+ ✓— - € Gf
WIZINITY mAn"'
:
i— . «•,�.,..,.y Ate•«; k
.�.�..aw.r...�. �,�•,w..�t�+•..�.�
.:' .. E
1-1 LJ
rj
4
At
A
�y
-Tt
1
I
GDCLE6E
— --
_
Ss
3'
19t1c.
h
i
ft-L%. � 1..
' b
.
N1iMMNMNININNMN{ ° i J)
ALL
sews
■ -�_
}
�
�
A t
�S\
U
m AIR
Y
t
1A,
3
CVCAIVIJNCA +BWSri GMINfY AEY2 -- "ii PANX
�
t
:�
- U,NTAAfV ANLEAaRy`pNA1, ANIP9Ri.
� � L .. x`
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING" COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 27 Ig35 n
Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of ;Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was !Held at
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line` Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT :, David Barker, Suzanne Ciiitiea, Larry McNiel
Herman Rempel, Dennis Stoat
j
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dorf Coleman, Senior Planner; Nand Fong,
.Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Edward
Hopson, Assistait--,�yity Attorney; OinO Putrino,
Assistant Platrner�,lohn Meyer, Assistant Planner;
Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Lisa WinUger,
Assistant Planner
' ANNOUNCEMENTS:
On behalf of the Planning Commission, Chairman Stout presented a Commendation
Resolution to Tim Beedle ;�or'his service to the Commission.
r APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Chitiea requested amendments to page 3 of the January 9, 1385
Planning Commission Minutes by the addition of a statement to paragraph two
which would reflect her desire that the appiicant stay as close to the Terra
Vista Master Plan as possible, and a co,"rectior, from Chairman to Commissioner
Chitiea.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded byL McNiel, unanimously carried, to approve
the January 9, 1985 Planning Ccnmission Minutes, as amended.
Commissioner Chitiea requested the addition of the word "other" to paragraph
12, page 5 of the February 13, 1985 'Planning Commission Minutes to state that
she had "no other problems" with the tiroject.
rv:
a.
4
i
?4qtion*. Moved bY Rempel, seconded by'McNief, unanimously carried$ to approve
the February 13, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes, as amended.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-0� - ALTA LOMA BRETHREN IN
CHRIS'T CHURCH -- The—development of square feet educatio6ay
facility f he Alta Loma Christian �ti/,uih on 6.9. acres of, land in the
Medium Residential District,, Tdcated a��9974 19th Street - APN 202-171-31.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE /7RACT 11793 — MULLIN/BLISS - A custom lot
subdivision of 47 lots on 15.5 acres in�the_Low Residential District (2-4
du/ac) located on the east side of Amethyst, between Highland and Lemon -
APN 1062-561-04 and 1062-V7144.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESFMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-57 FILPI The
development of a 9,000 square foot multi-tenant indu9trial buijdi�hg on a
portion of 3.47 acres of land in the'General Industrial District (Subarea
3) located at the northeast corner of Itidustrial Lane and Feron ulevard
- APN 209-031-74.
0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND &VELOPMENT REVIEW 84-4 7 - PICKER - To allow
the development; of a retail sales/commercial building of 8,040 square
feet, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard and east of Vineyard
on approximately .72 acres within the General Comercial district - AFN
208-241-30.
J 1
Motion: Moved by Remppl-;' seconded by KcNial, unanimously carried, to adopt i
the Consent Calendar.,/'
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS M-EN �T: -AD TENTATIVE TRACT 12835 - OVERSEAS REALTY
ENTERPRISES, elopment of 11-2 townhouses on 9.5a
Fc—resof idnd in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located east----
of Vine�ard Avaqvie. ± 600 feet north, of Arrow Highway - APN 208-251_q�7
(Continued from January 23, 1985 meeting.)
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Gary Dokitch, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had mek,
with Central School Soard of Trustees and secured approval of conceptual
drainage easements. He further stated agreement with the Resolution and
Conditions of Approval.
Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 198,5
' There were no further= coas:ents, therefore the public bee„ ing was closed.
Chairman Stout state:i that the applicant had addressed the area of concern
expressed previously by the Commission, therefore made the motion to adopt the
Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12835 and
the iss,,3nce of a Negative Declaration. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Chitiea and carried by the following irate:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIFA, BAWER, REMPEL, WNIEL ,
HOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENIAL PLAN AMEROMENT 85 -01 -A - A request to
amend the General Plan Land Use ft from Loan Density Residential to �
Industrial Park for 3.9 acres of located on the east side of Archibald, 1
between Feron and 8th Street _ APii 209-061-1, Z, 21, 29; 20,94)52 -1, 2.
(Continued from January 23, 1985 meeting.)
Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planners reviewed the stiff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, `
Dare Richards, representing the applicant, stated concurrence wiUi the star*
report, Resolution and Conditions of Approve.
Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, $,Ancha Cocamonga, stated kerns with changing
the density on the project and requested that it remain residential.
Virgil Navorea, Rancho Cucaaronria resident, stated appraval of the project.
Joe Lopez, Rancho Cucamonga resident, expressed concern with the proposal
until more information could he provided.
John Owen, applicant, outlined his intentions for improving '`the property, x+
There weri no further cos ts, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Stout advised that wbeu this project previously came before the
Planning Commission, the 'Commissioners - determined that either parcels in the
area should also be reviexed to see if other density problems exist. Farther,
that of ter closer review he would agree with staf=f that the property to, the
north would not Mork with an Industrial Park designation; however, that this
designatiion on the property south of !lain old make it more compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood'.
Planning Commissions Minutes 3-- february 27, Hek
Commissioner Rempel stated that the Industrial Park designation south of Main
was more appropr?at-_ becausu' of-its proximity to- Archibali. and the railroad — tracks. He further state& that more..landscapic,, would be necessary to make it
a more attractive addition to the community.
Chairm8a Stout advised that if this project is approved it will go before the
City Council for final determination -'and suggested' that the ,notification
boundaries be expanded.
Commissioner Barker suggested that the /'Applicant conduct a 'meeting with area
residents? ;�
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded 'by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
r the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General
Plan Amendment 85 -0I -A to the City Council. Motion carried by the following
vote:
E' AYES COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, $..TOi1T
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
!7
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:... NONE - carried
E G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" AND PARCEL MAP 9079 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - A`
division of 5.519 acres of an into 4 parcels in the..Ne gh nrhood
Commercial Development District located on yhe northeast curner of Base
r Line and Archibald Avenue - AP ?1_232- I8I -27.
r
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout openLd the public nearing
'there were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McN=iel, carried to adopt the Resolution
approving Environmental Assessment and Pax,�el Map 9079 and issuance
Negative Declaration. The motion carried b �re following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKEit
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried
Commissioner._Farlar :Mated that he did not vote in favor of the project;
r therefore woulci vote in favor of the parcel map.
Planning Commission Minutes -4 February 27, 1905 '
f
} Chairman Scout announced that the fallowing items were relayed and would be --
heard concurrently.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 906 - R.C. LAND" COMPANY - A '
division of one acre into one parc�j of land in the Victoria
Planned Community 1octed on the west side of�;Ftiwdnda Avenue,_ north of }
Base Line Road - APN 227 - 111 -5.
j I
I. ENVIROi'tiMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -04 - ETIWANDA
HISTORICAL SOCIEW - A request to relocate the Chaffey Garcia House, a:
historic landmark, for the purpose of historic preservation an& to be used
as a museum and meeting place for the Historical Society, on one acre of
land located on the west,side,.of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Base Line in
the Low Residential District. Parcel One of" ?arcel Map 9025.
Barrye, Hanson,` Sen;o4 Civil ;'Vnglneer, reviewed the Parcel Map ,'staff report.
Mr. Hanson advised that the C:'mmission should consider an additional condition
to both, the Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit resolutions which would
require bike trails.
Mary Whitney, Community Services Director,'reuier�,d the'staff' report regarding
the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jim Frost, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission in support of the
project.
t
There were no further comments, therefor(? the public hearing was closed. "
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue,a
Negative Declaration and adopt the .;Resolution improving Environmental.
Assessment and Parcel Map 9025 with "an additional condition requiring
installatia'.l of bike trails.
Motion: Moved by Rempel; seconded by Barker, unanimously grried, to issue a
Negative'Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit� --
85 -04 with an additional condition requiring installation of bike trails.
8:00 Planning Commission Recessed`
8:10 - Planning Commission Reconvened 0
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February , 1#85 �
J. ENVIi20NMENTAL •ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 84 -38 - UNITED j
ETHOD7 T CHURCH -_ a evelopment of a 9,b square fm Fez lo 3p a T
a' ►mss `iwt�e -review of a Ma ter Plan fdr ,:he development of aS*rchlsanctuary. .
facility located at the -' rthwest corner of Ch4r,rih Street and Archibald
Avenue on about 2.8 ar� � of land In,the Lo4,, e, ldepthl (2a4 du/ac)
u, Development District AF'( 208- 441 -29. !f
Commissioner McNiel stepped down from the podium, due to a conflict of
in +eresi. j
Uan "Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the ;toff report.
F
Randy Feldman, representing; ; the applicant, addressed two items of concern
regarding conditions of approval listed on the Resolution. He referred to
condition number three regarding requirements for landscaping on Church Street
and stated at the applicant thought that those improvements were completed
along with previous construction and was under thi impression that : .idditional
landscaping would only bu required on Archib4d. He additionally referred to
condition number four requiring "trellis work to tie into the existing
4 r'urch. He advised that this would require crossing the parking lot and would
w a costly financial burden on the church at this time.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the intent of the condition Was to Lie
the trellis work into the existing facilities; >�
Commissioner Stout asked Mr. 'Feldman what. the 'length of tires e
the trellis work could be accomplished.
Mr. Feldman replied that it would be within two years. �(,€
There were no farther comments, therefore the putrl.ic' heariri` yeas closed. Jig
Commissioner Rempel exQressed appreciation to the church's building committee
for working with the Design Review Committea and staff on the modifications.,s
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the Resolution
approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 84 -38 with
amendments to condition number 3 to "require special landscaping treatment only
on Archibald Avenue, and to condition number 4 to require trellis work to tie
into existing facilities within two years. Motion rried by the follow!A% „
vote:
AYES: COMMIS'SIfrNERS. REMPEL, STOUT, BARKER, CHITxEA
tOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN; j COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL j-'carried
Planning Commission Minutes -6_ February 27, 1?85
_s:
Commissioner`McNiel returned to the podium;`
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI;l'_34 -42 ORATE - The
establishment of a church facility in a ,5 270 square foot area-,of an
existing 5,660 square foot multi- tenant industrial building within the
General Industrial area (Subarea 4) located on., the south side of 6th
Street and the east side of Archibald Avenue - APR 210-07-t8.
Dino Putrino, Assistant Pianner,'reviewed the staff report,
Chairman Stout opened the p;blic hearing,
Jim Orate, applicant, stated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and
Conditions of Approval.
( There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,
$ Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, unaimousiy carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit
84 -42, and the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMTj;SiONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: C07,4iISSIONERS: NONE'
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. NONE - carried
L, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSSESSMENT AND COP91TIONAL USE AERMTT .an-- _ nTVFh.1�tPTFn
rxurtK11tb - ine oevelopment or an integrated shopping center of
approximately 118,988 :square feet which includes a gasoline service
station, as a preo;osed Phase I and a conceptual master :Ian for future
phases. All on approximately 15 acres of land in the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) District generally located" at the northeast corner of
Highland Avenue and Raven Avenue - APN 201- 271 -53,
Dan Coleman, -Senior Planner, reuiewed the staff report. ,..
Chairman;Stout opened the public gearing.
John O'Meara, 270 S. Bristol, Costa Mesa, stated that the applicant's
understanding is that they would be reimbursed for one -half of the median
island and signal costs on Haven Avenue, and would 'tike that to be a part of
the Resolution,
Craig Nelson, 10657 Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the project due to
increased traffic whit# would be generated.
f.
Planning Commission Minutes °71 " February 27, 198,x,
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker state& that he sat on the first Design Review Committee
and that the project had come a way since that times but 'rTt oned if it had
r come far enough in terms of the site plan, architecture, parking, etc., to
bring it into conformance` with the policies of the Development Code. He'
reiterated his concerns with the five straight, buildings as proposed and the
provisions for pedestrian access.
Con.eissioner McNiel stated that while the project had improved, it had not yet
achieved the desired level for Haven Avenue and still appears like any other
shopping center.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was dissatisfied with the project and
suggested it be entirely revised: - 1
Chairman Stout stated that although he appreciated�-the applicant's efforts,
this shopping center was designed without Rancho Cucamonga ir•_ mind. He
further stated that -the arch1tectural statement is typical for General
Commercial areas and ngti•appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial.
Commissioner Barker stated that he had no pr�41ems with either continuing or
denying the project.. However, if the applicant would concur, it would ;be
preferable to contirue the public hearing on the project to allow time to work
with staff and the applicant on a redesign. :moo `h
John O'Meara stated that he would prefer to Cor, _due the projec�,� if heUwould
have guidelines set to avoid repeat of this situation. He� suggested that
the applicant could meet with the Planning Commission and 'staff in a study {
session. i
'J
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to continue thepublic: hearirtg f
for Environmental Assassment and and Conditional Use Permit 84 -31 to Q:.
Planning Ca, vpission meeting of March 27, 1985. The Pl'annirdg Commission _ a
further di-''e-',V4 staff to arrange a special meeting between staff, 'the
applicant, = ,._ - - -�)e Commission within 30 days. The motion passed by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS. CHITIEA
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
i
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was in favor of denying the project1
w rather than a continuance.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 27, 1.986 '
M. ENVIRONMENTAi. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12670 - LEWIS The
e4'\lopment b f' 153 single family detached homes on , . , acres of land
within the Terra Vista Planned Community desi44nated "LM" and "M", located`
on th€� =south side of Base Line Road, east of Spruce Avenue -'APN 1077 -091-
02, 0 t
Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff rep6A. ='
Chairman'Stout opened the pub Uc hearing.
Stan Bell, representing Lewis Development Company, disc ibuted a letter to the
Commission .which urged approval of Tentative Tract IN70,,and askel that the
senior citizen project be considered and reviewed when submitted.
Commissioner Barker 'stated that he appreciated the clarity expressed by the
applicant in his letter-, however, in the pa).t the Cq mtission" had reviewed
tracts within Terra Vista without looking at the iii0acts they would create on
fallowing tracts and did not think that the Commission could continue to do
this.
Commissioner McNt,,.J`stated a concern thet all of -the smaller lot tracts are
becoming more and °amilar. tie further stated that there are more design
oppc." ,unities than 20 fei�, of garage doors and recessed bay windows.
Mr. Bell stated that ,M� attempt had been made to ` do more than the original
proposal in that porch s, arches, and recessed gar6ges had been added. He
further stated that tailing would be more visible later on in the design
stages,
Commission Chitiea stated that she shared Commissioner McNielln concern. Si#rq,
further stated that she would prefer to place more side -on garages on lofs
other than those on the corners as presently proposed.
Mr. Bell stated that the applicant would be willing to work with City staff on
some designs addressing the Commission's concerns.
Rick 0ohte4, City Planner, advised that staff could work with the applicant on
these design concerns and bring them back to the Design Review Committee.
Chairman Stout stated that this situation and the transfer of density wouldn't
be allowed in any other part of the City. He further stated concern with
front yards across the street from a higher density project.
Commissioner Rempel stated that adequate buffering through landscaping would'
mitigate that concern, and that placing back yards facing the higher density
project would be even worse,
Planning Comm ssion Minutes -9- February 274, PW �.
ti,
J
Mr. BelI stated that -.'Lewis would agree to submit a master plan for this
area. He stated that timing dad become critical due to. HUD Title 10--'
dit
financing. ddit a'lly, it would cost a great deal of money to change the `
map at thi!f -time, and requested that the Commission consider allowing the
applicant and staff to research other design approaches 'to mitigate the
streetscape concern.
Mr. Gomez advised that the master plan apprei6 would set parameters f& what,
the Commission wants on the east side by an amendment to the area pjan.
Commissioner -pointed out that this project came before the Commission
without Design Review Committee approval because the Committee was aware of a
condition that needed mitigation, of the full Planning Commission level. He
stated that his concern is not a new one and has been talked about many times.-
Commissioner Rempel stated that the- proble+as at Design Review Committee ware
not the architecture or the desig"- f the tract, it was the site orientation
with other tracts.
John Melcher, Lewis Homes, stated that the applIicant would agree to meet in a
study session to discuss the area plans for not only this °area, but for the
ranair�der of t,ie C'mmtlnity as well.-
Chairman Stout stated that he +ad the she concerns as those expressed and
would like to look at the area plan again.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving,Etivironmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 12670 with an additional condition requiring the applicant to work with
staff on the development of additional stree-tscape variety with side entry
garages on corner lots and greater °,, architectural variety of garage
treatment. Motion carried by the following vote
AYES: COFAISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNI£L, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carrier!'
NEW BUSINESS:
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW" >84 -4 &- - FLAHERTY - 'The
development of d 6,000 square.. hot restaurant on ,. acres _df land in the
Commercial District 'of Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan located
on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 208 -622, _.
28.
ry
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner,- reviewed the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 27, 19-
wvl
i
Mr. Flaherty ad'drmEj—;�the Commission and stated`' concurrence with ! =the staff-
report, Resolution, and Condition. Hc(r�; .Otated however, that it 'was preferable
K
that the building have Its ewn identi-cy separate fr ,i the -M�rt center and
requested that the Commission consider the roof color �s proposed.
Ni
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to,issue Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving. Environmental Assessm"t and Development
Revie4 84 -45 with an amendmant to require brown tones, to bp used on. the roof '
and no subsitut ons for the split `face block. - The mot on carried by the
;
Ivollcwing vote: ;
Y„
�J
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CBITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REpiPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NbNE
ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried
* � * it - `; _•-�:
Director's Reports
0. POLICY DETERMINATION = ROYAL CREATIO:" f'
Joan Dyer, Assistant PlaMner;= lretiiewed ;the; -,taff *,eport. y _.
It was the consensus of the Co^: isston !that staff be directed to prepare a
more detailed report ras- earching the impacts, aesthetics,• and developme;it,
landscaping, parking and backing regLirement�.
P. USE DETERMINATION 8503 - LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND BUILDINGS SUPPLIES
WITlu,,'�UTILITY GORRIDORS�
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, r�uiedd the staff report.'!--
Chairman Stout invited public cor ;n+ -
- 7,
Sharon Vernaci, Vince`s Garden Centrr, stated that her business operated on a
wholesale /retail basis and, that to C,71Y O'law wholesale woetid put then ovt „of
business.
It was the consensus of the Commission that !landsca8e nurseries by permittek,
as agricultural uses, with no improvements or accessory structures. Sales',Ire
to be limited to plants grown on -site: L
C�
Planning Cqo lssion Minutes. 13 ; February 47, I985-
' '
G` 1
CITY OF RANCK r',UC.AMONGA .
PLANNING COMMI ;�`'1N MINUTES
_ Regula� Meeting\
March 13, 1985
Chairman Dennis Stout called the "regular meeting' of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning to order at 7 :00 pm. The meeting, was :,field at
Lions. Park Community Center,, 9161. Safe Line RoaJ, Rancho Cucuonga,
t"alifornid. Chairman Sta t tho:-;led in t:te plpdgo to the flag.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESEt David Barker, Suzanne Chitiet,,, Larry Mckiel,
Herman Rempel, Deno! +.,Stoc
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Shintu' Bose;` Associate,, Civil knglneer Dan
Coleman '. Senior Planner, lt''&jey Forig, Assistant
Planners Rick Gomez, City Planner; Barryi-Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant
City Attorneys John - 'Meyer,, Assistant Planner,
Janice Reynolds, Secrti arys doe Stofa,'Assuciate
Civil Engineer
ANNOUNCEMENTS;
Dan Coleman, Senior Pi y announced that tLe Planning Commission sh60d s�•
a workshop date for discussion of Conditional Use Permit 84 -32, Diversified.
The consensus of the Commission was to set March 25, 1985 as the workshop`
date. The workstop is to, be held: at Lions Park - Community Center,..9161 Base___
Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, and began at 7 :01! ly m.
CONSF-IT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 1012 BARFIA'sCI ".N COMPANY Located,at tha
norttwest corner of 8th Street and Vineyard - KNIOT= 173, -55, 54 and 55.
S. ENVIRONMENTAL 'SS6SSMENT >AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -52 - COLWELL -`fo allow
the 'development of a 1586 square foot °fast food restaurant orated at the
southeast cor--�r of Helms Avenue and Foothill Boulevard on apprux.imately
44 acres of lard in the ° 6engr al Commercial (GO,-,,District - APIJ, 20$-261
544. ti -
lx
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker,,unanimously carried,, for adopt
the consent calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
C. CONOICIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -03 - CHRISTIAN FAMILY FELLOWSHIP' - A proposal to
operate a church within a 1659 square`;oat space within an industrial park
at the East side of Archibald, south of 6th. Street.
`a
,John r.2yer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff repari:4
Chairman Stout opened thf( public hearing.
Forrest Hindley, 568 'Deerhaven Courts Uplands �z`epr senting the applicant,
stated concurrence with staff repot, Resolution and Conditions of
Approval.
Thare welp no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
,r
moti:,n f•�,: cvcd by Chitie3, seconded by Reipel, -to, adopt the Reso%tion
?pprov ng.Conditional Use Permit 85 -03. � --Tne motion carried by the following
voter
�- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: - CHITI£A, REMPEI., BARKER, MOTEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERSt Nog'
ABSE3T: COMMISSIONERS NORE - carried
ti
D. ENVIRONMENT& ASSEZSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -12 DAVIS - The
dvelopmert of 32S apartments on 27.79 acres of 'and in the.o2dum (4-
8 du /ac) and Medium (8 -14 du /ac) Residentiq,!;,S tricts, located at tke__
northeast corner of Arrow Highway and Etiwanda Avenue APK- -_?P9- 041 -3.I,
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report,
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jeff Mann, 1881 Business 'Center Drive, San Bernardino, representing the
applicant, stated bncurrenc4" with the staff report, "'Resolution, and ;r
Conditions of Approval.
i
Planning Commission Minutes -2- `; March '13 x,985
,
Dick Baldwin, 12455 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, opp�Led, the proJ&',t on
behalf of the Ameron Company due to -its proximity to thr,i Arneron ,plant. Re °'__�
advised that truck traffic is very heavy at that locatI, and also stated:
concerns that there would be complaints from the apartment residents about
noise generated from the plant during its ;peak hours of operation.
Bruce Jordan, archt.:gct for the project, stated that lighting, noise, and
traffic had been considered by the, applicant in the design of the project and
felt that the concerns could -be mitigated through landscaping. � He
additionally stated that b,.,Ailding codes and Title,24 recktirements would insure 1
that these elements would, g wr
^, , prpnerhr mit .aced.
, : �� blie hearing was closed.
There . were no further cpinnents, i;h�el�e +y3N;s,
Commissioner Rempel stated that this properky should 'nave �een part of the
Industrial Specific Plan rather than residentially`designatec
Commissioner Barker stated that steps need to be taken to assur!*, that these
noise levels are properly mitigated
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney,', ;advised that the Commission could
continue its decision on this project until a vMse attenuation study is
completed. He pointed out that this may be the ,:mos effective way of assuring
i that the concerns are addressed.
Commissioner Rempel suggested that another :area to be researched would'be a
possible des gq to get adequate opers- -space between the buildings.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, segrd'ed by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue
the public hearing for En4i7,bnmental Assessment and Development Review 84 -12
to March 27, 1985 in order for aesthetics to be addressed and completion of a
sound attenuation study, both interior and exterior,
E. ENVIRONMENT11 ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8982 - KIRSHBAUM A divi .9cY;'Of
3.15 acres of land into parcels in the Office Professional Deve ��n•Aent
District located on the east side of Grove Avenue between Ranclieri `,vriW___-
?7d San Bernardino Road - APN 207- 120 -01.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff repo -t. j
Chairman Stowt opened the public hearing.
Frank Williams, Associates Engineers, addressed' the Commission on behalf of
the applicant and stated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and
Conditions of Approval.
r
Edward Ferleniu, Box 3Z6, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that al l aspects orf. Lire,_ _
project be considered.
Pldnni6g Commission Minutes,. -3- March 13 1985
ZI
�'.`,
r ,•gar 4Y �, i*��
There pare no f;:rtiieti :comments, th efore the public hearing / as closed.
Motion: Moved by McNiel,, second
�; by Chitiea, to issue a egative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution appyaYIng Environmental Assessment and Par.�el Map
8902. Nation Nrried by�he following vote;
AYES: COp`�ISS uN�itS: I MCNEL, CNITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
i
NOES: Ct(,a ISSIONERS NONE
,_,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried
ABSENT:
t�
F. ENVIRONMENTl,C-ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9020 - SCNEU - A division of 16.9
acres of ia,�d• into 4 parcels In the General Industrial..,Area located on the
south side oi' -7th Street, east of Archibald Avenue - #'Nr209- 211 -21.
Barrye Hanso ., Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
h
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
,h
Ed Atkinson, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the staff
report'' Resolu tion, and Conditions of Approval.
There were no further cnmments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the -= Resolution approving Environments} Assessment and Parcel Map
9020. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CNITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
i
NOES,. COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMMISSIONERS. NONE - carried
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN;i AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1,673 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
17
development of -AM2 apartmg t units on net acres of and within
the Terra Vi_'a'- Oanned Commuf ty desi riat Medium Residential (4 -14
du /ac), located at the northeast ,,orner of Church Street and Terra Vista
Parkway - APN 3077 -091 -02,06 an�joh -421- 04,06.
h
"
ii
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chainnan Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 13 1985,
e _ _
John llelcher, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff report,
Resolution and Conditions of Approvat.
There were no further comments, theref�lre the public hearing was closed.
,&srrmissioner Rempel advised staff thal� more definitive criteria needs to be
developed to determine the amount Of,,-"'f usable open space required for higher
density ranges.
Commissioner Barker stated that he:was not overjoyed with the project and.-felt..
that the product could have been upgraded. He further stated that that this
j
project is still very similar to what is already there in nearby projects.-
Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that he would not like to see another
project of this type in Terra Vista come before the Commission without a
radically different architecture.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, sd�, nded by Rempel, to issue a Negative
Declaration, and adopt the Resolutipn approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 12673. Motion carrird 'by;the following vote:
AYES COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKERS MCRIEL, STOUT
v NOES:, COMMISS ONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ?1ONE - carried
*�s* 0
H. VARIANCE 84 -02 - ASSURED MINI - STORAGE - A request' to allow a reduction in
the require 15%-minimum landscape coverage in order to construct a mine- -
storage facility on the north side of 4th Street and east of Turner Avenue
in Subarea '6, Industrial Park designation - APN 210- 371 -03.
1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -AW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ° 84 -16 - ASSURED MIX-
STORAGE onstruction of a rri.�i- storage development, with caretaker's
uar
qters, totalling 32,850 square feet. on 1.44 acres oft. land in the
Industrial Park (Subarea G) District located an the northside of 4h-
Street and east of Turner Avenue - APN 210- 3'1 -03.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.:!:
_✓ Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that specific findings are
listed in the Development Code which must be met prior to approval by the
Commission of a Variance which go beyond hardship. He pointed out that these
find%gs were not exactly set forth in the Resolution and that the Commission
must have the factual basis for granting a variance.
Chairman Stout read the findings outlined in the Development Code.
t)
Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 13, 1985
Y
Mr. Caveman `advised that the findings as read by the Chairman- should replace
those outlined in the Resolution.
Charles Wear, representing the applicant, n�esented landscaping rendering" s for
the project. Mr. Wear stated -fiat a "1 the findings outlined in the
Devieopment Code would apply to granting a 4riance for this project;
Alan 'Tibbets, 7957 Gardenia, Rancho Cucamonga, stated`that he did not agree
that substandard setbacks could be justified on the basis of hardship. He
also, presented the Commmission with a sketch of a project he was proposing on
.
his property. He further stated that this project shows a large disregard for
the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan, Mr, Tibiaets fuTither stated
objections to the appearance of the project, and advised that if -it were
designed in keeping with the density, setbacks, and landscaping of the
surrounding area he would consider it a legitimate addition and support it as
a neighbor. He alsp - expressed concerns that this project would cause a
serious traffic constraint to his project.'
1
Charles Wear replied that the applicant would be happy to work with Mr.
Tibbets on a redesign of this project; if the Commission felt this would be a '
-
viable location for a mini - storage facil* y.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.,
{
Commissioner Rempel stAfed t4at the use needs to be looked at, along with
design of the use and its compatibi itt� with the surrounding area.
Commissioner Barker stated appt'eciation to both parties for . #heir clear and
;'articulate comments. He? further stated that the applicant indicated that
-there would be a ractical 'harashi ; however, practical difficult is not
the same as the deprivation of privileges. Further that he could not say that
approval of this variance would not constitute a Spacial privilege, therefore
would be declined to deny.
1
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that approval would constitute granting a special
privilege. She advised that other people in this special area are mak- 14%.,._
design considerations and landscaping in keeping with the City's policies.
Commissioner McNiel stated that this project would be detrimental to the
surrounding property owner. He advised that he would have no objections to a
continuance, bu�fdid not know if a solution exists.
°
Chairman Stout/, stated that he was not aware of a design proposal for.. the
r
adjacent parcel -when this project came before the Design Review Committee: He
suggested that both parties get together with staff to:''see if compatibility,,
access and landscaping problems could be worked out.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 13, 19853
t .
- fl
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to continue
the public hearing for Variance 84 -02 and Environmental Assessment 'and
Conditional Use Permit 84 -iii, to the Planning Commission meeting:, of
Aprii 10, 1985 to allow the applicant, adjacent property owner, and staff to
meet regarding the above issues.
DIRECTOR'S REP q.
r,
J. STREAMLINING DOELOPMENT /05SIGN REVIEW
f
Dan Coleman, Seni r, Planner, reviewed the staff report.
f -Commissioner if staff were given very strong policies, very
! strong guidelines, and ver, strong procedures to approve routine items, he
could see where this would f low the Commission to make better use of its time
on projects such as over and special projects. Further,, that he was in
favor of fin�?.:R a veh #oit�� or de�egating routine, non- controversial decisions
allowing an appeal processed input when requested by the public. However
there needs to be protectioxt of due process, protection of an appeal process'
and an understanding that it someone doesn't like staff's decision, it can be
appealed to the Planning Commission. Ck
Commissioner McNiel stated that he would like to see the proces streamlined;
-
however, was concerned with not allowing the public an opporty ity to voice�Y
objections in a public forum. c
^J
Chairman Stout agreed and stated that putt',ng the burden on th� public to ask'r
for a public hearing goes against the groin.
Cormmissioner Rempel stated that some people may hesitate using a process which
necessitates an appeal of staff's decision, to the Planning Commission. He
further stated that staff should not have to take the heat for-Aecisions made.
Commissioner ' Chitiea agreed, and stated further concern with using "-phis
process on Conditional Use Permits.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that.; with this input staff had e'ndu�
direction from the Commission to fine tune this process and return to tie "~
Commission with more specific recommendations. He further advised that staff
would be meeting with the new City Attorney to receive his input.
k:. SIGN ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION - VIDEO ZONE
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.
nanning Commission Minutes -7- March 13, 198�
Chairman Stout advised that he had visited the site in question and couldn't _
?: see any. 'other purpose for:; the lights other than to draw attention to the
business. He further stated that the ordinance is clear and specific enough
and that the lights in the window of the video zone are clearly a sign.
Commissioner McNiel stated agreement that the ordinance is very clear and to
allow these lights to remain would constitute a special privilege.
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the attorney for the
applicant argues that if this is a sign it is entitled to protec£.cn as a
constitutional expression of commercial speach. He advised that =, mercial
speach can be regulated differently than free expression of thoughts and
ideas, palace, and manner can be regulated. He -further advised that
there is no`��Junt that the Sign Ordinance is constitutional aA that a lighted
device is a s\'.
,� ;;
Motion, Moved�,\�y, Repel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried.. to reaffirm !J
staff's decis�or�jth�t them is in the windows of the video zone are a
prohibited si+`�id ir :u�r��e e._. orcement<
Staff w" furi fee, directtee to dismiss the existing Citation against the
applicant and�t�t � grant i6ra ten days to comply with the Commission's
decision. If • �v,mpi'tance //t not obtained within that time 1?mit, stafif was
instructed to p'r'�,�eed yFrth citation procedures•.
L. LAND USE ARALYSIS FOR AREA AT SOUTH SIDE .OF WILSON,__BETWEEN qQ. ERRY
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff "report.
Chairman St4u tavited.public comment.
David Bowden, 1441 1v: Campus, Ofwario, advised that he was the owner of Tract
12851, iiihich is located within the boundaries of this analysis and is the
subject of the petition before the Commission. Mr. Bowden stated that he cam,___T
in at the low end of the density range to provide adequate tr zsition and
requested that the Commission retain the current land use designation.
Sandy Davis, adjacent property owner, stated concerti with decreased property
values as a result of the !n�ttr lot subdivision.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should initiate a General
Plan amendment to redesignate the entire area at the south side of Wilson,
between bayberry Avenue and Haven Avenue Very -Low Residential (1 -2 du/ac).
Staff was further directed to expedite this request.
s
Planning Commission Minutes �-8- March 13, 1885 ;'
Rick Gomez, City! Planner, advised that staff has a legig,, obligation to proceed
with the processing of Tentative Traci 12851, unl s withdraw by tyre --
applicant,
M. INTERIK REPORT Off, ETIWAWA SPECIFIC AM DRADWE pL.M AND DEVELOPPE T
O�LICIE
$hintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Motion: Moved by Chl!�fta, seconded by Mciiiel, un`' ly carried, to aMope
`ding
the Resolution recomq approval to the City Cow . of the Inierin Report
on Etiwanda Drainage Plan and Deve3opmInt licies.
PUMIC COMMENTS
Commissioner Remp l made a motion to direct staff to prepare a- resolutim of
°- _-- appreciation for Edward Hopson for his years of service to the Plaaning
Commission. The notion was seconded by Chitiea and unanimously carried.
A0"RNMfNi
Motion: Moved by`"ie', seconded by Barkerj,unanimously carried,. to adjourn.
10:10 p.m. - planning Commission adjourned'.�
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Gomez
City Planner
r
v
0
Planning Coen sion Minutes -9- rch Mi I
T
e
nn
a
DATA zz April 16, L
0
TO : Mayor and Members of the City Counc -I
FKD IZ Sack L s Cbewmity 1)
evelopmmt Director, .J
V
On late Friday, the 12th April, the City was contacted by qtr. Jahn
Goodman, of LWs des, th an urgent request that the City Cwcil
slider the astian Of 'a uoperatisr Agreement with the County of San
Bernardina in order to carry out a multi -f iTy barn# proms. Due to
the late date, Staff v� not able to develop the inftsrmatio until
MW40 - Because of the sza ncy expressed by bath the County an�ewis
Homes of this matter, this its is planed: to be added to the City
COEIRCil Agenda under City Kanagerws ReWts for your consideration. A
representative fmo Leos Homn will be present at the meeting.
Re.Spectful'lg stbaitted, y
Q,
C
Jack Law, A1CP
C %t� Oevelopment Director
i'
J :LD —.cv
f
b
-- ; ----� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIAONGA
STAFF REPORT
_; yr
\, 1977
DATE: April 17, 1985
TO; Mayon and Members of the City Copncil
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director,
BY: Linda A. Daniels, Senior Redevelopment Analyst
SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANi BERNARDINC
FOP, A MULTI -F LY AL HOUSINU t N P,
ji
In the past, the City CounciAa5 has entered into various Cooperative
Agreements with`�'the County of ' Bernardino :,for the implementation of
the Multi- Family rental housing;. Agage finance program. The most
rek:ent egreemen" was for the Calmark Tevelopment project located nortr'
of Base Line Roaa and west of Archibald Avenue. In the past
"ncil has chosen to enter into cooperative agreements with the County
due to the tow level Qom-- uevxloper interest is well as the complexities
involved in a multi = family Wnd issuance.
Since January 1985, developer interes in the multi - family program has
significantly increased. A total of I applications have been filed
wiht the County since Vile beginn�n 5 and are identified below:
Lee Say D nt 8th St. and Grove Ave. 248 units
Corporation SWC Arrow and Turner 150 units
Western Prgperti_s Terra Vf*ta Planned Comm.
(9 applications have been made which total over $106 million in
requests)
In addikion, the City has received interest from five (5) developers
whteh are 'listed below:
TAC Development
The William Lyon Company
Lan Bentsen n
Chris Gerald (project not submitted) \J
Dan raimer (project not submitted)
Due tp the increased interest in the multi- family fond program, 5taf€
had planned to bring the matter to the City Council for discussion a
s fi •.
gip,.
f „
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
April 17, 19$5
Cooperative Agreement
Page #2
guidance at their Yr,:eting of May 1. 1985 in terms of locations of
projects and the involvement of the Cou nty andhor City in future multi-
family bond programs. Lewis Homes, however, 'contactec the City late
Friday, the 12th of April, and requested that a cooperative agreement
betwee,a thEC City and County be approved in order to avoid a recent IRS
ruling which could affect the tax exempt status of a proposed Bond
Issue. Briefly, the IRS ruling, which was made less than two weeks ago,
states that any Bond Pro�,�am which uses a Letter of Credit issued by a
federally guaranteed bank for the credit enhancement is a taxable
issue. The IRS is aliowin�`an issue 'to retaih it *" tax- exempt status
and still use an FDIC Letter bf Credit for an Issue's,- Credit enhancement
provided the Issue closes by May %, 1985,
Lewis Homes has Mstorically used a federally guaranteed bank to issue
its Letters of Credit. In tli.,s particular case, therefore, Lewis Horses
participation in the mu 1,11amily ''bond program would affect the tax -
exempt status of the Issue. For this reason, both the Caunty and Lewis
Homes have expressed the urgent need for the City Council to favorably
consider execution of a Cooperative Agreement.
i
The attached Cooperative Agreemant is specifically for Western
Properties, one of the .Lewis homes` wholly owned entities* which has
made application to the County of San Bernardino to pakt;ic ;pate in a
multi - family rental housing mortgage finance ,.progrania Western
Properties is proposing to develop two sites in the Terra 1li,ta Planned
Community as multi - family apartment units. One site is located at the
southwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Av6ue. The second
site is located near the northeast corner of Church Street and Terra
Vista Parkway.
As identified before, in order for Western Properties to participate
with the County of San Bernardino it is necessary for both the City and,
County to adopt a Cooperative Agreement. Under the Cooperative
Agreement the City still retains the authority for approval of such
items as land use and planning matters, and building plan check and
permit issuance. In addition, the Cooperative Agreement applies only to
the two projects specified and does not allow the County to initiate a
separatt multi- family rental housing mortgage finance program for oche;
projects without first receiving City approval.
The proposed bond program involves-, Tou (4) projects, alt` of which are
within the County of San Bernardino +end proposed to be developed by
Western Properties. The entire issue' is expected to be about
$41,000,000. The two projects located in the City will G�pri *p,.
approximately $28,004,000 of the total :stile amount.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
'>
:April 17, 1985
Cooperative Agreement
Page #3
4 1
The project 1'_L &ted at the so t�hwest cartser of Terra Vista Parkway and
Spruce Avenue, Tentative Tract 12672, consists of 128 apartment units.
The second project, Tentative Tract 12673; is proposed to have 402
apartment units. As part of the State multi- family bond structure, it
is a requirement that not 'less than 20% of the units be made ava�abie
to' families of low and moderate incomes. Thin, in TT 12672, there "Would
be approximately' 25 units and in TT 12673 there Mould be approximately
80 units reserved for families of low, anti moderate 'incomes. Both
developments have had project plans approved Ey the Planning Commission.
The City Attorney has "hzd the ,,opportunity to review the "attached
Cooperative Agreement Arid Resolution and has found them to be acceptable
as to contWgt and. form.
Should the 'City Council determine that it is appropriate for the County
to implement the proposed multi - family yenta )housing mortgage finance
propram on behalf'Iof the City of Rancho Cucam6nga, then adoption of the
attached Resolution would be in order.
Respectfully ubmitted,
i
f
J -1
Jac Lam,A1GP
Community Development Director
JL:LDscv
Attachments: Resolution
Exhibit "All - Cooperative Agreement
Locational heaps
r
b
RESOLUTION NO. P- 4- I7 -5 -R "
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0T %,•`THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO`,, STATE` OF CALIFORNIA,
ADOTING A ?FINANCE
KIILTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSIN MORTGAGE PROGRAM
IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF, BERNARDINO
u j
-
WHEREAS, there is a s4�ortage
"County
in the County of San Bernardino (the
"), the City of Rancho Cucamonga
(the "City "), of'decent, safe, ,And -
sanitary rental housczt particu)�arly of housing affordable by.,persons in the
lower end of th.� income spectr m, and a ,onsequent need to encourage the
construction of rental housin!r affordable by sucn persons and otherwise to
.increase the rental housings"Oppiy in the County and in the City for such
-'
persons; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of,, the County has ,declared its
intent to adopt a multifamil °^ rental pausing mortgage rinance program (the
"Program ") Mrsuant to Chan 7 of Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health a d
Safely Code of the State }of =.alifornia (the "Act ") and to issue bonds pursuant
to the Act to provide f-mds for the Program; and
t`
WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that it is in the best
interest of the City to adopt the Program and to consent to the operati-an of
the Program by the County within the geographic boundaries of the =.ty
.., rsuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, this Council finds-ad determines that the Progran campiYes
_ with the Land Use Element and the Housing Element of,the City' "eneral Plan.
NOW; THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
does hereby resolve as foiBowss
1. This City Council does hereby find and declare that the above
recitals are true and correct.. ,
2. The City hereby adopts the Program for the ptC;jpose of increasing .
the rental housing supply in the County and ir,.the City and consents to the
operation of the Program by the County <withlrespect to project site (as-
defined in the Cooperative Agreement hereinafter mentioned) located within the
geographical boundaries of the City.
w.
n CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
April 17, 1985
Page #2
3. The Cooperative Agreement, dated as of April 1, 1985, 'between
the County and the City (the "Agre �nt "), a copy of which is :attached hereto
as Exhibit A, is hereby approved, and the Mayor and ,Cityt _Ierk are hereby
authorized andj irected to execute and deliver said Agreement, for and in the
flame of and onjbehalf of the City:,,\\ The 14ayor, with the advice and consent of
the City Attorr y, is'authoriaed tot pproveJ ;nu additions to or changes in the
fora of said Areement which the d�_em necee.sary or advisable, their approval
g Y
of such additions or changes to he lanclusi�iy evidenced by the execution by
the Mayor of ` "said Agreement as io' -:!added to or changed. The Mayor, with the
advice and consent of the,Cty Attorney, is further authorized to enter into
such additional agreements with the County, execute such other documents and
take such other actions as theyftnay deem \necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purpose and intent of the Agreement or to cdoperate,in the implementation ,
of the Program. „
4: This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 17th aay of April, 1988.
AYES:
NOES;
ABSENT:
c�
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Autheiet, City Clerk
I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamong?i,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly :passed;
approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of -ancho Cucamonq% at
a regular (special, ad;fCj ed) meeting of said City Council held on .the 37th
day of April, 1985.
Executed this 17th day of April, 1985 at Rancho Cucamongd,
California.
Beverly A.`AUthe et, City erk
r
.i o
$ qy
EXHIBIT iA"
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND THE CITY OF RANCH0. MONGA
THIS COOPERATIVE, AGREEMENT (this "Cooperative Agreement ") is hereby
made and entered into as or April 1, 1985 by and between the COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, a legal subdivision and body corporate and politic of the State of
California (the "County ", and the "CITY OF RANCHO .CUCAMONGA, a municipal
corporation located in the County (the "City").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the County has determined to engage in a multi- family
rental housing mortgage finance program (the "Program ") pursuant to Chapter 7,.
of Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code= = of - the State of
California (the "Act ") to finance consl�nuction or mortgage loans for the
development of a multi - family rental housing projecte,County, all as
provided for in the Act; and
1
WHEREAS, the County has determined to.'borrow money to finance -e
Program by the issuance of revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") as authorized,,by the
Act and
j
WHEMS, the City is willing to cooperate with the County pursuant
to its implementation of the Program within the corporate boundaries of the
City, provided that; (1) such cooperation and imple�} ntation shall in no way
limit the City's ability to exercise its owner po,,` and develop its dtm: -"
similar, program., an Ether =sites; and (2) the Citf shall retain all normal
planning and building approval processes and autbority over the County Program
within the City's corporate limits,_
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter
provided, the parties hereto agree as follows.
1
SECTION 1. The words and phrases of this Cooperative Agreement
shall, for all purposes hereof unless other defined herein, have the meaning
assigned to such words and phrases in the Act,
SECTION 2. The County agrees to use its'best efforts to undertake
the Program and to issue the Bonds tberefore as soon as the County, determines
the sam,, to be necessary and advisable.
s _ _
f
T
�V (�
SECTION 3. The City represents that: (I) the City has heretofore
adopted a Gen— a_r_aF arr for the City which it believes to be in 6nformance
with the provisions of the Panning and Zoning Law of the State of California
(Government Code Section 65000 et. seq.); '(Ii) said General Plan iinciudes.a
Land Use Element and a Housing Element as required by Government Grade Section
65302; and {III) the Program and Prograalt Site do comply with said Land Use-
Element and Housing Element,.
SECTION 4. The City grees that the County may make a mY,�ti- family
rental housing mortgage unde e Program, and that the,:County ma`y exercise
any and all of the City �s powe}
for the p rpose�, of financing a multi - family
rental housing mortgage pursuant to the Act fth respect to projects located,)`
near (1) the intersection of the soutt-*,test corner of Terra Vista Parkway earl.
.5 ,,Spruce Avenue and (2) near the northeast corner of,,Terra Vista Parkway a, ;,,d
'Church Street to be developed by Western Properties `and with tt(, preliminary I
name of Western Properties II.
SECTION 5. The City agrees to undertake such further proceedings or
actions zs may be necessary in order to car y ►ut;,the terms and the intent of
th:s Cooperative Agreement; and the City further agrees to refrain from taking
any action, which would, t6 its knowledge, tend to adversely affect the rating
on the Bonds to be issued by the County pursuant hereto, provided that nothing
in this Cooperative .,--Agreement Ghail in any way or manner be cons rued to
restwain, or in any way "limit, the exercise by the City of its Planning, Lan,
Use, Building Permit, or other authority, over, any aspect of the Progr,t.r
herein proposed.
�l
SECTION 6. Noosinfin this Cooperative agreement shall prevent the
County or the City from entering into one or rwre agreements with other
political subdivisions within their respective boundaries, if deemed necessary
and advisable to do so by the County or the City, nor shall anything in this
Cooperative Agreement be construed as limiting the e4ercise by the County or
the City of any of their respective applicable powers or authorities.,,.,..__
Il
SECTION 7. This i.,s+perative Agreement may be amended by one or more
supplemental agreements executed by the County and the City at any time,
except that no such amendment or supplement shall be made which shall
adversely affect the rights of the Oders of the Bonds issued by the County
in connection with the Program.
SECTION 8. The term of this Cooperative Agreement shall commence on
the date first above written and terminate at the end of the origination j
period for mortgage loans under the loan for the Program.
,j
f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have
caused this Cooperative
Agreement to be exeou`ted and attested by their proper
officers thereunto
duly
authori2ed, and their Official Seals to be
hereto affixed, all as, of the
cute
first above Written.
9
COUNTY U�' SAN 6ERNAR,DINO
CITY OF
By;
By:
J
-, hairman,. 8o:rd o upervisors
"
Mayor
ATTEST;
ATTEST;
CLERK OF THE BOARD- OF SfPERVISORS
By:
�': r
BY, ............
APPROVED AS TO },EGAL'FORM
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
By:
Bp.
;.
Deputy County Counsel
City Attorney .
;r
t:
R
L _ S
z
AVE
#o
t
{
r
�Y
1
a
rA
Loot
k,
> SITE UTILUATION AND NATtMAL FFAUMES MAP
TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 12672 �
3K Tm le"y or aM %* C;DC uMCW" 1
couslir OA'"W.sxuwt" srA=Oi"WORM4