Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/05/22 - Agenda Packet--------------------- Pane I of 6 0701-02 o 5-22-85 P.Cw Agenda Packet o Y. N cD co CJ7 _!__l %CA. OTY OF RANCHO CUCk.X-10,NGA C PLANTN11 C COMMISSION AGENDA U-0. > 1977 'WEDNESD&Y May �i2, 1985 -7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORMIA, L Pledge of Allegiance U. Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner R6mpel Commissioner Chltiea Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel- 111. Announeements IV. Approval of Minutes April 10, 1985 V. Consent Calendar 7'he following Consent Calendar itemiare expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyoro has concern over any item, it should be removed for discLilon. A. DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT 12532 - ARCH103ALD Assocllff—Es - Reapplication for design review of Z755—itectural changeg to the approved elevations for).02 zero lot line homes and 9 singte family homes 6n 14.5 acres of land in the Low-Kedium, (4-8 dulac) Residential District located at Monte Vista�ttreet, between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue - APN 202-181-05, 06, 15, 16. z VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to bas recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -10 - LAMS' OF GOD LUTHERAN' CHURCH - Review and- consideration of a time extension an'l conditions of approva_,Ior an existing church located at tie Cucamonga Business Park, located at 9513 -J, K, Business Geitter Drive. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -07 - CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS - Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions of approval for an existing church located in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park at 10722 Arrow Route, Su-,se -104. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -06 \T )RY CHAPEL `. Review and consideration of -a time extens, in 94--conditions of approval for an existing church located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -24 Mcn7YRE - Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions .:of approval for the temporary Empire. Bank located at 851;6 Haven Avenue. t F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 BOARS HEAD - The review of compliance with conditions of;, approval for F,,n existing restaurant within a shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian Avenue APN 20,17 811 59. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -08 _- VERNACI - A proposal To locate a single trailer for a caretA"ersfacility" in a wholesale nursery located in the Edison = right -of- was "on the north side of Base Line, east of Rochester - APN 2S7- 091 -41. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -06 LINCOLN The development of 660 apartment units on 27.6 net acres of land in the "MHO' District (14.24 du/ac) located on the north side of Arrow Route, 350. j y feet west of Haven Avenue APN 208 - 341 -16 and -7. Il. l g tJs. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9192 - THE CARYN COMPANY - A division of 103 acres of land into 4 parcels within the Caryn Planned Community, located between the extension of Banyan Street and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN 225- 141 -24, 27, 8, 28, Portion of State Highway 225 - 1514, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, u, 12 13: J. ENVIRONMENTAL ;AASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1.2643 - CARYN - The development of 463 single family lots on 104 acres of land in the Caryn Planned Community (Phase H), located un'the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of Banyan Avenue, west side of Rochester Avenue, east of . Milliken Avenue - APN 225- 141 -6, ,.12 -16, 18„ 22, 24, 26, 27, and 225-151-3,,7, 11, 13. K. ENVIRONMU ' `AL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT "85 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the Circulation Element of thj ! General Plan to correct las;o*uage inconsistencies with r ispect to median isle :� and to clarify the intant of the Get eral Plan with respect to the use of median islands. , ' L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to various parts of the Industrial Area Specific Plan deleting the requirements for median islands on certain narrow arterial streets. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amen6 he General Plan Land Use Map rom Low - Medium Residential (,4 -8 du/ac) to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac) on 20..2 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue between Haven and Mayberry, and to include those parcels i Mnting on the west side of Mayberry - APN 201- 181 -7, 8, 9, 10, 59, 60, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85. F' N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AN )IDMENT 85 -06 - ..:ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,' A request to amend the Development District Map from Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du/ac) to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac) on 20.2 acres of land ` located on the, south side of Wilson Avenue between Haven ;( and Mayberry to include those parcels fronting on the west side of Mayberry - APN' 201- 181 -7, 8, 9, 10, 59, 60, 80, 81, 82, . 83, 84, 85. VII. Director's Reports O. _DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9619 PLAZA BUILDERS - Reapplication for design review of 31 single family lots on 20.15 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1 -2 du/ac) located at the west side of Carnelian Street, between Hillside Road and Almond Road - APN 1061- 221 -01. P. POLICY` DETERMINATION 85 -02 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF UPLAND PARKING STUDY ANALYSIS VIII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address tie Commission, Items to be discussed h -:re are those which do not already appear on this agenda. I&. 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?. The Planning Commission 'will adjourn to a workshop to be held on Monday, June 3, 1985, 5:30 p.m., Lions Park Community Center, Gallery West, 9191 Base Line Road, .Rancho Cucamonga. y� c� ! l y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 10, 1985 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: done STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, ;City Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; James Markman, City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, "�cretary ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner McNiel announced that he had a previous commitment and would be leaving the meeting at 7:30--p.m. and return at approximately 9:30 pm. Chairman Stout presented a Commendation Resolution to Edward Hopson for his years of service to the City and the Planning Commission as Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel,- unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of February, 27, 1985 with a correction requested by Commissioner Chitiea to page 11 from the word "by" to "be ". Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of March 13, 1985, with a correction requested by Commissioner Barker to paragraph seven of page six to strike "however" and a change from "declined" to "inclined ". CONSENT CALENDAR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -54 - FORECAST - The development of two office buildingstotaling 20,000 square feet on 2.5 acres of land in the Commercial District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at the south side of Civic Center Drive, east of Haven Avenue - APN 208 - 622 -37. B. TENTATIVE.TRACT 12414 - A -M COMPANY - Reapplication for Design Review of new architectural elevat-1-o-n-s-7-o-r-79T single family lots on 12.3 acres of land located at the south side 0 Mignonette, between Beryl and Opal - APN 202- 741 -3, 8 through 57, 65 through, 70; 202 -751 -1 through 35. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -08 LEWIS - The development of a 377,665 square foot shopping center including a drive- through restaurant on 8.67 acres of land in the General Commercial District located at the southeast corner of Foothill and Hellman - APN 208 - 261 -25, 26. Chairman Stout requested that Item C be removed for discussion. Jim Barton, Barton Development requested removal of Item A. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt Item 8 of the Consent Calendar. A. Development Review 34 -54 - Forecast Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, advised that the center in which the Forecast project is located has CC &R's which contain provisiop for design review by the developer. He advised that this project has not been bef re that design review board, and suggested that the project should not be heard by the Planning Commission at this time. James Markman, Z'ity Attorney, advised that approval by the Planning Commission first would not relieve the obligation for review before the design review board established by the CC &R's. i Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the item was before the Planning Commission for environmental review only and not for approval of design, Further, that if modifications are maje as a result of review by Mr. Barton's design review board, the project would be brought back before the City's Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 84 -54, with the final designs required to come before the Planning Commission for approval. i Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 10, 1985 r, C. Time Extension For Conditional Use Permit 83 -08 - Lewis Chairman Stout advised that the site plan for this project doL's not seem to provide the pedestrian and plaza amenities which the City is not requiring. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the Commission has the option to either' deny the extension thus making the project null and void and require a new applicatic or to continue the item for sixty days with direction to stz.ff to discuss these elements with the applicant. James Markman, City Attorney, agreed and further stated that any modifications would necessitate a public hearing before the Commission. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to direct staff to work with the applicant oa the provisions of pedestrian and plaza amenities, Further, these modifications would be reviewed by the Design Review Comiittee within 30 days and by the Planning Commission within 60 days. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -12 - DAVIS - development of 328 apartments on 27.79 acres of land in the Law - Medium 4- 8 du /ac) and Medium (8 -14 du /ac) Residential Districts, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Highway and Etiwanda Avenue - APN 229- 041 -11.. (Continued from March 27, 1985 Planning Commission meeting.) 'y Dan Coleman, Senior .Planner, advised that the applic&,t had requested a two week continuance for this item. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were nat comments at this time. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Development Review 84 -12 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1985. j` Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently. tt\ E. VARIANCE 84 -02 - ASSURED MINI - STORAGE - A request to allow a reduction in the required 5 minimum landscape coverage in order to construct a mini - storage facility on the north side of 4th Street and east of Turner Avenue in Subarea 6, Industrial Park designation - APN 210 - 371 -03. (Continued from March 13, 198E Planning Commission meeting.) Planning Commission Minutes -3- F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -16 ASSURIO MINI - STORAGE Construction of a mini- storage dev,9lopwent, pith caretaker's quarters, totaling 32,850 squar ;feet on 1.44 -acres ut" lard in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) Diu, is located on the port, side of 4th Street and east of Turner Avenue - APN 210 - 371 -03. (Continued from March 13, 1985 Planning Commission meeting.) van Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance of this item to allow additional time to work with the adjacent property uwner on an wgreeable alternative. Chairman Stoux opened *he public hearing. There were no comments at this time. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimouslj carried, to continue the public hearing for Variance 84 -02 and Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 84 -16 to the May 8, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. 7:35 p.m. - Commissioner McNiel left the meeting. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -20- NATIONAL - The establishment of a , 33 square foot daycare facility for 140 students on 1.4 acres of land in the OP 'District (Office Professional), located on the south side of Base Line Road, approximately 200 feet east of Amethyst APN 208 - 541 -01. Commissioner Rempel stepped down from the podium and abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tom Harris, 136 E. 9th Street, Upland, representing the applicant, :•equested that the overhead trellis not be required to continue not more than 8 feet from the edge of the building to allow sunlight. Phil Brown, project engineer, requested that a four foot block and wrought iron wall be allowed to extend from the enclosed patio to the west property line to allow children to be exited in a westerly direction from the rear of '. K the building in an emergency. Patty Moore, adjacent resident, stated concern with the removal existing trees. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 10, 1985 y. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker requested that the Resolution be modified to reflect that the existing trees would be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to issue a NQgative >. Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment 84 -20 with amendments to the Resolution that existing trees would be preserved to the maximum extent possible, and that the site plan would reflect the trellis extension of eight feet as originally proposed, and the extension of the 4- foot wall to the westerly property, line. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL Commissioner Rempel returned tv the podium. H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT itEPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -03 -A - H &H - A Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on 13.55 acres of land located on the south side of Feron Avenue, between Tc -ner and Ramona - APN 209 - 085 -02, 03, 14. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the applicant for this item had requested a two week continuance. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tracy Tibbells, 6289 Moonstone, Rancho Cocamonga., attorney for the applicant, requested that the Commission grant a two week co;rtiruance. (lotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Impact Report 4nd General Plan Amendment 84 -03 -A to th;? Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1985. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12539 - SISCO A custom lot subdivision of 10 lots on 7.5 acres of land in-the Very Low (less than 2 du /ac) District, generally located at the northerly extension of Layton Street, north of Manzanita Drive, west of Amethyst Street - APN 1052 -071- 13. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 10, 1985 4- c Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant for this it-m was not in attendance at this time, therefore the consensus of the Commission was to delay discussion until later in the agenda. J. VARIANCE 83 -02 - WMAKIAN - A request to amend 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) located on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard - APN 207- 27i =53, 54, 55. Dar. Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Susie of Mike's Weldir,g Shop asked for clarification of the proposal. Chairman Stout explained that the applicant was requesting that the buildings be moved forward approximately two feet. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Barker, to adopt the isolution approv`,ng Variance 83 -02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CWWSSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried Chairman Stout advised that representatives of the applicant for Item K, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Development Plan Amendment 85 -03, were rot present at this time, therefore recommended that discussion be delayed until later in the agenda. L. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -12 - LEDERMAN - The development of an 10,422 square foot preschool facility on .98 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ac), located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Turner Avenue - APN 1077- 217 -08. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -6•• April 10, 1985 Chairman Stout op",ned the public hearing. Ken Lederman gave of overview of the project. Barbara McCabe, adj,,ent property, t,+ner, stated concern with trafwic and the location of the drive approach on Church Street. Errol Christeson, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concern with amount of Ommercial uses being approved on Church Street and was also concern with.. the traffic which wouldi be generated by the project. Mr. Shroppshire, Rancho Cucamonga, also stated concern with the traffic and was concerned with the lack of sidewalks on Church Street. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel advised that this project would be required to install the needed improvements on Church Street. He felt that it would be preferrable to have the project's entrancelexit located on Church Street rather than Turner, due to Turner's water- carryii;a,capacity. Commissioner Bai er requested that ii modification to the Resolution, to require the preservation of as many of the, existing trees as possible. Motion: Moved by Barker, sec)nded by Rempel, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Perm,t 82 -12 with an amendment t6 require the preservation of as many of the existing trews as possible. MolAon carried by the following voter AYES COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COM.:7SSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85 -01 - An amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, regarding Master Plans. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, suggested that the amendment contained too much 1.,.-guage and should be simplified. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Pidnning Commission Minutes -7 April 10, 1985 C Chairman Stout requested that the language in the staff report which clarified the intent of the master pi-_n process be included in the proposed City Council Ordinance as a goal Statement. He further requested that "vehicular" be added in reference to circulation under Section 2.c. In response to Mr. Barton's comment, Chairman Stout stated that the general public sometimes has problems interpreting the City's intent when language is too brief. Commissioner Barker requested that "variable" be replaced with "various" in reference to product types in Section. C.2 of the proposed Ordinance. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 85 -01 with the addition of vehicular circulation to Section 2.c, replacement of variable with various in Section C.2, and the addition of a goals statement.. Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: CCMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried Chairman Stout advised that the applicant for the following item was now in attendance, therefore the public hearing would proceed. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 85_03 - �Mwia nn amenament to the uevelopment rian Tor the Terra vista Manned Cor:.irunity to change the land use designations in the southeast quadrant to include a hospital and mixed commercial, office and residential uses. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, addressed the Commission regarding the proposed amendment and advised that the proposal was simply a rearrangement o; land uses that already exist within the original plan. Chairman Stout asked if the auto plaza idea had been eliminated f-om the new proposal. Ms. Matlock replied that although not as strong as the original plan, the new plan still shows the auto plaza concept as a permitted. use.: Elaine Carbury, Gruen and Associates, addressed the Commission regarding the transition of density as proposed in the new plan. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern with placing traffic generated by the hospital on Orchard, which is not a through street. Planning Commission Mir ;utes -3- April 10, -1985 Jack Corrigan, Daon Corporation, Newport Beach, expressed concern with the proposed residential uses placed in proximity to a hospital with emerge,,!.y facilities. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the conditions of approval for the other sites in Terra Vista need to be reassessed if the hospital does not go in. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised ti "rat the Planning Commission can make an amendment to the specific plan any time it feels necessary as a. result of any changes. Commissioner Bark_r stated that he did not like the idea of increasing densities per acre and was concerned with the loss of the auto plaza designation. He additionally stated" that he 1°ould like to see some sort of contingency plan if the hospital isn't developed. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the auto plaza designation was necessary as it would be an important tax base to the City and was concerned with moving the density to the perimeter and suggested that it be left the gray it is. Commissioner Stout stated the .,,to plaza is one feature of the plan which he considered beneficial to the City and did not want to see it removeo. Further, that because of t'le increase in amount of land devcced to the hopital use, there was no need Ito transfer density somewhere else. He also stated that alternatives should be presented in the text of the plan to make faear what will be developed on that site if the hospital does not develop. Mr. Gomez suggested that she Commission might consider alternative permitted uses, possibly with a primary focus on a medical facility. He further recommended that if the Cc;nmission was comfortable with a hospital designation at that location, it could be forwarded to _be City Council, but withhold approvals on the balance until further review. Chairman Stout replied that he did not have a problem with a ho-zoital designation at that location, but did have .j problem with leaving looje ends in the plan. Further, that there is a big difference in permitted Lses and primary uses and would not like to see the auto plaza reduced to sin: ?ly a permitted use. James Markman, City Attorney, suggested that a hospital and medical care facility use could be the only designations permitted, chat way if the play falls through the applican' will have to come back and redesignate permitted . uses for those areas. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council, with changes to the Resolution title to reflect approval of the MHO designation for the hospital site only. The auto plaza and residential designations are to be further studied and returned to Commission. Motion passed by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 10, 1985 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, SPOUT NOES: COMMISS1ONERS: --NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried 9:40 p.m. — Commissioner McNiel returned DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -29 - THE KOLL COMPANY The development - of an eight building industrial park complex totaling approximately 104,000 square feet on 7.4 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) located on the east side of Milliken, south of 6th Street - APN 229 - 261 -58. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the _taff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Gienn_Allen, Koll Company, gave an overview of the project. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, addressed the Commission in sappor± of the architecture of the project. There were no further public commmnts. Commissioner Chitiea stated coricerri with the way the pedestrian area was bisected by what appeared to be the major entrance /exit to the project. Chairman Stout stated the dt `- Design Review the applicant indicated a difficulty in opening up the %ct due to site can °+-mints; however, those constraints; seemed self- impost he applicant also owns the property to the north. Further, that a .r of solutions were suggested to the applicant and were rejected. He also stated that the Industrial Pari designations were intended to provide an attractive place to work and, with minor :acdifications, this project could be brought into conformance with those; general policies. Commissioner Barker stated that the project ,)es not reflect the streitscape as those projects which are considef °ed to be some of the better Industrial Park projects in the City. Further, that he has told residents at Planning Commission meetings in the past that he i ?ould prefer to have an Industrial Park project next do ,,, to a very high density project; however, could not say that in this instance. Commissioner McNiel stated that the pvnject has come a long day since Design Review and didn't think it had that far to go to provide: the pedestrian amenities necessary to make it a good project. s A t. jing Cortvnission Minutes -10- April 13, 1985 Chairman Stout asked Mr. Allen if he would be agreeable to continue the project to allow time to address these concerns. Mr. Allen agreed to a two week continuance. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Aempel, unanimousiv carried, to continue Environmental Aasessment and Development Review 84-29 to the April 24, 1985 Planning Commission meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to redesign the site plan to address pedestrian amenities and circulation issues. x ). PARKING UQUIREMENTS - A consideration of potential amendment to parking ratio calculations. Dan Coleman, Senior Plantar, reviewed the staf•s report. Jack Corrigan, Daon Corporation, outlined the rea-ins for the requested amendment to the parking ratio calculations and suggested that open space ` areas not be included in gross square footage calculations. Jim Bartc^., Barton Development, suggested that public space such as non- leasable s be excluded from the parking ratio calculations. Motion: ad oy Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to direct staff arch other cities to determine their method of parking ratio calcu' zio,. and to present alternatives to the Commissioi at a later date. PUBLIC COMMENTS: ' Cindy Davis, 8037 Thoroughbred, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced her disappointment regarding the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract 10349, Anacal, at their April 24, 1985 meeting. Ms. Davis advised beat this decision has F- been appealed to the City Council. r� John Ball, 7966 Thoroughbred, Rancho Cucamonga, also voiced his objection to the approval of Tentative Tract 1.0349. j' ADW!1: ME[v . ( Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned in memory of Harry Lanham, City Building Inspector, who passed away on April 8, 1985. 11:10 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned Kespectfully submitted, R%, :k Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 10, 1985 v . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT �O C�CA MO��9 s j DATE: May 22, 1985 F Qj z U '> TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission 1977 FROM: Rick. Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT 12532 ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES - Reapplication for design review of minor architectural changes to the approved elevations for 102 zero lot line homes and 9 single family homes on 14.5 acres of land in the Low - Medium (4 -8 du /ac) Residential Districts located at Monte Vista Street, b tween Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue - APN 202- 181 -n5, 06, 15, 16. I. ANALYSIS: Tentative tract 12532 was originally approved on June 2O, 1984, by the City Council. The one story unit was deleted by Council becau,�a of setback problems. The developer is requesting appre al se minor changes to the front of the approved elevations (Exhibit "B"). The proposed changes to the elevation feature a var -'-ety of roof Lines, height and window treatments. The Design Review Committee recommends approval subject to the original conditions, of approval for this tract. II. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning. Commission consider all material and elements of this project. If the Commission concurs with the Design Review Committee recommendations, approval of elevations through adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Loc?tion Map Exhibit "B Previously approved elevations Exhibit "C" z Proposed elevations Original Resolution with Conditions Resolution of Approval ITEM A 1 'j r' \r' [a g NORTH CITE' OF, :) ITFrNt: RANCHO CLTCAivIO TG T iTLE: t N AA,A-Ci PLANNING DIVISION EX1 iBrr.-A SCALE._ f ' 1Ilt;, RII{_ ■nI` 1211 SO. FT. N URTH CITY OT i 2z ITc-m: RAINCHO CUCA.MONGA TITL77:40 ff VaA PLANNING DIVISION E.Y4it[iIT:Ted SCALE= 0 -3 a = �! r� C • `• { e+a 1307 SO. FT. u f NORTH CITY Qr, ,TE, I: r z.s:Z,2 RANCHO cL TCAMoj 'GA TITLE: P1�AIVNINC DIVISION EYHt� /� 'D� 3IT ._ SCAL$• (..C.- luj 1461 SO. FT V NORTH CITY or, +RANCHO Ul�i��iA TITLE PLANNIINU DIVIETQ:�I E,YHII3IT 'i SCALE - m 3 Ne- Ms E a� � N V/ [: e I S p y_I sg ?j Al e a lu i 4 :v wa W O a IV� k Via. �71 sal � c '? N 8' iT t 1 a IV� k I mi 1C r� I RESOLUTION 110. 64_180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. ar THE CITY OF RANCHO CU,IAMONOA, CALIFORNIA, AMEMINO PLANNING. COMMMIOH RESOLUTION 84- 34 CONDITIONALLY APPROVIHO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12532.. VMEAS, Tentative Tmat Map No. 12532, herainafter "Hap" submitted by Archibald Asaociates, applicant, for the purpose or subdividing the real Property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County Or San Bernardino, Stata at California, described as a residential subdivision of 14.5 acres on the West side. of Ramona,. at Monte Vista Street, into 112 lots, was appealed and came before the City Council, for public hearing and action on June 20, 1984; and NHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division$* reports sad Las considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby recommend approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in Planning Commission. Resolution. 84 -34 with the .addition of the following Section: SECTION 3: Tentative Tract Map 12532, is hereby approved subject to PlannangCOrmisslon Resolution 84-34 and the following additional conditiona- l. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved alternative site plans, as modified by the City Council, which .deletes Plan I, a.'ngle story model. 2. The front setback on the majority of lots shall be 18 feet or greater behind sidewalk to facilitate parking in the driveway.. However, in no c -je shall the front setback be less than 16 feet behind sidewalk. 3. Provide Increased front yard. landscaping that exceeds the m+n,m.m. City requirement in accordance with approved front yard landscaping conceptual plan. A. Scream the rear of lots. 63 through 65 from London. Avenue by providing dense landscaping (I.e., minimum: 15 Radon trees at 10 feet on center), and providing 6 -foot hight masonry block wall along the entire northern Property line U.e., late 1, and 63 through 23). "'tails shall be included in the landscape Plans to the satisfaction of the City Planner. S. Require additional landscaping, on lot 38 along. - southern property line and let 44 along the northern property line, and additional architectural treatment along the rear of lots 38 through 44. Details shall be Included in thelacdbcape plans to the satisfaction of the City - dancer. 8. All streets shall be constructed to City standards, in terns of pavement, curb and gutter, and driveway approaches. Rolled curbs shall not, bepermitted. 7. Provide 15400t minimum flat usable rear yard area per City grading standards. 8. Street "A" shall he constructed with a 36 -foot Pavement section per City standard for residential streets to be daslgned subject to staff approval. Q .,--_ i Resolution No, 89 -180 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this loth day of Juae, 1989. AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikela, Dahl, M!lg NOES: None AME3r.. None 4 . , o• D. 1'11ke1a, Hayron ATTEST: t i Beverly Authelet, City Cier i 1: a i i s RESOLUTION ,NO. 84 -34 A ESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY nF RAirCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITI04ALLY APPSM -1-rr TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12522 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12532, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Archibald Assuciates, applicant, for the purpose cf subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 14.5 acres on the west side of Ramona, at Monte Vista Street, into 112 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public .'hearing and action on April 25, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the hlap subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning aivisicnrs reports _,nd 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 T�-_ytative Tract No. 12532 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Pion, Development Code, and specific plans;. (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial 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 (*f 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. Page 2 (g) -That this project will not create adverse impacts on the env-onment and a Negative Declaration is issued, SECTION 2; Tentative Tract Map No. 12532, a copy of which is attachea hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION I. Approval of Tentative Tract 12532 is granted subject to the approval of Development District Amendment 83 -07 by the :Pla.nning Commission and City Council. 2.•. The site shall be developed -in accordance with the approved alternative site plans, which includes (1) a paved street connection to Ramona Avenue at Monte Vista; (2) increased front setbacks on a majority of lots; and (3) reverse plotted houses to provide greater driveway separation. In no case shall -the front setback be less than 5 feet from the right -of -way line to accommodate a public utility easement. k' 3. Recreatioaal amenities are required in ,onjunction FE with common open space areas such as, but not limited to, swimminp pools and spas and court facilities. In addition, enclosed tot lot facilities with play equipment and large open lawn areas are required. Details shall be included in final landscape plans. a.: Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming - that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a declaration of restrictions for the subdivision, which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object except for utility wires and similar objects pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060 -G -2. 5. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heat.ng 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. Details shall be included in the building plans and ,hall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. LAIM U 0 "Resolution No. Page 3 6. Front yard landscaping is required and shall include, at a minimum, one (I) fifteen gallon size tree, one (1) fire gallon size ;tree,; seeded ground cover and a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. This requirement shall be in addition to required street trees, 7. tots 1 -9 facing Ramona shall have priority and be cnnstructed within Phase L 8. Phase I construction shall include Ramona Avenue street improvements, including street trees.` 9. The combination retaining wall and screen wall along the south project boundary shall not exceed an overall combined height of nine (9) feet, as measured from the existing grade on the south side of the wall. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. A portion of "A° street from Archibald to "E" street and a portion of "E" street from "A"' street to the southerly tract boundary shall be dedicated to the City as a public street. 2. A storm drain system shall be constructed from "E" street to "F" street along the southerly tract boundary. dedication of an easement shall be k offered to the City covering the storm drain. 3. The proposed storm drain at rear of Lot 59 shall be realigned along the property line between Lots 58 and 59. i 4. Adequate erosion protection devices shall be provided along the drainage overflow easements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. A portion of -cne master planlied storm drain on d; Ramona Avenue shall be constructed f -om the project site to south of the Southern Pacil�c Railroad to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The storm drain fees for the project will be credited for this construction. Resolution No. 84 -;� Page 4 6. rill existing P.C.C. pavement on Ramona Avenue contiguous to the project boundary shall be removed and replaced with asphalt concrete pavement. The cost of constructing the easterly half of the street will be reimbursed by the City. 7. The applicant will be required to veconstract Ramona Ave.iue from the southerly tract boundary to the ra5lroad right-of-way. The cost of the construction will be reimbursed by the City. 8. Pavement taper shall be provided at the southerly terminus. of Archibald Avenue to provide for drainage and traffic control. Adequate right -of -way on Archibald Aven42 shall be acquired to provide for the taper. 9. Street "A" shall be 28 -feet v. -4de (curb to curb) from Street "E" to Street "G ". All other interior streets shall be of 36 -foot w,dth. 10. A 50 -foot wide offer of dedication shall be made on Monte Vista Street. 11. A five -foot public utility easement along both sides of all interior streets shall be reserved on the map. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF APRiL, 1984. V OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY ATTEST: I �7 I, Ric�c� 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 25th day of April, 1984, by the fallowing vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BAR1KER p' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL a rl Gm _} 90 p Nv G p^ sL y� v oy ^.pCG pub Y C 9 at ay 4o au c ,n 3 uN N N as �ja �(V Y a G C d Z q� >LL Y Ya c p E Ny TCy Wadi C o u dEd a n G q G i d V N V L O C A• -�. G^ t 09 A Z.. A g q p Va•� .b a T c d p V Ln u qbT Y dL Y o d u O d d q •''.1. S- mGw�yn° yU q O= d L.WO may~ W 3 L vim$.L L >` j AO p L �j 0a Nuaa 0- IT p y 0 qU Nmu N y ^T C N + > v'a Y Np y L C L OIF-O ¢V+ ~� N� �I OI V d v A.aa 1 O O T^ d N Np.` 9 ^z� LYAI pLjL ;yN L= 'O i>^ ^ ` ^ Ty OA J O N Op T.. N JOM wCUC: c Nd�0 O>rV01£ ^vd 9vFxi DE E. N >C.. 6T Y p Ly ' rz i4 p=0 �TJ d O. c E u d a �Eq�^ MaP paw ,^^NNR 6 q L N 0 n U u O^ 9 O u V d 9 d> w Y T E u g L c N Q M p d :-7 C O O :RE p G 4 6 V 6 a 6 m G H p N N 6 1^ L N O ``1•j ••11 U� rD M Cl. O� `• \O�l9I rl r1 Gm aAn Ad a i ada. T sL y� Y C 9 at Q Y p p GE q 0 Ep • d R. W ,n 3 uN N N as �ja �(V Y a G C 6v= CJ1 rd = O t0 Wadi C o u dEd a n G q G i d V N V L O C A• -�. G^ t O py G o o �� N G g q p y UR o u TG C O We Ln V y o n u d u m oo u mod d v'a U E U E t�6d 1- ry i 6 1 -A OIF-O ¢V+ ~� N� �I OI V d v ttO Ja0 E 1 NJ r1 q DNS dCC� a.~ pL L pn L F E p E d p C 6« O _ a- H'N' q a M-- L a N v ° w 4J L n AV �.0 FFa pCd •� CL 6 4. AL ... } uE CY ° • « �n. -•OC u�E n� °E9 Ea00��uow ELE ,°d O C L E E c ° rn p a `o H C W C.".E SALE td d 4 ° ". �•q -E �Eni A a qd .innCOtlr d dO d aq Gy phu�d rs a m C a ^a 6E.ti o. uC ca° 2 pc> cu 92 40'L nA .,.swgy t u.�u mna.s..i42:.c. 1=�.un L GO N �I 0 N °o« oT q n�ES,y'O EY ��i.E dam Lao O o °u aqc u� zL t o , 39 • q ^C tj u V •L.r� r wO q .a a °� av �-.°� T cE� a 00 c i c° q a � `�'EY NEaE V • .^ u3y d a qL Gq ca. 3 oL� °dc { d o da« ' «` c d9 Ana 9y NUO o [ o� c Lvu ydu a rq oo do v po ¢.. A V C )f E T 3 �'1°n� Ana GU lu .°�a..9=Oi q... o+ t.. •t �nCq 4Q�4U N 4W yCj..4 °� ti `vl• .gip • _ G a E E K� C 4 J� OOT L J t OA � Cu�'4 6 O N a _ ••- �.:± v..A -°- �f � EMy E � � tatiuu SPN 'C CO F-tlhT QN6N WVNOnZ N1m NAN 4N.+ SV1 tJ 01 c Ga 6N 3� .. AN` LI u a o Nu c � P Fc a y • a o y O u E a ft i•� v WaA N m ''Y xoor C rO V c C C a� C a C 6 c 4 d Q g 6 2 y nLO iY As ay ny A oa V C l C t 19 N°u' uoA� •u .p. �c,u n•.' �, %2 � v.. 'J'Y`s N5n am Mi C9 A. 2a a vax { t ^ 11 yw E q. V oy _rna >9 'N • 3 m9 A .d C d Qaaq.a L ou ti ' aE 25 E » vm p nJpS Ca P crY Cd S.>��N a 1C'N•'� NE d q �O c Y.TCV p. c6c C N.,. pL YL Ep. o - A c A u p c v yprn-��c� a0 � o.-. NNat . gu•�c.m E O. c �=w'>o�.0 au A c v _N „ Au u q w � agu � � rA- ou Yy yLg 6A. 06 a�:� � Cu �c� Ou N V v1 A S.uai� �yE� �qC Qpm. Oy C4 C4 LL um A ^r cl mpo ca as Y E oa m aoq� >c nW � W »O. u u co ^p n - pr anL C 06 N y O C L {.` aX O O y Y 6 AG VN9 v ON V a ay, S. V LT9 CL L L�6 R ­.-I y9m c p� � �g4 F p rNL V T II E. V< > lyi V py CE mo un uu OL7 C a c y c ON.66O "' man. �YOO E» � ANC 4 :5- - yq C p S. V A.c .5 a� W 0 0 >' 4 p Y L r p v V ._ A r _ wN V Z 9> G • b to ors i2,�n Ait a C? p T 4' O 3 E T 1 aim y n x a pn a p o � aa-p C A4 L Ea m t �•+ NE y NT CuOL M" fOp 'arnu Oy E» '�O E Pip G a E E K� C 4 J� OOT L J t OA � Cu�'4 6 O N a _ ••- �.:± v..A -°- �f � EMy E � � tatiuu SPN 'C CO F-tlhT QN6N WVNOnZ N1m NAN 4N.+ SV1 tJ 01 c Ga 6N 42-1 �7 C Yu C E YG �O. d �1°y�L Ci2 gs u S A N u d E E It fy E N Q rnA d _ qOu N N d d. O q IOL um N N S r d V I g N SO O >,.L G • u Z 2 L C �u.QY lk V6 N3 N - n na` .- j 0 0 m� at:Ct L R j VC Qm UC1 L p0� L^ CG aEC d >�U O 4m W4 W ES LYrU :rq 1-- L 6.+ Q I i N Adh .t 1 )'3 L4.�nn �i c Ir-u L LLr G• tea. 9° `� a _nd � o� dd �O 0O. d.L C uuy �EO QEU • nN >a Y „ c �.G L 12 V O1� SL � C n SG dam. O1G ONd_N Y C ^ O .dOy. AA E O O Mg- � a °a m a r < o � Q. 6� �^Q �y U^ .- ..� v r•v a E^ o+E ^o qE a � L un aY pp^ a o COQ C d aL M. r C Qu,�� o u ° EE.; ° C .a-. �. E. o� ^� V a q p d ^ g L Cn u aWh L 6 qwp Vf. N Gd= E Ud N.9 WUU O �6 f»636M M. o Ca QV40 7 Y 42-1 �7 C Yu C E YG �O. d �1°y�L Ci2 gs u S A N u d E E It fy E N Q rnA d _ qOu N N d d. O q IOL um N N S r d V I g N SO O >,.L G • u Z 2 L C �u.QY lk V6 N3 N - n na` .- j 0 0 m� at:Ct L R j VC Qm UC1 L p0� L^ CG aEC d >�U O 4m W4 W ES LYrU :rq 1-- L 6.+ Q I i N Adh .t 1 )'3 L4.�nn �i c Ir-u L i ai Li pJ � o C1u GeQO E ,•, � L 6 me = N 9. O � uw CO iC I A I b W~ CV = ob ur my a c ,e H as DC U V N l ns Oqt OGCZ y � Ml LD trr ^ � Q ji N r d 7 .ti d �� N C < �G� HT b�cyy9 0 dam_ E �°° 'O � W ^�. �. N C cd d•^. Q c TL d T� =iY cdN Oq N YL p. �� Od N-� OUp C i• • E • W3O L O y u° ° O� �n •� w3'L= O � E ^ ^° N =OU•c. V r. e•'•♦ AE O r n= G 4 4 LL �A � o O a C o u 0 as 7 D d p � q >• o ^ L C..O• I IN y�1 NEON C p ZL �" Td E N a Eay., O o v?. d9 yd CCC 4V �O SA OP0 Oa O . O u °adz n r La N< oi`L;x <; u� 4'N 6 n Y O. :2Z5 6 A .f O' s i ai Li pJ � o C1u GeQO E ,•, � L 6 me = N 9. O � uw CO iC I A I b W~ CV = ob ur my a mo= ,e H as DC k l ns Oqt OGCZ y � 4a LD 4 a ay Orb � �m z .ti d �� O x Ad O a ° q d Ln i T.0 CN y •., � o C1u GeQO E ,•, � L 6 me = N 9. O � ° ° N. u b cc = ob ur my a mo= ,e H q cE _ Oqt OGCZ y � 'c^x� LD 4 a ay Orb � ~u O ddO�`O .ti d �� O x Ad aOZ GL' �G� HT b�cyy9 CL dam_ E �°° • a4 L T� =iY cdN Oq N YL p. �� Od b.� C V L X92 ma ^ ^° N =OU•c. V r. e•'•♦ AE O r n= G 4 4 LL O O_ E t u � o O a C o u 0 as 7 D d p � q >• o ^ L C..O• I IN y�1 O V • • N ,q -/9 Ln i �i O Z U �a i d i V � F 11 .Y°.. o T Fd s x •^n � na � o c o o� o Ito I U a. u Fd� x.' w � a E,c vi'•• �. N N Z u� c RE ap `aN N ao y` W N D L^'�a� E. SSE � „y yd d c.cu yN Y Ea 4 9n� T n �q °� a d °x v d � r SSS111111 � •` D .. q D. La 9•.- �n Y d C o d E — u I C d O • .� n L -�� <yE Td Y YY L-'W n Q Y ^ c Dew rd qoZ. € • ow _ y. O 2u q O NO L u° L ^ qo c� Y Cd d Y Sy ... 0 9eD o.� dq D qo vuq - S1S Lq u= �� d O c Yaq rnW zN. u. `rn °'v c dd a c r Ly =_ • a. d'4 O :[= L \) NI 2 N� G 11 .Y°.. o T Fd s x •^n � na � o c o o� o Ito I U N� L o L O y z U q v d C u t N"•¢a..D. N Z u� c nMO ap `aN N ao y` W N D L^'�a� E. SSE E. 9qi� T AO �y T m x T n v o d� ar' E o u I C d O • .� n L -�� <yE Td Y YY L-'W n Q Y rd `�l n ��•j Y O O Y. Nq ar^- [ Tv o N�6 <V IE L T 6n0 du Sq� NO L u° L V t r LN•L EuC al. 5 r V14W �Wu.nYl V7 11 1 N 0 z U G1 ,n 0 L d i 4 y �c O q AD �d NEE V .0+ h 9yy q• ZE d NE N _.y y ESi' n Y _ �y9C. F 40 U G y. UQ as d � O ` W v ` a d G 2 U U Ei S.U- ra ANIL as oV' ac° O ' •- °j p Z y O?N u, E � Ow O O C O 4 O Fi r 4 0 0 0 � 4JU.a n Q N. •O 10 r] RESOLUTION NO.' A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 12532 LOCATED AT MONTE VISTA STREET, BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND RAMONA AVENUE IN THE LOW- MEDIUM DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 15th day of April, 1985, a complete application was filed by Archibald Associates for review of revised elevations; and WHEREAS, oi; the 22nd day off May, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held, a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That th;a 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 detriment .1 to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improveA —nts in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review of revised elevations for Tract 12532 is approved subject to the original Resolution with Conditions .id original Standard Conditions. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gome�r Deputy Secretary ii TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 Page 2 Ask 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 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I" I] 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT . W 1977 DATE:. May 22, 185 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -10 - LAMB OF GOD LUTHERAN - eview and consideration of a time extension and conditions of approval for an existing church located in the Cucamonga Business Park at 9513 -J,K Business Center Drive. I. BACKGROUND: The Lamb of God Evangelical Lutheran Church took over o� nditional Use Permit 81 -10, issued for Victory Chapel, in the Cucamonga Business Park. Conditional Use Permit 81 -10 was approved on June 10, 1981, and expires on June 10; 1985. T'a^ purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Commission to review and consider: 1) Modification to the Conditions of Approval relating to the expiration of the CUP, and 2) Review the church operation to insure consistency with the Conditions of Approval. II. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditional Use Permit to determine if it is being operated in a manner consistent with the Conditions of Approval and a manner which is not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Conditions of Approval require that the premises be used for group meetings only during the r.eekend, and after 6:00 p.m. on week nights, that the use not create parking problems or adversely affect adjacent businesses or properties, and that all City laws be complied with at all times. No complaints have been filed by tenants concerning the church operation or parking. The church must satisfy State Fire Marshall regulations which require a permit to conduct a placa of public assembly (50+ persons). The Foothill Fire District, has not issued a permit and the unit does not fully comply with state fire regulations (eg. door - panic hardware). ITEM B PLANNING COMMI'SSION STAFF REPORT CUP 81 -10 - Lamb of God Lutheran May 22, 1985 Page 2 III. OPTIONS: The following options may he considered by the Planning Comtr, ssion per Section 17.04.030 G of the Development Code: A. Grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or B. Conditionally grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to conditions are necessary; or C. Deny the time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the Impacts, and therefore, revoke the CUP which would reouire the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Planning Commission. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners and businesses within 300 feet of the site. In addition, public hearing notices were posted on the property. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to: 1) review the request for a time extension, and 2) review the church operation for compliance with the Conditions of Approval, and select from one of the options described above. If after such consideration the Commission should find that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner, adoption of the attached Resolution modifying the Conditions of Approval and granting a Time Extension would be appropriate. Resphtfui ly s WftT J;ed, DC:cv Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Original Resolution of Approval 81 -71 New Resolution of Approval t Lanfla of God Evangelical Lutheran Churel 9513 -) Business Censer Drive . Cw amonga Business P -;lc Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 ?30 6 714- 980 - 1074' March 12, 1985 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Dear Sirs: In July of 1982 Lamb of God Evangelical Lutheran Church took over the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 81 -10) that had been granted to 'he facilities at j513 -J Business Center Drive in the Cucamonga Business Center. In' March of 1983 we applied and on April 27, 1983 we receive,, d two year extension on that permit. The permit now runs until June 10, 1985. We are again applying for another two year extension on the CUP 81 -10 for the facilities at 9513 -J Business Center Drive. The reasons for this request are: 1) lie now have property on which we hope to build u:: c-ur permanent facilities. The property which is at 9212 Baseline Road was - purchased by the church in October of 1983. 2) The policy of the Mission Board under which we operate is that a building is not immPdiatvly constructed, hn" the congregation is given time to regr..= —I grow after the initial purchase os' the property, 3) We are now at the stage where we are discus;,ing with our Miasiori Board the next phase which is planning the overal Master Plan for' the property and then the construction of the initial unit. A letter is included from the District Mission Board explaining this. 4) Once this approval is given by the Mission Board we will be engaging an architect, having plans drawn;:up and submitting them to your office for approval. Thus we do request from you at this time an extension on tide present CUP. If you nee! any more information or have any questions please feel free to contact the pastor of Lamb of God, Pastor Glenn E. Wenzel at 980 -4794. Thank YOU, James R. Harris, Chairman, Lamb of God 40astor E. Wenzel 9212= Haseline.%Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 i 714- 980 -4794 (Home) L� - �B�1�tes 2 ' 1 t 4 ARi7_ONA•CALiFORNIA DISTRICT WISCONSIN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD " CALIFORNIA MISSION DISTRICT California • Nevada • Hawaii PAWOR l-I,aRERY Hf,CHMUr,1 March 4, 1985 Chalmran 7833 Center Parkway Servamento, CA 95823 (916)392.2478 Planning. Department PASTOR JOELO. GERLACH City of Rancho Cucamonga CA Mlwton Cpunaaior• CMOMa 1851 Hampshire Road Tustin. CA SZSS0 (714) 544.7455 PASTO4 DONALD P: AFE.IT Seerntary 3744 Centinals Avern, Y Los Anpelr_a:_? 90066 W3"3913-3838 MR. TONI SCHUrMNHART Lay Representative • GSH7! 11749 Vemon Avenue Chim CA 91710 (114) 62G•17P.4 MR. EUGENE HAMMERSON Lay Ropregntative 8309 Channel Drive San Josa. CA 95123 (4085 2273289 PASTOR 91. C. N11'Z OI,U:zt Prealdent 13471 Newhope Street Gordon Grovt;. CA 92643 (71e)534-5617 Re: Larib of God Lutheran Congregation This is to affirm that Lamb of God Congregation, Rancho Cucamonga, is sponsored and subsidized as a home mission coniregation of the Wiscersin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. As such it is eligible for funding for building project up to 4500 square feet from the Church Extension Fund of our Synod. The present-house and site on Base Line Road were acquired under Policies of our Board for Home Missions which administers the Church Extension Fund We anticipate that the congregation will be applying for ap^roval of the next phase of its facility program (ordinarily a multi- purpose building) in the next few months. We are wi'rling to provide blueprints of other projects in Califor- nia funded under the guidelines of our home misisorprogram. The most recent are in Yorba Linda, Penryn. Petaluma, and Modesto. In progress are Canyon Country and Victorville. Completed facilities under these guidelines are in Carlsbad, Santa Barbara, San Jose, Sacramento, Concord to name a few Gf the total of over 40. The Sacramento site is similar to the site or' Lamb of God congre.. gation in Rancho Cucamonga. A copy of the plot plan for facilities tinder our program is available for your inspection. You will note that it calls for stages of construction. We will be eager to provide additional information that may be of value. WP understand that this statement is to be used for the purpose of demonstrating the congregation's "backing" in tfr_ interest of secure g an extension of its present use permit. wooe� trul y, �'t �Hochmuth cc.DMB GBHM Cling. • KI I• 100MULL TIRE PR+LI.TECTION DISTRICT P. O. Bog 35 6623 Amethyst Street Rancho, Cucamonga, CA. 91701 (714) 987 2535 May 14, 1985 Dan. Coleman, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA '91730 RE: CUP APPROT'AL FOR CHURCHES Dear Dan: I have me- with the pastor and walked through the. Highland Community Church's temporary facility last week. We reached an agreement which will allow them 120 days to install panic hardware on their rear door. we recommena approving this CUP. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from Lamb of God Church. -We have been trying to get panic hardware on the two exits in this church since'1982. They have stated in their letter of October 2, 1984, they would have Funds budgeted to do this in 1985. 1 checked the doors last week and there is still no panic hardware on them. In addition, we have bfen holding their application for permit to conduct a place of public assemb ?y since September, 1984. The permit is required by the Uniform Fire Code and we can't issue it because the exits are not up to code. We recommend approving the CUP only if they install the panic hardware within 120 Says or immediately limit their occupant load to 49 people. nave called the Victory Chapel to set an inspection appointment. There has been no answer, so we won't have a current report on their status this week. I can tell you their file still has the oc^upant load signs in it= They should have been postad in the church. Their permit is also in the file. When I was transferred out of the Bureau no other work was done on this occupancy. We will treat it Fs though it were I Dan Coleman May 14, 1985 page two new and start all over again with the code requirements as soon as we can get an appointment.. Give me _a call if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, �L!liQa1 Susan D. Wolfe Fire Prevention Inspector enclosu;: e x i Lamb of God -Evangelical Lutheran C i rch 9513 -) Business Center Drive . Cucamonga Business Park AML Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 . 714- 980 -1074 RECEIVED October 2, 1984 OU 1984 FogN!! fa@ Susan D. Wolfe Fire Prevention Inspector Foothill Fire Protection District P.O. Box 35 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 .Dear Ms. Wolfe; The Council for Lamb of God Evangelical Lutharan Church met on September 29, 1984. One of the items on the agenda was discussion on a timetable for correction of item 8 from you report (panic hardware for two doors). The consensus of the board was that there would iot be any extra Unda available in this year's budget. We have already gone over the amounts budgeted for 1984 and are right now in a financial deficit. Because fo the large figure for the cost of the panic hardware this 'wc la have to be an item i placed into the annual budget. ` At the September 29th meeting a committee was set up to•begin work on the budget for 7585 The cost of the panic hardware will be placed into this budget for 1985. If there are any other questions or needed information, please feel free to contact us. Re ectfully yours, James a 1 l Chairman= Lamb of God for _Glenn E Wenzel 9212.Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917 01 71.4,980 -4794 (Norte) m C--h-E S >e 1 II NORTH CITY OI, ITr1i: I x�. \C -iO CI,'Ct1NIO\GA TITLL: I'LANNI\G DIVISION EXHIBIT =_, --- 74 Tl' F", I L:— f r f A . rt, LBuslness Gent nNf 9565 9607 Tw- IV' -IAAY -MlA WACI�TIO,q— OF THE UNIT USED BY LAIAD of ��;�WJH�MM Q LOCATION OF PAPY=3 SPACES-YV&IABLE FOR EVENING AND SUNMY MORNING USE NURTH CITY OF ITEX 1: RANCHO CUG1WNGA TITLE: Ex PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT= - ,S SCALE: r RESO[UTTON NO. 81 -71 0 A tRESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -10 FOR VICTORY CHAPEL LOCATED AT 9513 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SU:TE J, IN THE M -1 ZONE. was filed WHEREAS, on the 26th day of May, 1981, a complete application by Victor D. Eason for and review of the above - described project; Planning WHEkEAS, on the 10th day of June, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Commission held a pubTic hearing to consider the above- described project. resolved NOW, THEREFORE, the Rat, ho Cucamonga Planning Commission as follows: SEr,TION 1: chat the following findings can -be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2, That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the ptblic health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit Na. 81 -10 is approved subject to the following conditions: _1. This use shall be permitted at this location for two C2) years from the date of this approval. 'An extension by ` the Planning Commission could be granted if extenuating circumstances are present. 2. The offices may be used for group meetings only after 6:00 p.m. on week nights and during the weekend as long as adequate parking is available. 3. No group meetings will be permitted which would exceed the available parking or cause adverse affects upon abutting businesses or properties. If such problems arise, then this item will be brought before the Commission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. 4r /Q ✓ �( V X. 7 El rage c 4. All City Codes and Ordinances shall be compl'le-) with at all time:;. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CU17AMONGA Richard Dahl, Cha an ATTEST: aecrezary or the ~tanning commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commissioniof the City of Rancho Cucamonga, ;!o hereby certify that the foregoing R'iolution 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 10th day of J'une, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel', Sceranka, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None KI 'fj RESOLUTJON N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF THE - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PLRMIT NO. 81 -10 FOR LF.MB OF GOD LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOCATED AT 9513- J,K_.4USI NESS CENTER DRIVE, IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,. OBARE� 3). WHEREAS, a request has been fiied for 'a time extension for the i:bove- described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described CUP 81 -10; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to ,review the operation of CUP 81 -10, pursuant to Section 17.04.030 G, and WHEREAS, the building does not comply with State Fire Marshall Regulations; and WHEREAS, the church does not ha,e required permits from the Foothill Fire District to conduct a place of public assembly of fifty or more persons; and WHEREAS, the church operation is not being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and that modifications to conditions are necessary. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: I. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, toget`ler with the conditiors applicable thereto, Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurio -s to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. That this Negative create impacts on the enr v m nt and thata D clation was ssued on June 10, 1981. { -tom 0 CUP 81•-10 - Lamb of God Lutheran Page 2 S CTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 51 -10 is #- pproved subject to the folTowina- modified - conditions: I. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become void and expire if tf,a church operation ceases. 2. This approval shall become null and void if a permit to conduct a place of public assembly is not issued by the Foothill Fire District within 120 days. T(t obtain said permit, plans shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire Protect%,, District and inspections conducted to determine compliance with State Fire Marshal's Regulations, 3. Public assembly or other large group meetings of 50 or more persons shall not occur until such time as Condition u2 has been satisfied. 4. The offices may used for public %sembly or other large group meetings only on weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on weeknights. 5. No group meetings will be permitted which would exceed the available parking or cause adverse affects upon abutting businesses or properties. If such problems arise, then this item will be brought before the Commission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. Aftt S. Preschools or schools are not permitted by this permit, however, this shall not nreclude nurseries or Sunday School. .. Failure to comply with Conditions of Approval or applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension of the Conditional Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. S. App-oval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinance3. B. This Resolution shall supersede Resolution D1 -71. APPROVED ANO.ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 1Pils. PLANNING COMK1 SIGN Or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F BY: Dennis L, Stout, Uairman - ATTEST: - Rick Gomez puty Secretary WL O KI A CUP 81 -10 - Lamb of God Lutheran Page 3 I, Rick Gomez, n puty Secretary of the Plamaing Commission of tine 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 Ranrtio Cucamonga, s'j2 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 191 {5, by the following vote -to -wit: t,YES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSLN: COMMISSIONERS: a CITY OF RANCHO CUCj AJONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1985 of z > TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -07 CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions of approval for an existing church located in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park at 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 104. I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved this CUP on May 26, 983- 2 which will expire on May 25, 1985. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Commission to revie:•t and consider (1) modifications to the Conditir:ns of ADDroval relating to the expiration of the CUP, and (- review the church operation to ensure consistency with the Conditions of Approval. 11. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditi Use Permit to determine if it is being operated in a manner consistent with the Conditions o? Approval and a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. Thy Conditions of Approval require that the premise be used for group meetings only during the week -end and after 61W p.m, on week- nights, and that the use not create parking problems or adversely affect adjacent businesses or properties. Further the church complies with building code and fire regulations. A complaint was filed on parking and noise problems relating to the church's exercise class on weekday mornings. Half of the parking spaces for Building I are lt+.cated behind the units and are not being utilized by exercise patrons who prefer to park in front. Further, day care services art offered by the church during class hours and children have been observed playing on the sidewalks and in the parking lot. As these were not part of the approved CUP, the Commission shoulc consider appropriate conditions to mitigate parking and noise concerns. III. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the Planning Commission per Section 17.04.030(G) of the Development Code. ITEM C 1977 k PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPO!:T CUP 82 -07 Church of the Foothills May 22, 1985 Page 2 A. Grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or B. Conditionally grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is, not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to Conditions a.•e necessary; or C. Deny the time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted in--an appropriate and that modifications are not ava;iabla to mitigate the impacts, and therefore, revoke the CUP whici will require tfte operation to cease and e,,sist in the time allatted by the Planning Commission. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in The Jaily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners and businesses within 300 feet of the site. In addition, public hearing notices were posted on the property. V. RECOMMENDATT'1: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a" pudic hearing to (1) revievi the request for a time extension, and (2) review the hunch operation for compliance with the Conditions of Approval, aild select from one of the options described above. Ir after such consideration, the Commission should find that the CUP is being cvdurted in an appropriate manner, adoption of the attached resolution modifying the Conditions of Approval and granting of time extension would be appropriate. submitted, �G :DC:ns Attachments, Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Original Resolution of Approval - 82 -50 New Resolution of Approval D �sftlle aw�o, _ ... o-,0Wb ►t17x11,S rt�'h N v lts r;= 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 104 io '�1 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Church Ufice 714/987 -1967 April s:' 1985 City of Ranchc Cucamonga Community Development Degrtmeat Planning r.-vision P. O. Box 807 Ranrno Cucammonga, California 91730 Attention: Dan Coleman, senior Planter Gentlemen: I"xr,eived your letter dates 4 -10 -85 regarding cup expi.ratirn.. I wanted to attend the meeting; however, we are having a service on April 24. in order to assist the cumw, ssion's evaluation, I have li>ted below our current status as Charc of the Foothills: 1. We presently meet at 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 104. We have been leasing this facility for the past 3 yearn. our lease expires June 30, 198% a -ad the Banc who lawns this =mplex will not renew the lease, but intends to se I.. We sub..itted an offer that was accepted with escrr*: due to close on June 30, le-85. 2. Our congregation is approximately 180 people which includes 120 adalts. Our general meeting schedule is on Sundays any Cher times during the week after normal business hours. We have had no negative response from. anyone in the complex concerning our usage. 3. The.fir racial capability of the church meets the present ex- penses with *inimal reserve. 4. Our projected gra-tth indicates that we would not be able to move from this facility for I period of 5 -7 years, Tae intend to purchase some land in the Rancho Cucamonga area to build a permanent ant separate complex. We have institw-- a bum? = =ng Fund for thaE purpose. I would request an behalf of Church of ti -e Foothills a time exi:ension coordinate with our projected growth. ncerely ouYS : 3vad R. Cunuin4i,66 Senior Pastor, President C-3 i� : c NORTH ry oF ITEM: 67 CHO CUCAMCI,�G, RAN PL MNNIW- DIVNION EXHIBM-�A SCALD • 12 u U ' a t t r CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ARROW BIMWA ff4,pasc-o c1urcK NORTH CITY OF ITM> it� RAAO�C HO �TG �tOj GA TITr.E. _ vr'�� A PLANNINC DIVISION Ext-Iimr. - scALF, °°°" r U RESOLUTION NO. 82 -50 A R €SOLUTION OF THE 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNINi COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 82 -07 FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED OFFICES LOCATED AT 10722 ARROW ROUTE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE was filed WHEREAS, on the 7th day of'May, 1982, a compiete i.pplicdtion by Church of the Foothills for project; review of the above- described and Planning WHEREAS, on the 26th day of May, 1982, the Rar,,:ho Cp!cambnga Comm•ssion :geld a public hearing to project. consider the above- described resolved NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be n,et: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is ;proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not ba detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or maG:rially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. approved SECTION 2: That Cunditioeal Use Permit No. 82 -07 is subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. This use shall be permitted at this location for three (3) fram years the date of approval. '. The offices may be used for group meetings only on weekends and afl r 6'00 p.m. on week nights. 3. No group meetings will. be permitted which would exceea the available parking or cause adverse effects upon abutting-businesses. Should any problems arise, this CUP will be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. r U e Paqe 2 4. Public assembly or other large grasp meetings may not occur until such time as all Uniform Building Code and Title 19 of the State Fire Marshall's Regulations have been complied with. 5.. Preschools or schools. -are not permitted by this permit; however, this shall not preclude nurseries or Sunday School. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF kY, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 kM ng I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning ommission'of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutinn 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 26th day of May, 1982, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, King, Tolstoy NOES: COKIiSSIONERS: None "ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Fgeranka 'r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -07 FOR CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS, LOCATED AT 10722 ARROW ROUTE, SUITE 104, IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7). WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.10C; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above described CUP A2 -37 and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the operation of CUP 82 -07, pursuant to Section 17.04.030(G), and WHEREAS, the building complies with Uniform Building Code and Stute Fire Marshall Regulations, and WHEREAS, the church operation is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval; follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Plenring•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 Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes 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 impc,ovements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan, SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration was issued on May 26, 1982. K1 Resolution No CUP 82 -07 - Church of the foothills May 22, 1935 Page 2 SEITIOt; 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -07 is approved subjec6 to the following modified conditions4 1. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become void acid expire if the church operation ceases. 2. The operation of the church shall comply at all times with the Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's regulations, 3. The offices may be used for public assembly or other large group meetings only on weekends and after 6 :00 p.m. on weeknights. 4. No group meetings will be permitted which would exceed the available parking or cause adverse effects upon abutting businesses or properties. If such problems arise, then this item will be brought before the Commission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. S. Preschools or sc5ools are not permitted by this permit; however, this shall not preclude nurseries or Sunday School. 6. failure to comply with Conditions of Approval or applicable I City Ordinances shall cause the suspension of the Conditional Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use hermit by the Planning Commissice,. 7. Approval of th ! 'request shall not waive ccirplianc9 with all seittions of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinances. E. This Resolution shall supersede Resolution 82 -50. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF MAY, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION OF Thy CITY GF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary li Resolution No. + CUP 82 -07 Church of the Foothills Malt 22, 1985 Page 3 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 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIGN,ERS. NOES:nMMrSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Aft WA p. r 610 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 22, 1985 Chairman and Members of the clanning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Dan Coleman, Senior Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -06 - 'VICTORY CHAPEL - Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions of approval for an existing church located at 1187 Foothill Boulevard. I. BACKCAOUND: The Planning Commission approved CUP 82 -06 on June 9, 983 2 which expires on June 9, 1985. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Commission to review and consider (1) modification to the Conditions of Approval relating to the expiration of this CUP, and (2) review the church operation to ensure consistency with the Conditions of App-,!!,,A. II. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditional Use Permit to determine if it is being operated in a manner consistent with the Conditions of Approval and a. manner which is not detrimental to the public hrilth, safety and welfare, . or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Conditions of Approval do not limit the church hours because it is a free - standing building. The Conditions required certain, exterior improvements and compliance with State fire marshall regulations and Uniform Building Code requirements prior to public assembly or other large group meetings. The exterior improvements have been com� Ietad. The Foothill Fire District has not issued a permit to conduct a place of public assembly and the unit does not fully comply with State fire regulations. No complaints have been filed regarding the church operation. III. OPTIONS: The following options ;nay be considered by the Planning Commission per Section 17.04.030(G) of the Development Cede A. Grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is being conducted in a,i appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or B. Conditionally grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted In an appropriate manner and that modifications to Conditions are necessary; or n IT,:M D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT' CUP 82 -06 - VICTORY CHAPEL May 22, 1985 Page 2 C. Deny the time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts, and therefore, revoke ; „he CUP which would: require the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Planning Commission. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: ' This iten was advertised as a public hearing in The Da rt newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. In addition, public hearing 'notices were posted on the property. V� RECOMMENDATION: I< is recommended that the Planning Commission -a evnduct public hearing to (1) review the request for a time extension, and (2) review the church operation for compliance with the Conditions of Approval, and select from one of tine options described above. If after such consideration the Commission should find that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner, adoption of the attached res,,lution modifying the Conditions of pproval and grait;ng a time extension would be appropriate. Resp tf submitted, ,:ck ez ity Tanner RG:DC•ns Attachments: Letter from Applicant I Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8"�- Site Plan Original Resolutian of Approval - 82 -58 New Resolution of Approval 'I w :�l -y- ►c�ttocrc— �+�c�ek —# �ac��x�- -� ��.�►c_° i == sc�cr�_�.t�:xtic�c �J1,ic�cu�c� 7��afriel • !! 4:ir7- . ern! /it% ... ?frr /. — r . ,� CF r rr J r .�iurr�r+ `ruraiuruu�r. rfa. ,� , 'lay 3, 1935 "'I'Ay 'U 17iJ y C'ty ^f Rancho Cucamonga Plannir,v Commission `•:320 Baseline Rd Suite C FO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: Request for permanent occupancy in lieu of Conditional Use ?ermit 82 -06 Dear Sirs: The congregation of Victory Chapel now occupying the existing building and premises at 11837 foothill Blvd, Rancho Cucamonga, 4% respectfully requesting approval of our continued use of this facility on a permanent basis in lieu of the Conditional Use Permit 82 -06. We have been an ongoing part of Rancho Cucamonga since 1930 and have occupied the premises at 11837 Foothill Blvd since 1982. We believe that we have been a valuable asset to this community and the surrounding areas. We have seen many marriages restored, deliverances from drugs and alcohol, lives changed and people healed in our church services. We have made many improvements on the building and grounds, have abided in, accordance to the guidelines set by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and intend to continue in like manner. We believe that a church in this lo- cation fits well within the spectrum of all the prorpsed and developing occupancie3 in this area of the city. We have gained approval from Masi Enterprises (owner) to remain on the premises uitil such time as owner develops said property. Thank you for ­dur consideration in this Tatter. Sincerely, Victory Chapel Alex Wilson E stor v , FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. D. Box 35 5623 Amethyst Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701 (714) 987 -2535 May 14, 1985 Dan Colersn, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: CUP APPROVAL FOR CHURCHES Dear ')an: I have met with the pastor, and walked through the Highland. Community Church's temporary facility last week. W,y reached an agreement which *.411 allow them 120 days to install panic hardware on their rear door.. We recommend approving this cup. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from Lamb of God Church. We have been trying to get panic hardware on the two exits in this church since'1982. They have stated in their letter of October 2, 1984, they Mould have funds budgeted to do this in 1985. I checked the doors last Week .and ther-� is still no panic hardware o?: them. In addition, we have been holding their application for oexmit to conduct a place of public assembly since September, 1934. The permit is required by the Uniform Fire Code and we cars!t issue it because the exits are not up to code. v)e recommend approving the CUP only if they install the panic hardware within 120 days or immediately limit their occupant load to 49 people. I have mailed the Victory Chapel to set an inspection appointment. There has been no answer, so we won't have a current report on their status this *,reek. I can tell you their file still has the occupant load signs in it. They should have been posted in the church. Their permit is also in the file. When I was transferred out of the Bureau no other work was done on tzis occupancy. Me will treat it as though it were ' CJ Dan Coleman May 14, 1485 page two 1 4 i new and start all over again with the code roquireraents J 1+ as soon as we can get an appointment, Y Give me a call if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, -Susan D. Wolfe • Fire Prevention Inspector enclosure P I i =j j c 0 3 cl� or, RANCHO, CLTCYv'V[©NGA PbA:Nt` h G PI k Lglc),N 10-6 iTrr�is � f3� � TITLE= _ViuNrr�r- Ntr�p - EXHIBIT- -X_._ SCALE- L FORTH 0701'02 0 5 -22 -85 P,C. Agenda Packet o Pane 2 of .6 e U c r- N N L a i 3 t-- NURTH CITY o�' U. %i: :u. RANCHO CUCAMiNGA TITLE-. PLANNING DINTSION EX HIBIT. 1'15 SCALE- t c r' RESOLUTION N0. 82 -58 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCP140NGA PLANNING COKMISSION APPROVING CONDITiOUL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -C6 FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED OFFICES LOCATED AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK CATEGORY - APN 229- 011 -21 WHEREAS, on the 5th day of May, 1982, a complete application was filed by Victor Eason for review of the above - described project and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of June, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described project. NOW THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved }� ,as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: i I. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and Afflk r 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or c'elfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the ' vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions cf the Zoning (Irdinaue. SECTION 2: That Conditionai Use Permit No. 82 -08 is approved subject to the following conditions; PLANNING DIVISION I. This use shall be permitted at this location for a maximum of three (3) years from the date of approval, 2. No group meetings will be permitted which would exceed the available parking or cause adverse effects upon abutting businesses. Should any problems arise, this CUP will be brought back to the Commission for r,consideration. 3. Remove existing deteriorated i,,ee- standitlq sign r at parking lot entrance and sign above front �. porch. Any new signs proposed for the Church requires a sign permit submitted to and approved by the Planning Division. a 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: Stout, Tolstoy, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: King Resolution No. 87 -58 Page 2 l (' 4. Public assembly or other large group meetings may not occur until such time at Title 19 and 24 of the State Fire Marshal's Regulations have been complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Division and the Foothill. Fire Protection District to show compliance with both said Titles. 5. The three (3) stalls shown on the site plan in the driveway alrng the east side of the building shall be eiimina+:ed. A11 remaining parking spaces shown shall be dauble'striped per city standards prior to occupancy. 6. The exter'.or of the building and trellis work above the front porch shall . be painted. 7, Preschools or schools are not permitted by this permit; however, this shall not preclude nurseries or Sunday School as a normal function of the church. APPROUD AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGE i 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: Stout, Tolstoy, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: King a r on x .a N.- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION 'OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -06 FOR VICTORY CHAPEL CHURCH, LOCATED AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7). WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally ap,roved th3 above- described CUP 82 -06; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd asay of May, 1985, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the operation of CUP 82 -06, pursuant to Section 17.04.030(G), and WHEREAS, the building does not ce-41y with State Fire Marshall Regulations; and WHEREAS, the church does not have rer,!ired permits from the Foothill Fire District to conduct a place of public assembly of fifty or more persons; nd WHEREAS, the church operation is not being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and that modifications to conditions are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: 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 Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes 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 of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Flan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment a— d that a Negative Declaration was issued on June 9 1982. Resolution No. CUP 82 -06 - Victory Chapel May 22, 1985 Page 2 SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No_ 82 -06 Is approved subject to the following modified conditions: 1. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become void and expire if the church op( ration ceases. 2. Thir approval shall become null and void if a permit to conduct a place of public assembly is not ''issued by the Foothill Fire District within 120 days. To obtain said permit, plans shall he submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection District and inspections conducted to determine compliance with State Fire Marshall's Regulations. 3. Public assemble or other large group meetings of 50 or more persons shall not occur until such time as Condition 1#2 has been satisfied. 4. The offices may be used for public assembly or other larga group meetings only on weekends and after 6 :00 p.m. on weeknights. 5. No group meetings will be permitted which would exceed the - A�` available parking or cause adverse effects.upon abutting businesses or properties. If such problems arise, then this item will be brought before the. Commission for thr- r consideration and possible tp,% ination of such use. 6. Preschools- or schcsis are no'r, permitted by _this permit; however, this. shall not preclude nurseries or 'Sunday School 7.. Failure to comply with Conditions of Approval or applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension of the Conditional Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and' all other applicable City Ordinances. 9. This Resolution shall supercede Resolution 82 -58. Resolution No. CUP 82 -06 - Victory Chapel May 22, 1985 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA 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 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Ccmr�iission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote- -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: S I av DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITI' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 22, 1985 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Dan Coleman, Senior Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -24 - McINTYRE - Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions of approval for the temporary Empire Bank located at 8505 Haven Avenue. I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved the temporary Empire Bank on February 9, 1983 which expires on May 12, 1985. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Commission to review and consider (1) (codifications to the Conditions of.Approval relating to the expiration of the CUP, and (2) review the bank operation to ensure consistency with the Conditions of Approval. 1I. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditional Use Permit to determine if it is being operated in a manner consistent with the Conditions of Approval and a manner which is not detrimental to.the publi,: health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was greatly conce, ^ned with the duration and appearance of this temporary structure and required upgrading the modular facilities with architectural treatment, landscaping, and required installation of street improvements which have all been completed. Further, the Planning Commission required permanent plans by May 12, 1984, which have not been submitted. The applicant has hired an architect to begin plans for submittal later this year for construction by next Spring (see "ttached letter). III. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the Planning Commission per Section 17.04.030(G) of the DeveTopment Code. A. Grant a time extension by finding that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or B. Conditionally 2rent a time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to Conditions are necessary; or C. Deny the time extension by finding that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts, and therefore, revoke the CUP which will require the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Planning Commission. Y ITEM E , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 82 -24 - McIntyre May 22, 1985 Page 2 The Development Code .specifies. a Zito-year approval period with a possibility of two twelve - month extensions. The maximum timf period of approval including extensions is four years from tha orioinaI -an provaT date pursuant to Section 17 02 00 which' February 9. 1987, Extensions may be granted with the finding that there has been no significant changes in the Land Use Element, Industrial Specific Plan, or character of the area that would cause the project to be inconsistent or non - conforming. The site is now located in the Haven Avenue Overlay District and is a permitted use. A conceptual Master Plan would be required by the Overlay District to address relationships to other parcels within the Master Plan area, (see Exhibit "Cl As a temporary facility, the bank does not provide oper space and pedestrian facilities required along Haven Avenue. Further, two - story buildings are encouraged versus the one -story bank design. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public haarin in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners and businesses within 300 feet of the site. In addition, public hearing notices were posted on the property. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to (1) review the request for a time extension, and (2) review the bank operation for compliance with the Conditions of Approval, and select from one of the options described above. If after such consideration, the Commission should find that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner, adoption of the attached Resolution modifying the Conditions of Approval and granting of time extension would he appropriate. Re s mitted, City► Planner RG:DC:ns Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Haven Avenue Overlay District Original Resolution of Approval - 83 -20 New Resolution of Approval e f EMPIRE BANK, H.A. May 2, 1985 Dan Coleman, Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of "ancho Cucamonga Rancho acamonga City Hall 9320 °ase Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 t .. t... �'rV r✓FM t�.. J {l A 7iF3s,� a .3 Subject: Conditional Use Permir 82 -24 - Empire Bank, N.A. Dear Mr. Coleman: Is On behalf of McIntyre Partners (landlord) and Empire Bank, N. A. (tenant), I would respectfully request that you give us an extension on the above Conditional Use Permit. Since the original approval in 1983, many events have impacted our building project at Haven Avenue and Arrow Route, and subsequently held us back. Initially, our growth in Rancho Cucamonga was slower than anticipated and we were forced to open a branch office in Covina to maintain proper momentum. Fortunately, in late 1984 our Rancho Cucamonga operation took hold and is now progressing ahead of schedule. However, the original building concept approved by our regulator, the Federal Comptroller of the Currency, is no Longer valid due to your very wise decisions to upgrade the Haven Corridor. We have now completed our initial contacts and are currently working with Mark Horie, Architect of Berry Construction, on the initial plans and renderings. It is our hope that you will be able to approve these plans by the end of this year and that we can start construction by next spring. We apologize that our project has not proceeded more quickly but rancho Cucamonga's very rapid growth during the past few months, plus xz jections for the future, have required us to rethink our original plans. Empire Bank is very proud to be headquartered in Rancho Cucamonga (see attached Newsletter) and we are committed to being "THE" business bank in your City. E -3 8505 HAVEN AVENUE. P.O. BOX 1059, RANCHO CUC.AMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91780 (714) 980 -7801 M Dan Coleman City of Rancho Cucamonga May 2, 1985 . Page Two To enable us to accomplish what is now a much more ambitious project, ve respectfully request a two year extension. During that period we would be most happy to keep you informed of our progress on a regular basis as you would direct. Thank you For your consideration, Sincerely, Rich rd President Enc: Empire Bank Newsletter 1984 Annual Report-Empire Bancorp March 31, 1985 Quarterly Report i r C RESIDENTIAL I7­1 VERY LOW <2DUslAC 1=1 LOW 2 -4 DU's /AC LZ3 LOW- MEDIUM a- SDU'S /& MEDIUM 4.14 oUs/AC MEDIUM -HIGH 14-24 DU/AC EM HIGH 24.30 DU'srAC ® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL /OFFICE ® COMMERCIAL =1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL OKI NEIGHBORHOCD COMM. EM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OF.—!CE INDUSTRIAL ® INDUSTRIAL PARK Iffiffil GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. ISM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL/ RAIL SERVED 2M HEAVY INDUSTRIAL CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO CUC'Vvl0NGA TITLE: �,mrAt� PLANNING_ DIVISION XHIBIT = -ks�_ SCALE: NORTH CITY OF RANCHO cLTCANIONU FL.AI NINE DIVISIQN ITI Ei%I• TITLE nMd 9x!s srrm n�A w_ E, HIBIT- 5 _ SCALE- LA NORTH I! FIG. V -2 , .MASTER AREAS E ! I c CIRCULATION [lJ•[i 120' RAW. too' MON. 88' or lose R.O. RAIL SERVICE Existing •F� +� Proposed TRAILS /ROUTES 0000 Pedestrian e • e e Bicycle Regional Multi-Use .�...,. Spactal Streetec Landscaping ?0wor Line/ utility Easemew Creeks al Chaim ryy Bridge '7 Access Polyds 1Park Fink Station �J )4 Acres �oaoo• IWE F I .w. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -20 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIINAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -24 FOR EMPIRE NATIONAL BANK LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK CATEGORY �. (SUBAREA 6) WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of November, 1982, a complete application was filed by McIntyre Partners for review of the above- described project; and { WHEREAS, cn the '9th day of February, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described 1 project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolve as S3CTION 1: That the following findings can he met: i. That the proposed (.•,a is in accord with the General Plan, and the Durposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions s applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially ! injurious to properties or improvements in the vi:.inity; 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 dr,, the environment nd that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 9, 1983. F subject SECTION 3: That condi ions t and attached sta dard•conditions; approved PLANNING DIVISION i 1. The temporary baiik facility is approved for a two- year period from the issuance of building permits unless extended by the Planning Commission-. However, if building permits are not issued within eighteen months from Planning Commission approval this approval shall become null and void, unless extended by the Planning Commission. L I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Comn ssion of the City of rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that tht foregr ng Reof the was duly and F; regularly introduces!, 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 February, 1983, b, the follo,ving vote -to -wit: L AYES: COhiMISSTONERS: REMPEL, STOUT, BARKER, MCNIEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE WSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Resolution No. 83 -: Page 2 Aft 2. Development plans for t'e permanent bank shall be submitted to the 'Planning Division for Development Review within one year from iss,iance of building permits for the temporary facility. ENGINEERING DIVISION 3. The drive approach along Haven Avenue shall be a minimum of 35 -feet . and shall be shared with the property to the south. 4. Median Isiand installation shr11 be delayed until construction of permanent building,. A Lien Agreement for the future construction shall be required. 3. Street improvements along Arrow -'oute shall be delayed until construction of permanent building. A Lien Agreement for future construction shall be required. Aft APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING QOM- SION OF, H CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Comn ssion of the City of rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that tht foregr ng Reof the was duly and F; regularly introduces!, 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 February, 1983, b, the follo,ving vote -to -wit: L AYES: COhiMISSTONERS: REMPEL, STOUT, BARKER, MCNIEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE WSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE E. i RESOLUTION NO. { A 'RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA. PLANNING rOMMISSION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82' -24 FOR EMPIRE BANK, LOCATED k AT 8505 HAVEN AVENUE, IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6). WHEr(tAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.:100; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described CUP 82 -24.; ank.' WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, the manning Commission held a public hearing to review the operation of CUr 82 -24, pursuant to Section 17.04.030(G), and v "'PEAS, the bank operatioa is not being operated in a manner consiste with the conditions of approval eind that modifications to conditi„ ar.: necessary. 'i'HEREFORE, the Rancno Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as fol' 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 Industrial Specific ellan, and the purposes of the district in which the site 1-S 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 co,nplies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration was issued on February 9, 1983. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit N�-. 82 -24 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: Resolution No. CUP 82a; ..:.- e McIntyre May 22, 1J85 Page 2 PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The temporary bank facility is approved for an additional one year period, unless extended by the Planning Commission, which shall expire on May 12, 1986. 2. Development plans for the permanent bank shall be submitted to the Planning Division for Development Review within 90 days, including a conceptual Master Plan as required by the Haven Avenue Overlay District, - 3. Development of the permanent buildiiky shall be. completed and ready for occupancy prior to expiration of the Conditional Use Permit or the temporary bank shall be removed. ENGINEERING DIVIST.ON: 1. Median island fist&w i,,tion shall be delayed until construction of permanent building. A Lien Agreement_ for the future 60struction shall be required. 2. S%. °eat improvements along Arrow Route shall be delayed until construction of permanent building. A Lien Agreement Auk for future construction shall be required. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCF, €iQNGA BY: ` Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Plarn-'rg 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 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i lu D tom EOC o_.c coc T o d L •. 3 ddb Ems. abu 0 0- Gd A ut C O Gtp G.-+L. 4T u �• tmL w a q M a•J ;' N yd. UL +II- q EII u H !_.• �a Ep. CMS d Cq u Ou qL SON d T6 Nr ^9 NZ N i C y.0 U d T rE o'S �Y• y0 pV so LYgY A6 q EN.L G w a^ nE C q LN wUO Oto iN n�z ZZ . u,ry i u mM o. L G N and ^d c NO i p G d WIIa, �. L 90 o• Oro q Z.5 Y2 FN T- _> O H wO�bn •..U« ^y � NN =L "y yaNi u9 Ra L= V ^ sU. dot II } y q L TUgm q Lm O q. N �d J g C 0 0 ,•' q rnu m o N C .5., u N O A= 0 C Lu q� y � q -. a ,� II M q N ^ G T5tz Cq -� V o •� o 2 c,a za Z p o.T E IId i 6�6 L m R p TJ Cad • _ h-q E V .0 UO T � �I O _o 6q —N Cr O Y 1=• y t- N EO O.Va 6�°o6LK <N qa ¢N,Fm 6J� I`aN _ Iit NC1 V)qA ¢U JM9 cu n:i 01 o EOC ti mt T o d L •. 3 ddb Ems. abu 0 0- Gd A ut C O Gtp G.-+L. 4T u �• tmL w is qO. H !_.• �a Ep. CMS d Cq u Ou qL O LpN u L so LYgY 3Yy R. uq� au q LN wUO Oto iN n�z ZZ . u,ry i u mM o. L G N and ^d c AU� cp WIIa, �. L 90 o• a pa ZE V o •� o 2 ... O y .27= R RD T. � 5! O _o 6q —N Cr O Y 1=• y t- N EO Y � u Nr q s q = o. ^CII uao NQ so.a". o V O O 6 E d o 1- O 6 Y u •C p. N m d N LdY.'a aL° C`i A w A Y N ^_ a ac c n dal Fn�p+•UL du.Q6�UL A bO�. br b02G O.Y COn cG WO m L by O��J 1 AE~ • ��m E A N U E 1C .. M C '42, LL •q o Q C c> ^u a o i b .r P a ya n,•. to L b nL by bEy GNnc Tbe V cn = as u n n� T po .. . � _ n�oc > 6nG.N oCA �� Z ^ 9 p6� r C C - u' Z �uuSd nO SAC B E:�T 6 .,tl u.L F C yn t A L Ago Z ^n:!! -1y0 V Cti ut«A Laq� N C u A cr O pnLn V • qb:A N..V.c n p aO m9E ZW,ndN n 6 L C b O Op ^hvo0 u n .1b 00 p pC b� y. V�nN LO L V 6• �_ D•c T G Too L n b 'p GU L EYC �tqy pb EC U C 9 C >>p0 YcY HY Y b`m= T 0. O L -vL'D nip ^C VO Y Ll 6L L E Q y n � .- +• b S �. Q 4 9 H- L c E w D W . i a v o T b Y A o Nu Lnpq n S ota xcE E of v V G C = w c C O < ^6a u � i O � � 0 G6C U n Y T D m u b 4 G O .c. 01 fI b 51 u � CI r q a Y O H A ^ p b 6 Oc Ybr N C~ a cnu C ~Na pr n.0 -C V�EN iO4 007 n9c O•q d `u~ O cu LC OY Ey a 6 d9 ACS L�aTi v- qQ..' M Y E nuu A Ln • AV ^. O. V 06.L.E`V O.^N �A1`rq n. Q% a q c c n E Pour. n p b c A o p U a T O c n C L IL�M Oi C Eq'Cyw Y. > p c. a bA nor° t S y ° a O C N O. o D d O E `99 v '21n a V u q E A c CYO.` L. •. GOUpup O. uyja r E� E o 9 b+s cb L� ,pq > c6o� n ` oy mcu n.�n� LEEOU nO'L �c ...uc aE g000.L ?�¢ -..oVp n�r.EUytn>b T C 4 Day yL a O3 - cE cs.n n •'o_a,cE a rn &Z-1 T.q �. �y cb L O ^9 goq9 �.�•.b. a 2 "nu g .. :c nL a o. 3 L p u Ta > ¢N Vc g 6 n r_- b I Y . Z O b V 9 b b T A 6AV yc _ D n c C Q4.L+4U N 6V W.�..�A HN oc QEia. F•L O LGC 6.+n•3N N.Nt.Oi� S N cO. OYgL.L �tT N u ^9 G t >Ca SK N c 9.m V 4U Ndt CdNy Edl�+ y r Td. o _ .dc c y A d u n c ma 1e e N ON G o Nn y yy E Yy a° do qo • O�Q EO N ..0 Aw N UO' L °CE V L ^..0 -• L C T� A 9 V� a. N L � u _ � u �V 3 O N q d L ^• pnu G Ny Y C d pp�T N d C V >. d p N tvQio O. y E ^T ciu v C q N 6 n cciG h G °Ee �'� o An C OfV� El. H 10 a -i C UT y9 ou I d u. u n ^.N E'er a ei cF-i o Et 6y iu u E 6Vv zNe NO E cy_ dm yO_n T cd N .O1 E.L o r d _ ~ G E< di ZqT c �n T 20 n° b Rm E o 39 6 �r u as P ii aT L o 6L °i Ay ' ua dzt n9 do ud nom+ .io. � u� a > i v Op r Vd q O u a V^ �, °i'•�o Av - L d yd-G n e �. d F i� V u rnNO pw o�.+m 112 - ny oq •- E.wL E EN _ v� ^� Vs 1-•.n m 46m. ou ¢ o. ¢m -�lt� E.E3 c.:d.+ rN n 1=¢ n 4 N.-. yl NI �I NI iL• d9 /- v^ia la S v�iu Q.°- �y Ems. `; �nl ii a v �) a •. Iz M a cO. OYgL.L �tT D a aA u ^9 G t >Ca SK N c 9.m V 4U Ndt CdNy Edl�+ y r N � N Rrn �N L O M O 60 c Lha O ZZV N ON G Gj�+U+o o N•°-LU Nn y yy E Yy a° do qo y a m N p� d ^" n � N o L M G "p^ DI .� « O in � r V L ^..0 -• L C T� A 9 V� a. N L � u _ � u �V 3 O N q d L ^• pnu G Ny Y C d pp�T N d C V >. C U .0 � d N �. Z T 9 w ..• d v C q N y n O L �,.G _ ; OfV� ° -i C UT y9 ou E�� ..�•C••�N d u. n ^.N E cy_ n,9 n N v^E dQ x O.T +.w+^n di - ,K ^� U d c d �' S Rm E o .GNU ' .UY9 G n9 do ud nom+ .io. � u� Nw Op r Vd q O u a V^ �, °i'•�o Av - L d yd-G n e �. is o�.+m 112 - oq •- E.wL E EN _ v� ^� Vs •°c nc we" o. Gam' x. d'^ ud EL u u co � h N q 4 N.-. 4N 2 u d o u. iL• d9 /- v^ia la S v�iu Q.°- �y Ems. `4'0 LA Iz `Q'iew \¢ T N �i VI O d om. uu c °.oq .,g z Lo.+ •_ 0 m Y 3 9 as n T 2 it d no d t> aML a • Ee �u�pd� Lpu q V q N �= p •n � L � T q u M n L `•' u y N. o �y ge q� 2 A+. NO 9.G Lp dp p E gala -2 Z CNiY LLA� °'wp.% =. n�.a Ld �u�O1 BOO L ^. nN EA 9EEuY DO °N c n LaO .+ c Lo woe L u a E pe �>npa air C u p o C YUb . dV a L Eq . qW F. 6w av� a � t n u OC na nuE F$�o 'a° _uwa' uee L LE iV > 'i ; as xn N N1°E�vYEd L co m p� N.= ' OE 7 C N V9N 6AWC O ESL Y IL922 a d ? Y po 1 �I f yl G is J I 1 ' yy^tea tt�� .c- r: qc aY p Y Y ^yam .Sou �L TV�� C6E{LLC ub °may b no GK a a ; am a G WY C q L Ia.Z VsQ = =tl O A dY.Y. 3O NO V�Y r - C NGU 9aYC cNgli q.. gpaYiT C V u.2 Vd1�w c a. M d ^p y ^6 u E g a •• a e L A. �yd� ^• ' o q w.• O d °�d 9 L 3a yo � Y 'OLC y v p yd.ugo co �' p r E....r =E °� nca 0.q NOA tV <.0 2 Y a ad u qd a E dE nFr cu' = u tq F NaVa NG.00.ca JE - EO. mod._ C d'7.• L1C C q ,OLay. LuEO� mo 9 O Q• ON E a.dC L o _ ° r Cal N N C L V L CG � b pn uOia a uoN�' R v c VW QO � nNZ a.,a 'Rt du St 3c _ir4. V OIq • L 4 ddr« .' iW O LGa� ... -� y qV a LR ~� yQLU Y lid Gd3R� N L ^u i"QOCU O Jq nw mcs�L �d.0 A NS l+tY O paw W'�E� NY nO No a� LM �'l�*L'� N3 S `qd qTd Vq dRN3 Q G Li uo" V EV° p a LN�iidC. • Lu C1. i"Yi•ak U vo �^ E � C« Eo � aEt' «..°. O. dS a C•!��- , t TRnN iT „` �W E2t E� LL �q VV ^'^d 9� Nq U C -u C�2S R da p. VW arLi 6 YdiD dae d•p O n N 4 Nna W y 0 N O v 0 N Wage Q W P ^ e 1xu« U U Z G tQ h 1yi � N1 `e rz /I Ull p. � C v a v V N C O L p va r a jai +`rn i. A e, « ^ d u Eq.'rd.° v +• V C •p E N pr C R 'Y. 0. t� Ot R N L O C S A IL _. x d { '' d illl N C � cmc aF iE eii a c q^- ca yy O O C L V dad d. R O. C° uRt g E 4! d d 4W f« N d 3a i6 « L c 59% = } LN^ O , a 'dvtc • b o d C 1 EY.° Oa~i y�epi a•C n� N E4 d N C C L L N aEi a a�YNC` ni �^ � N q L ^^ C •^ n CO ad wF NA^E o• E N C qd T L do 2n d o E V iA .... CLi�$�1 T Y it L C E i S 2 - it V. C a c ` Otto u'O cL n. °Y Y' <V.+ aq Gcl WL D O•° ap Eof C6 Is t t I e U ` w-o n« E of �= c H N E i- eau qa u c q c�- ` — =a LQE na `v ( ay CXL � de r vwgi E `oY 49 d C .�-� L A a C l.• - a ^ V c V G q 9J vriv Y« Ei 4Ar� a 'A c O ^N �m01 6� A w u i61 oa c t—i. Ln 4 L 6J U,C b b q 6 N HI Is t t I e U ` Y ( ay CXL YE n A Uf • ^ O V« �n L Lr^A . '� V T N V OIC ^� U C L Oa A why C Y Aa Y q C WE S � ZZq > W °°Lo oy wl n uY A 43 a � � NI TI •�1 I' �I ^I �I p ���'� �. � Q Is t t I e J vail Vi' CA STAFF REPORT ��°GM��c z C e O a ' w C U�� DATE: May 22, 1985 i977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Plannar SUBJECT:: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 ­BOAR'S HEAD - The review sf com:iliance with conditions Sf approval for a restaurant . within a shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian Avenue APN 208- 811 -59. I. ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission directed Staff' to bring hack this CUP for their review. The purpose of this public hearing is to (1) review the CUP to ensu,:e consistency with the Conditions of Approval, and (2) consider modift,ation to the Conditions of Approval. II. BACKGROUND: On December 27, 1978, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a restaurant with bar and entertainment for a period of two years. Due to consistent complaints relating to noise, loud music, fights, and loitering, the Planning Commission had reviewed this CUP several times to modify and add conditions of approval to mitigate these nuisance problems. Some of the mitigation measures added were: limit hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. at night, structural changes to soften noise and installation of speed bumps within the shopping center (see attached Resolution 82 -98). On September 28, 1983, the Planning Commission again reviewed this use permit due to complaints received and modified the conditions of approval through more restrictive hours of operation (11 :00 p.m. closing) required additional noise attenuating materials to reduce exterior and interior noise, requiring implementation of dinner menu and requiring annual review by the Planning Commission. On November 16, 1983 the City Council, on an appeal by the owner of the restaurant, changed the closing hours back from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. III. ANALYSIS: One of the conditions of approval is the requirement of annual review by the Planning Commission. To date Staff has not received any written complaints or comments frrom surrounding residents. However, the business was closed for at period of time last year due to a fire in the kitchen. The restaurant was ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78 -03 — Boar's Head May 22, 1985 Page 2 remodeled and reopened recently with a new owner a seating capacity of 120. The restaurant offers lunch and dinner plus entertainment. The Commission may consider the following options per Section 17.04.030(G) of the Development Code: A. Find that the CUP is being con&r.ted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or rev®ke is necessary; or B. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to Conditions are necessary; or C. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate Tanner and that modifications are noft available to mitigate the impacts, and therefore, revokes the permit which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Planning Commission. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The-Daily—Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all material and testimony presented and select from one of the options described above. Reese, su itted, ick itv RG:NF:ns Attachments: aesolution 83 -117 Plannning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes of October 27; 1982 Resolution 82 -98 Original Resolution 78 -40 Exhibit °A° - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan Ex RESOLUTION 83 -117 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 FOR THE BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOARS HEAD 'ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH STREET 'AND CARNELIAN WHEREAS, on the 24th day of August, 1983, the Planning Commission determined a need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and to conduct a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of September, 1983, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 in order to ntitigate the past disturbances associated with the use which are .rot in accord wch the intent and purposes of the neighborhood commercial shopping district. Therefore the following conditions are added to those conditions already in ;;Ffect per Resolutions 78 -40 and 82 -98. 1. The hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 44-p-.m: if -i&-73 2. Noise attenuating materials shall be installed to existing walls, doors, and ceilings, in order to reduce the interior noise levels. The applicant shall prepare a comprehensive sound analysis of the building, conducted by a licensed sound engineer in order to determine the appropriate sound 'insulation and/or sound attenuating devices. The analysis shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 3. one Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission. 4. A dinner menu and serving of dinner has become effective September 27, 1983 and slsall continue fr the life of this approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TKIS 28th DAY OF September, 1983. PLA NG OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dennis L. Stout, Chairman d ATTEST: 11t Cc O-Ld�L Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution 83 -117 Page 2 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Plannirg 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, *t a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th d?j of September, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Condition one (1) removed by City Council during appeal public hearing November 16, 1983. T EN L Air PUBLIC HEARINGS C. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION TO OPERATING CONDITIOTa FOR CONDIT ANAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOARS HEAD - This is a re•�iex of pofentiai operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are sntended to resolve complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of f Carnelia0 and 19th Street._ E Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report, Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Larry Arcinage, owner of the Boars Head, addressed the Commission advising that his establishment began serving dinner as of September zfi. 1983. He stated that he was not sure what this would do to help with the noise problem as it would bring more people to the restaurant. He further stated that this is the third time he has been before the Planning Commission and considered it a form of harassment. He advised that the shopping center owneri have spent in excess of $12,000 trying to comply with the City's requirements to alleviate neighbor complaints. He pointed out that some of the complaints registered with the sheriff's department state problems wit;t 17 and 18 year old kids in the parking lot. He advised. :that these are not patrons of the Boars. Read and could be l'ob's Big Hoy patrons, over which the Boars Head would have no control. He further stated what many noise problems associated with the shopping center parking lot are not entirely gri@;inated by Boars Head customers and that many of' the problems, such as racing around the parking lot, are caused by people driving in off of Carnelian. He additionally stated j that the complaint of bottles being thrown against fences and into back yards cannot be attributed to the Boars Head since they do not allow containers to leave the premises. He stated that maost of the complaints come frog one family, the Futrells I and suggested that possibly their religious beliefs play a large part its their complaints. Mr. Arcinage further stated that 60 to 70 percent of his business is generated between the hours of 11 p.m.. to 1::,0 a.m. and that it his hours are cut back, he could not economically Neep his establishment open. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the Conditional Use Permit was granted with the restaurant as the primary use and the bar an ancillary use. Judy Adams, 66:11 Topaz, addressed the Commission in support of the Boars Head, She advised tba_t she lives directly behind the Boars Hesd and has not been bothered by the noise problems since Mr. Aroit,age took possession.. She stated that if occasionally noise becomes a problem, she calls �!nd the employees are quicc to alleviate the disturbance. She pointed out tLat Hobts Big Boy remains open until 1 a.m. and agreed that not all of the noise can be attributed to the Boars Head. September 28, 1963 Douglas Wore addressed -the Commission in oppositior to the Boars Head stating that the problem originates in that the Conditional Use Permit was granted 3or a restaurant which has not materialized. He suggested that if the use was to be a restaurant, it should be a- restaurant; however, if it is going to be a bar, it should be in an area compatible with this type of use. VU Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating that while it may appear that he is the only one complaining, he is actually the spokesman for msnj of his neighbors. He stated, that the problem with the Boars Head is the hours it is open and that being open until 1:30 or 2 a.m. is too late for a residential area when people have to get up and go to work in the morning. He suggested 10 p.m. as a compatible closing time. He commended Mr. Arcinage's attitude in trying to work out problems with the neighborhood, but stated that the use is just not compatible. II Mr. Futrell submitted a letter from Bonnie Worrell, an adjacent neighborhor, to the Commission which voiced her opposition to the Boars Head based on neighborhood incompatibility. Gene Collins addressed the Commission stating that he has been working with the Boars Head on the sound problem. He advised that the back door is being replaced and a sound proof door is being installed and that he wanted the Commission to know that they are aware of and are -working on the noise problem. Laura Ford addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating that this is not a compatible use in a residential neighborhood. Gayle Dyke addressed the Commission in opposition stating that the hours of the Boars Head are ►ncompatiole with a residential area. June Rice addressed the Commission stating that a bar should not be allowed in this area, however, a restaurant would be compatible. A resident at 0671 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that he has had a back yard hill of beer bottles and has had people come to his door asking to use his telephone after being in a fight in the parking lot. He suggested that the Conditional Use Permit should be for a restaurant, not a bar with rowdy patrons. Larry Arcinage, Boars Head owner, addressed the Commission stating that limiting the hours of operation to 10 p,m. is not good business practice. He_ pointed out that Bob's Big Boy is open until 1 a.m. and that he should also be allowed to remain open until that time. He stated. -that his business contributes to the City's tax base and that forcing the Boars bead to close will leave a half empty shopping center, which could create even more problems for adjacent residents. Chairman Staut closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes —3— September 28, '1.983 Commissioner McNiel stated that when he knew this item was coming before the Affik Commission again, he visited the parking lot of the Boars Head around closing time. Ma stated that there was activity in the. parking lot between 1:20 a.m. and 1 :3,'" a.m. and that by 1:45 A.M. the parking lot was empty. He pointed out that Bob's was also closing at this tine. He also stated that he observed one car driving behind the Boars Read and when he investigated, found that the chain had been removed. He further stated that he realized that limiting the hours may be the guillotine for the establishment unless they change their method of operation, however, did not see any other way. He advised that he would no'-like to he a neighbor of the Boars Head. Commissioner :iarker stated that when this item came before the Commission several months ago it .was a use which bordered on incompatibility, however the Commission was satisfied that the owner of the property bad made satisfactory efforts to mitigate problems. He further stated that there are certain characteristics which are incompatible with residential areas and that this use does not -blend and is not working. He pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit was issued for a restaurant and they only began a dinner menu last evening. Hs recommended that the Commission require the Boars Head to be a functional restaurant with a dinner r-= and require a more compatible closing time. or to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and ;•equire the establishment to close and be removed from the area. Commissioner Rempel advised that he was the only Commissioner remaining of the original Commission which approved the CUP for this project. He stated that the approval of the permit was based on the Boars Head being a restaurant similar to the one in Upland. He further stated that he realized that Mr. Arcinage and tor. Gorgen have done everyirg they can think of to mitigate the problems and the noise disturbances can be mitigated inside the building, however the outside noise is much more difficult to control and realized that some of the parking lot nois, is attributable to Bob's Big ELK• _ Further, he was in favor of limiting the hours to those more compatible with a residential area. Commissioner Juarez stated that people are bothered by noise all over,- however, they do not all complain to the City. She further stated that this business establishment is Mr. Arcinage's livelihood and she realized that zething has to be done to mitigate disturbances, however felt'the hours and days of operation were fine. Chairman Stout stated that he agreed with Commissioner Barker in that this use is not compatible with a residential area and realized the Mr. Arcin-ge has e 'tried everything possible to mitigate the disturbances. HowevF._, his preference would be to limit the hours of operation to 11 p.m. He further stated that he realizes this will mean a loss of capital to Mr. Arcinage, however, cou -d nct see any other way to make this use compatible with nearby residences. Commissioner Barker asked if there was a way to insure that the dinner menu would continue to be in force. AMIN Planning Commission Minutes _ 4- Sep tember 28 ,.- 1983 p Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the condition u could be amenr?ed to read that the dinner menu and the serving of dinner was effectiv -on September 27, 1983 and would be required to continue for the life of the approval. Commissioner Barker stated he would like to be assured that the establishment will not stop serving dinner after this hearing has endQd and recommended that this language be added. Commissioner Barker referred to condition 2 of the modifying resolution and asked if the sound analysis would be reviewed by a third party. Mr. Gomez replied that staff would review the analysis and suggested that language could be added for assurance. Conmissioner Barker recommended that `this language be added. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt Resolution 83 -117 modifying Conditional Use Permit, 78 -03 by limiting the hours of operation to 11 p.m., requiring the installation of sound attenuating materials to existing interior walls and doors, the requirement of a sound analysis to be done by a licensed sound engineer which is to be reviewed and approved by staff, annual review by the Planning Commission, and language added to assure that the dinner menu and serving of dinner will continue for the life of the approval. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, HEMPEL, STOUT ;.IES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Juarcy stated her reason for voting no was that she did not feel it necessary to limit the hours or days of operation, as previously stated. 8:15 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -18 - HOWARD - The revision to a previously approved Conditional Una Permit for First Assembly of God Church for the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land ire the R -1- 20,000 zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenuas A'-3N 201- 381 -01. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stour opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 28, 1983 J. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOAR'S HEAD Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and rAcommended that the Commission take public input on P'-.is item; e Chairman King announced t ;tat the public was invited to comment. t Mel Futrell, 6623 'Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that the block wall required at the previous meeting had been worthwhile and the noise has been down approximately 90 percent. He attributed this decline in noisy partly to \ the block :call, however stated that it could also be declining as it does in the wirter months but increases in the summer. Mr. Futrell complimented Mr. Arcinage on his concern and efforts in working out these problems. He further stated that the parking lot corner has not been completely closed off and people were still parking back there. He also stated that he hoped this problem would serve as an indication to the Commission what kinds of problem;. are associated with placing a use such as this in a residential area. Michael Vairin stated he would like `to report what had been observed when the establishment was inspected prior to this evening's meeting. He stated that ` the block wall requirement had been accomplished as well ab the planters which were required and a chain on the north entrance which has also been put in place. Further, it was assumed that this chain is being put up during evening hours, which is the requirement of the -,Jndition. B Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating that the reason the chain has not been put up is because a second tree still has to be put in place and reflectors have been ordered to be placed on the chain but have not yet arrived. Further, that he would not like to have a.chain across that area without some type of reflectors because of liability.. Further, that he had not observed cars parking in that area. Vice- Chairman Rempfl advised that phosphorescent paint might be used in lieu of reflectors. Larry Arcinage addressed the Commission stating that he sent copies of letters distributed to his employees regarding the patrolling of the parkinb; lot to eliminate noise and also to keep Boar's Head patrons from parking in the rear parking area. Further, that he would have no control over patrons of other establishments in the center. Commissioner Stout stated that he was quite skeptical that Mr. Atinage would be successful and complimented him and the shopping center owner on working out these problems with the members of the community. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 26, 1983 j� Commissioner Barker expressed his appreciation for the good faith Mr. Arcinage demonstrated in going about:.as far as any businessman could be expected to go to solve problems. PLANNED COMMUNITY 8',-01-- LEVTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -, Review nd final consideration of the Terra Vista Planned Cnmm urity text final ind vironmental Impact Report. The project eonsis�s "0 "apprO ely 1300 ac s and is bounded by Base Line and Fcathill Boulevard on he north and sout and by Rochester and Haven on the jiast and west/to Michael Vai 'n, Senior Planner, reviewed the', staff reporhe Commission stating that taff, was seeking final - comment from thy' Commission on the proposed planne community 2x..1 a recommenda't'ion to th City ('ounce dealing the with final ce ification o the EIR and the plan d community text. Mr. Vairin Further stat that an addendum had been pre red to this report which stated that a red•,ict "on in the amount of parkla d and greenways had taken place since the or'gr,a plan, due to the applic is use of the Foran Bill. The applicant h en ad chose provide the minimu amount of parkland dedication of public open space. Fur er, the Commissio originally spoke in tf-^ms of a 60,•40 percent ratio split tween publi- nd private; however, under the provisions of the current plan the since >ssage of the Foran Bill) the ratio of overall open space iiequiremen° ha b n reduced to approximately 42 acres of public open space and 13 acres use ed for private, a ratio of 77 percent public and 23 percent private. Mr Vairin requested the Commis�.un make a specific recommendation Ln the Res 1 ion t•x the City Council regardng the parkland dedication issue. In re rd t the Foran Bill„ Mr. Vairin explained that the Bill states that "a pi ned dev opment shall be eligible to receive credit "; however, the amount 't credit is be determined by the legislative body at the t-:; specific dev opment propos s are being reviewed. Also, any other conditions the Comm' sign wished Chan d should be included in the " Resolution. Chairman King asked f the number of acreage whi h would be provided under the 77 percent to 23 ercent ratio split. Mr. Vairin replie that it was 42.6 acres of public op space and 13.2 acres reserved for pr' ate in the form of credit for a tota of 55.8 acres, the minimum amoun according to the Foran Bill. He also plained that this figure was rived from the calculation of the estimated number of 'people contained ' the planned community. Chairma King asked how many acres would be provided if the apple ant ch( -3e to provi the minimum amount under the Foran Bill. - Mr Vairir replied the minimum would be 55.8. Planning Commission Minutes -16- ' January 26 , 1983 [ PLANNING COM4IISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27, 1982 Chairman Jeff Icing called the %egular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King 1 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, 'Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Seeretaryl Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin, Senior Planner s ** *tea CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAPS 6863 AND 6726 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 ,BOARS HEAD - This is a review of potential modifications to the Conditions of Approval, which are intended to resolve the complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner v: Carnelian and 19th Street. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that the measures listed in the Staff Report were not intended to be all inclusive solutions to the problems; however, were intended to serve as a basis on which the Commission could act. Chairman King opened the public hearing. i a Frank Britton, Attorney representing the applicant, 399 W. Mission, Pomona, California, addressed the 'Commission stating that most of the conditions being placed on the establishment by the staff were meritorious, helpful and most of them highly appr ')ved by the ownership; however, the present ownership acquired the business on June 15, 1982 and coul, votbe responsible for problems which existed prior to that date.. Furth'Lr, ;hat the applicant was not aware that the original Conditional Use Permit indicated that the establishment would be a full dinne,,, house, however had purchased the business wit;? that intention in mind and are now in 'the process of training personnel and working up a suitable menu. In response to the Planning condition regarding periodic policing of the outside a area by security personnel, Mr. Britton stated that this was already in effect. .y guard had been placed by the front door who would be policing the outdoor area, seeing that all doors remain closed, verifying that no minors enter, and prohibiting any person coming into the establishment under the influence of alcohol. In response to conditicn number three regarding blocking the entire northwest corner of the parking lot, Mr. Britton stated that this had ab ±eady been approved by both the owner of the center and the applicant. With regard to the condition requiring a five foot planter, he stated that this was something that would have to be accomplished with the owner of the center; however, suggested that the Commission might desire to wait End see if the blocking of the parking lot would alleviate the problem. The requirement for speedbumps had been approved by the owner of the center and Mr. Britton indicated that these would soon be installed. Further, that heavy insulation and stripping would be installed around the rear door in an effort to soften any sound escaping. Also, the applicant was agreeable to the condition requiring review at any time by the Commission; however, the business could not continue to operate under the condition requiring a reduction in business hours. Chairman King asked Mr. Britton if he could give the Commission the percentage of business that is done between the hours of 12 a.m. and 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Britto.. replied that he would not be able to provide that information; however, Mr. A: cinage might. Larry Arcinage, 7550 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, one of the owners of the establishment, addressed the Commission and replied that approximately 68% of the establishment's business was generated between those hours; thus, it would ' be economically unfeasible to curtail the business hours as suggested by staff in the Resolution. Commissioner Stout asked if dinner is currently being served at the Boars Head. Mr. Arcinage replied that it is not currently being served; however, a cook had recently been hired and that the establishment is currently training personnel and creating a full dinner menu which would be served between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. Commissioner McNiel asked fir. Arcinage when lie expects to have the dinner menu ready to go into effect. Mr. Arcinage replies that they had anticipated to begin in November, however not being able to find a suitable cook had delayed those plans. A new cook had recently been hired P1;?:ining Commission Minutes 2 October 27, 1982 E and now he anticipated they would begin serving dinner in approximately two to six months. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Arcinage if he was made aware of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit when he purchased the Boars Head in 1982. Mr. Arcinage replied that he was not and this was the second restaurant bought from the same person. As the first restaurant purchased in Upland has only served lunch for the past nine years, he felt that there were no problems. Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he was agreeable to blocking off the northwe, ` parking lot as suggested by staff; how giver, did not want to do the planting of the slL •! area suggested by staff as he felt it would not solve any problems. Further:, that a wood fence has been placed behind the houses of the surrounding property owners, but the solutic:I might be to put up a block wall. Also, he was agreeable to the installation of speedbumps in the parking Iot. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Gorgen if he was suggesting that a noise attenuation block wall should be built at the rear of the residential property, with the property owners' permission. Mr. Gorgen replied that , he was and this would be much better than requiring more landscaping. Commission Barker asked how high would the wall be? Mr. Gorgen replied that he would suggest that it be 6 to 61 /2feet high. Commissioner Barker asked if there would be any problems with that from an engineering point of view? .Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the ultimate design would have to be analyzed from an engineering and sound attenuation viewpoint. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Gorgen if he was intending to place the noise attenuation wail at the top of the hill with the property ownere consent. Mr. Gorgen replied that he would be agreeable to placing the wall on the properties which are exposed to their parking lot; however, this would have to be with the consent of the property owners. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that most of the problem was with the noise in the parking lot late at night and not just noise coming from inside the building. Further, that it was unfortunate that the owner of the business could not curtail his hours of operation because a business should not be allowed to operate until 2 a.m. in an residential area. Bob Blascock, an adjacent shopowner located at 6636 Carnelian, addressed the Commission stating that while he could not attest to the noise problems at he has occasionally worked at his business until 10 or 11 p.m. and had never be( -'s bothered by Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 27, 1982 i l noise coming from the Boars Head. Further, that since the Boars head has been under new ownership there has been an improvement especially with the litter in the parking lot, which had previously been a problem. There were no further comments and the public nearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to address the issue of cl_rtailmient of hours which staff had suggested in the Resolution because he was in favor of limiting the hours. Further, that when a use such as this was approved and allowed to operate in a residential area, 'It shuuid be understood by the applicant that this use would not be the same as it would be in a C -2 area on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner McNiet stated that the majority of the problems seem to be created from the back pr.Lking area and the back door and asked Doug Gorgen if he could completely close off the back parking lot. Mr. Gorgen replied that he could close it off completely, but there might be a problem with fire access. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that it could be chained, which could be removed during an emergency. Commissioner McNiel then Atlted that if the back parking lot was completely blocked off and it was strictly enforced that the rear doors remained closed he did not think the problem would continue and this might be the solution. Further, that probably as much noise is generated from the Bob's Restaurant as the Boars Head, therefore had no objections to the current operating hours. 7:50 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed. 7:55 p.m,. Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman King stated that he agreed that the general usage within the area which is located should have some strict conditions placed on it to make it as amena as possible with the surrounding area. Further, that based on the comments this evening, it appeared that the problems stem primarily from, or as a result of, the parking a e behind the establishment. Also, that maybe an appropriate way to deal with the issue since there is a new ownership involved would be to pass all the conditions as recommended by staff with the excor.,on of the condition dealing with the hours of operation. Chairman Bing stated th' .e was aware that the major grievance of the adjacent residents was the hours rf operation; however felt that the problem of hours of operation in conjunction with the parking situation was what made the two uses inconsistent. Further, that he would be agreeable to passing the'remaining conditions, chaining off the rear parking area, allowing the hours of operation to remedn as they currently are, and requiring the Conditional Use Permit to come before the Commission for review, in two months. He stated that in this way the Commission would not be acting in a precipitous fashion in limiting the hours to 12 a.m. when all of the complaints are generated from the rear parking area. Also, if it appeared that the complaints are not mitigated by the chaining off of the rear parking area, it would be back Before the Commission ano further action would be taken. Planning Commission 'Minutes �,I- -,"K October 27, 1982 11 Commissioner Barker stated that he would -have to agree with Commissioner Stout in that this is a use that borders on incompatibility and it is very difficult to place a tse of this type, unless it was a restaurant, that close to a residential area. Further, that if it appeared that he would lose the vote on whether the permit is brought back to the Commission in sixty days rather than argue for an earlier closing time, he would like to amend the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall go that some relief would be provided for the surrounding residents. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with the amendment of the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall. Further, that the wall co!Ald not be just a plain block wall but a wall with some type of deedening in it. Also, it should be a rough textured surface or be planted witl; some typo of vines. He also agreed with Chairman King that the Conditional Use Permit Sbould come back �tefore the Commission in sixty days. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to suggest that this approval be personal to Mr. Arcinage because he may be willing to make a good effort to solve the 5a.ues at hand, but should he desire to sell the business, a new owner m&y not. Commissioner Barker stated that he was still concerned with the 2 a.m. closing time residential area when it is fifteen to twenty feet from someone's back yard. Commissioner McNiel stated that he felt it was both unfortunate and unfair that the new, owner is in this situation since he has made some headway and put forth some effort in making this a more compatible situation. Further, that tMs owner was being subjected to penalties based on what happened prior to his purchase of the business and judgment should be made on what this man does with the property. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by King, carried, to modify the Conditional Use Permit to include Conditions 2, 3, and 5 through 11 as recommended by staff. Condition 10 would require review by the Commission in two months. Also to be added to the Conditions would be the! requirement of a block sound attenuating wall and detailed plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to installation.. Chairman King asked if the two months time period would 17z g the CUP back for Commission review at the first meeting in January. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that it would but the Commission might take into consideration that the first meeting in January may not give enough time for the negotiation of agreements with the property owners on the construction of the wall, the wall construction, or time to see if the wall does much good ,o alleviate ine sound. Commissioner McNiel amended his motion regarding Condition 10 requiring review of the CUP by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 26, 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES; CrJMMISSIONERS-. ABS;7:4T: COMIMISSIONERS: Planning Commission `.Jinutes McNiel, King, Rempel Barker, Stout None 5 October 27, 1982 ti Commissioners Barker- and Stout voted No on this project because they felt the hours to be incompatible with the adjacent arda. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like it made clear that if he receives one complaint or personally saw that the Conditions were not being complied with, he would not hesitate to bring this item back before the Commission before the agreed time limit. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised the audienne that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed ico the City ;;ouncU within fourteen days of this meeting and that staff could be contacted for further information. Commissioner McNiel stated that he may have made an unpo.)ular decision to some people tonight; however, would also like to go on record as sa,; ,Ting he also would not hesitate to bring the CUP back be.'ore the Commission if a complaint is received. Chairman King recognized Edith Bartholomew, 5999 Napa, Rancho Cucamonga, who w.shed to address the Commission. Ms. Bartholomew stated that she agreed with Commissioners Barker and Stout in that the hours of 2 a.m. are later than any other businessin the surrounding area and too late for a residential area. Further, that she was totally against the sale of alcoholic beverages in a rt�sidental area. C. rcx"%Ict, mtHr Ybdit STEPHENS division, of 2.2 acres of land into 2 parcels within the R 1 zone ( Etiwanda Specific Plan), locate at the northwest corner of Summit and Easf/Xvenues. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff RReport. Comni.z7ioner Aempel as ed if the area of local stree. had been looked into with regarr; to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to know where the fare going o alleviate the need for dedication of roadway at the `side or back of this property in the future. Cdr. Rougeau replied that futuce, c streets would be installed so that }1 developed to provide for the interior Commissioner Rempel stated that of does not lay out many of the streetd the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. / Chairman Icing opened the public hearing. I` was not anticipated because the future `patterns in a larger development would be o be away from the border of this project.. shortcomings of the Specific Plan is -that it it very difi cult in approving parcel maps in Gary Sanderson, 9587 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed Lhe Commission stating that his client was in agreement with the conditions of "both the Planning and Engineering Divisions. In response to the existing streets, Mr. Sanderson commented that East Avenue and Summit avenue realignments should not havJany affect on this parcel. There were Jdo further public comments and the public hear\ was closed. Planning Commission Minu }is g October 27, 1932 LJ C C RESOLUTION 82 -98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 FOR BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOAR'S HEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA IN THE C -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, the Planning Commission determined the need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and to conduct a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above item. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolves as for SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed and bringtthe use in n Permit accord7with order neighborhood shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions are added to those. already in effect per Resolution 78 -40: 2. Periodic policing of the F,arking lot by the management of the business should be done on a nightly basis to assist in averting disturbances from patrons. 3. Block access to the northwest parking area from the main parking area by placing large trees and Planters in the driveway. Additionally, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be used to block access to this area from the rear driveway during evening hours. 4. A sound attenuation wall shall be built on the three properties adjacent to the northwest parking area of the center. The precise height, location and construction materials shall be determind through the development of a precise development plan, which shall be prepared by the shopping center owner and reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Such improvements shall consider the use of sound attenuation material as well as some additional landscaping between the new wall and the existing wall. The plans should be prepared as soon as Possible and installatiion, with the cooperation of all property owners and before the January 26, 1982 meeting sctiedtled by the Commission. 5• Speed bumps shall be placed throughout the center. Resolution No. 9 Page 2 PLANNING C 6. An' analysis* of' the building shall be conducted to, determine , the needs for sound insulation. Appropriate insulation shall be installed, if needed. 7. The rear door of the business shall remain closed during evening hours, except in the event of an emergency. 8. Boar's he He northwest parking area shall not be used by r appropriately Patrons or employees and shall be p y Posted. g. This Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission on January 26, 1983, for a report ca the performance of the establishment, 10. The business shall alter its operation to include restaurant usage and food service during the evening hours.. This is required 1 meet the intent of the original approval and shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of this action, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982. CDMMTSCTnm ne rur —e- „- A I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify tt:at the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission city of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held of the on the 27th day of October, 1982, by the following voce- tc•wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel. King, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker= Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None El El 3 Ul RESOLUTION NO. 78 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CO.AIISSION FOR THE APPRW.TAL OF CUP 78 -03 - HONE - TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT 141TH RELATED BAR FACILITIES AND MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENT WITHIN A PROPOSED NEIGH- BORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND 19TH STREET IN THE C -1 ZONE M. C WHEREAS, on the 5th day of December, 1978, a complete application was filed for review on the above described property; and WHEREAS, on the 27th day of December, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project,. NOW, THEREFORE, the P.ancho Cucamonga Planning Commt, aion resolved s follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and landscaping and setbacks are pro - vided which are compatible with existing deve7:hnent in I the surrounding area. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed, both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quaneity of traffic generated by the subject use. 3_ will not be an adverse effect upon ibutting pro- perty. 4. In requiring the conditions in the report, the Commission deems su:h requirements to be the minimum necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare. 5. This project will not be objectionable nor detrimental to existing uses permitted in the zone district in which this project is located. 6. This project will not be contrary to the objectives of the proposed Taster Plan and will not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2:+ That the Planning Commission sets the following conditions on the above described project: 1. Developer shall comply with the late €.t adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Codc, Uniform Plumbing Code, National, Electric Code and all other applicable codes, - 2. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at this time. 3. All signing shall be in confor_rance with the adopted uniform signing program. 4. Hours of operation shah, not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. 5. Tha CUP is granted for a period of indp� nite time with Planning Commission review af',er 24 months of operation at which time the Commission may add or delete conditions. 6. Bar and entertainment facilities must be used in conjunc- tion with the restaurant usage. 7. The applicant shall agree in writing tc all conditions within 60 days from approval. APPROVED AND ADjPTED THIS 27th DAi OF December 1978 (� PLANNING C%1MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO! CUCAMONGA BY: �( ": z. L �C Herman Rempel, Chairma : n �'��� Secretory of the : fanning Cotmniss::on 9 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, 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 n! the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of December, 1978. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONES. r � -aa tira:ncc.na:.o; a-ar.�w v ea s w,oa soy fp M �t'•O� 4020' •• WlWM�T'(RYffiL n"T � O� dxf.711 : :11. � 1 \ {�{•• s '— �' � :wro' �. 'e.r,!_��- „,G {h,,,� t'rrror•es7r�. �oi4ciW 5:L�14 r_ I`• - r” I I . i 1•�1 i.t�l.� aoao-e B 3 ,.IC aro ,... .. . �. 1-00, ' ' ad .o'o sd 3d 'o o•rsi s d,� •� r'x+' s ' ee • 1 �� v X�b �o e— .-- IFq��i 3��, j.�wr•3isavx.4ba'Sl. 'o .> �... � t r� ,� — r_ /.GR+kr f. r ri -- r +oel a'- •retR� - �� L� J ��f /1�rtr1 `iv. nre -7 e GARN�1.aar`! ST��T' ESN! A40 i V lu CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May ?2, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Pianner SUBJECT: CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT 85 -08 - VERNACI A' �rcoosal to locate a single trailer for a caretaker's- facili *y in a wholesale nursery located in the Edison right -of -jay on the north side of Base Line, east of Rochester - APN 227 - 091 -41. i I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Actic,i Requested: Approval of and Conditional Use Permit B. P__urpose: To locate a trailer for caretaker quarters at a wholesale nursery C. Location: North side of Baseline, east of Rochester D. Parcel Size: 8.3 E. Existing Zoning: Utility corridor F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Utility corridor South - Christmas tree farm; Utility Corridor East Vacant; Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) West - Vacant; Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) H. Gei,eral Plan Designations: Project Site - Utility Corridor North - Utility Corridor South - Utility Corridor East - Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) West Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) I ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85 -08 May 22, 1985 Page 2 II. _ 1. is. I I. Site Characteristics: The subject site is vacant and relatively level - 2 slope from north to south. Vegetation consists of native scrub. ANALYSIS• A. General: This proposed nursery is located within a Southern California Edison right -of -way. The Development Code allows agricultural uses, including plant storage and propagation, within utility corridors. At their February 27, 1985 meeting, .. the Planning Commission determined that nurseries would be allowed under this designation. Because Edison will not allow ` permanent structures, the Commission also determined that only wholesale of plants grown on -site should be permitted. Therefore, retail sales e r fertilizers, tools, pots and other non -plant items would °lot be permitted.. The applicant . requests that they be allowed to sell nursery stock Ito the public for a Hmited time to establish their market. Temporary caretaker quarters require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The trailer (Exhibit "C ") will be in addition to shade type structures. No other sheds or buildings are permitted. Design /Technical Review: The Design Review Committee has recommended approval of the project with the following improvements which the applicant has agreed to: 1. Upgrade the trail -qr with decks, arbors, lattices, landscaping, and 2. Provide special boulevard landscape treatment along Base Line per Victoila plan. The Cortmittee d,:7erred the issue of temporary retail versus wholesale to the full Commission for po;icy direction. This project lies within flood zone "A" (100 year flood), district as determined by FEMA. To mitigate this, the,Engineering Division has required that the trail pad be elevated and or a diversion wall or dike be constructed upstream. In addition, all materials including the trailer must be secured to prevent floatation and possible damage downstream. C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has A been completed ty the applicant. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt per CEQA requirements. 1 PLANNING, COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85 -08 May 22, 1985 Page 3 III. FACTS FOR FINDING: This project has been determined to: A. Be in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the dfw�trict in which the site is located. B. Together with the conditions applicable thereto, be non- detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to 'properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all material and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission can support the Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez City Planner RG:JM:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B'' - PrGposed Site Plan Exhibit "CA' - Photograph of Trailer - Unimproved Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions 0 -3 t 1i r le/iNQ i a..w l � Mu. ntap i L Ll. of Ask MH s} •� fit,,. ».. - - ....,... `. MH _ +� LU LM M t� . ?'� LM tr W iz- ad LM JF Lm LM l.sKf { e•� z:• YP� t ` • - J . tQYMR bp1 UN TS1T5• MH. F MH �jw� M i L n 2 ' k` •. +`��%:.......�� - i'1F � e v �. Z.•- y °ate MH SASEUNE - emn�a+�ieor:nrwer �: ✓'cara°a�v' `" c t � . RR RE— RR iSll L M H t H MW ../tii.�., "�ti� :• x-Ds sue' :.i j(RR^` RR, RR s L�`Cc' RR NZ �♦ M,.y,isii owo sce L H ti 3 1ZC5 w. r L NUXrH CITY OT ITE {11: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE-- L°CA't"1—O PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: - 4 SCALE: ni'rS G -3 C R,M Mf[�M. M'C.� y9Y.4Y - Rol 3AIIM V NURTH CIT Y OF ITF1�I: �! RANCHO CLTCALMOiNGA TITLE: tPLNA ,r PLANNINU BIVIRION EXHIBIT-5 SCALE: nYfis I , I N i I I I L4M•.RN6a f.C�RIRs M�LX. i.:t Tm,M•i R,M Mf[�M. M'C.� y9Y.4Y - Rol 3AIIM V NURTH CIT Y OF ITF1�I: �! RANCHO CLTCALMOiNGA TITLE: tPLNA ,r PLANNINU BIVIRION EXHIBIT-5 SCALE: nYfis j"".l�l �4 rt . �� �' 3 V y �•. � ! � -+ l x ; �� 9 I I � 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVIIG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 85 -08 FOR VINCENTS GARDEN CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE '17 BASELINE, EAST OF ROCHESTER, IN THE UTILITY CORRIDOR DISTRICT WHEREAS., on the 10th day of March, 1985, a complete application was filed by Sharon liernaci for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, the Rancho Cacamonga Planning Commission held a public, hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved &s 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 the site is located. 2. Thai: 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. T!,at the proposed use compiles with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85 -08 is approved subject to the ,�ollowing conditions:. PLANNING 1. The - emoval of all non- conforming strucitures and trailers within 30 days of this approval. 2. Upgrade the trailer with de:-king, arbors, trellises and landscaping. La0scape and irrigation along Bas4 Rine per Victoria landscape st- 9dards. 4� Retail sales of nursery stock on ",y be allowed for a tv; Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit 85 -08 - VERNACI Page 2 pp ENGINEERI -4 1. That the trailer be protected from flooding by raising the trailers' pad and or constructing a diversion wall or dike up stream. A design for the flood protection measure must be approved by the City Engineer. 2. All materials, including the trailer, to be stored on the site shall be secured tc prevent floatation and possible damage to downstream property. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22NO DAY OF MAY, 1585. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 hereby certify that the ff?regoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, p,,sed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERSt NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r As — S \ O W W w G r i i� n S VI scLV a,J 4. LN o L S O CNNO C q 0 • T q � C_� i C� Y CNa',� � tiL O O 4qC� YO G 016 Lipp. Cri�aLjJ NCY pw OVN �r O L' La LU V Vq � Oq q °wOL NYYIr VaONL. Lq k Cg4 yq`^ O.- Ntiw V V g Y Kq 06G`q aw 4CJ LwL^ gN4m°c^`� Lid +t nee " - ONE A �O° a cN l o u a Y « O a 4 Ya,- ...an 1 a zs=H;S V a k: ° yY t 5 Y u 4 d i a- . J N° U O " ` u N -,— ^ o ` 'o".. .L q ...a` O. J �iOr you a01 Ln ci Y.Ca tlw^ O Lyw L 3ee YO.q V O. WHO wY. tlC �n0Op q >w4 i �C 4�H N � A VYHt q a�o ^c '"G Or 6 :2 ywd y v W a C N C N. EN 0 q aei y 6 G. L VpNgj LnYpu STd V „ aN'o R GhNU� ti +t Y ^a ..you $a ^moo Nqe o ^�.c �L �u °pu oY��c� n ^�tl'O �o uSn.- a:Yaa qLN Lmw.xa `wa °ua•c^�o°'4 Cn . N�e' auN C b q NyH uOH.L aY0 N'c(� N`° `OC 6Lpp.O sUC <I <� p qq S tl 4 HNY {C� °u VTyQ V i OO YL Ya Y.S O C Y.5= 42. Ny�t°. Yi. OMr^ La O? d•r'.V 9.00.i NIq.S•.C••�0°y1N yy CYO yy ^ Ctt S.N.�VH3 pqqp n'•" <OwN� Nu`i..4.In�ti R'S !•. 646tf a4u N ti m S \ O W W w G r i i� n S VI LA M.- �b Y tl C ° s• r O L' aN �' a •'. . J �V O a.� 1Y. v L" Y G` o N � A O x q v W a ti N O `. Y L ^r M1M1M1 K V � � LA M.- q ^a R 0^ EY Cq y a g u LoM V a s� �a O.dE _ �EA ` c q Eo.aa assn M ;M'�6 Y 1l�pd ON q a^ yaC.. a,Aw L.A9 y 2q; is mr p0 u O rN.••- wv a. u..+ °" a'°Ley VII. g6dN 'q� n LNN G qM^ OqL qT NLa� e .r: v L g u�pL •°� ^non EE is L.. > 4.5y Nd ^ oY �NuL qn b . y s N��R •°•a°+ z L .�0.. Q:Q 06. °doc^ p qS N 4r data NN aa.: CIS Sc 4J C� r �MNN Yq Oy �YMr✓L «..°. Y qAO�^ cu q<'O� "A .✓. q w`C. a y y r N VS On.w iii N� Y CL a rqN ° mez �'GG.q. N>.NL GIUM F`r C+d+M N6. Yd^ L �uHr to y • 40 pqn L.+... Lw n _ . .99, •�N U d � i V ^� n Y a. U Y prrOA r W r LO aa pp Y a^ « C b y .c� �Ct I C .d CSg OU q N M N L C � E aW. YQ. i.L Yg. >Y'V ^, � }�Npp 2� >Q1 >� VGI.Y Y 'J�NC� ON c�� r a O w iA ca yU.. 6 0 Oda ° a 9C^ �LqL_ sAe + __= ` n6 OCNYV^ N+�NIb..2 SMYY N `W NN WaO. �.p Wr�2 AAA tiI NI O.0 6L �� N6C U 1 c i cc c . :; � g ., ci a�.n �;v >, F q o4 .wa aq Vim .+ =wy N biwr d E L wd. s C b L O L•N aN M Cw°'. O.� t.. �. C a ut ~UO.A pu yvy OPAS lava. `'`uG EON aapyY b y E b 9 `ii.3ee. wNC ° 4 Gas2—R., a O c' N O Y. u QI L a .C`N UCp+ai @. L 6 yOL a LyY NGO L N 1'w✓ ` A C'wr g vO _ Nrc6 t .6L.. O N M M U n Ed r « oa °xn G t U N A LSa 66 G�'^ O A. Vim. a° Cil.. uS _n A wLq > COti LC swi. a•o^ ^ U 3 O•.r i p° y ^. y G q E a p v � qC � r^ b �r .^ >qa vW »� Ua q'.Ony NMa1 CL J G» g3G<V YV n q° L 6 G•�`9... YO °�� >�9 uL A ^.Y U CbN dr C ... . O Y a N d .. � Y �@ t w A 00 A q pNpS a a O g r q E a •� n O� u ^`C uL try = VaNIn w a u`a t, E�`O c a.0 Q POi.�.w�y C ° »NDO b a ba u qu L °�Y ca is ° vqa v� Goo - 6n COIr�M p a y aou o� s" Q ^M aO`nn G mO.A ° a if daL c u L u S1 NOA ^('�Ny aq O MyW9 ^:.` .- v u a. n g A u or ura LG�" V Ve cnb n�u °' cc..+°.@ o �ql \w. 0. np ILL Ylgq 4Y Mo nV AMa ^.. rL 1�Yy »Cq I..w A6gG N m ac- r p e� p O M C d q Na Yu iLy< man �.O y0a nU i >Y d My� 3dv�. A N `a ^ O °Y «•v- pciq c ¢uvi ia ipWm u w t LOA CO y iC CV OOOOu t(Iy'Au _5 .1-1 C �. N N2 L O O YGL i O riu % p6 a= Co ydL v pCiO1 �dr°O�9•= -� • C YY�N EYOM C Y�Cv 09 C L d °ip Or�C CCO. _ t tic , a Nq T ud0 ^MN Y� O W .Q G NN YO ^i uOOO Q „OVE Vw° .° qO U o L A ALy Ydp YN-ONf C Y4F� UFd. Z O gLtN. • cv a • L- �Yt° -IY =` ;a gCN.N �dV�O�a .Vin NC � a _+ t t a a N �. V o • � � s r C � T Tt: d O uI pV N Nv FN m •Q S. M., Nix Ai a.;< QL 100° N�a dr C NCry 0. �C'OC °1c c°,a° �A N°' o •�^ 1" rnY 'aa �•�'•� ^y et. �rnN ov�-o t"'v aL.t ,p �.-• � ECY� ? d9.0 T vi0 r0 .C..� LL �. �yE AMY NOOL Lo ^y V E r r 0. aN l 6N Ym1 �. C d uN tN Ac d Yi• •� p. C L O Y drL� y'C b90 �V ST ty S ._ CY PH AV GI Q� x y IFi d O G C O< O.q Si'- dp Yy qyi O ^mil QN i'� Y fq OY.O RE ^ 10 yvdY M0 �L F3 Jr `A C G wLN^ y.:: Y .0 nP Oq OL Q Tau qw c 0n. ^�Od Gyd y^ 4 TN . EyO� fv U BY a F Yt Y 6 < 0. t O� 0 'F 0 i•. Ofu0+•L Vy°LIy �NAN QN^ Qvni.NO �NL Y 6n)�p'aY TA�dO a[A�O0. �'V IL ,O Q6N m 4 MIS({ 10 f� O OI w°i N m ac- r p e� p O M C d q Na Yu iLy< man �.O y0a nU i >Y d My� 3dv�. A N `a ^ O °Y «•v- pciq c ¢uvi ia ipWm u w t G N f�l 4 N fO N \L��'fry1 N. 4 d v L � .0 F M i O.O N �. N N2 L O O YGL i O O'er p p°r C L 09 C L And Y Y o o�n,°„ do _ t tic , a Nq T T. a N Ta N TA° O o L A ALy Ydp • cv a aw.. °� L- u � � a _+ t t a a N �. V o • � � s r C � T Tt: d O uI pV N Nv FN m m L`O J JC r r`Yy^ p Q G d v L � .0 F M i c jz A a u ^n r•O4 ^vn °e Luc uP cc �♦••NCe Ec a. Loq ' pyNld. cu caNi y.o.- opG N `G Sao. ad.E dO.t•� .E O `C :sL 1_.2 E ^LC • n0 P.- °d-6i C*1 . e. 4q• ^Le ua v. 01 Ly.y a Pq `p u« in E..0 °lmt. roYwiE o.oq LL o�pu.r YNV'+uq �' c ,loN AD6 qL O n q�dN O •dvo ro�ow. uNi 1=- Y du �� =ro �ai G� q •� . A 0 a 0 VO q�EE N O Ya= 5l A E6L .YZ,138 5 tlE. o N N �q? �y Y ` q Y5 9y�N V m u �1 A � W Eap �.N dCCFaO Np.Y ti qD Lxr'• y6 OW E U O .dG OO D N aU V 4 O �L yYy uC iY nCwm 1,t gEfiO V U A E <d LAS L40d�N1.. Lu.l U T ^ ^p OOL.i)« dL� � 4 �N V."r gUW�O GL2 O YC ay NM {ry L �. K3 _.. ^p.«.c•�.c N � ..cq�. pt,�a� u�gay cvi sL V q. y � p u S T � L q L d .:>• m y T U .^ T E E yD & •^ ^ °. N T d d V� E Or,� M qy LL 6L d iyd g92: > N q..V. sr \id >^ .r ad d n N c da 6 ¢ d dW0 YV ,G �i� OaVi9 O L. uyi. E. .,.. F .o�Oq %6.65 a1E k fqN O 1- iO.�WI G�C,iCI`N 6��n•r0 N OVa N N b O NA • G s.. v:d .d y yLL: L.O y Ln C ugqu Pp. e� T N3. dN 6 O. w C U iu y ONE L O' u.V d Pp 1.... ,yq yG y E dbL q WWO � qT L O N61 fGlUq y c E L ^� '„ dNL 6• V ^.00r y U o- o w M MT d O K y yy N �, u•ll ,TT tr q f. u q� 'lC •]a •� 2 V C g q Ld �pE � 516 V P dy C= byy duy 'd0 CGy� .G qO U6 Eq dO6 C.D -•t• 6a dY �P. • �jYy `L d C-r q an FNgy O n pN �fi 4q EO Y.=4tG.t N r d v � a O G O i• N A T..E y V D y Y. �• t U q G u N S � L� � N N ^� G - -. w. D ca qqo N m E u a'ol wto a y �: yc�rn , u p N.xc "y tl a N ^Cr 9t. � � o >•� G C .c�.Otia •` Y d' ubo y�Qi ^y r_N ly •ri W .i �� r �qO N1 LL q tv5 ♦a S p.. N G T� pa ... O �^ P 4prt u `4 `L'IU Co C� 28.= r•. -uc� t. N a n N N »`• u -,� S J L F+ s c •n°a..G�- 6 1-- ^� 6 6 6i L nip GI y o 6 ,�c.+. W Y r N y0, �) E S Et cz ' vv w yM6 ly Ob Lw Y V V N 9d TQL NC C, .. t»a a+o�. ..1.. E o= N ^Z y r N Y> a�C iC��... 0• CL VUtA dy A /J G Ld l V = y N Fd. �C9N E�>,^ dJa OHO Z p a q Y 9 O A o M N p O V Via• N. O y V D Lu a �CaC V,�.m Y!�u •OZ O.1 t..u°. aC.E ..��. 1"'.S W o1L w W N L.` a EY9d =C pG 6 nT.c Y E YM Oaq A; C. r: w ' 'o. v. 'm O rn ' V^ • a:.y Y c �4 N Sl Y V n N'.°7a 2 •r h y u OI^ Nu O,aV Ny C L.y.^ Y aVMN aY ��C �° •^ r :a prat .+. q3t= Ca rnPC„ud, 60 ud C pl U JC ++ N G .}., Y °, O� ^� ^p .•1 YOb q NYI �¢{ ►6Y t CE h CY �E O a GN NO OI O. O. bi LLL O.Y 4�J ii V. N �I C V � N 2 u. Y^ LC Y CE LLL mugg 2 1 i M . i 'O tli�j d0 a p0 G w GC CS d pp u4C.tJ N Q`CN L' CLUMCL m wLL L nV r M S� A i. �V 31. X64 �; aa Y6NC a db N ddq aGW Ytp i O 9u G u �C Ly ).d. L.° \. LV LCeCaYr ^D ou aga:q tt uio az. cY °uZz I VO V af, dC N C i; G.�c a. a6 a �O • , =� O. S,c.•`'7a LLLU D c S, O^�Ld. OpV � Ly.D ay ^^ ua� u ao °t y^ L q `y,L ° G °i U q D i ymt,. C Y E} 6 0 O• 'Tpb mL mu YL av aT Q O ffd Y u ND Q. b �gd6C- & °p0; Ya9uG ,° NO li� L rL .., R.t �N L9 N✓ O ZlO1}�p Yu�6 b010�� r � i s vC. W1V n+t� N N. Y • �N 01 ' E :9.2 � Nf Xy �i e N T` C .5:.5 V A YBppL n.. 1N O D g N NY9Kr Oyy9i L �tA AC NONi.Yp OO.N E."',6 9. W1A 4°i aL t��LS •i« eT'O M. HO R 1 11 t 'l 4 y c 0 d N�>• -d d L W ' O a 2� Y dY.^U w0•mc 9 J =L C d p � aii O10 N d a •a c ou '°� L° b Yd da py 6 aS Q N•L. Ccp r•� S'q u " at Cr s o.L E Ca "• ICE y Q P L y t c ° °uC u.n d .52 .� v d Y 6° p1O •J v _o W A du NU qdO 'NN S. E U 4LU Y'r C b •:: O d pl A O L dFi s+l S^ 4FZ ° y.L i Gu V NC E 6i U. a• N NAY u V d .IOn acO.y y'O ^ L aJSU u �pEtll N N Cal Gd Nay65 N 3 yN0 uq ^ SLN Yd ^q R d�rU ab A L Lou d aiiW upc N Nu J •O >M cy ° aoc �oy.� E•y �'° cq .' .. oo« ia,+9 qca ',L„^ � ° u q d Cd °°o m n y ,- L CL a cW 6NsO Zan° LQ ^C Nd aaa u °u Rw GN � Aa Y U �•= A i° R u °. O C y 'S'! a uOtLx� qW^ yd NG 6A 6° FEE ] q0 TIN Co 6 d 9El' Y OL L L 2 �o °^ v`Ly N Vic`^ OEa1 p� ° a4r EL .i NO =UVL ^i Vd ✓ O '�i A NU^ M.ati a d pl y�a m Y a N nW A^ O Q6NM. •A Oa�J� ^ N9 bbd. sii ^ ti sC W 4q..0 dWU ^T! cA G.^ ,+ N i Lti � 6 ti'LO '6 lr `K y c 0 d d i dm qW r .°. O a 2� Y dY.^U w0•mc 9 J =L C d p � aii O10 N d a •a c ou '°� L° +acu dT �GLQ py 6 aS Q N•L. Ccp 91...•x' N° U Cp. r•� S'q u " at Cr s o.L E Ca "• ICE y Q P L y t ° °uC u.n d .52 .� v d Y 6° p1O •J v _o W A du NU qdO 'NN Ca C� aN E d U 4LU Y'r a� L A G d b •:: O d pl low R a y „•i N dFi s+l S^ 4FZ ° C y u v p QRE V NC E 6i U. S 2 S y c 0 d d u O C y Oy A L ��ugg L p v a ^z dt.o N N L u fi LF ` r o y Q P L y t ° °uC u.n cp a p y�C EW A a Y a� L A G d •:: O d pl A J C A Or•y U O < y E`'L nC1 tl c n�� W 0 Z Y U d •n 0 i d d O ' O • � C WV 4 4 c� a d = •- N ,n ^ Y 2^ A Q p v au 4 W = q d q iE v u C N 9 d O j d aM LE ^ $� p uV Ga A �' — wA a � v s v O « 4 a 4u °e ae �a a '•- a N L N A y 'e c m r'.. q •- 4� s A �•. L �. C � L q V +� N p NY °A 9� OU y6.c 46 � 6 N L q_ c^ � non. woc � a• y C sa L E .^.. L �aT °aLi S'4^ a � a S q c ¢ A _uc A S y� • OS� •�� NO C d. u N V • Tu` tqq n 'C C n � E � S.A- uw d.°+ ;15.5 O 6 d O ' O • � C WV 4 4 c� a d = •- N ,n ^ Y 2^ A Q p v au 4 W = q d q iE v O � Tguw'Li W Y EO O b E2r ° as oY� i vqi a N L C L y aov a �. N v ^may 9 O V N L a c N� d N o 4 0 E `ai N vr� E y� rn b•L v ^ u 1Z p. q.. ` 4.N c •` V. pL '•Tq.. 44 Nu 2^ HH ^ G -iq nia H ode CAE � O d dT N�. L_o = C 4 9�F d9 ° ° d O 4 a un •� ov e 6Jt°iD r L v O v i L � y o N � O L L C v N2 °o d {t am � ALO �S v � d 0 oW O« uEE� Z d 6u 6 N c 2 w �I 12 3�-7 p d u L�•s C N 9 d O j d aM c N d A uq q=O d c1d ^ $� c L q q du u NO cG Tu — O « 4 a � c Loa aL n %o Nv d O v� ear 0 0. O rc Cu y ° O `€ oon C i D• y C sa O � Tguw'Li W Y EO O b E2r ° as oY� i vqi a N L C L y aov a �. N v ^may 9 O V N L a c N� d N o 4 0 E `ai N vr� E y� rn b•L v ^ u 1Z p. q.. ` 4.N c •` V. pL '•Tq.. 44 Nu 2^ HH ^ G -iq nia H ode CAE � O d dT N�. L_o = C 4 9�F d9 ° ° d O 4 a un •� ov e 6Jt°iD r L v O v i L � y o N � O L L C v N2 °o d {t am � ALO �S v � d 0 oW O« uEE� Z d 6u 6 N c 2 w �I 12 3�-7 irl CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1985 TO: Chairman and. Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Cure Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85 -06 `LINCOLN The development of 660 apartment units on net acres of Tand in the MH District (14 -24 du /ac), located on the north side of Arrow Route, '350 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN: 208 - 341 -16 and 17. I. PROJECT AND SITE CESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan elevations and issuance of Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of 660 multi- family units. C. location: North cide of Arrow Route, 350 feet west of Haven Avenue. D. Parcel Size: 27.57 net acres E. Density: 24 du /ac F. Existing .Zon�'nq Medium-High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) G. Exist:nq Land Use: Vineyar:: H. Surroundirg Land Use and Zoning: North Vineyard, designated Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) and Industrial Park /Haven Avenue Overlay District South - Golf couv1se no longer in operation, designated Industrial Park /Haven Avenue Overlay District East Vineyard designated Industrial Park /Haven Overlay, K -Mart Center designated General Commercial and Haves Overlay West - Trucking yard designated Medium -High Residential (14 -24 uulac) Auk r ITEM H PLP�INING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR "9 -06 — Lincoln May 22, 1985 Page 2 I. General.Plan.Pasi- irations: j Project site - Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) I North - Medium- High Residentia'i (14 -24 du /ac), Industrial l: Park South - Industrial Park East - Industrial Park, Commercial West - Medium -High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) J. Site Characteristics: The project site is ,undeveloped with no structures or other existing improvements. Vegetation is limited to grape vines with no existing trees. K. Project Details: The project con - sts of 61 two and three- story baildrngs.. The units range in size from a 515 square foot studio to a 997 square foot 2 bedroom, '2 bath. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The urban architectural style for this project is cresignel to be compatible with the future office developmenl� it the Haven Avenue Corridor. The applicant provided a conceptual master plan which includes the 10 acre office site between the site and Haven avenue, (see Exhibit "C "). Both projects will by integrated by a continuous open space area with no walls or fences to isolate the land uses. B. Des�an Review Committee: The major topics discussed by the Design Review Committee included configuration of open space areas, interior streetscape vi,­s, parking, landscaping, and architecture including exterior ^--jilding materials and color. In response to the Design Review Committee's concerns, the central north /south opei space corridor has been expanded particularly at the Arroi Route project entry, and increased landscaping has been provided around the Loop Road to reduce the impact of parking or, bath sides of the street. The Committee recommended appro.ral of the revised pla'. subject to conditions requiring: (1) Oistinctive canopy tree around the main loop road, and (2) three building colors to provide variety. C. Technical Review Committee: Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and required a number of revisions including relocation of the driveway on 7 Arrow Route, redesign of Ci«ic Center Drive to the north, ` acquisition of rleements for drainage and access, and noise atteauatiun. The iioise Study indicates exterior noise level, along Arrow Route would approach 70 CNEL in the year 2010. t^ U 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF 'REPORT DR 85 -06 Lincoln May 22, 1985 Page 3 D. Noise Attenuation: Sixty five (65) CNEL has been established for previous projects as the acceptable exterior noise level. Exhibit "I" shows the future noise contours on the site. To achieve the 65 CNEL standard, upper story balconies must be enclosed with glazing (sucL as Lexan panels), or shielded in some other. acceptable manver based upon a final %oustical analysis sutmitted with the construction drawings. Two basic options for noise attenuation'' the ground are available including: 1. Screening of patios with garden walls, or 2. A continuous wall /berm along the streetscape. / wall along the streetscape has the advantage of providing sound attenuation not only for patio areas, but through the interior of the site. A continuous wall, however, could be a detriment to the project unless design techniques such as varying the setback and berming up against the wall are used to soften the visual impact. As a matter of policy, the Commission should provide direction as to when perimeter sound walls will be required. In this case, within 155 `t. of the curb on Arrow Highway the future noise level will be approximately 65 CRE... Six buildings (out of 61) are located within this area. A condition of approval requiring the sound wall (Option 2) has been provided similar to the requirement for DR 84 -12 - Davis (Arrow & Etiwanda). The final design details wouW be subject to Design Review Committee review during the plan check process. E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff completed the environmental checklist and determined that with the appropriate conditions of approval, the project will not create - significant adverse environmental impacts, The areas of concern incluPe: noise attenuation, traffic general on, and drainage. Regarding traffic and drainage, the increases which result from development of the property are within the capacity of pruj?cted street and flood control facilities. If the COPm.,"Iti6n concurs with this finding,, issuance sf a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. e (1( PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT "A" DR 85 -06 - Lincoln Exhibii May 22, 1985 - Detailed Site Plan Page 4 "C' - Conceptual landscape Plan t,!hibit III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project site is adequate in size and - Grading Plan shape to accommodate the proposed development consistent with the "E" Development Code- and General Plan. The architecture and site Exhilbit plan, together with the Conditions of Approval is compatible with - Perspective surrounding land use and zoning. in addition, the project will "G" not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant Exhibit envirc -qmental impacts. - Trash Enclosure Detail IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing "I" in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend:; that the Planning Commission consider all ma=arial and input regarding this project. I',• the Commission concurs with the findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Resptctfull ,submitted, !Rich Gomez City Planner RG:CJ•cv Attachments; rxhibi', "A" - Location. Map Exhibii "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit. "C' - Conceptual landscape Plan t,!hibit 'D" - Grading Plan Exl bit "E" - Architecture Exhilbit "F" - Perspective Exhibit "G" - Pool /Rec Area Exhibit "N" - Trash Enclosure Detail Exhibit "I" - Noi3e Contours /Year 2010 I Ell CITY OF NCHO CUC,AMONGA PLANNINU DIVISION 1T&,vj. --Z,� a -8s-fla, TITLE- 6-co- k77O -1 EXHIBIT. SCA_. - ` / v ", NORTH ,-T7-te-11 .a ;vw 1- NORTH CITY 7F ITFA4: V� RAI\'CHO CUCAIVIONGA TITLE =_� -rfr� PLANNDi DIVISK NT EXHIBIT = - _ SCALE 11 To CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISIQN ITEIM: TITLE= ���i �.✓ EXHIBIT:_ Sf:ALE: 8 11 . _ r � 3 of 6 07;01 -02 0 5- 2.2-85 P.C. Agenda Packet o' E G3E�RSATtDN 86 =IN0 ARMY W im-rrFW.,M B! [A CITY or, n EIuI- Ps .- RANCHO CUCAMO�TGA TITLE: AFI-- PLANN[ s 1, "rl,Sl(),N EXHIBIT. 15-3 SCALE- F` CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO, CJCAMONGA TITLE, T�stsH ESL: 7, ,,'.I tL PLANNII U DIVIS!CXN EXHIBIT= _ _ SCALE. Lk .s ruCCQ _ 3 °MTL.AC Mff PIPE COL PIPE COL MTL GATES OAT-E -ELLV. APJVAS OVER +.t.rTc�tlht.. METAL FRAME 8" CONIC. BLOCK ENTRY ELEV. r=rzc N CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO, CJCAMONGA TITLE, T�stsH ESL: 7, ,,'.I tL PLANNII U DIVIS!CXN EXHIBIT= _ _ SCALE. Lk i i D.. ./ Ty I • `/` al�ifial�Q ,� J CEO MIS s i s � s � ,�� '' e' .. Vii`♦ ♦�o w 'ea RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85 -06 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, 350 FEET WEST OF HAVEN IN THE MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - APN: t'08- 341 -16 & 17. WHEREAS, on the 27th day of February, 1985, a complete application was filed by Lincoln Property Company for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, the Rancho, Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above- described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; aad 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the appTicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, ii-111 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the. environment and that a Negative Declaration is'-issued on May 22, 1985. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 85.06 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVIS,ON 1. The final detailed site plan, grading plan, and landscape plans submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of builelaag permits shall be drawn to a scale of 1 inch equal 20 feet (or larger). Resolution No. C� DR 85 -06 - Lincoln Page 2 2. Special landscape features such as undulating mounding, shrub planting and specimen size trees, (including deciduous canopy species), shall be provided along the interior Loop 'Road to enhance screening of automobiles and provide a distinctive streetscape for the main cirCLlation aisle. 3. Three (3) exterior color schemes shall be provided and actual material samples submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The exterior stucco treatment on the building shall be machine applied. 5. The canvas screens for shading of the trash enclosures shall be replaced with a durable material such as meLai "o'r wood. 6. Low level lighting shall be provided in all open r e areas. Construction details shall be provided pric Co issuance of building permits. 7. Outdoor storage shall be _provided for all individual units, such as carport lockers or storage closets adjacent to patios. Construction - details shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 8. All outdoor mailbox locations shall be covered and appropriate lighting provided. The final design of any free standing structure for this purpose shall be compatible with the building architecture and shall Fe submitted for review and approval by the Plannirg Division F prior to issuance of building permits. l 9. A six foot high wall and dense -landscaping shall be " provided along the westerly project boundary for screening of the adjacent trucking business. y? { 10. Final design and construction details of the carport; F shall be submitted with the construction drawings for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. .Jr ILI Resolution No. DR 85 -06 - Lincoln Page 3 11. A detailed acoustical analysis shall be peepared for a15 buildings within 155 feet of Arrow Route to indicate mitigation measures to achieve interior noise levels of 45 CNEL or less, and 65 CNEL or less `or patios or balconies. 12. Mitigation measures for the exterior noise levels shall include: a. A undulating berm /wall along Arrow Route. The wall shall be constructed of decorative material and shall be submitted in conjunction with the required landscape and irrigation plans prior to issuance of building permits for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. Undulating turf mounding and shrub planting shall be provided adjacent to the wall to soften streetscape views; b. Upper stogy balconies shall be enclosed with glazing (such as Lexan panels), or shielded in an acceptable manner based mpon a final acoustical analysis submitted with the construction drawings. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Civic Center. Di`ive shall be constructed as a half width s reet in conformance with the attached diagram, Exhibit "A ",- from the westerly boundary of any phase of the project to Haven Avenue. Sidewalk may be deferred on the portion easterly of the project limits until the adjacent property develops. 2. The portion of the existing right -of -way for, _Civic Center Drive from, the westerly terminus of the cu'r =2e -sac bulb to the westerly property line of the project shall be vacated prior to the issuance of building permits for the development phase containing that portion of street. Easements for utilities and storm drains shall'be reserved as necessary. 3. Civic Center Drive shall be designed and app-oved for the total length, including right -of -way requi,vIvents, prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase. E Resolution No. DR 85 -06 - Lincoln Page 4 4. Arrow Route shall be constructed from the ,westerly boundary of any phase of the project to Haven Avenue, 5. The site shall be protected from storm water flows (100 year frequency), from the area to the north. A combination of street and underground storm drain within Civic Center Drive will most probably be required to provide the proper level of protection. 6. All pertinent t -tnditions of Approval of Parcel Map 8345 shall apply to this project. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick UEF zs Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission c 'r"r-4e City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and • regular -'y introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at z regular meeting of the Planning Com ration held on the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIW -RS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: U IE CITY OF ITEM: mss. �- ✓� RANCHO CUCAlV ONGA TITLE GYlG G�NTc� 7� /!/E E"HIBIT_ - SCALE- j. mm� VV' O Z U O CL i - U d d b` C c O N �� a M •� �. N a Ir ^r2 �NYO~tf o. dgy0 qq gLi...0 °R10 AN •�� p Yp qU LC Y`.Nq may° q�y� €. Yd.. W�LOL d 6t qy� N�Yy. il NYd Ga. i Y i` M. C u g Y �m OI { j py �� A U. S G ° N • E Y 2 O y g G w 6 O : Y'. 6YN ° ^4 dOO U>f Lq P pE .a 09 EG L y �tw. ilG Udlr Y. u^ly SBGy'O °CadiYi�G��Sy.O YUyL G. °YU �a'� ° YqU UOL',L N.a c a=r .°+YI`fiu. -RN �S Ay dO.oa�a •LbY ^NN ^U uYU 3 N • _ yr OUJLw �'^C.LS 1OC Yu^i pEEEN aar G. -n.N,a ,_� AVn.G d,° V. - °EE6 yY,,.gY, ^q >NO "°f pry ApO q G YY ^a0 CO. C =d.Y NqC apq„v� �Y drJ .n•^, Fd: at P�Yyu ^' 9ui a a`r mwn ^.� ��."�. 'q�^ .- �O�O�y 0= ^q ��p >^. P CaEi4�UwN Y°y H .� wo°`.cyY avM a «�a'.1 M YNL�`.T M +C.oV N G -Lyn Oy16U it sY ugQCEQ' M Y.VUy 6G�Ca Oy YYENa OC � +OLY L ° °dp y • O �C OC>YUYE 4 _�aL _uq Ct �''d �U`� OId °yO "Cl Y�a�2� E Y�>Nq Na.Y NYNYUU L a ~�T OOa�i ^Y4no IINLN=� o � =0Q.0N bur QN'�CGi rLiF <OAm �L p�p1„1 d I7 m z °o 0 i- 0 °u v °c lL O ° Yl L L O O 6 y m u n +� O Qd my u� c d 6� E u O � O 72 O ,U Y• L pF 4 LI �2,e n v1 N 411 ° N e' o t F n° ° 1 u� C L i �N. M GAG S Q Q A H p 6'i L L O O 6 y m u n +� O Qd my u� c d 6� E u O � O 72 O a3 c~`�n ao�CL�oui 096r� ::�aieaea °Y a °eu ' q U -- «... (((��� AY - Eci ' y. g Y C T Y 6 C o O • 2• 6 qT L O S q} y '. C �^ . • •� n °u LV�? Ra. = oA�Cp uvp YN p L q Z Or-VO r °.:a r _- O }qC Vwq q4 ,u •.$°iN da ^ LO b fftl ^y OprN MVM°Q. "� °M oo" °Uq tl0 n nU nEa N L '6wq. O.L °q Y N�� N ° Uvbi.rG..L b c Yq py —2 > C qY L g° 6N i1�YD. Nx Rq L C.L vai L. yha°+.L Y'•C Y. L .qG n t y Y Y CC TZ to- C^ Y U b L All •�.. CpNq yL p M U Npb^ Y x «„°,L .+.'•_.+ N$N ^a °wlrq v"•yS �q 5z: o qy 4y r a.o n!i Yu NE >. ^y2q aP'r �`NC tlyN ,M Gy.0 YT�6 Nd'Gp^ Y NtV. a� NC YYp01 LCV ^y ��^ ^�1 -w4H C.p EG bA.LL6 �" 9 O +q• M N c T u b°d g i O L ^ N g O L Y VT q ^N�,Y~ CSGC p ��^ C Ybp xp rpj q.N .+ GEYP Y Y.uy O q•n Ley .00 C�x q qOU^ NL°. Y•b6G yC qWW i`a. .np q� .� `y H.b`s �.�-t � N r L f' w L� >> C b b ^NSPgg; VM •� J� p U N Y b L wV n 0. ^ a ° ^O O q. L r> ' bu b qYi LT u N�tlL G ^Cy b� �x >t LAC�a 60 p�yy�pp CLI ivC bOI• G ` M °•^ •-� bS C E�6 '- •°^ pp 4�Nw Ubg G CM44•� 41�w MV x A— _ qqE uTP .^.0 _ .°.. N -5-2= K ".422 Nd G 0 4� 1p 1 m S v O Y � i P i C L yea G w ^p tl W" • 1-1 d ^�N Tdub"e O LW ^ Y Yom•. wW ^^ BAs ob spy do „� ua L u ~ n A L S C `C,OV qP q}W > NL•y L.. N + S y Y di WY N��yC o�'N-.' ob ^ L o y C t Y � N ~Yw q O r_9 6M y >>1w oqE M O 4 y y aq b YOppw D 1•r p°.LFyG g CCY NLG. . °ft E ...0 C' o y YN`^ q,,,� '� 9a1yY Nu4 H A M ^q CSP tl� E y Y y q� tl w >,.°. N� .VU •O Y L� by ` N C E +G" j` N y +oo•� N•'•"..A.' _ O q S M tl�� x �` >..°. u y q> Y. u • NM - . 21.0 O� aCgo p ^Y Ly n+ Vs u �dR V ,'!, ..° � qWi .N 60bV _ i�^ lL q^ ACN UG�xL �a:Cn O O _G° O66 " ^GxC Nq xWy° N'r'G qd CEO ns> aR S�YO.e `9N �L 'Y M� Y �Sb yn0 �Y°LrC =l, YL r N"Cp'ue pa us °a a quX 9c NQ °as i. O, w�v YtI�o'xoL� t ^Lp� .L, Gpo' c�a nO ^q � ^ >dV =O� b.NIL C^ 9r-.q gT`xq '6r b9b .� 9 s�N_ O•.r°.,� L m Y Y LNer.� q tl r >b RZ .. -17;z L q^ b bo nLp" =iw bga NGL tly Y gc,q JgSw yam qY MC O.GL grG.gb B > ^. ° C�t'i,. yn 6° bb NS ° Y� "tuU L. E.E L 'S nOq cu tl L CTgL SS °L ^��a rd �yY.1 ; �.yNfi Ev b 2r pu = C IN 3 a2 N:;; • c42 ° oq U O W ^ qy � Z V.°.0 nC LGN i..N, L a L C}✓ U P' q L p agbbL. wcn E OL �-w� �22- - •-•. ub n-swoe K'-"a p .-u >rn nu AUK' Cl J E4.9 ° ._ nb ii oL Os N.cq� �°o+[w �• a3 G g u. C��. O. • ° O O^ �yy t N y D ^ V uLAi > T O < C d 7 aaeY. p ^�A �'A• Y L Ad ^ Z d S Ay OU u q d d L S A �v p O N NP O9y^ +^ 'N cN d =L a•rw ^^ �v` na .<.w d.< i r d a Y N ... a w y .-. .p z FY ^K^ La ° •r d jPL c y� O 10 <o Ea' OSA N o LC YN RYA y. N D. N U TO 0'- 1°"O'.N�6y p• Af. �o .-YeEf ENE q. +c:4 Cw woo .yam St! V <NS� LI^ y' N Oa Y/•f4 d� YpV yN` d�NLC ' Ny YO L CY.nnN 9> D7 x nV PH ' y'LA ~ ^Vp� Uy E n qYL y W NL I.,. CcC P a n .• of O� ~ YVpi LPN LM D. w L E 4 C UA 6Lp ^dU N .G ^aq T LA T T�LQb Z6.Cn a- ^� d T�Ar �e Ew CE Em <•�D wF+d" >G Cd DC _ _ 6EU uN ov N M A N 4 7 u^ 4 h JC. N O F- L 71 6N Y O� > P 4 N Q C Q A O n Q Y dL.-L Iv O g O N PZ C. r-L T Uy C a A 0 two. R Y N ay O M <L S^ G VO R �9 °° <9 ' pn� N dN LT•�q py, sn ^�p-�;N d•YD d • N G> a O C Y m <• S d A -w j - L� N ^ T ^_ Y n n N _ O PY wo =.o. N d you A d N� ad aN0 aE AU N <ca NNYd y0 O -w ^uL.0 nH L O q A D'C +YA L d O V $3 o. OP O 4 i U> BYO � Gi 6 V A P ��y G � a J L yq < ° Uu O t C E Cp d am > >V FM <a3i u °dd ' ui nw Ya o u do a�O1 ro L' NO 6AO¢i } Qy a=no 4 K9 1ON.5 q Q06 QN6A W6 n:5NN12 \ Y z m y Na m�oy eq a- ot.c� drn n V YS ¢~ ELUj 4S G. NLL Ypp 4 E v d 1 a^a^ Y a n EU bQE "riot �� �- :Ja L� O uV.+ -' •a L� Y m• .' .� o d L c` y>. •W WV =G -.^..E °� u G c � E.d+E ��L� s es ptOi. • «_ u LL U _ 6 qqA c o' oY C Sa u� G c V y tlT yS« Cdb VNyI� NY d�uY CNNY..��- o Nyy c hi .. a a EE ¢ k, AWOL LLVNi �- 6dd Gd tz wit a cL {J Ci u AA L" F dCa Y W naE ^ >roi d0 EdEo A E -3 L uU. 3 Yd^N _ y� Nt.�...'a o tY a ma y"y d 4Va a. 6do`� U.. d �A d 9 c 03c cS .d000Vd AEQe Aa 5 .:5Z OiA dwu a u.EaU O �iYit uY yid ut� N� -cti WI Euq o A qo -� yoW -r O 2 Y d q t d'- O d. LO O ~tIt U q C9 C E.n q ny c6 Nd'^ a - 6� «CT �.n Y d S MI v y ya ASUd Yi1r Y CO6gY 6tL L �� ?u pA V TZ« n•- W A 09 L d U N V.o p Gt OY EO E N d - =d d � O u c cc m d.u.m u N � .>s.. m E y .n n wo. V N - c v o &� Et Qi dQYd F pq.A C C Y J o N ^ A a +`Tod A 1-• 4 6« Y LG-2 n °. S 1L N p N E d'a >, r V W 6 7 6 N aduq 6« q Y. O N > y N q A Ce d JE Ga> m - du. Ypp � aCS • «_ u LL U _ 6 qqA c o' oY C Sa u� G c V y tlT maL Y•� A al�.l � qin d y N Ynp• L� a a GM^ Oq •3 dN .-v A _ LAd'n �.Y iNN a i AC VQ ^. aiA naE ^ >roi _ dQ�J � � AN�O l.'.L mourn .C- y"y i0 yLL i Scd- A N Qi1 AO puT CC p EZ -Q 9 c 03c a d - dY q Cu ^ -.N G T,y�A � uY yid T: off. A • du yoW -r Pet cv Y Aa dy C E.n q ny YC� eo' LO ZLLdN .ccA L♦ T arm ?u ey y a �di r c cc E.''�»N. rte � .�N v E L zzz &� Et J o N N< n - .- A 4z; Ga> ' uN �n9E 6« oN N LF doq r Aa.^ 1s. N 69. Orn L� V L'Z � 2 A. c • c 2 O L da N c C C A, Qty �rcd N E NCf [i LCI OI jAC �`yd N. 31LL AN. aCO NN d �NL O Y t d Y VQI ..G. L c d nN HAw A.Gn a � y LL so o�na yE V m ! j� � �.d p p b L LEA p N V d d AY qr tY_ r .°.i . .c d. L e p N •� ,� v vi W Y Y y ro° Z e • Z O O t C r L i i G -. 6 y y ' 'j dy P L Oa u Go n P- -apt w Pi V p 'Q o d.L.� n p ^ Y r.-O L oo� T Ta.c d nqL L ro o ova dL. C+N E Eyi^ 4 4dq ro N N E Euron OTF° '� to' � Ot tOt9 C p q q q i R yNj OI. L dl CTf. L Ny N vo T ua,'u uC'e'O- �� Giq L dO� C� OD Upn nNA a `� da N uqc p o " ucdro °mss a,yq a �L d$ °° c i °O 4� « t L1 +•b_ i. ` _ up. ^� mu a vi a''q da c Ede.o oaov aAi °.F°a r d a d M q q n �? u be _ a a N m+ ° EC rE d.E dt�6q b0 ti O.N dN d �d oY �.qq Cpn�L` u� on«Gm -L c a.A.. Y +' r�� ea. nro .. — n�--1 do N «n °c u^ ��� ay bdcN a N �ro €Li m HL rp ee coY. �a °O o an mro��"e C mY q r i G1 V O Z; C � Y L Y O d N N G OI o+E UM y� p GLp dN y �p a ti N dL °P• .^ V EZy. pLn. Y1V> NO u P L n sn uro1n T 6gpd O6+�E.°" L WNp WYU �p �J1c.I.G~ ° n1�. t dn. d c = N m o w L o 0 9 c d L yy Y ^ L w nt`y No w G y T E rn pY .r mid tp ap a o iqp E o d C N 4 M Y MrY rn J p C Y aNO:c c w u � V L d 0• qur « L •o •n a AM 2^ U �' ern E ¢r � S N pp L 4 A 6 L 6 d« E 1VY Ya}i d No C T u �O Y_ m =n E V a..o tom, Ty `6 � o m NS'�aa.• 'C V• `� y •.0.. L c O O � Nu E W O CO c T• tL qU E.. pL L.C6 v E p L 2N N OT # C N2 p� N Et �o •Yp _m 6 b 4 P L Ia Z a av° U q; as S N- Y a Z ��dC2 L T VO• Z �:C Q�T O. GL¢Vy u N V 4J E✓' vc dny N« Q. N9. p CL Vy O C �q C LMCyE CnU i•� Gw u SugiV W ci yol 6N PEN aq.LC � L �� rn'ew. dq0 n y'C%1 m9�9 mC G 9N LEV 9NEa+Y EE LL R L 3 'p �Ca p�LEq NEdS � QO •dpi L.N nM C Ta^ a6 �.G EL Ln Oy d>6 a p �. u � Y m ' «mo u � q € UN ou Q C Nn S T. Lic me LA H Ncaa oq« a .a u�v c� TL c N6W A^ ¢6Na hC: n Np 6W�+ ¢U 6� WiNL LU 36 q V9 r < w 1 ~I ✓� 1 \I �I �I ^� d c = N m o w L o 0 9 c d L yy Y ^ L w nt`y No w G y T E rn pY .r mid tp ap a o iqp E o d C N 4 M Y MrY rn J p C Y aNO:c c w u � V L d 0• qur « m a..SC.iv •o •n a AM 2^ U �' ern E ¢r � S N pp L 4 A 6 L 6 d« E d q 4 Ya}i d No C u �O ERR =n E V a..o tom, Ty `6 � o m NS'�aa.• c •.° Ed Lr ov n� C C Epp c Ea --T .I c >.y 67 N E a'Y L E a^ y L NU �a� 4 Sa CON Y.S Q^ c •�•, ^"'• yS c OT d� - CN duy. C N2 MO N Et �o •Yp _m 6 b 4 P L Ia Z a av° U q; J •L•d E` Ne S d c = N m o w L o 0 9 c d L yy Y ^ L w nt`y No w G y T E rn pY .r mid tp ap a o iqp E o d C N 4 M Y MrY rn J p C Y N y °a O O d 0 c^ O L o L.3Yr Ll 0. .?. .° ° r AON AY L = Oa L N ^OV`i � ^c_ _c6C N N pp L O OY q� �Y pd q d P_ ?. p 6q E0.- G n.. 9 LE Na. Oa LL d °d .•. p� " 3u r N.> t d,Lp` O.d U 4 N °= C 6 O° ^ D p• LL qT d d A i d N a gg �O. �.0 Q1f. •n QN eta .�. NN q..=. d 2 N 4 � u • E d N L q~ N d y G^ a °.0. •C f y d ^c d qq 'Al U o L CC. 6 N~ � vir b-41 \J 6 .te n '� C� 6J tJd C; d N O O d 0 c^ O L o L.3Yr Ll 0. .?. .° ° r AON AY L = Oa L N ^OV`i � ^c_ _c6C Dn O OY q� �Y pd q d P_ ?. p 6q E0.- G n.. 9 LE Na. Oa LL d S U 4 N °= C 6 O° ^ D p• LL qT d d A i d N a 1�9 r �O. �.0 Q1f. •n QN eta .�. NN q..=. d Y -Y u = � L E w L r L L d O a+ y' a O� O N y � uo2 V O `\ I W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbsy,'City Engineer BY: Barbara Kr.il, Engineering Technician SUBJECT* ENVIRONMENTAL RSSESSMENT'AND PARCEL MAP 8192 THE l JMp��r� j O v a 1877 • nR l'J\ uui'li'Ml i - A division of NG acres of land into 4 parcels with Caryn Community Project locate( between the extension of Banyan Street and Highland Avenue on the, north and south and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken on the east and west I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map. B. Purpose: To divide 103 acres into 4 parcels for the development of t e aryn Planned Community Project on tonight's agenda as Tentative Tract No. 12643. C. Location: Between the extension of Banyan Street and Highland Avenue on the north and south and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenues on the east and west. D. Parcel Size: Parcel I - 28.80 acres. Parcel 2 - 50.40 acres. Parcel 3 17.10 acres. Parcel 4 7.10 acres. E. Existing Zuning; Medium Residential District-(4 -14 du /ac). F.. Existing Land Use: Vacant, G. Surroundin Land Use: Worth Vacant. South - Vacant, East - Vacant. West - Vacant (site of Tentative Tract 12642) H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Deesiivaatt_i_onn_s_: ort - Medium Rpsi entia l (4-14-du/ac Me ium Hi- gh Residential 14 -25 du/ac), South - Vacant - Victoria Community Project. East - Vacant. West - Medium Residential (4 -14 du/ac). ITEM I I. SitL Characteristics: The site slopes approximately 4 to 5% to the south. II. ANALYSIS: The proposed parcel map will divide Phase II of the Caryn Planned – Coimnunity Project into four (4) parcels. Parcel 1, 2 and 3 will be further subdivided and'developed by separate developers in conformance with the previously approved community plan and Tentative Tract 12643, Parcel 4 of the parcel map will be the site ,of a City park. Improved access to each parcel will be provided upon development of individual parcels. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Also attached for ;your review and consideration is Part I o "t`lie—Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed °art, iI of the Initial Study, fhe environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Stu,_, 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 Rep Pt-Newspaper. Posting at the -: site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION•: it is recommended that the Planning Corms §ion adopt the attached — resolution conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 9192 and authorizing the issuance of a Negative Declaration. i Respectfully submi ted 0 LBH: K Ko Attachments: Vicinity Map j r rel Map Resrilution Raeommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study DEER CANYON f?c Y CANYON COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ` If CITY OF RANCHO \CCU^C-A�MONGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY OF RANCHO .�— . 1 CHAFFEY COLLEGE CUCAMONGA I � BANYAN AVE. r - ��• PROPOSED FOOTHILL FREEWAY SITE' HIGHLAND AVE am I `w is y PLANNED � BASELINE AVE. .:COMMUNITY�.b /ly O� O k BERNAROINO FREE AY I.10 TY OF RANCHO GUCAM ONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP Il�w 1 title; ; A . P.M. 9192 P�Bz FOOTHILL 0 BLVD. <. ao Eu a :.�"� >'1 2 I-- z ~s a c 1- w O� O k BERNAROINO FREE AY I.10 TY OF RANCHO GUCAM ONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP Il�w 1 title; ; A . P.M. 9192 P�Bz T /2 %3e `%lCr -ACRES ACRES SO 21 28 R _ACRES l �_ T ZV 57 �� �: /Y � Z:3 ` [61, STR[SRt COrFER .-e-� i V :•�,�1`-- ....'",�. Y \ � ` ai• j:l _D�.�,. cina� raiprrtt/�. • - . � -•. � _ F\ -- C- __"+ -C � C] Ant,WR,)x re4 5111, : � SeNB M1]m' 1n:i-ti w .R. Tit 1 REMAINDER V,iRCEL��(l� y T!FxtRAE x'+TF.i - `` , - _. � %.• 14 - ��. I. 30SS AREA . NIS ACRES MEP/S fBIr10EY: OCIiHG: 2. 1LLE.OINENSIOn: ellE A,rROi1NATE UTILITIES RMnIOR n: TxE fltiR EOpy, q41 B FOOGtR. INC. tG N S[v[N C 10IW f0Ulm F01nA00 ]I 5• QIEIYO 711NINL . CARER I.C. C•A -EWIR WT[R BISTRICT !u[ZO ELCA,SiG. G ,IUO COSBiAiHSAUGAtt %Nl ,LN. EIRANNn, SEEN E7111 N91 -75,7 ,ZEX 9. PROPOSED )ONCYB . CARTR hq ,.O.IIN nE E7[q NW)D B71U0 CUGlOxG. G ,17]0 5.. ADJACENT Ib TN :i TBN[R jyJ��I rl- S�^x[d GII'mix En30N CO,_ EAUtN - VACANT Av[YUE. USE E. TRW, BIIIEE EAST -rAGNT 4WUO. EA f17El NEST � II[LO[NiIAL '6. "AL YUREEB OF PARCELS .A TEE 7. THEM AR E NO EYISTINO 1U1L01X05 OR. TREE 6x � � EALII0Rx1A GS taM, U1, S. SIA1E C4LELE W GGTER IN 0 VMTNER ON SITE, f.0. SOL ]I1R S. AN, I— AAAACIN. G UNT, Cli, OF RB CIOTCVCAMIMW U 'LL I.E Pt MILIGJLE TEEE,W.t le 9. TNIS — iS FW FINANCM CONvE,ARCE FUnOSES CEr1f4ZR[7nNC CP,IRr t\i ,om xnENU Art - ONL,. GAOO LNEAtuG,. G 21730 4 - 30. ASSESSOR VMCEL Iw•s 275- 141 - 24.27,8 2B, FOR LION STATE NIGIda, W B.N. A•tBN 275- 351 -1. 2. S, I, 8, 10. 11. 12. 33 R. A: snot a s -slur n r.,. I. IT'St[ a OR T 11. EARCEL 5 TO tE OEpfGRG TO txE CItY OF aWTN SIOC D< GS[Llx[ AT[. STSe Gft OF wt CNE[t. LEGAL ES RI,T ON ■RNCMO CUCAnM4A,O0. lU.KIC PARR lVApSCS. BEING;. SUOOIrisim wa,oUION SOUTx EST QUARTER ANO A 1.110N SO nuir OUANTER OF SL:LIOa 36. 1pM5N11 I N N Tx� 6 NEST Sidi tGxAR01x0 nER101AN. EE1lC�+�,i1�[ Do 1' Im Ell O G>�GA�LIp�G' / - 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION - y 3977 INITIAL STUDY - PART I -GENERAL For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be comp7l -ated and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department ;:here the project application is made, Upon receipt of this application, the Planning Divisio,l staff will prepare Part II of the initial Study and make recommendations. tg Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one of three determiiations: (1 ) The project will have no significant environmental impart and a Iiegative Declaration will be filed, (2) The project will have °z significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report wiII;Pie prepared, or (3) An additional information report should be suppliel bl, the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: 3/27/85 f Project Title: TENTATIVE NAP Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: HALL & FOREtdAr, INC, 3186 -L AIRWAY AVENUE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 I Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this ° �o, ect: ROBERT IMSANDE HALL A FOREMAN, INC. 3186f AIRWAY AVENUE, MESA �CF,. 92626 Location of Project: NORTH OF HIGHLAND, SUTH OF BANYON AND EAST OF ROCHESTER Assessor's Parcel No. List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: NONE � I�1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed u5E or proposed project: 463 SINGLE FAN.ILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER CARYN P.C. Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any:_ 102.1 ACRES NET - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS SIZES NOT DETERMINED YET. Describe the environmental on top set1'ing of the project site including information ography, soi'J stability, plants (trees), land animas, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary Sheets) :­ THE SITE IS SITUATED ON GROUND SLOPING OF APPROX. 4 -5%. LITTLE OR NO VEGETATION; NO ANIMALS CULTURED HISTORICALOR SCENIC ASPECTS ARE PRESENT ON THE 'ITE. NO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE PR €SENT. Is the project part of a larger project, one of zi series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact CARYN P. c. I -2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? x 2. Create a substantial: change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? and information presented belief. I further understand are true and correct that additional x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal adequate evaluation information may be required to can be made by the Planning services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? x 4. Create changes in the'a±cjsting Zoning or General Plan designations? x S. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or d;lsposal of potentially f hazardous materials such as Toxic substances, , flammables or explosives? x Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): P 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project will generate daily: 0.0463 MGD 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project: TRAFFIC STOOY 7RFPADCn rno ree •e 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and ;pilling) required for this project, in cubic yards: 350,000 CY 10. If the pr-oje�t involves the construction of residential units, complete the form o., the next page. CERiIFICATION: I hereby Vi attached exhibits certify that the statements furnished above and in present il.itial evaluation to tha the data and best of my ability, information requiTed for this and that the-facts, statements, and information presented belief. I further understand are true and correct that additional to the best of TRY knowledge and be submitted before an Division. adequate evaluation information may be required to can be made by the Planning Date: Sigrlat ure ._ Title ROBERT iMSANDE, AGENT L:3 f , RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid the school distr,�t in assessing th -zir ability to accommodate the proposed residential development. Developers are required to secure letters from the school district for accommodating the increased number of students prior to issuance of building permits. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:_,_ cARVM Corr +ANV r M �� 4z Specific Location of Project: ROCHESTER /HIGHLAND PHASE I * PHASE 2 * PHASE 3 * PHASE, 4* TOTAL* 1. Number of single family units: 127 124 99 463 2., Number of multiple family units: 0 0- O 0 0 3. Date proposed to .: begin construction: N.A, N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 4. Earliest date of occupancy: N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. ' Mode1� *CONSTRUCTION PHASING /SEQUENCE NOT SELECTED AT THIS TIME and # of Tentative f 5. Bedrooms Price Range c _ e N.A. I -4 RESOLUTION NO. C A RESOLUTION' OF THE PLANNING- COMMISSION OF 7`1E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9132 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9192), LOCATED BETWEEN THE EXTENSION OF BANYAN STREET AND HIGHLA AVENUE ON THE 4- NORTH AND SOUTH AND BETWEEN THE F,XTEN OF ROCHESTER AND MILLIKEN ON THE EAST AND WEST WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map dumber 9192, submitted by The Car n Company and consisting of 4 parcels, located between the extension of Banyan Street and Highland Avenue on the north and south and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken on the east and west, being a division of a pertion the southwest 1/4 and southeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Meridian; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 1983, a fcrmrl application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and` ` WHEREAS, on May 22, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly `t advertised public hearing for the above - described map. I 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 t1e 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, p r 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 May 22, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9192 ,is approved subject t L to the recommended,Conditions of Approval pertaining hereto. k APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUr.AMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman �— r' ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Qeputu Secretary I, Rick Gomez, 'leputy Secretary of the Planning Gommissicn of the= City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the Foregoing Reso.ution was duly and regularly introduced, passes, and adopted by the Planninr; Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning -. Commission held zn the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS• WES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - RECOMMENDED,CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATIPP: Between the extension of Banyan St TENTATIVE PARCEL ASAP NO: .9192 & Hi hiand Ave. on the N. & S. and betty. DATE FILED: March 3, 1985 Rochester & Milliken on the E. W. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:BeIn'2 a subdivision of a NUMBEQ OF LOTS: 4 portion S.W. 1/4 & S.E. 1/4 of Section 30, GROSS ACREAGE: 103 Township i North. Ranqe 6 West, San Bern. ASSESSOR PARCEL.NO: 225 -1�1- 24,27, Merl ian +8,28, &-225- iU,lt, 1S 1_ 7EVE�OPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Tht Carpi Company SAME Hall & Foreman 10340 Foothill 3186 -L Airway Avenv Rncho Cue, "A 91730 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Improvement and dedication hquirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access X 1. Offers of dedications shall be made of interior loop street rights -of -way as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: 44 • °eet on Rochester Avenue 0 1 feet on "S" Street feet on X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standarus. 4. All rights of vehicular ingr:;ss 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 road:,, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent: with the map. X' 6. All existing easements lying within future right --of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 6. Surety 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 buildirg permit issuance or X_ 2. A lien agreer,�nt must be executed prior to recording of the mao for the access roadway improvements described in. Condition No. F -11 or a surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer & City Attorney. 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 permi or C. 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 reap 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 )r all half - section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements upon development of each parcel. Si d e- Drive Street Street A.C. Me ian , Stier Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Li hts Overla Island* Other Rochester X X X X X KISu X X X X X =— X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter 4- X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, AMk fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained fron the City. Engineer's Office, in addition to any other " permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans- shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to. issuance of an encroachment permit. 5. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded except along Highland Avenue. X 3. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with iocRtions and tyoes.approved by the City Engineer. p 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. P X _ 10. LandscLpe 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. a D. 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. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal j of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study .`or the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detentiorr basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff , -3- �- =3 E. Grading X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading- Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X _ 2. A soils .report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed ay the State of California to perform such work prior to issu6ce of building permit. X 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 Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. R 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. F. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows; CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Controi District Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X — 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. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephL'e 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 CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. t� 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. AM a -4- -�- 0 f X 7. i 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 writinj. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shat! be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed tail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditic:as, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail a�andsrds, shall be submitted to and approved by tnrp City Planner prior to recordation for ;' _ andl-or prior.to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, ai deposit shall be posted with the City - coverii,g the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment .Di,trict 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the foTlowing 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. Upon the dwielo ment of an individual p p y parcel, an improved access roadway shall be provided within the dedicated right of way for Rochester Avenue and "S" Street a .'and ng From Highland Avenue to the most westerly boundary of- that parcel. The extent of the improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. An Improvement Certificate to this effect shall be placed on the final map. X 12. The development of each individual parcel shall be subject to the Conditions of Approval for 'Tentative Tract No. 12643. X 13. N.A.P. Area within`parc0 2 shall be acquired from :'alTrans by the developer prior to recordation of the map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA' LL0Xr;3. HUBB5, CITY ENGINEER by. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cUCnnroN STAFF REP0RT 0 0 F Z U a DATE; May,22, 1985 1977 k TO: Chairman and Members of the Planting Commission FROM: Rink Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSMENT AND 'TENTATIVE TRACT 12643 ,• CARYN - The development of 463 single family lots on 104 acres of land in the Caryn Planned Community (Phase II), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of Banyan Avenue, west side of Rochester Avenue, east of Milliken Avenue - APN 225- 141 -08, 12-169 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 225- 151 -3, 7, 11, 13. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a Tentative Tract Map and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Development of 463 single family lots. C. Location: North side of Highland between. Milliken and Rochester. 0. Parcel Size: 104 acres. E. Existing Zoning: Caryn Planned Community. F. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant land, within the county. South - Vacant land, Victoria Planned Community. East - 4 single family homes, vacant - property, within the County. West - 'Vacant, designated Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) and Fler; Control. G. General Plan Designations: Project Site Caryn Planned Community, North - Flood Control (City Sphere of Influence) ' South - Foothill Freeway, Victoria Planned Community East - Low Residential, Flood Control (City Sphere of Influence) West School site, Flood Control ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT �P TT 12643 = Caryn May 22, 1985 Page 2 H. Site Characteristics The project site is currently vacant and slopes to the south at approximately 4 1/2%. , With the exception of alluvial shrub the site contains no ;.3,iificant vegetation. 1. Applicable `<Regulations: The Caryn Planned Conununiay text permits a total of 958 units for both Phases I and iI (933 proposedl_- Lots: north of Vintage Way require a minimum average of 6,250 sq. ft. South of Vintage Way the lots must average 5,000 sq. ft.: II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The proposed subdivision represents Phase II of the Caryn Plannad Community which was annexed into the City effective April 3, 1985. The Planned Community is designed with north /south greenbelts and a 7 to 8 acre neighborhood park. Concurrent with the annexation, the City adopted a Development Agreement which states that no conditions more .onerous than those contained in the original County approvals far the Caryn Planned Community and Phase I ()i 12642) will be applied to the project. Therefore, the Conditions of Approva ;,ror -the s+ibject tract are consistent with the Planned Community `next and Tract 12642, with the exception of the Design Review Committee recommendations which the applicant has concurred with. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee recommends approval with conditions concerning the design of the trail system and landscaping, as follows: 1. Eliminate 2:1 slopes _across bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Provide meandering sidewalks in-the greenbelts. 3. Provide sidewalk connections where streets and trails intersect. 4. Provide similar landscaping and trail 'treatment along Vintage Drive to link the two offset greenbelts: 5. Provide slope planting and irrigation as per the Community Planned Text for the 20 foot plus slope within the freewav riaht- of -wav icntt +h nrninri- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12643 - Caryn K y 22, 1985 3 C. Technical /Grading Committee: The Technical and parading Committees determined -that with the recommended conditions of approval the project will be consistent with the Caryn Planned Community Text, Development Agreement, anti City policies. A 21 foot fill is proposed at the southeast corner of the project within the freeway right-of -way to provide building pads slightly higher than the future Foothill Freeway for noise and sight mitigation. The grading is consistent with Phan- i of the Planned Commuq` y, and preliminary Cal Trans designs indicate an elevated .`eeway in this. location. D. Equestrian Trails Committee: The Committee reviewed the proposed 20 foot community equestrian trail along the south side of Banyan and determined that it is consistent with City design standards. The alignment on the south side of Banyan is also consistent with the proposed traii location westerly through Phase I and continuing to Haven Avenue. E. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Assessment Report was prepared by the ounty of San Bernardino during review of the Planned Community text. The report focused on environmental topics , including geology, flood control, and drainage,_ circulation, noise, air quality, community services, and public utilities. As a result of the review, the County issued a mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.. With respect to the application for Tract 12643, staff completed an Initial Siudy and no new additional environmental impacts were identified. The mitigation measures identified in the County Environmental Report and incorporated in the Conditions of Approval for Phase I were determined to be adequate. If the Coffnission concurs with this finding, issuance of a NePtive Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed subdivision map, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, is in compliance with the Planned Community text and applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. In addition, the project together with the mitigation measures will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or cause significant environmental impacts. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Dail.y Rbort as a public hearing item, the property posted, and notices sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the sit <. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ' TT 12643 Caryn May 22, 2485 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all materials and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution ani is3uance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Re pectfu ubmitted, r is it Planner Ru:CJ :ns Attachments: Exhibit "A=' - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Natural Features Exhibit "C" - Caryn Planned Community Land Use Plan Exhibit "D" - Phase I 20ibit "E" Tentative Tract 12643 Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Neighborhood Park Designs Initial Study, Part II with Addendum Resolution of Approval with Conditions with Ordinance No. 246 -A k! DEER CANYON DAY CANYON COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. `• / I CITY OF RANCHO •'\ CUCAMONGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY OF RANCHO , CHAFF:EY I, CU iI CAMONG ! gOLLEGE BANYAN AVE. PROPOSED FOOTHILL FREEWAY `J Abwwlw !e =mom ow nw�mwm Y� Ir"'aaaeee -mom mom r M. mm L1p,NS. HIGHLAND I AVE VICTORIA a PLANNED ��- BASELINE AVE �--- COMMUNITl FOO`T'HILL BLVD.. - r , d,, ui W >�tJ3P 4 8.�. a .��¢ m _ Q 'iz IW.. uj W 4�� Lt 0 > ¢ SAN ummmw� MA BERNARO(NO FREE AY j.lp V NORTH CITY OF ITEM. . 7r- Lz�51 RANCHO CUC'AIM0,NGA TITLE: _ comic, --Zr _ '` P .ANNINU I?IVISIUIV EXHIBIT- e! . SCALE: ` zlt NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE. PUNNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ---F _ SCALE: D BANYAN AVE RE lDENTIAL •� pp PARK _. PAR WAY- - w _ CORE • RESIDENT(AL -- Iynw la<ICLvt Q ,qcr NORTH CITY OF ITEEvi. _.LL RANCHO CLTIONGI TITLE N -� •N� vs�-5 PLANNING DIVSION EXHIBIT: G ALE. 9-7 ui to NOT RESDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL — RES DEN -z;;-. -z;;-. ' PART \` - - -_ AL _.ter _ ' t' Y— J�*t • N.A.P. NOT _.. WY CO IDO'R :NOTAPA Iynw la<ICLvt Q ,qcr NORTH CITY OF ITEEvi. _.LL RANCHO CLTIONGI TITLE N -� •N� vs�-5 PLANNING DIVSION EXHIBIT: G ALE. 9-7 NORTH CITY OF, ITEM: _ 777-27'106 3 RANCHO CUCAIV ONi GA TITLE: 8 L�1 tYil � L WTt 6 VAKK ,u r R%HESTER AVENUE V.r /N ?Y M.CO ltlflt t1 e 4R3®IC. A.•m AWl1,A.aaa •oo ,wn�.w.� la IumA Ommiaun wun E�o1A4 otYl.F AL . W /ibAD Imo.[ 'AK unm gA�AAOc nn AAwow�u, n .gym _ nouA -. - <IAOrarmis +. �� w AAn ,1.11AA4fA RIT AAAAUaa AO S. AA. � C prtlA�lAa r. Nrw Ai.s �PAAIA AOaAtAMAA1t 1N.b A,AU. AvL AY.sa. d. ��� ,Kt, M1 F.snnaw AllMi1TA3 PR Y1M 3l0A00 CY .� , nLL 3x,o0o CY � f AEAN Y O L. 0P5- y IHttpR,R VJf UHE S YR' j= ;_ ����,i��Lr tDLTYN LOi QtA0h0 INT[RI021 LOT LN[ RANTAN STREET dT VIRTA07 ONVE LOOP STREET 4� m,ew3RT .Ng aA.u... sTmoun lcctss '""" MINOR STREET f CUL•tE-SAC 1 wT ue � m suea�.l THE CAR%N COMPANY HALL b -.MmAN, 31M.1 , �VWV/ Ary r.011M1 � CO3T N 4� t ►4tai6 MGy NuuNU� t3. MrN L11V K t ant CITY Or ITrl%ll: TCI� ITLE:RA CHO CGAA�?- PL ANNIM3 DIV;i,SI0i1 EXHIBIT: - - / SCALE: ul! I liam MASTER P[,AN CARYN PARK THE CARYN COMPANY totrA.u- M&A m y, MRTH `0 CITY OF ITEN RANUHO CUCATAOINGA TITLEt PLANNINU DIVISION EXHIBIT. SCALE. 'T CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ARk PART II INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIr,T 1 ' DATE:_ APPLICANT:_ FILING DA ^.E: tL Imo* _LOG NUMBER: 1T /Z6SJTj�G/t,zYM T3 PROJECT: �fG 3 G•� n=7-5 PROJECT LOCATIONtg��,,p f!5 ft857�lc I- ENVIRONME% AL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1- Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have significant resultW ++ 4 a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. ,Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? T d. The destruction, covering or modification' of any unique geologic or physical features? e• Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? / ,G f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h• An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use any , of mineral resource? 2. Hydr�oloRy. Will the proposal have significant results in: ��I i Page 1 YES MAYBE l0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction, of flowing streams, 'rivers, f or ephemeral stream cuannels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alt erations 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 g': undvater characteristics? g• Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with aquifer? an Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other - wise available for public water supplies? i, Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Qty_. Will the pzZposal have significant results in: a. Constant or per'odic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Statiinary 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 temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Wi;l the proposal have significant. results 3n: a• Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? ~ b. Re4,uction of the numbers of any unique, rare o� endangered species of plants? 1C a. A substantial alteration of the present or Planned land use of an area? / 4,- b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? 1 -2. An impact upon the qulaity or qudnti`,y of existing consumptive or non- consumptive recreational opportunities ?�' Page 3 . c. Introduction YES `L4Y85 �i0 of new or disruptive' species o f plants into an area?,_." d. Reduction in the potential-for agricultural production? - ` �G Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers Of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 1Z 5. Hooulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: { a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing rousing, or I create a demand for additional housing? 6. 5ocio- Economic Factors.. Will the proposal have significant results in: I a. Change is local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tar. rate, " and property values? / V 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 Tesults in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or Planned land use of an area? / 4,- b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? 1 -2. An impact upon the qulaity or qudnti`,y of existing consumptive or non- consumptive recreational opportunities ?�' Page 4 YES 1MYSE no 8. Transoortation. Will the proposal have. significant results irk: C a. Generation of substantial. additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for i new street construction? Q- Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ / x 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have Will significant results a. it disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, ?aleontological, and /or historical resources? lU. Health. Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the Y ' proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of eo le to P , P• Potential health. hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of People to such org, aisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. ExgSsure afrPeople to potentially dangerous noiso levels? ,G The g. creation of objectionable odors? NZ h. An increase in light or glare? ,/' I Page 5 11. Aesthe YES :L4YBE NO j'CS. Will the proposal have significant results inc. a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an ae 'sthetically offensive site? C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power' b. Natural or packaged gas? Iz c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood structures? control g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? Az i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? ' 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? Iz m. Other 907ernmentai services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? E b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing i sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase ol)perpetuaeion of the consumption' of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sourF'es of ener y are available? Page E. YES MAYBE No e. Stbstantial depletion of any-nonrenewable or s <dree natural resource? 14. Mandatcrv.Eindin s of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envvronw�!nt, substantially reduce the habitat of f:ah or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered pla-tt or animal or eliminate iaportane examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the envirohment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of 1;ime while long- term impacts will endure well,nto the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an Individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human veings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OV ENPIRON'S%'TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers the to above questions plus a discussion of prop7sed Mitigation measures), Tom` Z SISn// 74 THi we "r77-* 73fi� Cr�).tC717?ov$ �jC �/�rQadfFL7 Mt'�?6.t7ES Try �ivdlz�v��,u -7�- "� �:� % GNVI�v.•vcE.er;,gZ., �. +r1z75t5 RIYl Fi// /tea —lal� �r.��'t�t.3 IcGie �bP/- 7"(m/.gL ANY /�KE/(J"1"f�L.. /AJt�}77Q,tl, Page i III. PETEM i`NATION On the basis of this initial evaluation. , I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect Y on the environment, and a NEGATIVi DECLARATION will be prgared. I find that althou�'.i the ?roposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATJo,l WILL BE PREPARED. El I find the proposed` ?ect `inY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an Eit,CAONXLNT '0iFACT REPORT i required. Date IGr -5.��� 19rr5" Signature Ct �Qflnpf Title I ADDENDUM TO INITIAL S 1DY PART I1 II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discus— sion of proposed mitigation measures). The project site is located within .a I4ity adopted earthquake fault zone based ;ipon the inferred location of the Red Hill fault, hence could expose people or property to geologic hazards. geotechnical studies prepared for adjacent projects to the south and southwest indicate ti;at ground rktpture by faulting is remote. These studies concluded that no mitigatiu,, mesures were necessary and no setback restrictions for residences were proposed. On -site geotechnical investigations have not indicated the presence of the fault on the site. Therefore, based upon these studies, the preponderance of evidence indicates the risk of potential ground rupture from faulting is low, tlerefore no significaint impact or mitigation measures are warranted. 2. a.b.c.i. The project site is located on a gently sloping alluvial wash traversed by several ephemeral stream channels. Day Creek, which is subject to flooding, is located to the east. Day Creek :cannel is currently unimproved and could expose people or property to flooding in; the easterly half (Phase II) of this Planned Community. Storm Wi,;er facilities will be provided as part of the development. Phase I on- s;,'te storm water and off -site sheet flow will be directed west to the recem;)y improved Deer Creek Channel. Phase II on -site drainage will be dire& W to Day Creek via the Highland Avenue spreading grounds at the southeast cornet of the site. 8. a.b.g. Development of the proposed Planned Community will significantly increase vehicular movement creating demand for new street construction and increasing traffic hazards. Street improvements, including proper signalization and signing, will be provided as part of the development. In addition, a trail system will also be constructed that will link with the Cat, of Rancho Cucamonga and regional trail systems. Both of these improvements will substantially improva traffic circulation in the area. IO.f The project site is located adjacent to the proposed Foothill Freeway which could produce noise levels that are potentially dangerous to future residents. A Noise Impact Study was prepared for the project, which recommended site design measures to achieve an acceptable noise environment. These mi4"Iatior, measures will be incorporated into each level of project design: 12.. fA.i.j.k. The proposed Planned Community will create significant need for the following utility. and public services: flood control structures, fire protection, police protection, schools and parks. Storm drain facilities will be constructed as a part of the development. The proposed master plan includes provision for 15+ acres of open space and park land, including a trail system. The developer has agreed to work with the school distr',ct to provide a temporary or permanent schoat Site, and to pay fees sufficient to provide temporary cla;sroum faeflities. A potential sc�)ool site is the acre park site located in the center of the Community. F ;ee and police protection services are contracted and would require additional f0ding to expand service to accomodate proposed development. I I I r I r i } f r �b V!_0 xi RESOL61(ION NO. A RESO.,UTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIP.e CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12643 AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR SAID MAP WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12643, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Halt & Foreman, Inc., 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 development of 463 single family lots on 104 acres of land in the Caryn Planned Community (Phase 11), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of Banyan Avenue, west side of Roct^ ester Avenue, east side of Milliken Avenue - APN 225 - 14108, 12 -16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 225- 151 -3, 7, 11, 13 into 467 lots, ro uiarly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on May 22, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read ,,d considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports dnd has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, t "ae Plannina Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as fo -tx4se SECTION 1; The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard tc Tentative Tract No. 12643 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of F tentative tract is consistent with the General P7ari, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentatiVcx tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The desigft 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. �C -a/ Resolution No. TT 12643 - Caryn Page 2 !g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on .the environment :and -a Negative Declaration is 'slued. SECTION 2: Design Review and Tentative. Tract Map No. 12643, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions: DESIGN REVIEW 1. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with applicable sections of the Development Code and City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance which have not been addressed either by the P`sanned Community Text or conditions aF tentative approval. 2. Uie site shall be ueveloped in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division,, the conditions contained herein, Planed Community Text and wher,±.applicable, Development Code regulat'ons._ Prior to any us( of the project site or business act•aity -being commenced t ?:!areon, all conditions of approval sham be comirleted to tha satisfaction of the City Planner. - 3. bYtailed park improvement and phasing plans, including grading, landscaping, and irrigation, shall be submitted for approval by the Community Services Director prior to issuance of building peroits. Construction of the required park shall be completed prior to final inspections and /or occupancy of any unit. 4, The final dos' n of the perimeter parkways, wails, landscaping and s;dewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to approval. by the Planning Division and coordinated for consiF%gncy with any parkway landscaping plan which may be require6 's„ the Engineering Division. 5. A trail connec -,.fin sh311 be provided along Vintage Drive to provide an erz_t /west liA between the off -set passeo trails. Passeo trail design elements such as landscaping and the pathway configuration shat, .be continued to identify said connection as a part of the trail system. 6. 2:1 slopes across north /south passeo trails and at the end of cul -da -sans adjacent to the park or a trail shall be raconfigured to provide for pedestrian and bicycle paths., The design of passeo trail walkways shall meander. II I Resolution No. TT 12643 - Caryn Page 3 B. Walkways shall be provided at e,id of cul -de -sacs into the park and north/south passeo trails. g. All decorative walls shali ba designed and constructed to incorporate design features such as tree planter wells, varipale setback, split block face, coluimns, or other such features to provide iri seal alit] physical relief along the wall face. 10. Street trees shall be provided. per phase as illustrated in the Planned Community Text and per approved landscape plans. TENTATIVE TRACT 1. The City Conditions of Approval for the Caryn Planned Community as contained in Ordinance 246 -A, attached hereto, hall apply -,:hexv applicable. 2. Desi.kn /Technical Review for architecture and site planning shall be acc4oplished prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. -;. An acoustical study shall �e performed to assess noise `ev? a at the deVelopment and shall be reviewed and apY'vved i:�y the planning Division prior to nap recordation. Detaile(i noise analysis and precise mitigation measures. shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to recordation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report stating that the recommended mitigation measures have been implemented, shall be submitted to the Planning Division and the building plans shall be so certlfieJ by the acoustical engineer. Acoustical studies shall be based on available profile and design data of proposed Route 30 at the time of tentative map approval. 4. The recammendatiot,s of the approved Geologic Report shall become conditions of this project. S. Final plans incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The final tract map, grading plans, landscape and irrigation. plans, and streei improvemani, plans shall he coordinated for consistency prior tr. Issucan,I of any permits (such as C.,ading permit, tree removal, encroachment, huildina permits, etc,) prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or has ! approved use commences, whicheve, comes first, Resolution Plo. TT 12543 - Caryn Page 4 i. A final grading plan shall be required. Said grading plan shall be submitted to the Grading Conxnittee for review and approval. All on -site c�.,t and fill slopes shall be a part of the downhill lot when within ar between individual lots, 8. Three (3) copies of a landscaping Plan shall be submitted for Planning Commiss -ion, review and approval. All slope banks in ex-ass of five (5) vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped for erosion coptro.' as follows: one 15- gallon or larger tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, one gallon largee size shrub per each 100 sq. ;t. of slope appropriate -m-ound cover. In addlitan, slope in excess of eight (8) feet in vertical height ane: on gre,lter slope shal i also include one 5- gallon or larger tree per each ''250 sq. ft, of slope area. Trees shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften slope plane. Maintenance by a Landscape Maintenance District may bfe required by P'.annirig Commission on a case -by -case basis for perimeter slopes_ 9. A%iy existing eucalyptus trees to be retained shal topped to thirty (a0) Meet, trimmed along the. sm fifteen (15) fae , and cleared of all dead lea, an.f branches. - 10, Three (3) copies o' an irrigation plan shall be submitted ror Planning Division review and approval when slope planting: is required. Slopes required to be planted shall be provided with an approved syste:, of irrigation, designed to cover all prot'xJ s of, the slope. 4 permanent irrigation system insia,llr,d 3y developer is required on all slopes with the excep� - ;-., of 'a,.sz less than 10' when within 501 distance of a hose L?h. A functional test of the system may be required. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shat1 be -the responsibility of the developer unitl the transfer to individual ownership or until the maintenance is officially assumed by a Landscape Maintenance District. All irrigation systems. where required, shlal be aa�igned on an indiividtiM lot basis unless commonly maintained in an approved manner. 11. A separate landscape and irN gation plan per City Standdrd for the perk Vr - -4;an landsc, ,,ping to be maintained by the City -d for review and approval by the City Engaiid, inre of building permits. Resolution No. TT 12643 - Caryn Page 5 AdMk 12. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed on public right -0 -way on the perimeter of this tract area shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City and annexed into the Landscape Ma ntenance District. 1y. All slope pla-itinq and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriv_ng condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold "an. occup?ed by the buyer. An inspection shall be c inducted by the Planning Division to determine that it is in satisfactory condition. 14. Water and energy conservation techniques are enccuraged tc ; he utilized, such as special irrigation techniques (e.g.,' drip irrigation),_drough� tolerant plant species, alluvial', rockscepe, etc. 15. Equestrian trail adja,ent: to Banyan Avenue shall be provided per phase and included on landscape play. 16. Final grading plans shall be prepared in accardence with Ordinance 118 and shall i„ciiide details of the retention basin, subject to the conditions of approval of th�q Planned rum-comity Deelopment Plan. 17. Lighting snd Landscape District for the project shill be establish d: for the maintenance and managemeiZ' of the common -pen space, recreational facilities, and public landscaped areas, and trails. 18. Provide all utility services to each "at. including sanitary sewerage system, water, electric power, gas aad telephone in accordance with utility standart 19. Installation of any Cable TV service shall be coordinated by the deeloper with the cable se'-vijse provider to coincide with trenching fir utili;aes. 20. All utilities within th,, ,�'dr c shall be installed - underground including util s along major arterials 12 KU and less. 21. Utility easements shall be p:3v'ded to the s,ltisfaction of tee serving utility companies and the City Engineer. 22. Dcveioper shall oa responsible for the relocation of „ existing public utilities, as required. it 6 z. Al Resolution Na. TT 12643 - Cary.i ., l Page °6 23. Developer shall be responsible for the installation d: street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison Company and City Standards. 24. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities nad other affacted agencies involved. Approval of the f- :nal flap will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 25. Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City Standards and procedures. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF MAY, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ,r ATTEST, _ Rick Gon.,,z, Deputy Secretary 1, i'.ick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the ` ty 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 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 4 y ORDINANCE N0. 246 -A AN • ORDYNANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCLo' . CUCANONGA CALIFORNIA, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHANGE P DISTRICT NG. 84 -OS w REZONE THE DISrnICT DESIGNATION AS "CARYli PLANNED .COMMUNITY" AND ..ADOPT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 248 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN s TAE NORTH OF BANYAN AVENUE AND H3GHLAND AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND. a - SOUTH, AND BETWEEN THE EXTENSION OF AOCOMTER AVENUE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE ON TL�„ %EAST AND HEST WHEREAS, the City o£ Rancho Cucamonga, ! California has initiated proceedings for the Change: of Organization (aniexation).., for `.the above- described property pursuant to Section 56195 of _�;he California Government Code; and j WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cal-ill, ornia, desires to prezone the above - described unincorporated territory pursuauw; to Section 65859 of the California Government Code. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the following: A. That the Planning Commission of the City of - Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the prezoning of the above described properties to."Caryn Plumed Communitf" as defined in the attached Development Plan Text and Its Condit ,bns of Approval which are by this reference made a part hereof, and that this_CityCouncil has held a public hearing .. in the time' and manner prescribed by law and _duly heard and considered said recommendation. B. T'nr,t the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; anck C. That this prezoning will provide for the development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. ICI D. That this prezoning will provide for development within the District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and Zrowbh management Policies of the City. E. That this .prezoning will provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities and public services required by development with the District. F. That this prezoning is consistent with the objectives of .. the Development Code Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. G. This prezoning would not have significant 1--pact on the enviror.zent nor the Surrounding propertiea and that a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: The above described real property Is hereby prezoned in the manner stated, and the development district map is - hereby amended accordingly. Further, the development cf said property shall be regulated by the adopted Development Plan text and its Conditions of AFproval and in part by the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. e � � t•O�ance Yo. 246 -A �.. 9 i• 1 ���'"age Ni SECTION 3: That the prezoning shall become effective a m time that 't5a,annezdtion becomes - t the sae effective pursuant to Section 65859 of the California Government Coder- - i 1 SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign *hi_ Grdinance and tile City r1erk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its Passage at least once In The Daily Report, a newspaper of general UrculaEion published in the City of Ontario* California, anti circulated in Che City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 1985. AYES:. Wright, Ruquet, Mikels, Dahl, King NOES: None '- ABSENT: None - Jon. D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Heverly.A., Authelet, CSt7 Clem. AIML J 1 D ! '?. L PLANNED COMMUNITY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUILDING AND SAFETY I. A preliminary soiis report shall be filed with and approved by the Building Official prior to recordation of the final map. 2. A geology report, prepred 'by a licensed engineering geologist, shall be filed with and approved by the Building Official. The report ,shall have been reviewed by a 'licensed geologist and the costs of such review will be billed to the developer and paid in full prior to recordation of the final map. i 3. Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Grading Committee. 4. Obtain a demolition permit for building to be d- molished. Underground structures must be broken in, buck filled and inspected before covering. 5. Submit plans and obtain building permits for :,rails. 6. Grading concepts as they relate to maximum slope height and property line location at the top of slope for Phase II development shall be consistent with those approved for Phase I. PUBLIC SERVICES 7. Sewage disposal shall be by connection to Cucamonga County !Dater District Sewers. D. The wa', "er purveyor shall be Cucamonga County Water District. 9. The following are the steps th.". must be completed to meat the requirements for installation ano',r finance of the on- site /off -site water system and /or sewer system. A. Where the system is to br,installed prior to recordation: The water system, fire hydrants, and /or- sewer system shall be installed in accordance With requirements of the State Health and Safety Code, and in accordance with plans approved by the water and /or sewering utility 'and the governing, fire protection authority. The planE, shall be reviewed by a Civil engineer, n�egistered in the State of California, and contain required certificates and approval signatures. It is she developer's responsibility to submit to the Engineering Division a copy Of the approved plan and a signed statement from the utility of Jurisdiction confirming that the improvement has been installed and accepted`. B• Where a bond is to be posted in lieu of -installation of the improvement: 1. The domestic water plan and /or sewer plan which meets the requirements of the State Health and Safety 'Code shall be reviewed by a Civil Engineer, registered in the State of California, and approved by the water or sewering utility and the governing fire protection authority. The plans shall contain the required certificates and approval signatures. A copy of the approved plan shall be submitted to the City Engineering Division. 2. Said engineer shall determine the amount of bond necessary to install the improvements. a. This amount plJs ten percent shall be pcsted with the City. A statement signed by the engineer stating that the amount of bond recommended is adequat: to cover the cost of installation of the improvement shall' he included with the estimate and submitted to the City Engin,-erine Division. b. Or, in cases 'where the water agency or sa,rering agency is a governmental subdivision, the bond iii the amount of 110 percent of the cost of installation of the improvement may be placed with the agency. A signed statement from that agency stating that financial arrangements have „ -been completed- shall be submitted --to the City- Engineering Division. 3. Prior to release of the bond for the improvement, the utility of jurisdiction shall submit a signed statement ccnfirming that the improvement has been installed and meets the requirements of all appropriate State and County laws pertaining to such improvement. It is the developer's responsibility that such signed statement is filed with the City Engineering Division. 10. An acoustical study shall to performed to assess noise levels at the development -and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to recordation. betailed noise ana:ysis and precise mitige.,.ion measures shall be submitted to the Planning Division fnr review r -nd approval - prior• to - recordation. , The .aco!istical study will- be based' on available profile and design data of proposed route 30 'plan at the time of tentative map approval Prior to the issuance of.building permits, a report -stating that the.-recommended mitigation measures' ;,_ave been implemented shall be submitted to the Planning Division and the building plans shall be' so certified. by the acoustical engineer. , ii. Any abundoned wells on the property or• similar ~structures that might result'in contamination of underground waters shall-be destrpyed 'in a manner approved by the County Department- of Environmental Health Services: 12. Al building construction shall be designed and built to 45 dB(A) interior sound attenuation level. -2- 0• r,. M.- lu f, 11 g 13. Use of village perimeter masorry fencing along Milliken Avenue, and the south property line to provide privacy and noise shielding.. An approximately 8 foot high masonry vall or combination 8 foot high berm and masonry wall will be provided per approval of an acoustical engineer prior to recordation of first tract. The wall can be less than 8 feet high if noise levels do not exceed 45 dB(A) Ldn interior, 65 dB(A) Ldn exterior. If the barrier is greater than 8 feet, then a berm w`ll be used to make up the height greater than 8 feet where grades permit. FIRE PROTECTION 14. Prior to recordation of the first tract, the following shaTT be accomplished: •A. fire flow requirements shall be 1,750 g.p.m. B. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 400 feet. C. The Caryn Company shall contribute proportionally (based upon impact) to the construction of a fire station facility, and the manning of the fire station for the first year.' D. The Caryn Company shall contribute proportionally (based upon impacts) to the purchase of fire equipment (apparatus to man said station). E. Adhere to all standard Foothill Fire District condi.�uns. 15. The above - referenced project is protected by the foothill Fire Protection District. Prior to construction occurring on any parcel, the owner shall contact the fire department for verific'ition of current fire protection development requirements. 16. All new construction shall comply with applicable sections of the Uniform Fire Code. 17. The -treet Odress shall be posted with a minimum of three (3) inch numb, rs, vi:i)le from the street, prior to occupancy. 18. Each ch ,nney used in conjunction with any fireplace or any heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel i� usee shall be maintained with an approved spark arrester,, An approved Spark arrester shall mean a device constructed of stainless - steel, aluminum, copper or brass, woven galvanized wire 'mesh, nineteen (i5) gauge minimum with three- eighths (3/8) inch mini!num.to one: -half (1/2) inch maximum openings, mounted in or over all outside- flue openings in a vertical or near vertical position, adequately supported to prevent movement and visible from the ground. 19. All flammable vegetation shall be t!moved from each building site a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet. -3- ,9-al i 20. Development shall provide for safe and ready access for fire and other emergency equipment, and fo;' routes of escape which will ,safe ?y handle evacu, ,ions. 21- An access road shall be provided within fifty (s0) feet of all buildiags if the natural grade between the access road and building is in excess of thirty percent (30 %). Where the access roadway cannot approved be provided, fire protection system or systems shall be provided as required and approved by the fire department. 22. Roadways shalt have a' minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet inches (13' 611). six 23. A turnaround shall be provided at the and of each roadway, and shall be approved by the fire department. 24. All fire flow requirements are over and above the average daily consum,tion of water, and the minimum residual pressure s (20) psi, hall be twenty 245. The required fire flow shall be determined by appropriate V.lculations, using the latest edition of 'the Insurance Services Office G SO), "Guide for the Determination of Required Fire Flow ". 26. The developer or his engineer shall furnish the fire department with two copies of water system •:a'provement plans where fire protection water systems are required. 2-7. Adequate pror-isions shall be made to intercept and conduct the offisite tributary drainage flow around or through the site in a manner which will r)t adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. 28. All lots should drain to streets. If lots do not ar4,$n to streets, the cross -lot drainage will be reviewed and approved by the Grading Committee. ENGINEERING 29. Adequate Drainage Easements (Minimum twelve (12) fest wide) shall E provided over the natural drainage courses and /or drainage facilities. The easements shall be designed to contain -the lad flow plus bulking and freeb year frequency -storm Criteria.. oard per County Flood - Control- - •Standard 30. Milliken Avenue shall be designed as a water- carrying street and its water carrying capacity shall be maintained. 31. Adequate roils shall be provided on the entrance roads to the site at Avenue to minimize the silliken possibility of street flow entering the - I 32. Lots adjacent "to water-carrying above the top of curb, or block alls streets adequately athe provided h, to minimize possibility of street flows entering the lots. -4- 33. In addition to the Drainage Requirements stated herein, other "on- site or off -site improvements rmaj be - required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would nave tc: be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to this office. 34. The conceptual drainage plan has been approved by the City Engineer. Conditions 34 to 39 49 and and 50 refer to and are intended to implement the conceptual drainage plan. 35. The protective berm shown on Phase 2 shall be extended to preclude the addit`, ma, sheet overflows from t:ie west from entering t'e parcel. 36. Temporary and permanent drainage improvements will be required per the developer's engineer's drainage dated April plan, 6, 1984, to intercept and conduct the urger drainage #lows through the site in approved an manner. Note: Design criteria caul for a minimum pipe size of 18 inch diameter. 37. The proposed interceptor channel and levee within the County Flood Control District rights -of -way north of the proposed development shall be realigned such that floNris will nr'- be intercepted at right angles apd tha channel has a minimum slope of 1-1/2% iar greater. The channel shall be designed to contain 100 -year storm flows plus bulking and freeboard per County Standard Criteria. 38. The proposed interceptor channel shall dewater into phase 2 approximately 500 feet east of the west phase 2 boundary. 39. A debris basin shall be provided at the inlet of the proposer conduit which will conduct the tributary flows through phase 2. 40. Of a g10 closed conduit system is to be used to conduct the tributary flows through the site, the developer's engineer shall show the overflow path for the differential flow (g100 gIQ) through the development appropriate -by mapping prior tc clearance on the Engineering Division. 41. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the County Flood Control District assuming maintenance, operation, and liability resuonsibilitie; associated with the -ised prop interceptor levee(s), channelrs), conveyanc,, facilities, and deb) •,s basin(s). =i( addition, the agreement shall address the timing and cost of levee and channel removal (at the developer's expense) - exists. when the heed for same no longer 42. 100 -year storm flows tributary to and from the sire shall be conducted to Day Creek Basin in compliance with the Day Creek Systeia Plan. 43. The developer shall have this site annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Community Facilitie., District No. 84 -1 for the improvement of the )ay Creek System. The District has been farmed under the Mello- Roos Co,,imunity Facilities Act of 1982. -33 (f' 44. Day Creek Basin shall be improved to the satisfaction of County -Flood AIN Control District as :own in Bill Mann and Associates' "Report on the P -Day, Etiwanda, and San Sevaine' Creeks System Drainage Plan". If t;e ` excavation shorn in the plan is not adequate to maintain or reduce the peak flow rates from Day Creek into Riverside County, tnen adequate excavation of Wineville or Riverside Basin shall be accomplished. Sufficient excavation (storage capacity) must be created by the developer /cwner to accept the incremental increase in volume produced b a 100-year storm r Y orm and volume of water produced development p by 100 -year, storm. a,ter pment is f ly built "out. This s iS to ufficient capacity to accommodate each phae reference asethat phase is excavate s begun. R Any cost will be credited to Mello -Roos up to 45. A permi' will oe required for any encroachment or :onstruction of drainage facilities on Flood Control District - right -of -way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks processing time should be allowed. 46. Minimum paved width access road to Highland Avenue nther than required above shall be 40 feet for a distance of 100 feet north of the intersection with Highland Avenue. 47. The project parkway road shall be designed and constructed to modified local road standards satisfactory to the City Engineering Division as shown in the appro -;ad Planned Community text. 48. Retention will be provided to decrease the developed peak flows into Day Creek to an acceptable amount as determined by County Flood Control Department. Is 49. Both Phase I and Phase II will be protected from a 100 -year storul as determined by criteria established by the City Engineering Division. 50. Site development will not incrementally add to the velocity, magnitede or concent.,ations of runoff affecting downstream properties except into facilities approved by County Flood Control. 51. Drainage from the project site (Pnases I and II) shall be directed to Day Creek, there shall not be any release of flows into the Deer Creek Channel. 52. Dedications shall be:made by final map of all..interior- street rights-of- way and all necessary-easements as shown ow-tht tentative map. 53. Dedication shall be made of the following-rights-of-way on the following streets:. 67 -75 additional feet on Milliken 33 additional feet on Banyan 3 additional feet on Rochester 54. Construct full street improvements• including, but not limited to; -curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewlk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. Requirement of sidewalk will be governed by the P- ovision of the Planned Community tax +. Q -6- t La E3t t 55. A minimum of 26 -feot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section stroets. 56. Any grading within the road right -of -way prior to the signing of the improvement plans shat( be accomplished under the direction of a Soil Testing Engineer. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench • backfill, and all _ubgrades shall be performed at no cost to city of Rancho Cucamonga and a written report shall be submitted to. the City Engineer prior to any piaciment of base materials and;cr paving. 57. Final plans had profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility facility which ttould iffect construction. 58. Slope rights shall be dedicated on the final tract „ap where necess4ry. 59. Of street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction'of the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. 60. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated on Banyan, Milliken, and Rochester and along the rear of double frontage lots. 61. Existing city street requi-ling reconsrruction shall remain open for traffic at all times Vith adequate ,our; during construction or street closure permit may be required. __ 'A cash deposit shall be required to cover the cost of grading and paving, wlr ich shall be refunded on completion of the construction to the satisfaction% of the City Engineer. 62. All street games shall be coordinated with the City of Rtincho Cucamonga Planning Division. 63. Prior to any work being+ performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained ftem the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 64. An encroachment permit shall be t-pquired frorr the State Department of Transportation prior to any construction within their right -of -way. 65. ;toad improvement plans as applicable to this project for Highland .',venue shall be subnitted. to the State Department of Transportation by a registered civil,l�ngineer.' 66. In accordz +ice with the policy of preserving freeway corridors crossing subdivisions, right -of -way adequate for construction of State Highway so shall be preserved along this project's frontage. All future tentative tract, maps and final development p1-- maps shall reflect this. 67. Any change to this project as currently pr,,posed, which may be necessitated by the State. Department of Transportation recommendations, must be incorporated prior to recordation of the Final Map. -7- , 69-5 72- The ^wo points of vehicular ingress and egress to the City nr State Maintained Road System shall be provided to each phase. 73. Minimum s a� ... p ng between intersections on local streets shall be�not less . than 150 feet, and on major and secondary highways not less than 1/4 mile. 74. Milliken Avenue shall be de: -igned and construe *r..d half -width to major divided highway standards as regu,,sted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga - 11y of a six -lane divided road, A paving width of 40 feet with A.C. b..­.s shall be permitted on Milliken. Avenue between Highlanw Avenue and Spine Road. 75, The developer shall be regvired to reserve the right of way necessary for construction of the future Fot:�thill Freeway. This wili include interchanges and /or proposed arade separations. The developer shall coordinate with Caltrans as °4 it on the maps. ne shall t; cessary to establish this right of way and 76. Acces, ;,,existing homes shall b2 acknowledged in this design. T. Cc aination with �1Qtropolitan Water District`shail 7e effected by the dev` eaer as necessary. 78. Access to Flood Control- District saleable propatty nor0i of project shall be incorporated into this design layout. -8- i % 68, Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of ~ the City El- iineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of th panne and /or private street he t improvements, prior do recording of the e or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. 69. Existiaig utility poles shall be shown; on the improvement lans and relocated as necessary w1thout cast to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 70. In the event developer fairs to acquire the required offsite property intrests, the developer shall, prior to app;nval of the final map, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as. City acquires the property interests required for the improvements, Such agreement shall provide for payment by developer of all cost^ incurred by City to acquire the offsite property interests required in connection with the subdivision= Security for a portion of these co_+s shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an IPPraisal report obtained by developer, at ; eveloper s cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 71. Right of way and improvements (including off- site) to transition traffic and drainage flows frog proposed to existing, shall be required as necessary. 72- The ^wo points of vehicular ingress and egress to the City nr State Maintained Road System shall be provided to each phase. 73. Minimum s a� ... p ng between intersections on local streets shall be�not less . than 150 feet, and on major and secondary highways not less than 1/4 mile. 74. Milliken Avenue shall be de: -igned and construe *r..d half -width to major divided highway standards as regu,,sted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga - 11y of a six -lane divided road, A paving width of 40 feet with A.C. b..­.s shall be permitted on Milliken. Avenue between Highlanw Avenue and Spine Road. 75, The developer shall be regvired to reserve the right of way necessary for construction of the future Fot:�thill Freeway. This wili include interchanges and /or proposed arade separations. The developer shall coordinate with Caltrans as °4 it on the maps. ne shall t; cessary to establish this right of way and 76. Acces, ;,,existing homes shall b2 acknowledged in this design. T. Cc aination with �1Qtropolitan Water District`shail 7e effected by the dev` eaer as necessary. 78. Access to Flood Control- District saleable propatty nor0i of project shall be incorporated into this design layout. -8- 07.01 -02 0 5,22-85 PvG. Agenda Packet Pane of. 6- o: Y 79 Subject to City Engineer's approval, temporary access connections to Highland Avenue shall require Caltrans approval and shall require a cash deposit to cover cost of later removal. This cash deposit shall also include cost of design and toi,struction of those portions of the tract perimeter roads outside of State right -of -way. 80. Banyan and Rociester shall be designed and Constructed half -width to Collector Road Standards 1/2 of a two -lane undivided road -(26 feet minimum width), subject to temporary construction through future freeway right -of -way as approved by City Enginecr„ 81. Highland Avenue shall be improved as necessary to provide a 44 foot paved surface at the tract access points to provide for left turn lanes. Interim spot improvements shall provide for left and right turns. 82. 'Fifty foot street right -of -ways being proposed for this project have been identified and satisfactory substantiation has been provided to the adequacy of these 50 foot streets. 83. Prior to retardation, the developer shall submit for approval a traffic study indicating the on -site and off -site impacts on Highland Avenue, on Haven Avenue, and on Milliken with appropriate mitigation measures. The developer's fair share cash contribution toward mitigation shall be $35,000. The contribution shall be paid to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on a per lot basis. 84. Lots 333 through 350 sha.il not be developed until elimination of the temporary secondary access. 85. Access to Caltrans' prop.4 ty :,hall be accomplished b,r using the already existing 20 foot road easement to Fighland Aver,!a, provided this is properly recorded, or by making Lot P adjacent to cul -de -sac 'rl, public right of way. 86. The knurkles, cul -de -sacs, and curb radii shown on the map shall conform to Planned Community text. 87. Fill slope within Caltrans property shall be approved 6y Caltrans. 88. Project parkway shall be developed tr= a standard of 2+ lanes (varies). 89. Project Loop Road shall be developed to a standard of 2+ travel lanes. 90. Two inbound_ and two outbound lanes shall be provided on the project parkway at the Milliken Avenue intersection. 91. The development plans shall provide f r pres:rvation of right -of -way for the Foothill - Freeway (future Route 30). Over 23 acres along the southern boundary of the site will be reserved within Phase L and II; this location is consistent with the freeway corridor alignment adopted by ^.altrans. 92. This project shad be annexed to or shall form a 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District. All costs associated with the formation of a lighting and Landscaping Assessment District shall be paid by the r, developer(s), F 1 PLANNING 93. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any phase of Lhe project, all plans rrquired for that phase shall be approved and the phase of the tract to :,hich the permit has been applied for shall be rec -rded. Approval for this Planned ComMr,ity shall be for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of City Coun, it aatio,,, 'rhe applicant shall file a development plan for at least nnl jrhase of the project within five (5) years of this approval and within each succeeding five (5) year period. Extensions of time may be granted. Extensions of time must be submitted ti writing to the Planning Division at least sixty (60) days prior to tn2 expiration date. Grading and model home permits may be issued prior to recordation, subject to compliance with standard City conditions. 94. The Planned Community text shall be modified as follows: A. Under Project Tabulations', the overall density shall be calculi? I deleting the following: (a) the northeast corner parcel at Millit,:,l and Highland (Not a Part); and (b) property for the Foothill rreew, y. B. Under Development Regulations and Standards, 2(b)(1), a statement shall be added which states, "The lot sizes north of the parkway shall vary from 5,500 11,000 square feet, with an average of approximately 7,100 square feet, and the --lot sizes south of the parkway shall vary from 4,000 - 10,000 square feet, with an average of approximately 5,000 square feet. Combined average of approx mately 6,250. The percentage of the number of average sized lots shall be provided. C. Under Development Regulations and Standards, Section 2(h)(2) shall be changed to read, "building site width shall vary depending on lot size ". D. A statement shall be added under Development regulations which states that lot ratio shall not exceed 3:1. E. U,.er Development Regulations and Standards 2(b)(3), "Building site coverage shall be changed to "Total impervious Area: 60%. maximum ". F. A statement shall be added under Development Regulations which states variable f ha front yard setbacks shall be provided with a minimum of 18 feet from property line. 95. The landscaped buffer between residential and commercial uses shall be 15 feet: The buffer shall be installed on the abutting commercial property at time of its development. 96. Park area totaling 7 acres shall be provided prio second phas-. r to final buildout of _10- r�. a 97. The applicant shall submit the following icf,rmation to the City for their review in accordance- to the Planned Community Residential Development Review procedure requirements for Planning Commission approval. A. Tentative tract map. B. Conceptual grading map. C. Conceptual building site plan. D. Conceptual landscape plan showing landscaping and design i'or all trails, open spaces, wails, street tree planting, slope planting. E. Architectural elevations of all building types. F. Tabulation of the following: 1. Open space area 2. Building coverage 3. Unit areas 4. Number of ur'ls 5. Total site area 6. Proposed density G. Plans for all signs. No free standing signs will be permitted except for monument signs, temporary signs, on -site signs, sales, sold and direction signs in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. 98. Prior to recordation of any tract map, final details /plans of Items A -G shall be included in final plan for staff review. 99. On a phased basis, all areas identified as open space shall possess no residential development rights. since said development rights have been transferred to other portions of the project. The method of retaining open space shall be agreed upon by the developer and City prior to the recordation of the first tract 'j map for each affected phase. 100. Existing ornamental or native trees shall be retained when possible. Trees to f remain shall be identified on the Grading Plan. 101. The final tract map for the first development phase for each parcel in Phase I shall record the order of the phasing plan, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 102. All recreational facilities shall have two points of access, one of which may be emergency only. I� i` 103. The conditions outlined in the approved Geologic Report shall become 1 conditions of this project. -11- e- 104. Persons purchasing property subject to noise levels of 65, Ldn or greater due to the proposed. Fobtli'ill Freeway shall be-informed o` said noise lewtls. 105. All financial arrangements shall be made to provide water, sewer, maintenance, etc., prior to the recordation of the first final development tract map. 106. Provide a flat useable yard open space excluding graded slopes, building footprints and driveway with a 15 foot minimum distance between buildings and break of slope, or to work with the staff to develop specific performance standards for minimum yard areas for useable private open space. 107. the Planned Community shall contain a maximum of 902 dwelling units. The Lforementioned maximum does not include out- parcels or currently owned state right -of -way as shown on Exhibit 3, page 4 of text. 108. Graded slopes will be constructed at siupe ratios no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, that they be kept to reasonable vertical heights, and that they be planted with suitable landscaping per City standards. A vertical height limit for graded slopes adjacert to residential development shall be shown within the final grading pl .4 and I consistent with Planned Cormlunity text.. 109. rite project site is within the jurisdiction of the West End Resource .r Conservation District, cons;quently, water, paving and revegetation and other dust control measures shall be used to minimize fugit>ve dust generation. 110. The project will provide a minimum o• 3.0 acres of park /1000 population. 111. If the school site is combined with the park, the minimum site shall be 13 acres. This requirement may be adjusted to design approval by the Etiwanda School District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Commun ?ty Development Department. This condition will be necessary if the school is established as a full -sized facility. 112. Preferably the entire park site should be developed during the .first phase; however., if.. phased. ,development is necessary the park area within the.First Phase should provide for a minimum.play:fjeld o €.not less than 3.a acres. 113. Prior to recordation of any tract * maps, a "will, serve" letter•will be required from affected school districts. Phase II development will not ' proceed until: a, ;quate capacity exists for students generated by the development. 12 .19 ;1�-� 114. School fees (as established at time of recordation or otherwise agreed to by developer and district) will be collected for residential development in the project area. This condition shall apply for both the Chaffey Joint Union High School District and Etiwanda Elementary School District, 115. As a "failsafe provision" an "open" school site shall be reserved in Phase II until site is determined by Etiwanda Elementary School District not to be necessarf. 116. Prior to recordation of final Raps a "will serve" letter from the CCWD will be required._ ('Note: CCWD has already provided a "will "" serve letter.) 117. This project will implement water conservation measures including installation of low ve.ume O'tmbing fi aures and the use of controllers on public area irrigacion systems. 0 {f -peak irrigation is encouraged. The use of drought tolerant plant material will be emphasized within common areas. 118_ Prior to recordation of any phase determined necessary by CCWD the j project will c,-.ntribute sewer fees that will allow expansion by'RP2 to t; accept the inc'Vease of effluent. 119. Design and construction of 311 facilities will be reviewed and approved by the CCWD. AMh 120. Prior to recordation of any final maps, there shall be established a landscape and lighting_ district or the equivalent. 121. The recommendations of the approved Geologic Report shall become conditions of this project. 122. Detailed park improvement plans, including grading, landscaping and irrigation, shall be submitted for approval by the Community Services Director, 123. Thirty (30) copies of the final adopted Development Plan text, as revised in accordance with Condition #94, shall be printed and submitted to the City Planner within sixty (60) -days from City Council approval. { A copy of this Ordinance shall be included at the front of the text. t QP -13- r K] - - viii %JX 1V[11Y V11V V U Vt1ALW1V l7!] STAFF REPORT GAO �G9 2 f n a / r O C DATE: May 22, 1985 U TO: Planning Cor;miss ; ;an 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John L. Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Pan' to correct language inconsistencies with respect to median islands and to clarify the intent of the General Plan with respect to the use of median islands ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC ARFA w - v1 nnnvlly I,vv"lull �m All 011C1W111WI.b LU various pars of the Industrial Area Specific. Plan delecirg the requirement for median islands on certain narrow arterial streets ABSTRACT The P ?finning Commission considered the issues regarding ins`:allation requi ements of median islands, on certain streets, for incorporation in the City General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, on May 9, 1984. The streets for consideration were; 1) Baseline Road - from haven Avenue to the west: City limits; 2) Archibald Avenue; N} Arro';+ Route; and, 4) Rochester Avenue. 5ACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the enclosed staff report and exhibits presented on the May 9, 1984 agenda. A unanimous decision was reached to delete the requirement for median islands as °ollows; 1) Baseline Road from Haven Avenue to west City limits; 2) Archibald Avenue; Arrow Route; and, 4) Rochester Avenue south of Foothill B vd. ANALYSIS lire basis for the decisions reached were: 1) Median islands force U -turns on major arterials which have curb separations of 72 feet or less. This results in a turning radius which is not negotiable by trucks; 2) Median maintenance requiring lane closures would seriously disrupt traffic on these narr:.wer streets; and 3) Implementation of medians on these streets would be very disruptive to existing properties of all kinds due to the heavy dependence on direct access. Two way left turn lanes can be used for acceleration by vehicles entering the major road as well as deceleration for those leaving. This provides safer, more, efficient operation where numerous access drives exist. ITEMS K & L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMENDMENT TO GENERA. PLAN AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLANS i May 22,_1985 Page 2 Y Attached Exl-,ibits "A" and "B" are proposed revisions to the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan, respectively. The attached resolution is for the approval of the subject changes and negative declaration. CONCLUSION Following these guidelines and determinations, it is appropriate that the s. Industrial Area Specific Plan classification for major arterials should have the median island designation deleted.- The General' Plan guidelines and standards should be revised to clarify the street sections of roads subject to median island implementation. RECOMMENDATION Following review and discussion by the Planning Commission, it is recommended that the Commission approve the attached resolutions adopting Exhibits 'W' and "B" and forwarding them to the C;i�y Council for review and adoption. f Resp ctfully submijtted, x LBo Attachments r r . ,�- n+�Nlnw2cmNw slug. Ana _� ' L 1 IS 'rav ca4avu[ swvry oruouew 'L .W4. fecTKt W. Lam. i�iuir'� FYitAM4 NN6 ir1�X Foothill Baulevard. This street should be improved with a 14 -foot landscaped median 1 strip*- Like Haven, a 15-foot setback from the right of way to the parking areas on private parcels should be required on both sides. Columnar evergreens should be planted in the 14 -foot median. Pedestrian -scale canopy trees should be planted within the 15 -foot setback zones on both sides. Those on the north side should be deciduous to provide solar access. As along Haven Avenue, a quarter -mile spacing of street intersections is also pro- posed in order to minimize lef* -turn move- ments and through traffic. Access to pri- vate lots should be from side streets and collector streets. *FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMITS Base Line Road. *This street should be improved with a median landscape strip and a 15 foot setback from the right of way to the parking areas. Pedestrian - scale canopy trees should be planted on both sides. A EMBIT A K/ 142 INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN FIG. 11 -4 STREET CLASSIFICATION MAJOR ARTERIAL DIVIDED (120 ft. ROW) • Foothill • Haven • Milliken • 4th • 6th between Haven & e Day Creek Blvd. NFF�IIAN REP10i/Q) MAJOR ARTERIAL (100 ft. ROW) • Archibald • Arrow • New Rochester • Etiw"da GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION INITIAL STUDY - PART I 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 Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Stucy and make recon,nendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission Will make one of three determinate ms: (1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed." (2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: May 22, 1985 Project Title: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan & Indelstri %l Specific Plan Amendment to the Circulation Elemer' Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone:_ Mr. Paul A.'Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga, 9320 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, 989 -1851 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To'Ele Contacted Concerning this Project: Mr. John L. Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer, City, of Rancho Cucamonga, 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 989 -1851 Location of Project: N/A Assessor's Parcel No.: N/A List other permits necessary fro<, local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: N/A f } PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project:. Rancho Cucemonga General Plan & Industrial Specific Plan Amendment to the .Circulation ion Elements. Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: N/A Describe the environmental setting of the project site including information on topography, soil stability, plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of ahy existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets): N/A Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact No Impact 1 -2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? X Explanation of any NS answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): Delete median island desi4nation on specific streets 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and sold -waste materials this project will generate daily :_ NIA 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project.*_____ N/A _ 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) requ rW for this project, in cuhic yards: N/A 10. 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 'o the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be i-equired to - be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by 'the Planning Division. Date: �� Signature r 'r c Title SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER %a 54 CITY OF FANCHO CUC'_:=A PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: Mai, 22, 1985 APPLICA, \'T: Mr. Paul A. Rougeau FILING DATE: Ma 22, 1985 ;0G HUMBER: PROJECTi Amendment to General Plan & Industrial Area Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: N/A I. LENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). 1. Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geolcgic relationships? b. Disruptions, . displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. •Change in topography or --round surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? 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? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or•similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydroloey. Will the proposal have .significant results in! -Y YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course cif direction Of flowing streams; rivers, or epheaeral stream channels? b. Changes in abstvption rates, drainage patterns, or t;a rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? t1r. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? r 3.- Air Quality, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air missions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality sE-and.ards? c. Alteration Of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisttire or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a, Change to the characteristics of species, including, diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of aWY unique, tare or endangered species of p/lants ?may Page 2 YES MAYBE }Q r Y/ Y Y 4 Page 3 YES `L4YBE `IO c. Introduction of new o-• eisruptive species of Plants into an area? Y- d. Reduction in the Potential for agricultural Production? Fauna. Will the proposal 'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of ,linimals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of r animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration / or movement of animals? � d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or •vildlife hat [tat? 5, Population. Will the proposal have significant results ins i a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create / a demand for add tional housing,: 6. Socio- Economic FactfM Will the proposal have significant ` results zn: a. Change in local oz regional socio- economic characteristics, including . economic or commercial 3ivarsity, tax ra[e, and values? property % Y b. Will project costs be equitable distributed e among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. _and Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land / use of an area? ✓ b A confV ct witli any designations) objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? Aft (t C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? Page 4 —YES -nkYBE No 8. TransDottation. Vill the Proposal have significant results —in. Generation cf substanrial additional vehicular movement? u. Effects on existing i,treets, or demard for new street construct'�on? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact uPo�' existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present pav�erns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases �'.'a traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proFosal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Heslth. Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the I-rOP03al have significint res ts in.- a. Creation of any health ha�.i.­l or Potential health hazard? b. Exposure of peeple to potential health hazards? c. � risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of indiviauals or species of vector or pat�.enogenic organisms or the exposure of people to suc,. organisms? e. Increase ia existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to Potentially dar- Dus noise levels7 g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An incTe3se in light (%r glare? . Page S Y =S �4YSE NO 11. Aesthetics- Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of vista or view? any scenic b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c• A conflict with the objective of designated ' or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and nblic Service . Will the have a significant need far .ew systems, ooioposal alterations to the following: a- Electric power? r b- AFatural or packaged gas? —j c- Communications systems? d. Wa ter PP1Y. su � e. Wastewater facilities ?' f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? / h- Fire Froteation? Y i- Police proteclLon? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 2- Maintenance of public facilities, including roads ._ and flood control facilities?. M, Other governmental services? 13. Enerey an_ Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant Will in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? f� b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources i ( of energy? v Y' 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? v page b YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion.,of any nonrenewable or - scarce / C natural resource? Y 14. Mandatory _Findin£s of Significance, a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the trajor periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achiev. short -term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively briaf, definitive / i period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). _ c. Does the project have impacts Qiich are individually limited, but cumulative't'y considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that tha 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 of 'ects f on human b_jngs, either directly or indirectly? IZ. DISCUSSION OF EWIRO',ZENTAL EVALUATION (I.e., .,f affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). • Page`k III. DETER*S�OY On the basis of this initial evaluation:- 'find r -� Z the proposed project C0= NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I Bind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on thF environment, there will not be a significant effect in this car bacause the mitigarion me44ures described on an attached ieet have been added to the•oject. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION T?�xs __rte 3?REPATtED. j--t I find the proposed pryjett, -.1 have a sign fic ,nt effect on the L� 2nvirnment, and an ENVIRON M,4T i;IPACT REPOjCT is required. Date /' '?��� Signature SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER Title ,t 5 F 91- CITY OF RANCHO (UCAAIONGA STAFF REPORT � 7 U j OWE: May 9, 1984 i97 T1,: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner; and, Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN MEDIAN ISLAND POLICIES ABSTRACT: The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review the City's General Plan median island policies- at the following locations: (1) Base Line Road, west of Haven to City Limits; (2) Archibald Avenue; (3) Arrow Route; 'and, (4) Rochester Avenue, to determine whether width and unusual implementation problems make these streets not cost effective or operationally beneficial to divide. BACKGROUND: The primary purposes of median islands is to control traffic by prohibiting indiscriminate and haphazard turn movements. The more opportunities there are for turn movements along a street, the greater the potential for traffic conflicts. Such conflicts no -a greater problems for higher volume streets because they interru:Z the flow of traffic and reduce street capacity and service loads. Median islands channel traffic to designated turning and access areas, thereby reducing turn movement conflicts, achieving greater safety and adding needed street capacity. Cormunities often take advantage of median islands as a design resource by creative °ise of landscape treatg,ent along wide, higher traffic facilities to add aesthetic character that softens the impact of large expanses of pavement. This brings about greater human scale and a sense of containment for the travelling moto!•ist and pedestrian. City General Plan Policies: The basic policies regarding median islands are containe'� in the Gi}y's General Plan Circulation Element and refined in the various subseq-;z�:.t planning documents such as the Industrial Specific Plan. Median islands are designated on two types of streets: the major divided highway, 94 fee-. curb -to -curb, 120 feet right -of -way and some major arty =.vials that are 72 feet curb -to -curb with 100 feet of right -of -Way. These streets have been commonly referred to as "Special Boulevards The General Plan Community Design; section makes several references to how community character is expressed: PLANNIiNG COMMISSIoy STAFF REPORT General Plan Median Island Policies May 9, 1934 Page 2 "To provide perception and orientation, future development and public improvements should use the physical form of development, roadwa s and open spaces to express community character." page 124) "To achieve that goal, future development and public improvements should provide street s aces than are both functional and attractive." page 25 "The major form giving elements and their primary roles in the tommunity design are: landscaping as functional, aesthetic, and unified element, especially along major roadways." (page 126) The Community Design section also specifically discusses functions and character of roadways: "Roadways also act as functional and visual- links that relate neighborhoods, special districts, the older and newer po,cians of the City or communities to each other ". ;;,age 137) "Setback requirements and landscape character should be used to help identify the function and support of the hierarchy of streets established by the street widths designated in the Circulation Element." (page 139) ,The General Plan specifies standards for Special - Boulevards. It designates that landscape medians should be provided for Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Base Line road Milliken Avenue 4th and th. Streets. Under olicies for landscaoin references are made to landscape medians." page 40 "When possible, median landscaping should be provided along major divided arterials. 'Such ° landscaping should be scaled according to the size of the roadway and the importance of the route.' Major views from the roadway should be enhanced and emphasized by the landscaping. Plant materials should not obscure views." (gage 146) "Landscape materials should be provided in a manner that enhances both the related public spaces (principally the adjoining street) and on -site open spaces oriented to the site's occupants" (page 147), D 0 PLAt IVIG C0` MISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Median Island Policies May 9, 1984' Page 3 _ _ .... Industrial Specific Plan: The Industrial Specific Plan acts to implement many of the policies established in the General Plan regarding landscaping medians. Overall, the stated goal of the Industrial 'Specific Plan is as follows: "The industrial areas should promote an attractive and high- quality design in developments which upgrade the City's natural environment and identity." (page II -2) - The Industrial Specific Plan specifies the specific street width and landscape requirements. Figure II -4 provides a street classification and"'identifies those streets which shall have landscape medians including. Foothill Bc,�levard,. Haven, -Milliken,- 4th Street, 6th Street, Day Creek Boulevard, Archibald, Arrow, Rochester and Etiwaada.. ANALYSIS: The Council has requested the Commission to review the median island ,signation on certa4n streets to determine whether width and L' unusual implementation problems associated with these streets make them not'cost zffective or enerationally beneficial to divide. Nost. median islands .within the City are designated as 'major divided highways. °- These highways have a minimum right -of -way width of 120 feet With a curb-to-curb width of 94 feet. The median islands on these streets are 14 feet in width. .The streets of. concern to the Council vary in width as designated below: Base Line Road, west of Haven, is designated as a major arterial, with a right -of -way. width of 100 feet and a curb separation of 72 ftc, Selected segments vary from 40 to 47 feet half street widths. Archibald Avenue is designated as a major arterial, 100 foot right -of -way, with 72 -feet curb -to -curb. Actual street construction varies as listed below: 4th to Arrow Route - 72 feet curl -to -curb Arrow Route to Foothill Blvd - 64 feet curb -to -curb ) Foothill Boulevard, North 72 feet curb -to -curb Base Line and Archibald have not specifically been designated as having medians in the General Plan, but have been envisioned as divided streets because of their Special Boulevard status. The attached excerpts from the General Plan show the locations and cross- sections of streets designated "Special Boulevard" and now have the designation overlays both "Major" and "Major Divided" streets. The General Plan gives the characteristics of Special Boulevards and does not include a median. 4 The descriptions of specific streets, beginning on page 140 of the General Plan include —a—m-0—an in Base Line, however, it is not clear whether the intent was to include only the portion east of Haven or all of it. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Median Island Policies ,May 9, 1984 Page 4 Arrow Route and Rochester are major arterials, +.v0 feet right -of -way ' n 72 fee curb -to -cur; width. Again, an unusual section has been constructed on Arrow east of Archibald and should be eliminated by future construction. Areas west of Vineyard are narrow, residentially fronted properties which will require a city widening project. The attached Figure II -4 from the Industrial Area Specific Plan shows cross- sections for Major Arterials, where the only reference to medians on such streets is contained. At is a page from the City -wide and Industrial Area Traffic Study which contains recommendations for the characteristics to be provided for 72 -foot wide streets. This narrower width creates two distinct operational problems: First, it does not provide sufficient turning radii for u- turns; and, secondly, maintenance requires closing a full lane of travel, leaving only one additional lane. The major divided highways normally provide 6 lanes of travel and will not be as reduced in capacity or safet - ; ling maintenance operation. U -turn movements are generally increased by installation of median islands and can be a critical consideration particularly where significant truck traffic is likely to occur. New federal law which became effective on April 6, 1983 has caused changes in allowable truck sizes on interstate and primary (U.S. numbered routes) highways and access roads within a reasonable distance of these highways and leading to terminal facilities. This would appear to involve streets within our Industrial area. These changes are as follows: Street Width: from 100 feet to 102 feet Truck Weight: 80,000 lbs., no change for California Truck Length: from a 60 -foot maximum for semi- trailer trucks to 48 feet for the trailer alone (about 75 feet total); and from a 65 -foot maximum for a double trailer rig to 28. feet for each piece (tractor, trailer, semi - `.railer) about 85 feet total_ While the weight restrictions have riot changed, it is 'conceivable that for light cargo such as agricultural products, cardboard, cans, etc., the length of the vehicle carrying the merchandise could increase to the maximum. As far as length goes, a change from 60 to 85 feet should be considered in determining all left -turn pu . t ;�;, _R *he future; this in turn affects the amount of full -width median available for planting. More important, the increased lengths could aggravate the problem of U -turns by trucks where street widths are not generous. Thus, where truck traffic is concerned, the trade -off between unrestricted left turns and increased U -turns is of doubtful benefit and becomes inadvisable on streets of less than 94 feet width (City standard for "Major Divided Arterials "). PL ANAING CO' „MISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Median Island Policies May 9, 1484 ' Page 5 In addition to the width restriction, the subject street sections also offer some distinct implementation problems. Difficulty in implementation is relative. If one were to devise a scale of difficulty, the variable must include amounts of -re- existing developed land. In staff's judgment, the streets on vA ich it will be more "difficult” to implement medians would be Arrow, Archibald, and Base Line west of Haven Avenue. These streets contain the greatest number of pre- existing users and have the greatest constraints as compared with other, less developed streets. In all cases, these streets demonstrate a hap'azard access configuration due to the limited control exercised by the County prior to incorporation. On Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road,* west of Haven, streets have not been aligned to provided four -way intersections, houses front along the streets; schools,,parks and public buildings are located at several spots, and business access has received only .limited control.' Arrow Route, Archibald, and Rochester are primarily of industrial character and will receive significant truck traffic, a These streets are highly developed at this ti,le and installation of a median island in a logical fashion will require a significant expenditure of City funds and a public heari:-�_ process to :.evolve affected property owners in any:.new access decisio',,- With the passible exception of Foothill Boulevard and portions of Haven Avenue,. all other major divided highways will be constructed substantially by developers. Maintenance of ;Median Islands: Another factor to consider as a part of any median island, particularly landscaped median, is maintenance costs. it has been estimated that to maintain median islands at buildout outside of the planned communitieG will cost approximately $219,000 per year. This amount is nearly one -half of our current entire street maintenance budget. Unless these medians are annexed into an existing city -wide maintenance district, maintenance costs will be borne entirely by the City's General Fund. Maintenance District annexation undouutedly brings forth the debate of equitable assessment of all properties in the City. CONCLUSION: The Council has requested that the Commission consider the factors involved in the implementation and maintenance of median islands along the subject streets and recommend either retention, removal, or modification of the designation on all or part of the streets described within the abstract of this report. The consideration is to balance the operational and aesthetic benefits of the median islands in making that determination. PLAililI lG CO'IMISSI01 STAFF REPORT General Plan '.Iedian Island Policies May g, 1984 Page 6 Air RE CO;ihiENOATI011: Following rev 1ew and discussion, the Planning Commission neeas to direct staff to prepare the necessary material to amend the Circulation and Community Design Elements of the City's General Plan if the Commission feels that the medians described in this report should be deleted. Respp u ly submitted, Rick Gomez City Planner Lloyd 8. Hubbs - City Engineer RG:LBH:jr Attachments In O cas O as LU ou " z O M 0 Lu Lu 0 Wt. < z Z Z3 CL =,2, Z CD 0 Cc'- � !,C 'u-) z G Ri z, 0 -L,� 55 ozc:l -=J) ui C-L- co w 1=3: 0 Lu aw >. LU cc CC n 10 D -1 < -1 —3 LLJ -j < < 0 0 V 10- . 2§ < 3< o- cc LU uj IL CL CL UA Z X CCER 0. U. E Z3 -1 0 0 OLU 0 < ' 8' 00 13 ----- ----------------- --- 77 O cas O as LU ou " 7123 I. 117 w 0 LO c ri QI O .n o CJ cm Qj A C u '0 Ln -a 0 lu Q.— W tn -zr U- fie t! LU V) -X" if r. 9 • sr IQ I t 0 u LU J El- _ . Guidelines and Standards o All arterials designated for special boule- vard treatment in the Circulation Table Il 1-11) shall" obse the Plan fing rve the following requirements, unless otherwise indicated: - a rainimum 30 -foot building setback from the street right -of -way on both sic�,,s of the streets; - major broadleafed columnar evergreen - trees on both sides of the pavement area within the right -of -way; a landscaped area along the special it boulevard frontzge at an average mini- MUM depth of 30 feet from the ultimate street right -of -way and in no case less than 15 feet from the ultimate street f right -of -way, meandering pedestrian paths (4 feet minimum width) an both sides of the pavement area; • -no- on- �•creet parking shall be permitted except where deemed appropriate by the • Planning Commission; and � 4 _.mounding and use of hedges to obstruct views to parking lots and to create a distinct difference between the roadway j and the development. Haven Avenue. This street should be devei- '" - --oped with a-14-foot landscaped median strip. A 15 foot setback from the street right-of- Way i to the Parking areas o 9 n private roe is a should be p requires on both sides, , Pedestrian- scale deciduous canopy trees and broadleaf evergreen trees dhould be planted within the 15 -foot setback to the parking area. There are two basic types of design plant- ings that may be used for Special Bo��le- vards, formal and informal. •The twa graph- ics shown on this page and the following page depict plan and section views of how this planting may occur, Specific consider- ation io n should be r iv en to each of the special =� boulevards in the near future to determine 141) I. TABLE III -11 SPECIAL BOULEVARD TREATMENT Classification Street Major Haven Divided Milliken to Wilson Arterial Day Creek Base Line, east of Haven Foothill Church, between Day Creek and Etiwanda 6th, east of Havers 4th, east of Archibald Arterial Archibald Rochester, betweer. Foothill and 4th Base Line, west of Haven Arrow Church, between Haven and Day Creek 4th, west of Archibald Miller, between Day Creek and Etiwanda �) -- !nclary Etiwanda, between Hiqhland and Milliken East Wilson, between Archibald and Milliken 6th, west of Haven Collector Victoria the character and design of planting de- sired. Care should be taken to protect solar access and vistas. A quarter -mile spacing of street intersections is also proposed in order to control and minimize left -turn movements. Access to small private lots would be from side streets or coCector streets behind Haven Avenue. A/l - a ` 141 D r>au\ � an�r �r�caR +tra. UV`s" Vlh_ by 4�,_ •tt,, +?CSC M -iii Y 1 i � 1. 17,^x• 6�ee m even _7 rk �,. ••• �t • tYC ♦ a t Foothill Boulevard. This street should be improved with a 14 -foot landscaped rr clian strip. Like Haven, a 15 -foot setback from the right of, way to the parking areas on private parcels should be required on both Ides. Columnar evergreens should be planted in the 14 -foot median. Pedestrian- scat : :anopy trees should be planted within the 15 -foot setback zones, on both sides. Those on the nor:h side should be deciduous to provide solar access. As along Haven Avenue, a quarter -mile spacing of - street intersections is also pro- posed in order to minimize left -turn move- ments and through traffic. Access to pri- vate lots should be from side streets and collector streets. Base Line Road. This street should be improved with a 'median landscape strip and a 15 foot setback from the right of way to the parking areas, Pedestrian -scale canopy trees should be planted on both sides. 142 /lr//—/ rvl(1(n'(a.A•I• »•yT oY .La: 1'A•>wr 't r rLats�ee•, .. •. _ .. r=te ��ti1�1` I 1 � i � t �` �' tuMh >l•. ,(AI'LS Lrp.K,:Lk(f:4 aL{.. 14V MfIR �� � .. — _ a .. ` _ y •.._ •NIV >11(f C •uf A LT IL Llntt. . � L411LVIW4.rINR _ Milliken Avenue. The 120 -foot right -of -way should be developed as a landscaped travel corridor with a 14 -foot landscaped median, I:jrade- separated at the Santa Fe tracks. Ir This median shculd be planted with shrubs ` and open structured trees in or'er tu•main tain visual links between uses on both sides of the street. Fourth aid Sixth Streets. The 720 -foot rights -of -way should be developed as land- scaped travel corridors with 14 -foot wide landscaped medians, Like Milliken Avene, shrubs and trees should be planted in theusa medians. Since the southern side of 4th Street is under the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario, t_ 143 the City must coordinate with Ontario to ensure•a consistent treatment. of 4th Street.. A greater sett+ack on the northern side of these streets is' encouraged to permit inror- poration of passible on -si.te flood retention areas, view easements to tr,,a foothills and mountains, solar access, etc. Sixth Street (west of Haven Avenue). This segment of 611h Street has a right-of -way of 88 feet. Columnar evergreen trees along both sides of the 6th Street segment east of Haven Avenue should be aligned with those west of Haven Avenue. Archibald Avenue. On Archibald, south of the Santa Fe tracks, plant materials should be selected to establish a positive larndscaoe link to Cucamonga - Guasti Regional Park. Arrow Route. This 100- -foot wide (right -of- way), east -west street has segments that abut both existing. and proposed residential uses_ to tht, northern side. Secondary and CtUector Streets in Resi- dent}al- Areas. Greater tiexibility and infor- mality should be 'allowed -in the design of secondary and collector streets -designated for special boulevard treatment in predomi- nantly residential areas so tV : these corri- dcrs ;nay be integrated into the overall des'dl� of residential development. In addi- tion, ihIw_ er- growing canopy trees should be panted, in :;rder to preserve the opportunity or sr(ar access, to provide more shade, and to cstablish a more human -scale relationship to residential structures LANDSCAPING Trees in the city Irndscape can help to integrate the diverse elements of `.he city's built form. Ever, when tiile buildings; along a street seem to :bear ro relationship to one another, a strongly landscaped edge can unite it into a more integrated whole. They can also provide the visual edges of various districts or neighborhoods within_ the. City, 144 7 N U f � m u SS_ N / L u ro°N ^ .0vio0�o�cc't�{ �» N u m ro N 0 0 Q L �I o• u a1 L m m p L c o.— 3 u ( x m m o o m•6 c m ' i7 -0 o '~ aL cq O O p m C L •n 0J' U. U. •,1, m m O G u u N •N ` r. 4. L m Y' U .0 C V m U ut as 0) O _T ... m• .� CJ N L Y v f u U rT L N C 4.. —,I O o I C. h L .•• 01 C L m m = �• u) a y m { m o ) e a)m�m0> .c= >oL��i am m� dv L� !!jj O m 6 L 0) > O vl U •, O C) u. ;c =i•_J L Q. r0 a) ca f C F+1 N L Datu v u°i o" u E amY fc c� ct {a. �� m Lam � a Ln L ._ a ♦ 0) 0J .0 > d Q! � O rJ O s m .•. L C) u N O. C Y .0 C).w L d G o J t N G N s= "O N F cp . W u cC3 % . U as m ro L O d r- Y 1 LO 0) 4p!y C) 1 m N v. u m p Y f y.. V u LI O wi m L to O C- C - -� ^..rIrJ .A�O)LULYY >•�mty ( L 0^1Ob0 C �. -01 C) N Of .0 K Y O Q •- m- uu Y u C Q m al 3 •- L a vi L .� 11 Y C N. 7 'm m L >• - s U L L ._ aui a) Y m ,_ vi c :2 31� D m O O L O O �. M Lt m ul a=.• C T L. y a C E L Y •Q L •'. g i T�.'{ LjI'. A N Y Cd L IE. m N 7 m E Y L` n+ O 4! C Oi C O 3 L. t 7 U. u 01 .- Ci m '0.- U Y C y N 3. O 0) ._ 1 L O Y U C 9 m .. Y a) •_. c ra, N L m O)I t'j S 4_ O O C O m .- y C •- C v, w C C 4. t m O 7 N C R a) �= 61 µ "0 � ,... p V .a � { .`. -- d f- m� L N> m 7 •• 7 m m w y o, U `ta L N c n u C O N N �) L, N > y c C C vUi > m a� CI m fop U •-� • ,� d Y C 0) 3� tl)I N •D . N u m a p 1 m l O L f D1 L 1T L 7 C > 9 0) N C 0) O� L Y ul V L C m- 0) b t O U 7 W .rx d C Y 7 0 +-• 01 r.. m u F L u Y 0) 0J m N T 'C O U O 7� m L 10 � ..- L !!F{ O L m Y. L -• > >�� - C m +-t O •- m 6! 01 3. .L L..- •Q 6 L .s m Y i 4w C Y Y Y m> Y a 7. C O L O U N �J.- m — C •fl 7 {J O L u u_ L D 2 0 o G o of c Y .a L u mi 3— p{ ,y E �, f°n .c w ri fua •O O Q- - . L 9 O O L L) •L. vas 4) 4_ O �. 3. a Q..- v m a7.1 c 3� u 4 e s u i 'O ++ 4 J. L "° a) 1 N 'm l z. u N ,�°• 0 O Y m 'O 4! a) ) j T O O m uu. L i°I C N y N C U r I w Y 3,•..+ t C •. O u Z7 0J �J '� +� a L 0 vaam (J(( N10 D m C ��'� L s O'a O LL N �. •3 C Q'a v C °1 1 fb N E •O 1L ^i w L U C 'a) tT a_ y • N S 7 N •m N a _ +I .-. L m ut moL._ .m.• C Q Y� C y, p a! U U 4 r0 C C Y c a 7 Y L 3 0) C m L to m 01 w C L Y L. ,n O �'J Y I U U O Y C) `s Y O O u rCJ m u.. a) .. m 1' d m „Cm. rn. w O LG1tO u 7 L 0) L> Z i� o cu N .0 C tn U Cyl L 4 ^ O C O Y A W C m tnn R ttnn L) G E A a C u^ f M N O. 0) C L O tn. •= to F-ttn al • .rr ° _,o 0 41 to L �. C a) m O y. Q m m 1C¢ .m- u d titnn C� f. 7 tn 41 L. C .O C7 N .,- m O 'O ! E L' u a) Q L '� m •O a) m T L~ N y s. W 7 O a) U N. p fJ W ,�. •- • 7 0 E ••- 7 L •_ C 'O - L L Q Y. •_ Y L Y m..+1 C u L Y p ._ 'L 7 N U L N m iJ C L N CQ. Y L N U C O CL t N Q> Y L 0) 3 „O u N Y C ` C- a u 0 L �.L O•- C - C N N tn N m •- O L m L m L "O O fo L 4u.. O 7 C) L O O O ° d 's C) u C Y u i. u 61 E N`'p L a) O N N N auicmoeai m�Y(aU TOm�«,'"m">`�'ar DN3v OS mom+ - m1L m•- au u u L o da c o d LY N- „� •a •- N S .'a ._ i m 7 0 m O) •-• 0) y C .► C O m O L s .... m U- in Q 3 3 M a Y U- fa in N m N m 3 S Y tn l71 Y ). C G Q { W VGA 'V � g "r�•`Y" vn N MAJOR ARTERIAL DIVIDED (1 20 ft. ROW) o Foothill e Haven Milliken • 4th e 6th b atween Haven & i w Day Creek Blvd. MAJOR ARTERIAL (100 ft. ROW) �� ° ►� s Archibald • Arrow 14� 1s' 11 12� is' 114! ® New Rochester 72`fft. ® Etiwanda* 100�ft. ROW * South of Arrow substitute two -way left turn lane for median island J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .184-07 AJA, - The development of two 51,250 sq. ft. industrial party` office suites on 8.18 acres of land `in the industrial, park zone (Subar a 6) located on the west side of Haven Avenue between 6th & 7th Streets/- APN 209 - 261 -17 through 20. Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff eport and showed slides of the proposed project, Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant was not yet present, Mr. Jeff Sceranka, executive di\,�or of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber. of Commerce, advised that the Chamber has\not met on this project and that he was speaking as a farmer Planning Commissioner. He spoke of the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan, problems the iity is having along Archibald with specifically designed structures /which tena�to draw commercial uses, and what specific support really is rellalive to professional uses. He indicated that if designs such as are proposed for this project are permitted along Haven, it ,?kill dilute the character of office professional along this corridor. Further, there are no assurance that -as tntenants change, the use will remain the %same. There being no fur, commes, the public hearing was closed. Mr. James Barton stated that the applicants were delayed \butulrd 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 MEDIAN ISLAND POLICIES City Planner, Rick Gomez, and City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs, presented the staff report and showed slides illistrsting 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 limius; Archibald Avenue; Arrow Route; and Rochester Avenue. He indicated that medians are .designated along Haven, Milliken, Victoria Parkway, 6th Street and 4th Street. Chairman Stout stated that this is not a public hearing but asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Mr. Jim Barton stated he can understand median islands on north /south streets but they create problems on east /west streets as they present additional structure and drainage problems. Planning Commission Minutes 9 x /� -3o May 9; 1984 U � 1 AL i 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 Line because of possibla access problems. There being no further comments, Chairman Stout closed the comment portiot. Commissioner Hempel stated originally the Commission canted the median islands because of problems with left turning and traffic conkestion. He indica`.ed that if merchants say they are unaware of the possibility of medians, the fault lies with the developers and the merchants themselves for not eheckih!;. Commissioner ,Hempel stated that there would not be as much a problem or. Base Line with trucks turning as there would ba on Irrow because of street widths. He felt that there are areas which would not benefit from medians because of the street width 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 Hempel stated that there was such a requirement but it does not totally eliminate the problem. Commissioner McNiel stated -naac there are some places where a left turn should be designed in so that them is controlled chaos rather than uncontrolled chaos and there are at least one -half dozen l.�cations 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. r Commissioner Hempel stated that one of the problems there is that people try to get from the servicF, station and that the median on the south e,t' 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 -` r F Chairman Stout stated he agreed with Commissioner Hempel that there are some streets which should have partial oedians because of safety reasons. to The Commission concurred. Chairman Stout indicated that the Commission would make its recommendations krown on the individual streets. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded'by Barker, carried unanimously, to have the requirement for medians removed on Base Line west of Haven. Chairman Stout asked for motion or.- Archibald Avenue. Iommissioner McNiel asked tor. Hubbs if a study could be made of intersections . .tch may require medians to be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Hubb;: replied that the problem is interpreting what is required on a particular street. He thought it more desirable to deal with this on a project by project basis. Commissioner Hempel stated that any time there is a major route that carries traffic through the City as Archibald does with its configuration and number of driveways, ;sere is a serious problem. He Felt there would be dif °iculty in placing a median in Archibald although several years ago he had roved 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 from medians. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to remove the requirement on Archibald for its entire length e�wept where required for safety reasons. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to delete the requirement for median islands from Arrow Route. There was discussion on ochester Avenue north of FoothUl . 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 fouzr lanes. Commissioner Hempel 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 -lane collector and they are proposing to upgrade it to a 4-lane road north of Highland. Commissioner Hempel stated that he would really like to have Rochester pulled off of this to see what the design is ^eally going to be. He felt that truck traffic should be prohibited on Rochester north of Foothill. Planning Commission Mi..utes 11 May 9, 1984 Motion: 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 Hempel 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 reaapns. Motion: Moved by Rempe", ;:'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 Plam -ing Commission reconvened. The P nning Commission went back to Item J - EnZly mental Assessment and Develoom t Review 84 -07 - AJA. E Chairman Sto stated that the staff report had edesign been presented and the public bear previously opened. Mr. Richard Stenton, he applicant, explained of the project as an �. a office park with spat for profeasionals �aich as attorneys, accountants, etc. He described the bu ding design, landgcape treatment, and the fact that they are seeking to transit' r this project' with the industrial users off -" Haven and the complex at Footh 1 and Have in an attempt to create afford .a office space. Mr. Stenton stated that he has prow, d enough landscaping and has tried to buffer the dock high buildings that ave 'gh truck traffic aad warehousing. -� Mr. Bob Garrison with Mission Equity, the oject manager, presented four photograph:; for the Commission to! review of v sous other store front type office /professional buildings forfgomparison purpo s. There being no further comm Commissioner public hearing wa closed. E Commissioner McNiel asked whether parking is recessed in ph tograph No. 3. Mr. Garrison replied that the property is lower than street level and they would have an even lower level of parking in this project to conceal as much as possible the cars fronipassing view. He indicated that they wish to create a campus -like atmosphere./ 4 Planning Commission Mi n�bes 12 May 9, 1984 f4 V I- 33 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -04 'OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA hearing to co the nsider all PcommentsCon the Tproposed General Plan n advertised Amendm nt public hearing Circulation Elements thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:, ,,_fiat the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Cou,lcii of the following emndment to the Circulation Elements of the General Plan. SECTION 1: The General Plan Circulation Element texts shall be amended as fo ows Deletion of the median is'and desiglation on the following streets: Baseline Avenue from Huven Avenue to West City Limits SECTION 2: A Negat a Declaration is hereby ?Recommended for adoption by to City Council fov this General Plan AmendmeWfr based upon the Completion and findings of the Initial Study. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy ,acre ary I, Rick GDmez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resclution was duly and regularly introduced, passes, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucampnga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of k4y, 1985, by the following vote -te -wit :. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: w RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Industrial Specific Plan Amendment of the Circulation Elements thereof. NOW, TH €REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, tFidt the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the following amendment to the Girculation Elements of the Industrial Specific Plan. SECTION 1: The Industrial Specific Plan Circulation Element texts shall be amended as follows: Deletion of the median island designation on the following streets: Archibald Avenue Arrow Route Roc�Tte`r Avenue south of Foothill Etiwan a Avenue south of Foothill New Rochester ,. SECTION 2: A Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council for this Industrial Specific Plan Amendment, based upon the completion and findings of the Initial Study, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2---ND DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis-C.--St-out, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Penning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passes, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: T �7 E E 11 CITY OF RANCHO OUCAM014GA c�CAA STAFF REPORT A�� �� a 1 r • O O F U , DATE: May 22, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) and Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du /ac) on 20.2 acres of land located on the south sine of Wilson Avenue between Haven & Mayberry and to include those parcels fronting on the west side of Mayberry - APN 201 - 181 -7, 8, 9, lPr, 15• %, 60, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELEPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 85 -06 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac' and Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Very Low Residential ('loss than 2 du /ac) on the 20.2 acres of land as described above. I. ABSTRACT: A General PTan Amendment is requested for a site located on the south side of Wilson Avenue betwen Haven & Mayberry. The requested change is from Low Medium Residential and Low Residential to Very Low Residential. Staff has determined that no sinnificant environmental impacts would be caused by the proposes. °nafige: The Commission will determine land use compatibility. II. BACKGROUND: This action, initiated by the Planning Commission, is the result of a series of actions begun with the application of Tentative Tract 12851, an 8 -lot single- family subdivision. During the course of public hearing processing for the subdivision, surrounding residents in the area submitted a petition raising same concern as to the density compatibility of the proposed development to the existing surrounding 1/2 acre single family developments. As a result, consideration of the subdivision was delayed wi, -le this land use issue was submitted for review to the Planning Commission on March 13, 1985. The Planning Commission made a determination to re- evaluate the area and directed staff to initiate a General Plan and Develo ment District Amendment to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du /ac� In the interim, the proposal for the 8 -lot subdivision has been withdrawn. ITEMS M/N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 85 -03 and DDA 85 -06 Mau 22, 1985 Page 2 III. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Amend the General Plan Land Use & Development Districts Map from Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du;ac) and Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du /ac). B. Location: South side cf Wilson Avenue between Haven & Mayberry. C. Parcel Size: 20.2 acres D. Existing Development District: Low Medium Residential and Low Residential E. Existing Land Use: Vacant, single family and church related F. Surrounding Land Use and Zorin : North - Single family homes Very Low Residential) South - Vacant, approved for 294 single family homes East - Chaffey College (Low Medium Residential) and Deer Creek single family homes (Very Low Residential) West - Single family homes, vacant, and school site (Low Residential) G. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Medium Residential with Master Plan Overlay and Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South Low Medium Residential East - Law Medium Residential and Very Lowsidential West - Low Residential H. Site Characteristics: The proposed site is across from Haven Avenue and to the wesl* of Chaffey College. This site is within the foothills and average grade exceeds 6 %. The site is primarily vacant except for an existing single family home on the southwest corner of Wilson & Mayberry, a single family home under construction in the project interior and a church related facility fronting on Haven, soutt. of Wilson. The area consists of a mix of parcel sizes, with a number of these parcels being landlocked without any direct access to a public street. A lack of existing circulation and /nr drainage facilities at this time raise serious concerns as to future development possibilities. To acknowledge thee concerns and as a means to address their resultant issues, this area has been designated as a'Ma•Rter Plan Overlay District. The purpose is to assure a harmonious and concomitant development of the necessary infrastructure as physical development of the area occurs. E 11 KI PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 85 -03 and ODA 85 -06 May 22, 1985 Page 3 IV. ANALYSIS: A. History: In April of 1981, the City Council adopted the Clty's General Plan 4hich designated the area surrounding ChafFey College for Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac). In January of 1984, the 'ity Council adopted the Development Districts Map to make all zoning within__tNe City co.)sistent to the adopted General Plan as required >., State Planning Law. In March of 1984, a parcel map was submitted by the ,ieveloper for a Four -lot single family subdivision. This parcel map was then revised ns an eight -lot subdivision to take advantage f the ir. -eased density permitted by current zoning. _Howeve. with surimittal of this eight -lot subdivision,, surrounding ar« resi,.ats presented a petition raising issue with the current zoning designation and questioning the hand use compatibility in terms of density of the project site with the surrounding area. B. Surroi:nding Lana Use: The area from .,eiterline of Mayberry Avenue west to gosa Avenue is designated for Low - Residential (Z -4 du /ac) an... .school site. Area north of Wilson Avenue is designated for Very -Low Residential with a density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The area from centerline of Mayberry Avenue east to Haven Avenue, including the project site, is designated for Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac), and is primarily undeveloped (see Exhibit "C".) The area south of this study area has been approved for 294 single- f,unily homes, ranging from a lot size of 4,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet (Tentative Tract 10827). C. Existing Land Use: Areas north of Wilson consist of mainly' half acre single family lots. On the south side of Wilson, including the project area, is an area that consists of,-a mix of parcels. A clamber of these parcels are landlocked wi,;hout access to any public street. Many of these parcels have existing single family homes of long time residents. Also, on both sides of Mayberry Avenue are two parcel maps with one -half acre lots which were approved prior to the adoption of the Development Districts Map. Since the project area has inadequate circulation and drainage facilities with a wash area towards the south, a Master Plan Overlay District is designated over this area. The purpose is to Lbsure harmonious relationship between existing and future use to coordinate and to promote the public facility improvements. This Master Plan Overlay designation should be retained over the area as part of the General Plan Amendment. PLANNING CO ":MISSI3N STAFF` REPORT GNA 85 -03 and C'3 85 -05 May 22, 1985 Page A it should be noted that the first row of lots on the west side of Hayberry is included in the area to be considered for the Gen,pral Plan Amendment. This row of lots is comprised of a previously recorded parcel map of 20,000 sq. ft.. lots. These lots do not quite meet area and dep`h requirements of the new Development Code for Very Low Res;_ ntial, but nevertheless, they are consistent with the density range of less than 2 du /ac and their °-ear lot lines function, as a practical boundary be6ween the minimum 1/2 acre lot sizes required of the proposed amendment and the Low Density residential development permitted to the west. D. General Pl•,- Policies: Policies within the General Plan and the Development Code stress neighborhood compatibility. Projects murt be compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood; project designs must effectively mitigate the aesthetic conflicts betty ^en a proposed development and surrounding land uses. In addition, the intent of the General Plan and Development Code is to promote proper transitions of density. E. Environmental Asses {,dent: Staff has completed the Environmental Cheeklist, Fart II, of the Initial Study and found no significant adverse environmental impacts to occur as a result of the proposed amendment. However, serious concern does exist o,+er the lack of adequate circulation and /or drainage facilities and V,ese issues should be addressed prior to any development Leing permitted, i F. Issues: The primary issue to be considered b the Plannin mmission is whether the current Low•'4edium density of -8 dwelling units er acre is compatible with the surrounding planned land use an the approcriate designation. V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of the General Plan Amendment, decide that thy change would promote the land use goals and purposes of the General Plan, and would not be detrimental to the adjaceit propertieg'or cause significant adverse impacts as listed under the Environmental Assessment, the following findings are necessary for approval. A. The amendment does not conflict with the land use policies of the General Plan. B. The amendment does promote the goals of the land use element, and C. The amendment would not be materially injurious or letrimental to the adjacent properties. w li — PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 85 -03 and DDA 85 -06 May 22, 1985 Page 5 VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the proposed projecf,and to all residents listed `on the petition on 'file submitted in opposition to the proposed eight -lot subdivision. V. RECOKiENDATION: Staff recommends approval of txie General Plan and Development Districts Amendments, With the westerly demarcation of the Amendments to be coincident with the westerly limits of Parcel Map 5795. The Master Plan Overlay designation should also be retained. Should the Commission concurs approval of the attached Resolutions recommending approval to the City Council of GPA 85 -03 and DDA 85= *ckome ld be appropriate. y sub tted, /.RG:BC:ns At tachments: Exhibit "A" Development Districts Map Exhibit "B" - Area to be Am nded Exhibit "C" - Area Utilization Resolutions of Approval 'y /- \ (^� ` � --'--'-- ------ . m RESIDENTIAL E-VIL-1 VERY LOW.42 DU/AC LOW 2-4 DU/AC LOW-MEDIUM 4-8 DUIAC MEDIUM 8-14 DU/AC MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 OU/AC ETH H HIGH 24-30 DU/AC NORTH CITY or, RANCHO C TCAl PLANNIING DIVISION EXHIBIT�n!SCALF_� .�.... t--- - VL ta Wi,so� .dvE: V - j LM LNt' GPA from LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DU'.s /AC) 41 to VERY LOW' RESIDENTIAL (less than 9. Juls /A j E INTORTH CITY Off' RANCHO CI✓TCAivIO`erGA TITLE= -A PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE. I ai p ce: 1 Lr 1� .0, v V v. _. ^ �-- ; V ,v• FI V r Ex�ar ;t-: •v. B`(u Z 4 Fi • lia.esc V - Y NORTH CITY or, ITEIN 1: RANCHO CUCAVI0\`GA TITLE: PLAIVIVING UItIISIG1N E,YI- tii ?:'• '° +oho oCr--Ak,ylo�c� ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW r APPLICATION ° F z 1977 INITIAL STUDY PART I GENERAL 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 Planning Division staff will prepare 'Part II of the Initial S 6dy and make' recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one of three determinations: (1) The project will have no si nificant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, �2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: 3 %1 3fQu'� Project Title: e<lpt% $5-03 4. "��->A &, 5 - Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: 4_,1-T--( g32o F�Asizt.,,a= Rc> _ CZ• G,a 9,1730 9811 - t851 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: - -::Sf+M� k Location of Project: l--i� AAE p»T1 1 s MA-rt?) x��� -c Assessor's Parcel No.: 201 -151- 7,$ q, In.5` 4o, ?3o3 bt, List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies (fr and the agency issuing such permitsz full{ �v FROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project: Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: ep. -1;4 L 1. - �AC.A. Kr QIMA Z Describe the environmental setting of the project site including information on topography, soil stability, plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and ' their use (attach necessary sheets): -U-tv. .IA. n I tc.l n ue� 'lo Aar 1- Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact 4. /1-2 S J k WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? � Z 3. Cre4.':e a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, ieJ..1ge, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing Zon'ng or General Plan.designations? S. Remove any existin3 treesT How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammahles or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necess -iry): 4 {,41-- P t;GT 69 Ta AM�t -L0 l►t�iCz�t -lT 'D�tGa�- 1_A'T1^e�T15 �� � TF -1l'S �YLN R�2,seJ,� �.h) Z �@LC9bNtL�n1T •Jlao'�'�1(;+ir' •. 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project Will generate daily: t VI 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips ge'iErated daily oy this project: a 11A. 9. Estimate the amount of grad— 'ng (cutting and fill tig) required for this project,_in cubic yards:__ 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. t4/y& CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date, d information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my abi'r. ; and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and corre4t 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 Planning Division. Date: S a Signature Title tE(Z >711 -2- I -3 F, RESIDENTIALCONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to Planning Division in the City of Rancho Cucamenga order to aid the school ability to accommodate the proposed rezidential district in assessi.g their development. Developers ar'e required to secure letters from the school district for accommodating the increased number of students prior to issuance of building permits. Name of 4Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: �7 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 1 IJAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to aft begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model# and # of TentatW� 5. Bedrooms Price R-nge r-4 IL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: S APPLICA`T: FILING DATE:_ 3 '13 /rg LCG NUMBER: PROJECT: G F 4 i�yy,e. FtiLot"t PROJECT LOCATION: S 5 Lf1tJ /YVE�. QSytn,Jg•o-_ � �V�,,a k �1,�„t��� I- V: ,,' TRON MENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "may`ae" answers are required on a *tacked sheets). I. Soils and Geoloev. Will the prOPosal have significant YES 114YBE NO results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or i-► changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptio•ts, displacements, cosvaction or burial of the soil? ✓� C. .Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? r d- The destruction., covering or modification of ` any unique geologic or physical features? ____ �► �• Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of ,oils„ affecting either on or off , site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as 'earthquakes, landslides, mud - slides,, - ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any minerzl resource? 2. Hydrolocy. Will the proposal have significant - results in: r w 1 page 2 YES uAYSE \0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, r rivers_ or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sur runoff? face water c. Alteratioi,s 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 qualityi f f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? ✓^ g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with - drawals, or through interference with __.. aquifer? an Quality? Quantity? h. The reducti ^- in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary urces? -- ✓� b. Deterioration Of- ambient air quality.and /or Interference with the ar!�_-inment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the ! proposal have significant results in: p a• Change in the characteristics of species, Including divcjsity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare t or endangered species of plants?',. ?aee 3 t. Introduction of new or disruptive species of YES MAYBE `N0 plants into an area?'-_� ✓. d. Reduction in Ehe potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity„ distribution, or numbers- of any species of animals? b. Reduction of t „e numbers of any unique, rare or endangered, species of animaleL c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into 4n area, or result in a barr gr to the migratl..r)n or movement of animals? d. Deterioratit,. or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5, Population. Will the proposal have significant result, inin: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Soc' ')- Economic Factors, Will the proposal have sign” icant results in: a. Change iu local or regional socio- economic ebaracteris ^.ics, 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 Ccnsiderations. Will the proposal have significart results in? f a. A substantial alteration of tl.e present or planned land use of an area? �. b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,` Policies, or adopted ._ plans of any governmantal entities? C. `n impact, upon the qulaity or quantity of xisting',eonsumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? /' 8. Tranwortation. Will the p YES .�Y3E N� proposal have significant results in: a. Gene; -ation of substantial additional vehicular movecent? �1 b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on exist ' ?age 5 YES a4Y&E NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results In, a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict eitb the objective of designated ar Potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the nropasal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications- syste..ns? d. Water supp?y? e. Wastewater facilit es? f. Flood control — 1L� structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire ?roteeaon? �__ ✓�, - i. Police protection? J. Schools? k• Parks or other r *.cTaatianal facilities? —` 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M �. m. Other governmental services? 13. Enertrt and Scr,rce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results i:n': -' a. Use of substantial or enxcesslve -fuel or energy? bb Substantl -1 increase in demand upon ex sting � sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? - d• An in cease or perpetuation of the consumption of non- renewable forms of energy, when feasiole renewable sources of energy are available? L, Page 6 YES `:GYBE yo e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural .resource? 14. Mandatory Findinzs of Sienificance. a. Does the project ha;•e the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce" the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important zxamples of the major ;aeriods of California history or prehistory - b. Does the project have the potential to achieve ibort-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time vthile long - term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually lira; -,,.d, but cumulatl,ely considerable? tulatively considerable means that thq - emental effects of an indtidual F are considerable when viewer; In connecti( jth the effects of past projects, and probable future projects), d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause sniastartial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? il. MSCUSS'ON OF EMtROMEENTAL BVALUATIOti �✓ the above questions plus a discuss' _(i.e., of mitigation answers to ion or ro osed miti a ' _ - P p g tion measures r'�F�j 17 �kC La moo' =• j'�7� 1c�.1d� ��'C+ut>? Trtt�ttM�..M �A.u..oiJA�t'...� t r of + A-5 1:xXs « -l'o \- 2 v> is /A, . IJcaa i. T� e ve . Tv1es UV't'trh/rt� ���c..c e� �2aoi :rar�4. Tr1C fi•a/��i..�8:yt�`i o f= �=u-eta�z�., 1- iot.shlG ��+�C'�^i• �,-� „Tec�cts c Te- t�v►pc�- tr!►rev.. -�ivt V.t �;zti- xs�-et J r "44V "VIM �F: �tx-t� ,>��,m l i�.• - s�.o�a /�Fz -� 4 ie- t�*zas�z tATM G.t�,t,,�t.;kTtort � '71z.°a�..�f.ea. �.►<.- u..4-rt� -s, 4 'coo Ac�tixse: -pct -tt' F �' rrc�W1 -ctv. aF rlata•1 :.�rlcac� G�r�tF�'`�t�t�•trt t-i "TN%z Acsttor•s 14 rl /.v4 tu°� a ecC'Si� 61► ` r! tzt 8rs5,e R`( �y . `�cso��-c t- ,lor�t:..o tt1:�►��� Tian. r+y�i�ttt`+tt,lM pu�L.B�t� t - To A Las�aF- e- �ur�elag. "r.t�rtr� Ls t- �t:sL.= of 'CrdM , R -.0_:V 3L o? -rRM -T, �;PciGeG a7eraa��Tte�s•S. �tJts�- IL V a Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the oasis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signific2,nt effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAFUTION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a signifii:ant Effect. on the environment, ehere Will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitirjation measures ?_scribed on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A- NEGATIVE_ DECLARATION WILL BE PRFPA.RED. (--; I find the prop sed prp.7ect S4Y'have a signific t effer.t on the L� rnvirnr--an,,, and an ENVIELO TENT DIPA.0 IiEPOR s quired. Date. ture 3 _ Titl r i Ft I '. FF- RESOLUTION NO. r A RESOLUTION OF THE FLA'. =ING COV'IISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOHGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 85 -03 TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN FROM LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND LOW RESIDENTIAL TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the propcsed General Plan Amendment 85 -03. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the fulloteing amendment to the Land Use Plan of the General Plan. SECTION 1: The General Plan Land Use M;,n shall be amended as follows: �- `i From Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) and Low Residential (2- 4 du /ac) to Very Low Residential (),iss than 2 du /ac) for the 20.2 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue between Haven & Mayberry and to include those parcels fronting on the west side of Mayberry and further described as APN 201- 181 -7, 8, 9, 10, 59. 60, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 SECTION 2: A Negative Declaration as hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council for this General Plan Amendment, based upon the completion and finding = of the Initial Study. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF 'MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF tiHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA J BY: G Dennis L. Stout, Chairman - ATTEST: Rick 3om.1z, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Cic of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and - regularly ;ntro&ced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of h +ay, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONER'S: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .,K E' 7 16 RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 35 -06 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION. FRnM LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND LOW RESIDENTIAL TO VERY'` LOW RESIDENTIAL FOR 20.2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF I4ILSON AVENUE BETWEEN HAVEN & MAYBERRY i r; WHEREAS, on tfe 13th day of May, 1985, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on thO 22nd day of May, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public'. hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, aad compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the <; proposed district change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Oecl'iration on May 22, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1, That pursuant to - Section 65850 to 658F5 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of May, 1985, District Change No. 85 -06. 2. The Planning Commission he >eby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt District Change No. 85 -06. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resoluticn and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission' shall be forwarded to the City Council. ` U Resolution No: DDA 85 -06 May 22, 1985 Page 2` 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Denn,s L. Stout, Chairman 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 " City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on she 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to- wit AYES: C011MISSICNERS: NOES: COMMISSIONE -1S.: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CIZY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o�ycanro STAFF REPORT 0 0 v $ a 1977 DATE: May 22, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY. Nancy Fong SUBJECT: DESIGN 'REVIEW FOR TRACT 9619 PLAZA BUILDERS Reapplication fcr design review of 31 single fagdly lots or 20.15 °acres of land in the Vsry tow Residential District (1 -2 du /ac) located at the west side of Carnelian Street, between Hillside Road and Almond Road - APN 1061 221 -01. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of elevations and plot Flan B. Purpose: Construction of 31 single family homes C. Location: West side of Carnelian., between Hillside Road and Almond Road D. Parcel Size: 20.15 acres E. 'aisting Zoning: Very Low Residential District F. Existina Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use and 7oning: North Single family homes, flood channel; Very Low Residential District (1 -2 du /ac). South - Single family homes, Very Low Residential District (I-'- du/ac).� East Single family homes, Very Low Residential District (1 du /ac). West - Single family homes, Very Low Aesidential,District IF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 9619 - Plaza Builders May 22, 1985 Page 2 H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South - Very Low Residential East - fiery Low Residential i�est - Very Low Residential I. Site Characteristics: The site slopes to the sou "a at appr4Yimate1y 12 grade and is traversed by two flood channels (TrapE ±odal Channel). Vegetation consists of isolated trees, shrubs and weeds. IL ANALYSIS• A. General: This tract was originally approved on December -0, 1980, as a subdivision only. The developer is now re uesti q approval of elevations and plot plans for the 3.1 single family lots. The proposed elevations consist of three floor plans ranging from a size of 2,035 sgoare feet to 2,530 square feet, with three variations to the front elevations. The proposed elevations have been designed► with a variety of exterior architectural treatments as shown in Exhibit "DI.I. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee- felt that the proposed eievaticj:s are consistent and t.omp ? +. le to the surrounding neifhborhood in architectural style an size. The surrounding single family hon;Q_i gave a mixture of Styles -hat range fr.,,A traditional country, ,% Intemporary to Spanish themes, (see Exhibit "A "). The Committee recommended approval of the proposed elevations. ITI. RECOMMENDATI'GN: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material and input. regarding this project. If the . Commission concurs with the Design Review Committee's recommendations, approval of the elevations and pl=ot plan through adoption of the attached Resolu'%ion ctould be appropriate. 1, tJ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 9619 - Plaza Builders May 22, 1985 Page 3 f Res p' fitful lyitted, f ;t �iCiC' i Cit Planner kRG:NF:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A location Map /Surrounding Archi.te -oral Style Exhibit "B" - Tract 9619 Exhibit ^" Detailed Site and Grading Plans, (2) Exhibit w Elevations, (14) Exhibit "Ell - Floor Plans, (3) Resolution of Approval with Conditions E Original Resolution of Approval with Conditions i r� 3 I I, wQ A U��i LA eau V /$U 1 7'w>r ,caae� e+ccza asrA f•K•v� Asa+o) AWiY rj N.+ - -- n • , - - w :wr ". �~ �• % �� St ={n + 1•J! a l ar euaa 1 "• 1 f � - ^ • \ (�( �troEo- � „s; -�.: 1 OC4K+�� ~ ` Y ��NGL '•CIX/IPT / i. LA S6•Ipe 0.1A4T :. is �` z I !y� v j' • '°' .(s :: .,;scot : zq.°°+ 8 , � � �r (rS�iw• I • tv „' � $ 4 w+d+ aei»71 ,>r��+1 a ri,�rci iM' os M `.nau ?I� V • . rr e s � +ysti7 . � `• � � �• w.a �b Yen .l) _ Y/CARA VE a, Pivai +aa....... �� ',i - �` Furena s_•rncar. ar�un��c.��y_ 1 ��� �•r .• 7 i � 2� tlI �``_�' h�ieA,Sf�'>7•e! ,) - _�iCN HlA}cK _ t ii . . �paace�+Y�w. s S •— Ywna . r'CTZW A _ CITY OF RANCHO `, JCAA40NGA PLA:NNINU DIVMN NORTH ITEM: -IT T 6` a TITLia EXI-IIEtT� ���CALE= �G°�.y !,..l 4.: L7 C Ira, Im INORTH CITY OF —rf RANUHO CLU-AMaNGA TITLE: N lv PLANNING DIVISM Exmrr.-�%�-'scALE. 0-6 FA M. PMB iR MB 3-34 Iliz* 71 �7M, 1-1 —4'", CITY OF, RANTCHO CUCAMONGA PLAMNiNG DIVISION ITEM: naAtf EXHMIT.-- LE- 0- ;ene J Nil NORTH Q. tV 9 V N U II��I F f i i i i i i i V � 0701 -02 0 5 -22-85 P.C. Agenda Packed o Pane a of r 4i1� Q� !AX# h � t c r; ■A■r : p Ing a } i O D e ■ 0-// �V 6 L Eu�r i L L � N R.2 � L �ydg La rn=s� ai9 as =aea, ` nu dor aaa 9C N N C OIN •C y� 9 6 A N V v °=b� inn E +CLAM~ A LEFP ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION MGHT ELEVATION RIGHT [ SEVATION / All corner dwellings and twostory daeilin�gs s6a�ve the'side or rear elevations facing the streeiupgeaded'with additionatwood trim around windows and wood s ;ding or plant -on9 where appropriate, subtri to review and approval by the City Planner .prior to issuance ct building pe:vits.. - of NORTH. CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE T6 x PLANNING IDIVISICIN EXHIBIT= SCALE- __ •� d -�S� �qa N ;3c Cv N 9ati mLy0. 'O nAr �d N L C 4 M M c Y m7v�N b aoA uIQ v�=a� L u b 0 3 � � 1 eey EW- t U p _2 � � z �: CP4 i id =� _ I _.__. ... _... - ___...1 G6u�r i ;�� U�' CI N O x N Ti` ^ N `�`��!! w�i � r W "'OY o q a .in y i u a3rc N A a?0. 4 L y v `� °.�+ i > ^� „ nu � °z i'�"�y� t �a ocoY uz4 �4 V q v � 2 b � 1 '`yTL � o�s�� � L L^ .� KLw «a . ll O � �O �� 1 e� W �-i }-.�.{ P° M, • V err ��. '� �l�' �� .. �I lu 'ks A . Ll El Q v ,6 oYVo w = Y N o N C r n o: rnsim ^v o' Z p�y6 9 6u� �Y DV � Y O NL r M N C OCR N q ° A C � G CIU J6 �yO 6 OO�,y�f C U 6 A� O s r via o. Y O n CITY Or RANCHO CUCAlViONGA PLANNM DIVOON FLT PLAN .MM• . r Y NORTH I'T FA, I: TITLE: EXHIBIT N lSCALE 0 as LE u e s O -a3 w i INA e fsl U Rte-{ L z O -a3 w i INA e fsl U Rte-{ 'F�'. J � L� !� �� ,i �.-. �(� }s... RESOLUTION NO. 80 -81 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF R!INCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITT_ONALLY APPRQVri63 TEdTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 9619. WHEREAS, Tentative Track Map No. 9619,,hereinafter "Map" submitted by Hillside Alta Investments, app'ricant, for the purpose of subdividing the re arty situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of Bernaroan„ State of California, described as 20.15 acres generally located on the west side of Carnelian Avenue, north of Hillside, and being divided intO 31 lots, regularly came before the P- ;;ning Commission for public hearing and action on December 10, 1980; and WHEREAS, the City_ Planner_ has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engine'.'ing and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisicns reports and has considered other evic:e presented at the public hearing. ;4LM, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cut does resolve as follows: SECTION 1� The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Trdct No. 9614 and the Map thereof: (a)* The tentative tract i� consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and ;pecifi ; 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 development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; 4 (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 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, c_ co'oZS,-,. �v Rpsolution No. 80- -1 pad 2 AMI (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the: envirorment•and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: tentative Tract Map No. 9619, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions; Planning hivision 1. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or pr'or to issuance of building permits,. when no subdivision map is involved, written cc;rtificeLion from all affected School Districts, shall be submitrred to the Department of Community Development which states that adequate school facilities are or will be capable of accommodating students generated by this project. Such letter of certification must have been issued by the School District within sixty (60) clays prior to the final map approval in the case of the subdivision map or issuance of permits in the case of a.1 other residencin' projects. 2. Prior to aproval and recordation of the final rap, or prior t'the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water ,,143trict, that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Develtpment. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within sixty (60) days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities allowabi% by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board and the City,, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained and submitted to the City, 3. All slope banks in access of five (5) feet in vertical height shall and are 5 :1 or greater slopes be landscaped and irrigated 4n accordance kith slope planting requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga: Such slope planting shall include but not be limited to rooted ground cover and appropriate shrubs and tre,'s. All such planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection of the slopes shall be completed by the Planning Staff to determine that it is in satisfactory condition. In the case of custom lot subdivisions, all such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon complet!!�n of grading or an alternative method of erosion'control satisfactory to the Building Official. Irrigation on custom lot subdivisions shall be provided to germinate the seed and to a point 6 months after germination. n- Resolutio6r�Mo. ^ Page 3 ,` y- v~ ^ \ � . � ' 4` This .package and is required to reapply for a point rating relative to 'he design section of the Growth Management Ordinance prior to final approval and recordation of map, if the subdivision homes. ' — is going ' — -- developed -�-__ tract , 5.1 This approval shall become null and void if the tentative subdivision map is not approved and recorL.,,­ ding permits issued when no man, is involved, withiii (12) months from the approval of this project unless art extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. ` , 6. Solid core exterior doors, security dead bolts and locks ' shall be installed on each unit in`this project, 7^ Welling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and nrv-combustible roof material. ' ` 8 shall be ' provided throughout the tract in accordance with eque5trian trail plan for Alta Lama. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, phusical condition, fencing and weed contrilin accordance with City equestrian trail standards shall be'submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. Trails will be required on the Channel right- of-way at a minimum. 9. This tract shall form or annex to a maintenance district for maintenance of equestrian trails. Engineering Division 10. Design and construction of a portion of master planned storm drains as shown on the tentative map shall'be required. The eiannel shall confluence transition into existing concrete c , hannal south of the tract. Adequate inlet transitions shall be provided for the two channels at the north tract bourdary. The cost of construction of the drains shall be credited to the storm drain fees and an re4mbLrsement agreement will be executed per section 8 of toe City Ordinance No. 75 to cover contributions Aich 11. Adequate drainage ea!;ements for the channels shall be dedicated to the City, and shall be delineated on the ' 12. 6 foot high chain link fence shall`- the channel well ^ the -- ch---' Provisi b— shall — ' -_ to provide equestrian -~ access to the lots adjacent to �—u channel.. ' , ! " � ^ Resolution No. 80i Page 4 13. A 40 foot wide right -of -way for Vicara P'�ive shall be dedicated to the City. The above con&tion may be revised_ by the City. Engineer to a requirements of 30 foot wide right -of -way fo Vicara Drive provided the applicant acquired a ten foot casement f +fir roadway purposes from the adjacent property cvners on the south side of Vicara Drive where necessary. This easement shall be recorded prior to recordation ar the final map. ` 14. All existing easements lying within the future right-of- way are to be quit claimed or delineated as per the City Engineer's requirements, prior to recordation of the tract map. 15. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. 16. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidL-walk drains shall be installed to City standards. 17. Adequate provisions shall be amde for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 18. Letters of acceptance from downstream property owners shall be required where runoff from the tract flows onto private properties. 19. Private drainage easements with improvements for cross lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated on the final map. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1980. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON ;n Richard 5,il1, Chairman ATTEST:`_ Secretary of the Planning Commission i 0 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,,do here., -grtify that the foregoing Resolute n was duly and•i regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the'Planning Commission held an the 10th day of December, 1980 by the following vote to -wit: i C-a 8 DEPARTMENT )MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANbARD CONDITIONS Subject: - } Applicant• — ..� VI9A Location: 'Those items checked are conditions of approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: t A. Site Development 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. _ 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitteu to the planning Division prior t„ issuance of building permits. 3. Approval of this request' shall not waive c 1pliance with ail sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applic�xble City Ordinances in effect at time of Building Permit issuance. .J%•4. The developer shall provide all lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreation Vehicle storage pursuant to City standards. 5. Mail boxes, in areas where sidewalks are required, shall be installed and located by the developer subject to approval by the Planning Division. _ 6. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot nigh masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards, Location shall be subject tr, approval by the Planning; Division. i' _Z7. If dwellings are to be constructed in an area designated by the Foothill Fire Districts a4 "hazardous ", the roof materials must be approved by the Fire Chief and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A sample of the roof material shal'; be submitted to the Planning Division for review and -approval prior to issuance of building - .permits. 9. All roof apps- rtenances;•including. air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning and Building Divisions. 10. Prior to any use of the.pro ect site or business activity being commenced thereon, al' conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. �U ic ii u 11. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Such plan 'shall indicate styles illumination, location, height-and method of-- shielding. No lighting shall adversely affect adjacent properties. 12. All swimming pools installed at the 'time of initial development shall be solar heated. 13. Texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings with open spaces and recreational uses. 14. All trash pick up shall be foa• individual units with all recepticals kept out of public view from private and public streets. 15. Standard ,patio cover plans shall be submitted to v.nd approved by the City Planner and Building Off:;, al prior to occupancy of the first unit. • 16. 1.11 buildings numbers and individual units shall be identified in a Gear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 17. Sulid core exterior doors, security dead bolts and locks shall be installed on each unit in this project. 18. Security devices such as window locks shall be installed on each unit. 19. All units 'within this development shalt be preplumbed to be adapted for a solar water heating unit.. 20. Energy conserving building materials and appliances are required to be incorporated into this project to include such things as but not limited to reduced consumption shower heads, better grade of insulation, double paned windows, extended overhangs, pilotless appliances, etc. 21. This development shall provide an option to home buyers to purchase a solar water .heating unit. 22. Emergency secondary access shall be provided to this tract to the satisfaction of the Foothill Fire Protection District. 23. Local and Master Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan for Alta Loma. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical condition, fencing and weed control in accordance with City equestrian trail standards shall be submitted to and approved by the City Plannar prior to approval and recordation of the final map. 24. This tract s;:all form or annex to a maintenance district for maintenance of equestrian trails. , 0 -.fi ■.. 25. This project shall provide percent of affordable housing and /or rents, .in conformance with General Plan housing policies and the housing criteria defined in the Growth Management Ordinance. Affordability shall be determined by current market rates, rents and median income levels at the time of construction of the project. Proof of this provision shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to finalizing building permits and occupancy of the units. ' B. Parking and Vehicular Access 1. All parking lot landscaped islands shall have a' minimum inside dimension of 4' and shall contain a 12" walk adjacent to parking stall. 2. Parking lot trees shall 6e a minimum 15 ,:gallon size. 3. All two -way aisle widths sfi,,ll be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 4. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 24 feet wide at all dries during construction in accordance with Foothill Fire District rel,riinzments. 5. All parking spaces shall 6"\I' double striped. 6. All units shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 7. Designated visitor parking areas shall be turf blocked. 6. The C.C. & R.'s shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principle source of transportation for the owner. 9. No parking shall be permitted within the interior cirulation aisle other than in designated visitor parking areas. �,;C> & R.'s shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. C. Landscaping I. A detailed landscape and irrigation- ; -t-- ''shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2.' Existing trees shall be retained wherever possible. A master plan of existing trees showing their precise location, size and type shall be completed by the developer. Said plan shall take into account the proposed grading and shall be required to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to approval of tnc final grading plan. r] � C 3. Existing Eucalyptus trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed and topped at 301. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees -shall be approved for removal at the descretion of the Planning Division ddring'tho review of the Master Plan of Existing On -Site Trees. Those trees which are approved for removal may be required to be replaced on a tree -for -tree basis as provided by the Planning Division. __4/4. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in accordance with the Master Plan of street trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be planted at an average of every 30' on interior streets and 20' on exterior streets. 5. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre *, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the development; 201; -24" box or larger, 70%0,15 gallon, and 10%-5 gallon. 5. .All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debr's. 7. All slope banks in access of V ve (5) feet in vertical height shall and are 5:1 or greater slopes be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with slope pTanting requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such slope planting shall include but not be limited to rooted ground cover and appropriate shrubs and trees. All such planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individva; unit is sold and occupied Jy the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection of the slopes shall be completed by the Planning Staff to determine that it is in satisfactory condition. In the case of custom lot subdivisions, all such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon completion of grading or an alternative method of erosion control satisfactory to the Building Official. Irrigation on custom lot sOdivisions shall be provided to germinate the seed and to a point 6 months after germ,,nation. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be fully maintained by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of maintenance shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The front yard landscaping, and an appropriate irrigation system, shall be installed by the developer in accordance with submitted plans. 10. The final design of the perimeter parkways,' walls, landscaping and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 11. A minimum of specimen size trees shall be planted within the project. 12. Special landscape features such as mounding, alleivial rock, speciman size trees, and an abundance of landscaping is ,required along k� O -33 D. Sions 1. Any signs proposed for this development shall he designed in conformance +� with the Comprehensive Sign.Ordinance and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. 2. A uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to the Planning Division for their review and approval prior to issuance of Building permits. 3. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are not approved with this approval and will require separate sign review and approval. E. Additional Approvals Required �y!1. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of Zone Change and /or Variance /Conditional. Use Permit 4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of month(s) at which time the Planning Commission may add or delete conditions or revoke Ak the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The developer is required to obtain the following signed statement by purchasers of homes which have a private or public equestrian trail on or adjacent to their property. In purchasing the home located on Lot Tract on , I have read the C.C. & R.'s and understand that said Lot is subject to a mutual re- ciprocal easement for the purpose of allowing equestrian traffic to gain aaaess. Signed Purchaser. .Said state ?ent is to be filed by the developer with the City prior to occupancy. 6. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to issuance of building permits, when no subdivision map is involved, written certification from all affected School Districts, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development which states that adequate school facilities are or will be capable of accommodating students generated by this project. Such letter of certification must have been issued by the School District within sixty (60) days prior to the final map approval in the case of the subdivisiqn. map or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. ?j i 0 -3y c 7. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district, that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within sixty (60) Gays prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of ail other residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board and the City, written certi- fication of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained and submitted to the City. 8. This approval shall become null and voi if the tentative subdivision map is not approved and recorded or building permits issued when no map is involved, within twelve (12) months from the approval of this project unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. 9. This subdivision was not submitted as a total development package and is required to reapply for a point rating relative to the design section of the Growth Management Ordinance prior to final approval and recordation of the map if the subdivision is going to be developed as tract homes. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR COMPLY,;: Z WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: �F. Site Development --y-c""`1. The applicant shall comply with the lates_ adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of approval of this project. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence ill be submitted to the Foothill District Fire Chief that water supply 3�r fire protection is available. _j,/3. Prior to the issuance of a builaing permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shat'] pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fee. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. i_ 5. This approval shall become null ar.d void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval.' V'6. Street names and addresses shall be provided by the bui)'ang official. 7. 8. Dwelling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and ncn- combustible roof material. All corner dwellings shall have.thp building elevation facij;g the street upgrade with additional wood trim around windows and wood siding or plan -ons whera appropriate. G. Existing Structures _ I. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for {property line clearances considering use, area end fire- resistiveness of existing buildings.. 2. Existing buildings) shall be made to cumply with current Building and Zoning regulations for the intended Abe or the building shall he demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, fillet; and /nr capped to comply with appropriate grading practices and the dniforrr Plto.,,aing Code. H. Grading 101. Grading of the subject property shalt 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. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. _ ^ 3. A geo;ogical report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. Z4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions and shall b,� completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLL(h1TNG CONDITIONS: I. Dedications and Vehicular Act ss —Z1. Dedications shall be made by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements �s shown on the tentat' a map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following missing rights -of -way an the following streets: ,. _ -- 1 feet an } additional additional feet on _ additional feet on-- 6?-36 _Z3. Corner property line radius will be required per Cite standards:. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be d,- .icated as r follows: 5. Reciprocal easemnts shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas. 6. Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, engress and i.iternal circulatior of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the pr,,:erty or in the operation of the proposed business. J. Street Improvements ___% 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.Aminimurn a' 24' uxk p?XdjW�7j *e� /�Y..'�iU /�'� Ow vleaYq Di° d 2. Construct the following missing improvements including, but not limited to: STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET LIGHTS A.C. OVERLAY WHEEL 'CHAIR RAMPS OTHER• ✓ 3. Priur to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, an encroachment permit and fees shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Offica, in addition to any other permits required. ✓4. Street improvement plans approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required., for all street improvements,. prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. y/5.• Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the. City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to recording of the map or the issuance of b�;:lding permits, whichever comes first. V*16. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. V'7. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per the requirements of the City Engineer. 0 3 r K. Drainage and Floud Control 1. Tt,e applicant will be responsible for construction of all onsite drainage facilities required by the City Engineer. 2. Intersection drains will be required at the following locations. 3. The proposed project falls M thin areas indicated as subject to flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions of the program and City Ordinance No. 24. 4. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to streeter -o?rp&,rdc.,,e/ 5. • The following north -south streets shall be designed as major water carrying streets requiring a combination of special curb heights, commercial type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood proze(tion walls, and /or • landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property line. L. Utilities / I. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major arterials less than 12 KV, 2. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility companies and the City Engineer. --Z3. Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing public utilities, as required. _�✓4. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison. Company and City standards. 5. ,pater and sewer system plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Foothill Fire District and the Er.vironmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A. letter of compliance form CCV10 will be required prior to recordation. 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. i M. General Requirements_ and Approvals 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows; A. Caltrans for: B. County Dust Pbatt � qed o to issuance of a grading permi C. San Bernardino County .Mood Control District D. Other: a 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCgR's) and Articles of Incorporation of the 4omeowners Association, subject to the approval of Aft the City Attorney, shall be recorded with this map and a copy provided to the City. ` 3. Prior to recordation, a Notice of intention to form Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in uistricts Formation shall be borne by the developer. 4. Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City standards and procedures. a t i , 0 jt - ^139 F RESOLUTION NO. I A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNIXG COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FQR TRACT NO. 9619 LOCATED WEST SIDE OF CARNELIAN STREET, BETWEEN HILLSIDE ROAD AND ALMOND ROAD IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 10th day of April, 1985, a complete application was j filed by Plata Builders for design review of the above- described project; and -' WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. i follows: NOW, 'THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co=ission resolved as j SECTION 1: That the fo'.lowing can be met: I 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 Development Code and the purposes 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 ndt be detrimental to the public hearth, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 9619 is approved subject to the original Resofution No. 80 -81 with Standard Conditions and the following conditions; PLANNING DIVISION 1. All corner dwellings and two -story dwellings shall have the side or rear elevations facing the street upgraded with additional wood 'trim around windows and wood siding or plant -ons where appropriate, subject to review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. TENTATIVE TRACT 9619 Page 2 2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Existing trees shall be retained whpr6Wer possible.. A Tree, :Removal Permit, including a detailed plan of :° kisting trees showing their precise location, size and type shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to approval of the rough grading plans. Said plan shall take into account the proposed grading, what trees are to be retained, trimming methods, and where new trees will be planted for replacement of - removed trees. 4. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City Rancho cf Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to- wit :" AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ri s� L lTTR1Tr 01T:t T1 A XTd�TTl I TT A A ti111 Vr LWUNVi1V %JUUt11Y1V1Vlxti C�}Cpil7° STAFF REPORT °�° t • a 1 r O O E � Z U > 1977 DATE: May 22, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Flanning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: John Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT:. POLICY DETERMINATION 85 -02 - ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF UPLAND BACKGROUND: Mr. Milton Bracy, representing the Assistance League of Upland, approached Staff with a proposal to locate a dental lab in the league's facility located at 8593 Ar&r!)ald, south of Arrow highway. Staff is seeking a policy determination Aiether the dental lab should be a permitted use, ANALYSIS: The dental lab is proposed to be moved from its ;resent location at San Antonio Community Hospi.ta; in Upland. The Assistance League facility is a 6000± square foot hall used for meetings and activities with 50 parking spaces. The development code classifies the Assistance. League as a club: "A non- profit association of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, organized to pursue common goals, interests or activities, but not including a group organized solely or primarily to render a service customarily carried on as a business ". Therefore, the League's facility is a legal non- conforming use because a CUP is required. The lab .is a non - profit dental care facility sponsored by the league. Local dentists volunteer their time to ryn the lab from October through June. The program is available for those children whom otherwise would not receive dental care. The lab is open each morning, five days a week,, depending upon demand and dentist availabilikv. The lab serves approximately 4 - 12 children each morning. The main issue is whether a dental lab can be considered within the definition and operation of a club. The Commission must determine if this type of accessory use is 1) similar in intesity to other uses allowed in the same district, 2) meets the intent of the •district, and 3) meets and conforms with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Also, the Commission should determine whether the lab would be a reasonable expansion of the non- conforming use that would not increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and code sr<;idards. ITEM P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Policy Determination 85 -02 May 22, 1985 Page 2 Regarding the first issue, the adjacent Chino Basin Water District " office is also a non- conforming use. To the east is a vacant lot, and to the south . is the Cucamonga Elementary School. In comparing the proposed dental lab,` it would appear to be compatible with the surrounding mixture of commerical office and residential uses. The Low Residential District is intended as an area for single family residential uses. Medical, dental acid health services would not usually be considered as appropriate and compatible with a residential district. The Commission must weigh the intensity ofithe use against ;rJ potential community benefit. The proposed use would not be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan as it relates to creating nuisances among land uses, because the area is characterized by a mixture of commerical, office and residential use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission review this proposal to detarmiae if the proposed dental lab iS a suitable and compatible ` accessory use to the primary club use in the similar Low Residential [ District. i Respectfull submitted, i R C Gomel City Plan..tr RG:JM:cv a V AF E� V111 Vl' V11V V VL1111V1YV1? VL;AMpij,Cq STAFF REPORT a t r o O z F Z U > DATE: May 22, 1985. L077 T0: Chairman and Meribers of the Planning Commission FROM; Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PARKING ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting of April 10, 1985, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a detailed analysis of our parking requirements and those of other California communities to ascertain whether or not the City needs to change the parking ratios presently utilized within the Development Code and Industrial Area Specific Plan. Specifically, the survey will review gross floor area versus net floor area calculations for the required number of parking stalls, research and development use, and request policy direction on offsite parking lots.' Staff is.seeking the Commission's direction to prepare any desired Code changes. ANALYSIS: Section I. Gross Floor Area Vs. Net Floor Area A. All City parking requirements are based upon "gross floor area" of the proposed building. Occasionally, developers request consideration of "net floor area" data in calculating parking requirements which deducts non- occupancy areas (eo,'- elevator shafts, stairwells, mechanical rooms). The exclusion of certain interior building areas from parking calculations would allow a greater degree of flexibility in the conceptual building and site design. The review of current parking literature and similar parking studies resulted in the survey findings tabulated in Tables l and 2. In the overall survey findings from 170 Northern and Southern California cities, only 6% of the cities polled in the survey use net floor area as a viable means of determining the parking requirements for various land uses, the remainder of the sample cities used the "gross floor area" method. In discussing, the issue with various planning departments, many agencies felt that if project review was based on net floor area, more time would be used for staff review and verification. In terms of employees, speculative buildings might induce over- utilization (interior modifications) thereby intensifying street parking and presenting traffic hazards to ITEM q PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Parking Study Analysis May 22, 198.E Page 2 B. C. the public. lastly, some building areas deleted from parking consideration, for instance lobties, could easily be converted to office space. The net floor area method would literally be determined on a case -by -case basis further hindering the review and plan check process. California cities currently using the "net floor area" method cite the following positive aspects o This method would decrees._ fine tuning of the building concept and eliminate any additionR] design review. o Allow for a greater degree of flexibility from a rigid municipal code. o Would allow those uses that have incorporated innovative building and site design techniques due consideration. It should be noted that although some cities have gross floor area ratios in the municipal code, they still allow some uses to be calculated on net floor area due to exceptional or innovative site design. Staff feels the aforementioned aspects have -merit and recommend that deductible areas in the interior building element that will not change be considered for exclusion (i.e., elevator shafts, electrical and mechanical equipment rooms, and stairwells). In addition, the use of a flat rate (eg 1 %) for deductible area would achieve some flexibility with greater ease of calculation. Summary of Finding - Of the total number of cities contacted and parking literature reviewed only a small percentage (less than 7 %) use net floor area as a viable means of determining the required number of pa °r ping spaces. However, some cities have not officially adopteu this approach, but still utilize net floor area as a means of negotiation on the exceptional attributes of a project. This fact could raise the percentage of cities actually using the net floor area method to at least 20% unofficially. Options: The Commission should choose from the following options: 1. Give policy direction to the City Planner for discretionary use of the net floor area method for innovative site and building design. 2. Direct staff to prepare preliminary amendmerfs to the Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan' regarding net floor area and definition of deductible areas. a— D- 0 K "'i `*:. U 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Parking Study Analysis May 22, 1985 Page 3 3. Take no action on the existing parking ratios. Section II. Research and Developmet Uses: Parkinq Ratios A. This section of the survey was limited in scope to areas in Northern and Southern California that have concentration= of R &D uses or have adopted parking ratios for R &D uses. Current parking ratios were collected from these cities and tabulated in Exhibit "A ". The results of the sample survey found the average parking ratio is approximately 1 space per 398 square feet in gross floor area. This average is similar to current parking ratios used in Menlo Park (1/300), RivWrside (1/350), and Palo Alto '(1 /300). Conversely, other sample cities show wide variations in ratios and in calculation methods. In further review of the existing literature and survey data, staff found the Gruen, Gruen, and Associates parking study (1984) had defined two categories of R &D uses under "Building /Use Type': Office /Research & Development This building /use type resembles office more than industrial space, but includes, in addition to office space, research and development facilities, such as rooms where circuit boards are put together, "clean rooms" and computer facilities. Such uses are typically less dense than pure office, but more dense than traditional industrial space. Research & Development /Light Manufacturing This category includes traditional light manufacturing facilities as well "high- tech" .production and assembly operations which include some R &D and office space, "clean rooms" wad other facilities associated with high technology manufacturing. These two definitions help to explain some of the variations exhibited by cities in the R &D sample survey. The Gruen, Gruen and Associates' parking study based parking ratios on square footage per employee. This study integrates six similar parking studies and compiled the data into a comparative format with the corresponding averages (Exhibit "8 "). The survey of literature figures of 349 sq. ft. for office /R &D and 587 sq. ft. R &D /Light Manufacturing the overall averages under the "building /use type" method. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Parking Study Analysis May 22, 1985 Page 4 I-M,' B. Options The Planning Commission may choose from the list of options delineated below: o Use existing manufacturing parking ratio of 1 per 500 square feet as defined in the Industrial Specific Plan (no separate ratio for R &D uses). o Direct staff to prepars an amendme.,it to the Industrial Specific Plan parking s•equirements, to include a suitable ratio fog R &D:ases. Section III. Off -Site Parking Lots A. Analysis: The Development Code presently addresses the issue of off -site parking lots through the minor exception permit. process (Section 17.04.050 D). This allows a maximum 25% of the required parking for a use-to be located on a site not more than 300 feet from the project site. Herein lies the ambiguity, of distance: is it from the property line, proposed building, or a nentrance? Further, off -sit- parking lots across a street create pedestrian traffic conf'icts that are undesirable. Staff recommends that off -site parking be limited to contiguous parcels within 300 feet of the building entrance i and on the same side of the street. 1) B. 0�tio�nn__s__:__ The Planning Commission should choose from the following options: 1. Direct staff to amend the Development Bode Section S 17.14.050 D for further refinement and clirification. 2. Permit off -site parking areas only as an interim use subject to CUP review on an individual basis. 3. Take no action on this request. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission .•eview the information provided and give policy direction to staff on each of the three issues. submitted, r icl ome2 ity er RG :4F :jr w: �j m PLANNING COMMISSION -STAFF REPORT Parking Study Analysis May 22, 1985 Page 5 Attachments: Table 1 Parking Standards for 115 California Cities - International Parking Design (1984) Table 2 —City of Novato - Parking Study (1982) Exhibit "A" City S! ^rvey of R &D Uses (1985; Exhibit "B" -Gruen, Gruen, Associates Parking Study by Building /Use Type (1984) EXHIBIT "A" PARKING SURVEY: R & D USES R/D USES: Any uses engaging in the research, analysis, design, eve opment and /or testing of a product. 1. SAN JOSE 1 1/2 employee + 1 parking space for corporate cars. 2. CITY OF SANTA CLARA 1/750 gross floor area or 1 space per 3 employees on the largest shift, whichev;r it; greater, if 10% = office then 1/300 for office use and remainder 1/750. 3. CITY OF IRVINE 4 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. 4. CITY OF HAYWARD 40 80 employees per acre. 5. CITY OF ROSEVILLE 1 space for each employee, plis 1 space for each company car and 2 spaces for 3 employees on'.'iy other shift. S. PALO ALTO 1/300 sq. ft. gross floor area. 7. MENLO PAW 1/300 sq. ft. gross floor area. 8. CITY OF SUNNYVALE Minimum 1/500 gross floor area to maximum 1 /250. 9. CITY OF RIVERSIDE 1/350 sq. ft. gross floor area. 10. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 1 space per 191 sq. ft. net floor area. 1 01 I i U - o Lt" * A✓-celme. .r0'46Ss4&0 , .T*a * CroK�euu�' /q+ Ficf Ma u— Medical CITY . facturing Warehouses Buildings ALAMEDA 17S SF + 1 1/3 1/3 1/150 SF + pper floor employee employee 1/4 employ PJA MBRA 25G SF 1/500 SF 1/500 SF. 1/250 SF t ANAHEIM. X0oo SF 1/500 SF 2.25/1000 S 611000 SF _ or 1/2 .employees ARCADIA k001 SF 2,1001. SF 2/1001 SF 6/1001 Sr BAKERSFIELD 1 .00 SF 1/500 Sr 1/1000 rr 1/100 SF +1/300 for +1/ .'00 for office area efface area BALDWIN PARK +1/250 SF 1/500 SF 1 /1C00 Sr 1/200 SF 1/300 of over 5004 i BELL GARDENS 300 SF 1/500 or 1/2 1/750 SF 1/200 SF employees on largest shifts 1 /company vehicle I ;/,00 DELLFLOWER SF 1 /50o-SF 1 /5or SF 1/200 SF BERKELEY 100 SF determined determined. 1/300 SF { by City by City i %350 SF BEVERLY HILLS. Sr 1/500 Sr 1;1500 SF 1/350 x j - o Lt" * A✓-celme. .r0'46Ss4&0 , .T*a * G 'su -8 o/ I Commercial Hann- Medical CITY Offices facturin Warehouses II Buildings EUENA PART 411000 SF 1st 10.000 SF. 3/IM,. 6.511000 SF next 40,QOO SF, 2/1000; over SU,000 SF, i 11000 BURHAI'K 0-50nua SF, -1/500 SF 1/1000 SF 0 -50000 L 1/500 SF; - 1/500 St.,_{ 50000+ SF, 50000+ SE, _ 3/1000 SF 3,'1000, ,SF HUMINGAME 1/300. Sr 1 /C00 SF 11000 SF 1/256 Sr , R -L"M -N 1/300 SF j'0- 72,000 SF; 2/750 SF; 1/300 SF 72,000+ SF, I 11000 SF or 1/2 employees on - largest shift 1/500 g - 0- 20,000'. FS /dcctor CERRITOS 1 /25Q SF 3/1000 SF( 1 /cc,pany 2nd. 20,000,'' vehicle 1/2000. SF;. - 40,OPG +, 1/4000 +l/company vehicle CH .03 1/300 SF _/2000 SF 1/2000 SF I/300 Sr _ +1/2 emp1, tl /Z empl. � CHULA VISTA 11300 SF Greater greater 1/200 SF 14 minimu. -, of l /16 of 1 /15 (5 minimum) employee or employee or 1/800 SF 1 /1000 SF' C1a1.REMONT 1/:.'50 Se 11400 SF 1 /1000 Sr 1/250 SF COHNERC£ 1/300 SF 1/1000 SF 2/2000 SF 1 /300 pF +1 /company +1 /company (vehicle l vehicle G 'su -8 o/ I -8 o/ I o/ I . T Cormercial �. Ma. IL- Medical CITY:. CITY Offices Retail j ra !turinq War!+houses Yvildin s CO.MPTON 1 SF /1 SF. yround floor 2 SF!3 SF gtrpnd floor see —. +1 SF /3 SF other floors + 1 SF /3 SF other floors commercial GY;NCORD I/Y50. ST. 1 /200 SF - 1/2 employee ''. 2 ampioyee 1/200 SF 1 /500 in - •. /1000 SF. 1/000 Sr BART area; I 1/750 with. use Permit COSTA MESA - 4/'000 sr (6 minimum) - 25,000 SF,3 /1000.SF; 6/1000 Sr �'— 25,001 -50,01 'sr, (6 minimum) 2/1000 SF; 50,001+ SF, - 15/I000 SF , COVINA 1/306 sr 1/200 SF 1 1/500 SE 1 /employee. 1/150 SF CULVER CITY I1154 SF 1/250 SF 1/500 SF 1/500 " 1/250 SF +I /company +I /coml,ny ' vehicle vehicle CYPRESS 1 /200 SF 1 /L00 SF 2/3 employ 2/3 employ ;. 5 /doctor —'-- or not lv.3s 0- 20,000 SF, than 2/1000 2/1000 SF;(, 220,000- 40,000, _ 1/2000; 1/4000 of whole area UALY CITY 0- 22,000, 0- 21,000, 1/1500 EF 1/1500 SF 1/400 SF 2/30C; 1/300; 21,000 +, 21,000+,. 1 /200` 1/2UD -`- DOWNEY 1/350 SF 1/225 SF 1 /500 SF 1 1/1000 SF 1/251 SF £L MONTE 1 /i5U.Sr 1/250 SF 0 -3000. SF. 1/150;. _ 1/250 SF 3,001 - 5,000. SF, 1/500; 5,001- 10,000 SF, 1/750; k 10,001- 50,000, 1 /1000 ;' 50,001 +, 1/128] _ __I CITY Commercial Offices Manu- factoring Warehouses Medical. Buildings 13. SEGUNDO '1/300 SP 1/504 SF 1/800 Sr 1 /300 SF ESCONDIDO - greater of SF -1/800 SP 1/200 SP 4spaces mpany or 1/300 Sr 7vehicle FAIRFI'£.W 1/800 S£ 1/800 SF 1 %150 SF employee FOSTER CITY 11200 Sr 2/3 1/1000 SF 1/4 beds employee; +112 ; ' 1/1003 SF en,,teyec FREMONT 0- 20,000, 1/200 SF of office area 3/200 SF 1/300 +B 1 /800 SF of indoor .1/500 over area l:storaga. 20,000 ^RESNO 1 SF of 1 1 /800 Sr 1/800 Sr 4 /doctor perking for . 1 Sr of office area FULLERTON 4/1000 SF 1/800 SF e 1/2000 Sr 5.5 /1000 5 GARDENA I/250 Sr- ,. 1 /500.SF or 2/3 1 /150 SF' employees whichever is more :,strictive SF 1/750 SF, 1 /1000 SF, 1/200 SF' GARDEN! GROVE 1/300 K nfg; 1/300, mfg;. l /300,. !. office use e:fice use. 1 /company 1 /company vehicle vehicle y GLENDALE /333. Sr 1 /1000 EF 1/1000 SF 1 1/200 SF ii C - I Medical CITY laarehouses .BuildingsGLENDORA C_; /250 SF 1 /1000 SF O- SOOOSF,. 1/250 SF (8 minimum) 1 /1000 SF (8.minimum + 1/2000 each added 2000 SF +l /company vehicle HAWTHORNE /400 SF 1/1000 SF 1 /1coo SF 1/400 SF or 1/2 or 1/2 employee employee HAYWARD /200 SF 1 -49( `nl., ,8 /employee; 5 /doctor indust kal buildings, or- 1'150 1/1000 HERMOSA BEACH 1/300 SF 1/500 SF 1 /$00SF 1/300 SF HUNTINGTON BEACH - 250,.000 1/500 SF 1/1000 SF 1/175 SF 1/300; + office +office 250.000+ requirements requirements 1/350 HUNTINGTON PART i /400 SF 1 /800 SF or 1/800 SF or 1 /100 SF 1/2 employee 1/2 employee INGLEWOOD 1/300 SF 1 /500.SF 1 /1500 SF 1/200 SS IRVINE 1/250 SF,. 1 /7SO 0- 20,000 SF,1 /180 SF except 1/1000; .2nd r Gov't use, 20,000, 1/2000; 1/200 SF 40,000 +, 1/4000 LA HABRA '1 /250, exce 1 /500 SF 1 /500 SF see lessthan 1 - commercial then 1/375 LA MESA 1/300 SF 1 /800 SF 1 /1000 SF 1/200 SF .. t commercial 'Mann- - .Medical cITy Offices factoring Warehouses Buildings LA MIRADA 1/250 SF,. 1/2 employee 1/2. employee 1/250 SF - on largest on largest shift or shift or 1/500 SF ..1/500 SF LA- PUENTE 1/250 SF 1 /employee 1 /employee .1/150 SF or 1/300 SF or 1 /1000 -SF LAGUNA BEACH ". 1300 SF 1 /SoD SF 1 /500 SF 1/300 SF LAKEWOOD 1/250 SF 1 /500 SF 1 /500 SF 1/175 SF LANCASTER - 1/225 SF 1/500 SF 1 /500 SF 1/150 SF LAWNDALE 1/400 SF greater of 1/?. 1/400 SF employee on largest shift or 1 /500 + 1 /company - vehicle LIVERMORE 1 /1.5empl. 5 /doctor LONG BEACH 0 -20000 SF, L/1000; 2/1000 SF 1/1000 SF 5/1000 SF 1200004 Sr, 2/100D LOS ANuELES 1 /500 Sr 1 /500 SF I /500 SF 1/200 SF LOS ANGELES 1/400 SF greater of 1/1000 Sr 1 /400 SF COUNTY 1/2 employee on largest shift or 1/500 SF t Commercial Manu- Medical CITY Offices facturing Narchouseic Buildings LYNWOOD 1/400 SF 1/500 SF + 1 /1000 SF + 5 /doctor 1 /employee 1 /employee or dentist. (max..:,shift) (max. shift) MANHATTAN BEACH )1/300 I SF 1/400 SF 1/800: SF 1/200 SF 'MODESTO �. !1 /500 SE 1/4 employee 1/4. employee 1/200 SF MONTEBELLO. U /400 SF 11500 er or 1/1000 SF 01 1/200,S4' �. 1/2 employee 1/2 employee - on largest an largest shift; + Shift; + 1 /vehicle 1 /vehiclQ MONTEREY 1/300 SF 1/1.5 empl.. 111.5.. empl.. 1/3 beds MONTEREY PARK 1/250 SF 1/400 SF 1/2500 SF 1/200 SF (3 minimum) (3 minimum) - MOUNTAIN VIEW 1/300 1/250 SF 1/500 SF; 1 /150 SF 1 /company. vehicle NEWPORT BEACH 1/225 SF. or 7,/1000 SF 0- 20,000SF, 1/225 'or ,1/250 SF 1 /1000;1/250 SF 20,000 - 40,000, . 1/2000;..40,000+ 1/4000 SF NORWALK normal 1/500 SO + 0- 20,000, greater of use, 1/250; 1/2 empl. 1/1000; � 5 /doctor heavy use, +1 /vehicle 20000 - 40000, or 6/1000 0- 20,000 SF,. +1/2000;. 1/3 beds. 1/75, +1/250 40,000+ SF., f additional +1/4000; space +1 /vehicle OAKLAND determined S/1000. SF 1/3 employee 3 /doctor by City - 31/2 empl,. w, ommercial ;fanu- Medical -CITY Offices facturin4 Warehouses Buildings OCEANSIDE 1/400 sr not less by Planning 1/200 Sr than 1/800 Commission ' assessment ONTARIO 1 /360 sr. grraterr.'�f 0- 20,000,. 1/175 sr (6 minimum).. 1/500 SF:. .1/500 SF .t orl /empl. 20;000+ max. shift 1 /1000 Sr (6 maximum) ORANGE 1 -3 stories, 1 /500 SF + 1/800 SF 11200 SF 4 spaces or 'I /company 1/250 SF; •..vehicle - + stories, 1/400 SF .ORANGE COUNTY /250 Sr 1/500 SF 1/1000 SF 11150.SF 0 %HARD 11250 SF 1/500 SF 1/1000 Sy 1/250 .'r PALM SPRINGS /200 Sr 1/500 Sr 1/860 S. or 3/150 SF ' 1 /company vehicle - PALO ALTO 11300 (14) 1/300 MMI 1/300 (111) :1/250 SF /250 1/500 1 /1000 PARAMOUNT 40t) S1 1 /500 SF 1/1000 SF 1/306 SF to 8000 SF, thec 1/:50 PASADENA /40C SF 1/500 SF or 1/2500 Sr 1/250 Sr 1/2. empl. PICO RIVERA ./350 S1' 1 /600 Sr - 1/250 Sr N CITYffices£acturing 'oetirercis, Manu- Medical WarehousesSuildings POMONA 1 /d /10 SF- `1/500 SF 1/2000 SF - • REDONDO 9'eACH 0 SF or. 0- 10,000, 1/150 SF employee 1/1000; _. est 30,000+, H,�T�2/2000 t 175000 EDWOOD CITY sr 1/2000 SF S /doctor a: 1 /2 employee 1iS50 SF ' - - RICHF10N0 "+ 5000 -7500 S 1 Space + p 1' space + 0- 5000SF,. 1 /1000 SF 2/3 employee 2/3 employeo. 5+1/1000, '7500-10000, 10+1/740 - RIVERSID 1/250 SF on 1 /350 SF 1 /1000 SF 1/180 SF 1argesL F£lgr. r. 1/500 on remainder . ROSEMEAD 1/250 M, 1/400 Sr 1/400 SF 25 1/250 SF SACRA11E— 11•700 SF 1/1000 SF 1 /1000 SF 1/200 SF SAUNAS 1 /300 s` 1/2 employe 1 /1000'oe 5 /doctor - cr 1/700 4 1/2 empl. 1/300 for o;, largest office .shift { SAN."rPRIARDINO '0 -2000 sr. ' 1,ts00 SF 1/1000 SF 30 1 I1 /20�i SF; -2000- 7c0n, spaces +1 /1 i5 SF i tl7'SO 7,5(10-40,00d, ' 1 /inn sr; 40,0004, 1/350 c I Vl '%GP •l ,l AIM i i Commercial Hams- Medical CITY _ Offices facturing Warehouses Buildings. 4 SAN BUENAVENTURA 1/2 °3 SF greater of 1 /1000 SF 1/250. Sr 1 /500 SF + non - Lr 1/2 warehouse employees Uses SANCARLOS 1/250 SP 0 -4000 SF, /200; 1/250 SP (2 space mi imum) 4000+, 1 /1000. +1 /200SF SAN DIEGO 1/300 SF 1/300 SF I l 1/250 SF SAN FRANCISCO 500+ SF 7,500+ SF, 1 10,000+ S£ 1/300 SF 1 /500 1/1500 1/2000 SAN JOSE 1/250 Sr ! 1/,5 employ) 5000 - 25,.000, S /doctor 1 /company 5 spaces; vehicle 25,000+ Sr, 30 spaces SAN LEANURO 1+.200 SF i 1/100 SF + 1/600 SP; 1/200 SF-, 1 /100 SF 2/3 enpl_ open 5 ace 2/3 empl.' SAN LUIS. OBISPO 1/300 SF 1/500 Sr + 1/1000 t. 1 /1500 for 1/300 for 1/200 SF outdoor + :office 1/300. office SAN HATED 14350 SF 1/2 employ 2/2 employ 3 /employ _ for 90% of +1 /company e7ross - vehicle .SANTA ANA. 3 /10n0 Sr 1 /3/employ 1/1000 SF 1/200 SF or 1/500 SF SANTA BARBARA 1/250 SF 1/500 SF I /5000 SF', 1/250'. -+ bicycle +Office parking and retail + bicycle parking - 1: Vl '%GP •l ,l AIM i i ,r F hu I I f .Slit ' rNreoc wP7,,,oAtogA— l`�il4ee Commercial Macu- Xedical CITY Offices factoring Warehouses Buildings 1/300 SF 1/1500 SF 1/2000 SF 5 /doctor; S11NTA CL�1RA or 1/3 1/3 employ not less employees than 1/300 SANTA MONIr-k 1 "300 5'r' t 156 SF 1/1000 SF 1/300 SF ' SANTA ROSA O -SOCO SF, 1/700 Si' 1/5000 12004 Sr, 1 /21i5; ( 100%. of 1/300 5000 - 15,000, estahlisifrd _ 7 /300 requirement Sud VALLEY ' 1/25C LF. 1 /SO0 SF + 1 /emplcyce 1/250 SF, excluding or 1/2 eac%.Iaypcs on excluding renMtoers, 'largest shift + IJ$ reserooms, ' halls, gL•ests + I /vehicle halls, ®_ -Stairways stairaa S SO1rrR GATE 1/200 3? 1/300 SF or[- 1 /1000 Sr 1 '150 Sr _ .. 1/3 enployeg .SOUi'H i SAOENA IJ.',5G SF 1/2 employce 1 /1000 SF 't 1/250 SF o or 11400 SF SOUIN SAN 1 /Jet) 1/1500 or 0- 10,000 SF 1/300 SF £RhT0CISCO 1/2 empl. 1/2000; 10,000+ SF, 1 /Sn00 STOCKTON RO r 7,'500 1/2. empl.: 1/2 empl.r 1/200 SF of SF 1 /eompaay 1/company over :6,004 vehicle v--hicle SUNNYVALE 1/22° SF 1 /ISO SF 1 /9OO SF greater of 6 /doctor 1/200 Sr Imo, TEMPLE CITY 1 /4uu SF greater of IJ2 employ 1/1000 SE or 1/400 SF or 1/2 empl +l /vehicle I I f .Slit ' rNreoc wP7,,,oAtogA— l`�il4ee 7A-4&J-&4.r 4 OFFICE maces /sq. ft. 1/150 - Campbell, Fairfield, Millbrae 1/150 or 1/1.3 empleyees, whichever greater - Cupertino 1/200 - Contra Costa County, Half noon Bay, Hercules, Martinek., Pleasant Hill, Solano County, Suisur, ,Vacaville 1120! ground, 1/250 other - Hayward 1/200 ground, 1/300 other - Uiaion City 11200 net Qround 1/400 upper - Milpitas 1/200 ground, 1!500 other - Vallejo ,"/200 or 1 /occupant plus 1 /company car, Whichever greater - San Rafael 1/225 - Mill Valley, Sunnyvale 1/235 - 'Los Gatos 1 /250 - ,Alameda County, Concord, Corte Madera, Cotati, larkspur, Marin County, Morgan Hill, Pala Alto, Sonoma Countv 11250 net - Walnut Creek 1/275 ntt - Santa R .;a 1/300 - Brisbane, Burlingnme, Healdsburg, Millbrae, Mountain View, Petaluma, Pleasanton, Santa Clara, Sausalito 1/300 net - Novato, Tiburon 1/300 not devoted to storage - Gilroy 1/300 up to 21,000 ttxe 1/200 - Daly City 11350 net - San Leandro 1/400 - Berkeley (mK be ad'ustod Martinez Y � ), 0a4nurrs.trative office), Saral'oga 1/500 - Alban, , El C;,rrito, San Francisco (where floor ,ar-a exceeds 5000) 11500 up to 20,000 Chen .I /300 - Premo,.- 1/560 - Dixon DI L 12 INDUSTRIAL/MARFACTURING 0 Spa.es /employee . 1/1 Healdsburg, Santa Rosa 1/1 or 1 /2c0 sq. £t., whichever greater - Campbell 1/1 or 1 /300 sq. ft. - Pleasanton 1/1.2 or 1/400 sq. ft, - Sunnyvale 1/1.3 or 1 /450 sq. ft., whichever greater - Cupertino � 1/1.,4 - LivermorC, Petaluma, Pleasant Hill, St. Helena 1/1.5 plus 1 /company car - Los Gatos i 2/3 employees but not less than 1 /1000 sq. ft. •• Brisbane I 1/2 - Alameda (C- redristrict ?.,, Fairfax, Solano County, Suisun 1/2 or 1 /1000 sq. ft., whichever greater - Alameda County, Concord 1/2 but not less than 1/2000 sq. ft. - Marin County 1/2 but not less than 112000 sq. ft. plus 1 /company car - Union City 112 plus 1 /company car - E1 Cerrito, Fairfield 1/2 plus 1 /company car plus 2 customer - Pacifica i 1/3 plus 11400 sq. ft. e!`-ept truck loading - Dixon 113 plus 1/750 sq. fto - Vacaville (light) 3/4 plus 1 /company car -San ;afael F. 1/3 Alameda (M -1 & M -2), Albany, Mill Valley k 1/3 but not lass than 1/1000 sq_ ft. - Millbrae I 1/3 or 1 /000 sq. ft., whichever greater - Vacaville (heavy) � i r 1 i Industrial /Planua£acturing (Continued) Spaces /sg.. ft. ` 1/250 - Mountain View 1/250 or I /employee, whichever greater - Campbell 11300 or 111 employee - Pleasanton 1/400 except truck loading plus 1/3 employees - Dixon 1/400 ur 111.2 employees - Sunnyvale 11450 or 1/1.3 employees, whichever greater - Cupertinu 1/500 - Palo Alto . 1/600 excluding storage and loading - Saratoga and Martinez 1/600 but not less than 1/3 employees - Corte Madera 11600 but not less than 213 employees plus 1/200 sq. ft. retail - Cotati 1/750 plus 1/3 employees - Vacavill�'(ii ht-1 1/750 plus I /service vehicle plus 111500 sq. ft. exterior storage - Larkspur , 11800 - Fremont 1 /1000 - Burlingame, Martinez (except storage and loading) 111000 or 1/2 employees, whichever greater - Alameda County, Concord 1 /1000 or 1/3 employees, whichever greater - Vacaville (heavy) 1/1500 Milpitas, Morgan Hill, San Francisco (where exceeds 7500 so. £t.) 111500 gross site or building area, whichever greater - Daly City- i 1/1500 or 1 /leasable area, whichever greater - Novato { 1 16ployee for 1 -20 employees; 111.3 employee for 21 -100 employees; 1/115 employees for 101+ - Half Hoon Bay, t;enlo Park t \ f ' 01O /JJJ] ttt MEDICAL OFFICES 4 /dentist - Suisun 4 /doctor or 1/200 sq, ft,, whichever is greater - Sonoma County 41doctcr plus 112mpl,oyee - Cupertino 5 /doctor - Contra Costa (,,ounty, Fairfield, Livermore, T,os Gatosz Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Partola Valley, San Rafael, Suisun (not denti:;ts), Vallejo 5 /doctor or 1/150 sq, ft, whichever greater - Hayward 5 /doctor or 1/200 sq ft, whi.c ever greater - Healdsburg 5 /doctor but no, less than 1/20% sq. ft, - Vacaville ' 5 /doctor but not less than 1/300 3q, ft, - Santa Clara 5 /doctor or 2 /exam room, whichever greater - Pacifica 5 /doctor plus 11300 aq. ft. lab, x -ray and similar specialty areas - Ttovata' 6 1.:octor - Campbell, SVnnyvale 6 /doctoL or 1 /1 °" sq, ft , whichever greater - Pleasanton Races /so. ft 1 /150 - Mountain View, Solano County 1/150 net where less than 6000 - Santa Ro. -a 1150 plus 1/4 employees - Alameda 1/180 Sausalito 1/290 - Albany,. Concord, El Cerrito, Fremont, Halt Monn Bay, petaluma, San Mateo County, Saratoga, Union City , 1/200 or 1/4 Joctors, whichever greater - Sonoma County 1/200 ret for 6000 - 12,000 - Santa Rosa_ 11200 23-ss 1 /of <ice - Larkspur 11225 - Corte Madera, Cosat" !till Valley, 2lilpiLas, Santa Rosa (over 12,000) � f11250 - Burlingame, polo ,,to, Santa Rosa (over 12000), Tiburon j ' -1280 - Dixon f Medical (Continued) O 1/300 - Berkeley, San FRanc sco'(wCere exceeds 5000) 1/300 exclue..ing'storage plus 1 /doctor plus .1 /employee plus l /treatment room - Morgan Hill 1/350 net - San. Leandro �GiK�i6ty C° 1'rY 011 l�ba�lpaT� All c f k. f a - rt VY. 44 N c0 n r tv 114 O 0 N M � t� °01 ko II�1 m r t 1 1 ko o � >, > t 0 p 9 �, C o e m titi u to a ttO+ N KX S v v Ln t 1 t ami a .��5: 0 01 ► y r. 1 N '1' taa u3 OS Aft a v < c! AM E re 4m 0 rz a o �- °� °14 n Cs 'o . u to rt T sue+ a U2 0 ° S . i C s r V. - 1. al 0 '%4 ti i s� Rol ta it '� • E7 B vl .0 J C CI Ja ,k. z 3 O •Li iY. S N 1M fM - ✓ F�. 1' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular'Meoting May 22, 1985 i Chairman Dennis Stout called the regriar meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to ',der W t 7:00 0.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 6163 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga; l California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS F.2ESENT: David Barker, - Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stow'. COMMISSICNERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Senior P; CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT '12532 - ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES - Reapplication-for [!esign review of minor architectural chant - to tra approved elevations fur 102 zero lot line homes and 9 single f6mily hvnnes on 14.5 acres of land in the Low - Medium (4 -8 du /ac) Residential District located at Monte Vista .Street, between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Ave,iue - APN 202 - 181 -05, 06, 15, 16. ;ommissioner Barker requested removal of item A for discussion regarding the proposed roofing material. He advised that he had n concern with the use of asphalt shingles in certain areas of the City. Chairman Stout advised that he would not be in favor of approving the design review unless the roofing material is upgraded. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not share that concern and felt that requiring tide roofs adds needless building costs to a unit, which is passed on to the potential buyer. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, to approve the architectural revisions with an added condition that the roofing material'is to'be upgraded to some type of tile which would be compatible with surrounding units, subject to approval by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: M°_ME - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -10 — LAMB OF GOD LUTHERAN CHURCH - Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions of approval for an existing church located at the Cur.monga Business Park, located at 9513 -J, K, Business "enter Drive. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the nubic hearing. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would address the issue of the panic hatdware d Jim Harris, representing Lamb of Cod Lutheran Church, advised that the panic hardware had been a budgeted item and would estimate installation within 120 days. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 22, 1985 r 71 There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel advised that the applicant that there are establishments where panic hardware can be obtained at a discount price. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, to approve the time extension for and conditions for Conaitional Use,?Permit 81 -10, Lamb of God Lutheran Church. Motion carried by the following 1jote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, '1EMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: - -'NGNE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried { C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 32 -07 - CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS - Review and consideration of a time extension ana conditions of approval for an r existing church located in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park at 10722 F Arrow Route, Suite 104. i Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff - eport. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jerry Kuhns, 10722 Arrow Route, representing Church of the Foothills, addresFed the exercise class issue as it related to parking. Mr. Kuhns advised that the class of approximately 12 had been meeting in the morning hours. There were no further co,7ments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker advised that the 6:00 p.m. meeting time for these types of uses had been established by the Commission because they had been concerned with the parking and incompatibility of usage in allowing a use in buildings In which they were not intended in the original design. The,,etare, would be in favor of limiting meeting times to weekends and 6:00 p.6a. evenings, as established by the Commission. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would agree because the children who accompany their mothers to the exercise class could be disruptive to businesses. Commissioner McNiel agreed; however, stated that if the applicant couid work out a solution, he should have the advantage to do so. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 22, 1985 'a: Commissione,, Rempel agreed that solutions such as designating and policing parking areas and sound proofing the walls might mitigate the concern so that the exercise class could continue during the morning hours. AkAk WW Chairman Stout auvrsed that the City had always realized that churches in these types of areas are temporary until - more permanent facilities are constructed. He stated that the number of people involved in the exercise class is too large for off hours time. Additionally, a precedent had been set in the approval of these uses to underpark them until after 6 :00 p.m. and if this condition begins to erode, it is unfair to the other tenants. Commissioner Rempel stated concern with the previous approval and conditions which prohibited public assembly or large group weetings before 6:00 p.m. and advised that there is a problem with the Interpretation of large. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chit'iea, to adopt the Resolution approving a time extension and conditions for Conditional Use Permit 62 -07, Church cf the Foothills, with removal of word "large" from Planning Condition 3 as it relates to group meetings. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt the parking and noise concerns could have been satisfactorily mitigated to ailow the exercise class to continue. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -06- VICTORY CHAPEL - Reaew and consideration of a time extension and con ftions of approval for an existino. church {{ located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard. t Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Andy Elias, representing Victory Chapel, presented a photocopy of the public assembly and occupancy load permits issued by the Foothill Fire. Department. Mr. Elias requested approval of the time extension and `questioned how the church would obtain permanent status. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, replied that Planning Division Condition one 44 provided that approval of the use is permanent until the church moves out of k the facility. Mr. Coleman advised that Planning Condition 4 should be stricken from the Resolution because it did not apply to the use and additionally that Planning Division Conditions 2 and 3 partaining- to the public assembly and occupancy load permits should also be removed from the Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 22, 1985 c i t There were no further .comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to adopt, the Resolut ?tn approving the time extension and conditions for Conditional Use Permit 82 -0U, kith the removal of Planning Division Conditions 2, 3, and 4. Motion carried by the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHUI'IEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -23 MCINTYRE - Review and consideration of a time extension and conditions of appravai for the temporary Empire Bank located at 8505 Hav:y Avenue. t Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened' the public hearing. Steve Reenders, representing Empire Bank, advises that the Bank may not be able to complete con%trljction on the permanent 'hank facilaity within the 12 . month time frame and may have to return with a request for an additional 6 months. He stated that the plans have to be reviened by various Boards within the Bank, and that the master plan process would take a little longer. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNial was concerned that the plans were originally required for submittal by May 12, 1984 bs nothing had been done until review of this CUP request. Commissional Chitie stated that 12 months seemed a Sufficient time frame and that if progress has been made within that time, could see no need to deny an extension for additional time. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving the time extension and conditions for Conditional 'Use Permit 82- 24. Mcti ^n carted by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, - carried Planning Commission Minutes -5.- May 22, 1985 F. CONDITIOMAL USE PERMIT 78 -08 - BOARS HEAD - Thn review of compliance wi *h conditions of approval for an. existing restaurant within a shopping center' in the Neighborhood Commercial Gstrict located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian Avenue - APi 201 - 811 -59. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Larry Arcinage, Boars Head owner,- stated that Boars Head had been remodeled due to a fire and had reopened nine days ago. He advised that the establishment opened with an expanded lunch and dinner menu and operated at the hours of 11:00 a.'m. to 11;00 p.m., and does not offer live entertainment. Further, that aithougia no live entertainment is offered and the clusIn time is 11 G, he did not want either of those conditions modified. Mr. Arcinage additionally stated that the number of employees had been reduced because the estaW shment is operated as a self -serve restaurant and bar, and has reduced the occovany load to 90. Leonard Kolb, D & L Deli, asked` for clarification if the Boars Head is a restaurant or a bar. Chairman Stout replied that this has been a topic of discussion, for several years, but that the applicant now indicates that the establishment is a restaurant. Mr. Kolb asked for information regarding parking restrictions. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, replied that 1 space per 1.00 square feet is required and that this use has 2700 square feat, therefore requires 27 parking spaces. John Manner•no, attorney representing the shoppirs center owners, stated concern with the major change in n.anner of opc,sions which its felt significantly increased the load of the parking, lot during peax hours. He further stated that the reduction in the number of employees was a c-jncera because there wou1: ,tot 'je adequate, staffing to r2part inappropriate behs' -tor of customers. Mr. Mannerino suggested that the Commission ;•equire a meeting between staff, tenants, and the sho,;pi% center toy discuss the parking issue. _ Doug Gorgen, co -owner of the shopping center, stated that the center does not have adequate parking to support the day;Ame restaurant use of the Boars Heau. Ht_ requested that the restaurant uis be scaled down. Donna Kolb, D & L Deli, stated concern with .competing menus and parking.. John Shrinkweilde , representing Radio Shack, stated concern with parking. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 22, 19$5 I Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, stated that his main objection to the Boars HQad hed t Alk been the late hours of operation. Further, that since reopening the establishment ninF days ago the hours seamed more compatible, but was concerned that Mr. Arcinage did not want the hours modified to allow an earlier closing time. Roberta Futrell, 6623 Topaz, stated that it had been heavenly while the Boars Head was closed and that she was happy to have D & L Deli as part of the shopping center. Doug Hone, co -owner of the shopping center, suggested that staff anal5.' :- parking as originally established because the previous approval had been as ..r off- hours use. He further suggested that the City consider employee assigned parking and that consideration be given to opening up the parking spaces twhich had been chained off in a previous condition of approval. Larry Arcinage, Boars Head, rebutted the comments made during the public hearing. He stated that he is now being admonished for complying with the City's conditions to serve lunch and dinner. lnere were no further comments, therefore tho public hearing was closed. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the purpose of this hearing is to receive direction from the Commission based on testimony received and not to make a decision at this time. He stated that the alternatives would be to determine that the use is being conducted tsar the conditions of approval and should be allowed to continue, or to dire_ chaff to prepare a resolution and findings to modify conditions of approval. Commissioner McNiel stated that he didn't think the Commission had the responsibility to mediate a disagreerrint between tenants and landlords as to their agreaments; however, the Commis ion does have to protect people based on parking restrictions and recommended that that issue be further studied. Commissioner Barker outlined the issues before the Commission. He stated that parking during daytime hours is a new issue. Further, that competition between like businesses is unfortunate, but questioned whether it is within the Commsion's ability to make a decision on that issue. He additionally stated that the hours of operation have always been an issue, and was still of the opinion that the late night hours are not compatible with the -urrounding neigaborhood. He advised that lae would have a problem making idings of whether or net the establishment is being conducted appropriately when it has only been open for nine days, Commissioner Barker asked the City Attorney to respond to the request that staff, tenants, and :,hopping center owners be required to meet on the parking issue. Chairman Stou: stated that at the time ;the Ccmmision had determined that 11:0C p.m. was an appropriate closing time., Mr. Arcinage based an appeal of that decision economic hardship to the City Council, The Council's decision SI was to, allow the establishment to remain open until 2:00 a.m. However, based on Mr. Arcinage's testif,_ony, it does not seem that an economic hardship would Planning Commission Minutes -7'- May .' 1985 4^ ;t 1 be imposed if the Commission were to -modify the hours of operation at this time. Cheirman Stout asked the City Attorney for direction on that issue. Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised that regarding a meeting between the tenants and shopping center owners,, the Commission could not require but could suggest such a meeting to discuss the parking issue. He additionally advised that the Planning Commission must have substantial evidence to modify the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit. Further, that the parking issue w( :uld be appropriate to study for further modification because no one tenant has a vested right to create a nuisance to other tenants. He also Stated that the Commission could also consider modifications to operating hours because by the applicant's own testimony evidence had been given that the business operations were altered. Commissioner Rempel stated that it appears that the business is finally opening with the original intent in 1978. Regarding the parking problems, he stated that the site is more than adequately parked and advised that the owners and the tenants should work out an amiable agreement; however, if further study indicates that the Boars Head is getting too many s,)aces, t5'! Commission should take a look at the seating capacity. Commissioner Chitiea stated agreement that staff should: research the centers parking and pass the information on to the owner, who should try to work out the problems with the tenants. She added that the City should not have to solve the orn;;lem for the shopping center owner, but should give direction as to what is appropriate for each establishment. She additionally agreed that the hours of operation should be further studied for possible modification. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel., that staff should be directed to +.`urther study and report back to the Commission on the parking issue; and opening and closing hours of operation. Additionally, the possible modification to conditions for CUP•141T should be readvertised and placed on the Planning Commission public hearI g agenda. Motion carried by the following voye: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, MCNIEL, BARTER, CHITIEA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ?TONE - carried 9:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 9 :15 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -a- may 22, 1985 G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -08 VER14ACI A proposal to locate a single trailer for a caretaker's facility in a wholesale nursery located in the Edison right -of -way on the north Side of Base Line, east of Rochester - APN 227- 091 -41. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, '^eviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. George Vernaci, 9355 Lemon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concurrence with the staff report. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Vernaci to exp'rsin the need for retail sales at this location. Mr. vernaci explained that it takes from 3 to 4 years from time of propagation to have a marketable item and that the need would be to generate an income until that time. Chairman Stout stated that during Design Review, the applicant advised that the ultimate intention is to obtain a retail outlet site and then to use .his site as wholesale r,eily and for growing purposes. He asked what that time frame would be. Mr. Vernaci replied that he would prefer to iiave this CUP request reviewed in two years to see where his business is at that time. He advised that he would first start +.gorking as a wholesale to generate the income to obtain retail space. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission had previoa�>ly discussed the issue of retail sales and that a concern had been allowing people to compete in a business market and giving one unfair advantages over another by requiring one to function !finder all the rules and regulations of a neighborhood center. He asked Mr. Vernaci to respond to that concern. Vr. Vernaci replied that improvements on property which he does not own would be a hardship. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Comr'sbioner Rempel stated toat this reques is the same as the policy issue whin was previously discussed 'n that the applicant wants to operate a retail business without being in a retail /commercial area. He further stated that without the retail sales he could still rase slants and sell them to other nurseries and if the applicant couldn't make a living at that, this site is the wrong place. Commissioner McNiel stated that -this issue will come before the Commission on several other sites within the City. Further, that a policy decision had been made by the Commission that it was unfair to people opening businesses in f retail areas and being required to put in all the amenities, and that the Commission should stand by that decision, Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 22, 1985 f� Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that there would be no problem in operating wholesale, but starting out as retail and mooing to retail facility later didn't sound like a wholesaler who is orowing plants for the future. Chairman Stout stated that the issue should be weighed that the City has long had an interest in doing something with the Edison corridors and that he didn't know of any way to make that happen other than this type of sit::ation. As d compromising situation, the fact should be understood that it is difficult for these people to support tt,o separate sites at one tin.e and the fact that Victoria has not come adjacent to this site yet; therefore, should be allowed to sell retail for a brief period of time to establish a retail market with a condition that they close thi`: retail site and relocate the retail to a more appropriate cumweiciai area. He added that 1:14, City would then have the benefit of a substantial portion of the corridor landscaped. Commissioner Rempel stated that there are quite a few places along I -10 int+: Los Angeles and the 210 through La Canada where there are nurseries that plant without retail. Further, that if ,his site is permitted to have retail, the same consideration would have to be given to everyone in the Edison corridors; therefore the Commission should stand by its previous policy decision. Commissioner Barker stated that there xe no time limits fe- the installation of improvements, and suggested that a period of time be asta�, ,ished. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85 -08 with the conditions added that no retail sales are allowed and that the landscape and irrigation along Base Line are to be installed within 6 months. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEu, BARKER, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Chairman Stout stated that the retail use should be allowed for an established period of time; therefore, voted no. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEJELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -06 - LINCOLN - The development of 560 apartment units on 2 /,b net acres of land in t e "MH" District (14 -24 du /ac) located on the north side of Arrow Route, 350 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN 208- 241 -16 and 17. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes il� -10- May 22, :1.985 n r., S. Jack Feeham, 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Lns Angeles, California, gave an overview of the project. Dwayne Butler, MEA Group, project architect and eng'ineer, questioned Planning Division Condition 9 and asked when constructicia of the wall would be requir -d. Mr. Johnston replied that installation of the permanent wall wo�ild not be required until construction of phase two. David Conan, project acoustical engineer, encouraged that the souO barrier not be required because the buildings most benefited by the barrier mould be better served by increasing the patio !call height. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a wall or clear pane7!�-- t a being proposed. Mr. Konan advised that any material could be used if it were heavy dui , and approximately 31 pounds per square foot. Ted Siebert, project architect, stated that glazing in the balconies would cause a greenhouse effect which would heat un the interior of the units. He further stated that the wall along the frontage of Arrow would ref'ect sound from the parking lot - a cr -eate alleys between the buildings and the back of the wall and could cause surveillance problems.. He additionally requested that a teflon coated nylon fabric be used for the trash enclosures. Chairman Stout asked what effect th. Fire District's requirement for 26 foot wide streets had on the site plan. Mr. Siebert replied that the it-,creased street width caused a redistribut cn of the open space to provide continuity. Jeff Scelanka, Rancho !acamonga resident, stated a concern with maximizi•..; the density of the project which necessitated placing the units so close " -, Arrow Route with the amount of sound g- iterated from that street. He state, concerns with one access for the project on Arrow Route and the impact of the units on the office use to the east. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the density is too hive. He stated concern with the amount of landscaping and open space for recreational use by the residents. Mr. Barton suggested "hat the signalization of Civic Center Drive and Haven be researched, and that Civic Center Drive be constructed at the established width. Mr. Feeham stated ti,.. access on Arrow Route was extensively aiscussed and worked on in conjunction with the City Engineering Division. ra advised that another access has been provided or Civic Center Jrive at the northern project boundary. Regarding the setback From Haven, Mr. Feeham advised' that the lot line is on a recorded parcel map. In referrence to the recreational open space, he stated that the plan had been examined at staff levt' fond provides a little over that which is required. Further, that Civic Center Drive would be constructed at the width established by the City Engineer. Planning Commission Minutes -I1- May ,22, 1985 There were no f!srther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel was concerned t;,aw the eecreation areas were inadequate" for this many units. He further statc, that vhe project density is a concern because there is no way to get an adequate amount of open space in this project. Advi_;..,dlly, the proximity of the trucking facility to the proposed units, and the location of the project to the street were concerns. He stated that the project was not compatible with what is envisioned for Haven Avenue. Commissioner Barker stated that his first reaction was that the project had an insufficient amount of usable open space and that the functional use of common open space had not beert given a very high priority. Further, that there must be a better solution to noise problems than to necessitate people sitting dowry to be able to enjoy their bal.-nies. He additionally stated concerns with the traffic impacts rnd questioned if it would be possible to develop at that high density and address the concerns of noise and functional open space. Commnissioner MOW stated that the possible mitigation of problems secin to have been approached with 24 dwelling units per acre in mind. He stated that reducing the building height alr)ng Arrow and the increasinit the setbacks might mitigate swine problems. Further, that access on Arrow Route would be a nightmare and asked TWfic 'rigineer Paul Rougeau to address the possibility of Civic Center Drive going through. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is conceivable that Civet Center Drive could go through, however it was found to be a problem due to differences between the industrial use and this use. Commissioner Chitiea stated that sre was not comfortable with the architecture in that it di(.(. not ccnpl;imert the high- tech, urban thrust envisioned for that area. She stated further concer,i.� with the traffic and stated that the trucking yard situ.tion has not been adequately addressed. Chairman stout stated that he was surprised at the open space on this site plan because it was remarkably different •:'%an seen at Design Review and the effect of loosing open space and moving bvild:`ngs around; had a definite effect on the open space. K suggested that a t.+orouffi traffic analpis be corlucted which would concider if a traffic Signal is warranted at 'the entrance on Arrow, the traffic impacts on Arrow, awl examine the adequ ?:y of the width on Civic Center Drive to the n — h. Commissione Bar %er stated that due to the i::;t ;winds the City experiences, the parallel placement of the buildings ^ho%!Id be examined to see If a wind tu,inel effect exists. Planning Cormission Minutes -124 May 22, 1985 r. L-I El 0701-02 5-2M5-P.C. Agenda Packet Pao e 6 of 6. Chairman Stout asked that an open space rendering be provided which did not depict buildings so that what exactly is proposed can be easily seen. He also requested the rendering show where the amenities are located and also contain a diagiam of pedestrian access. Commissioner Chitiea stated that pictures hasp:: been provided of the fronts and sides of buildings but nothing which gives the feeling of how it might be to stand in a project and look down a street. She advised that this would be helpful. Commrssicner Barker advised that the project should have different kinds of usable open space including some active types of functional open space. He suggested that the open space rendering show a demonstrated ability to get �. from one area to another along with the availability to various dwellings. Commissioner Rempel requested that capacity of the open space areas be r examined. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the architecture is alright, but isn't special as discussed in the haven Avenue Overlay District. Chairman Stout requested that the Commission be provided with examples of urban architecture. Rick Gomez, i"Itty Planner, replied that more detailed information as to the Master P ?an and how it affects the Haven Avenue CYerlay District could be brought back to the Commission. He asked for direction from the Commission regarding the ground level noise. Chairman Stout suggested that additional setbacks and reducing the height of the perimeter buildings be studied. Mr. Gomez advised that if the Commission's direction is towards modification of the site plan, that the Technical Review Committee should review those changes. Based on the Commission's comments, Chairman Stout asked the applicant if he would prefer a decision nn the project at `.his time or a continuance. Mr. Feeham replied that he would prefer a continuance. Mw ion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to remove the item from consideration at this time. Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85 -06 is to be resubmitted and readvertised at the time the concerns are addressed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 22, 1985 1 Chairman Stout announced the following items were related and would be reviewed concurrently by the Commission. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9192 THE CARYN COMPANY A division of 163 acres of land into 4 parcels within the Caryn P anned Community, located between the extension of Unyan Street and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN 225 - 141 -24, 27, 8, 28, Portion of State Highway 225 - 151 -1, 2, 3, ;, 8, iG, 11, 12, 13. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12643 - CARYN -- The development of 463 singe fami y lots on 104 acres of an in t e Caryn Planned Community (Phase II), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of Banyan Avenue, west side of Rochester Avenue, east of Milliken Avenue - APN 225 - 141 -08, 12 -16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 225- 151 -3, 7, 11, 13, Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearin. Hugh Forman, Hall and Forman Engineers, representing tha applicant referred to condition A -2 of the Standard Conditions for the Parcel Map. He stated that the condition called for 44 feet of dedication on Rochester; however, understood that it was to be 40 feet. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, replied that 40 feet was correct.. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the park conceptual plan did not show restrooms or water fountains and asked if they would be av*ilable. Jess Harris, representing the :applicant, replied that the conceptual plan had been submitted to and approved by the Parks Department and that it did contain restrooms and drinking fountains. Vito De Vito Francesco, representing the property owners at the southwest corner of Rochester dnd Highland, stated concern with the maintenance of the 330 -foot strip set aside for the Foothili Freeway. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempe. stated that the property, set aside for the freeway was owned by the State, therefore the City could not control its maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 22, 1985 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and. adopt the Resolution approving..Env;ronmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9192. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOcS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12643. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BWER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried 11 :00 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 11:10 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO GU AM NGA An amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to correct language inconsistencies with respect to median islands and to clarify the intent of the General Plan with respect to the use of median islands. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INUU5TRIAL ARIA bNtUlr16_PLAN RMtnUM111 as -Ul CITY OF RANCHO CUC MON - An amendment to various parts of the Industrial Area Specific Plan deleting the requirements for median islands on certain narrow arterial streets. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel stated that in special circumstances it might be necessary to put median islands in some of these streets to control traffic and suggested that language should be added to allow this subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Chairman Stout suggested that this language be added under a separate section and should include the streets which are wide enough to support a median island. Planning Commission Minutes -15 May 22, 1985 Mr. Rougeau advised that he .ou'd include this_.nformalion in the City Council. Resolution and Ordinance. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concern that Etiwanda Avenue shviild be constructed to its maximum width because it would be a heavily traveled street. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout referred to the deletion of the median in Etiwanda Avenue, south of Fvc.thill. He stated that a prop-3rly constructed median might mitigate some of the problems of noise associated with the industrial park area across the street from the Lincoln project on Arrow and Haven previously discussed by the Commission. V Rougeau replied that this might be nosier yet because of trucks making U- ,urns. Commissioner McNiel agreed that the median concept might work and rr There was space in the street, would have no problems Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, advised that whatever is dune must be One consistenly at the point where .Etiwanda Avenue narrows at Base Line to Arrow Highway. Therefore, if this the Commission retains the median at Etiwanda south of Foothill, it would be necessary to amend the Etiwanda Speciic Plan. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of 'Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -04 with an added section to allow medians where the City Engineer deems appropriate. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -03 with the added conditions that medians are allowed where the City Engineer deems appropriate and the median in Etiwanda Avenue south of foothill to remain. Motion carried by the i.411owing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 22, 1985 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded ky kempel, unanimously carried, to continue the following items past the adjournment time. f Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. r M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -06 - CITY OF RANCHO LUUMI'MIUM — M. reyuesa w cnneou. Lne W -HUrai rid" Lanu use nap vroin LOW— Medium ` Residential (4 -8 du /ac) to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du /ac) on 2J­1 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue between Haven and Mayberry, and to include those parcels fronting on the west side of Mayberry - APN 201- 181 -7, 8, 9, 10, 59, 60, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85. N. Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) to Very Low Residential (less than 2 du /ac) on 20.2 acr° s of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue between Haven and Mayberry, and to include those parcels fronting on the west side of Mayberry - APN 201- 181 -7, 8, 9, 10, 59, 60, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. David Bowden, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that the Commission should . consider that over half of the above parcels will end up with 3/4 acre lots at the Very Low density, which he did not consider compatible si:ice the north and west parcels are 1/2 acre Tots. Further; that this woula not be a fair transition to the property to the north and south. Sandy Davis, Rancho Cucamonga resident, urged approval of the amendments. Helen Whitehead;, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that some consideration should be given tr, the property owners if they can't meet the 20,000 square foot minimum due to the street configuration. Pete Granger, Rancho Cucamonga resident, urged approval of the amendments. There were no furth3r comments, therefore the public hearing was. closed. Motion: Moored by Barker, spconded by Chitea, to adopt- the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -03. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 22, 1985 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment %-06. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Rem;ral, seconded by McNiel,, unanimously carried, to continue past the adjournment time for the following iti_,m. 0. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9619 - PLAZA BUILDERS - Reapplication for design review of 31 single family lots on 2'.15 - es of land in the Very Low Residential District (1 -2 du/ac) located at the west side of Carnelian Street, between Hillside Road and Almond Road - APN 1061 - 221 -01. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Tim MarquarL_ Plaza Builders, gave an overview of the project. Chairman Sto.t anted if trail access to the north had been provided across the flood control channel. Mr. Marquard replied that an in and out ramp had been provided at the upper portion and a bridge had been provided at the lower portion o the equestrian trail. Commissioner Barker stated that the project included a mix of design types and asked if the applicant intended to follow some sort of theme to unify the neighborhoods, such as the use of similar trees. Mr. Marquard replied that a mixture of product types would be use& throughout the project and that he would plant whatever trees the City required. Planning Commission Minutes L_ -18- May 22, 1985 Motion: loved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolu'- ion approving design review fir Tract 9619i *Plaza Builders. Motion carried by the following :ate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS :: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue past the adjournment time for discussion of the following item. P. POLICY DETERMINA; ^N R -02 - ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF UPLAND Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited p'iblic comment. Milton Bracey, 646 California Street, Ontario, gave an overview of the Assistance League of Upland and the proposal to operate a non- profit dental lab. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, that this use is consistent and to allow phi'znthropic organizations providing service to community should be allowed to operate if no negative impacts Exist. Motion carried by the 'a µ following vote: j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, k:r'°EL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time for discussion of the following item. Q. PARKING STUDY ANALYSIS Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -19- May 22 1985 Jack Corrigaii, Daon Corporation, supported of the gross floor area as basis for calculations versus net floor area. We :Jim Barton, Barton Development, supported the gross floor area concept and stated that the l% figure for a flat deductible rate would be unrealistic. He further suggested that temporary parking should be limited to= adjacent properties. The Commission directed staff to further study and draft amendments which would deduct non- .occupany areas from the parking calculation, provide a ralltio for research and development uses, and clarify the policy concerning off -site parking lots. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the June 3, 1985 workshop at 6:00 p.m., Lions Park Community Center, 91151 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. 12:55 a.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary ft Planning Commission Minutes -20- May 72, 1985