Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/07/10 - Agenda Packet 1p od 1 1 , t k: i t - J �f - c [![ (T { t S A 4` p; CITY OF _< ;"`•' �,� RAI\CHU CGG�1laNGA ll NINGCOMMISSION z 'AGENDA J 1 1977 WEDNESDAY July 10,1985 7-00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMD+IUNffX CENTER 0161 bASR LINI3 RANCHO CUCAMO.NGA,GALWORNIA L Pledge of A1legianee IL Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Chitiee�— Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel M. Election of Officers TV. Announcements I V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine � and non-controversial. They will be acted an by the Commission at one time without discussion. if anyone has concern,over any item, it should be removed for discussion A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11893 -PLAZA BUILDERS- Reapplication or desiEtn review of new elevations or 35 single family lots oni 7.2 acres of land in the Very Low Residetatial District (1-2 dulae), located west of Sapphire Street;south side of Banyan Avenue-APN 1043-411-01. r B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7441 - TACKETT - ti Located on the south side of La Grande,west of Amethyst- APN 202-081-13,14. C. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVtROlMENTAL ASSES§MENT- AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8J-15 - ASSURED MINI-STORAGE - Construction of a mini-storage development totaling 40,11?square feet on 1.17 acres of land in the Industrial Perk Disi;r!ot (Subarea 6) located on the north side of 4th 14 eet, e4tst of Turner Avenue -APN Zio-- $71-03» c ,j r D. TIME EXTENSIOK 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 Boulevard and Hellman APN i 208-261-25, 26 Vt. Public Hearings ' The following itemsN, are _Public hearings in which. concerned individuals mas-voice their opinion of the related project. Please ` wait to be recZ ized t%v the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name 'Vnd address. All such opinions shall Lz limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - BOARS HEAD - The review of compliance with conditions of 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=F�1-59� F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND L BNDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-15 STRICKLAAD-To allow construction of an 8,350 square oot automotive service/tire store on 1.20 acres of land in the Industrial Area:Specific Plan, General Industrial District (Subarea 4) located at the .northwest corner of f Archibald and 7th Street APN 209-171-48. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-16 CUCAMONGA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP A proposal to locate a church facility within an lnduz�riai Park (Subarea 4) at the northwest corner of 7th Street and Archibald-1tPN 207-171-46. H. VARIANCE 85-05-DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ` CITY,OF LOS ANGELES-A proposal to reapportion 4 lots on the north side o the 9M00 block of La Colina. These lots will not meet the minimum lot size nor the setback requirement of the Very Lox District - APN 1061-191-10, 11 and 1061-201-29,30. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12969- YAZEDJI2,:N A total residential development of 24 single family lots;with 2 duplexes totaling 28 units qn 4.78 ' acres of land ir.�`the Low Medium Residential District(4-8 ^ du/ac)located on the south side of Arrow Highway,between Comet Street and Sierra Madre Drive-APN 207-222-8. j. 6 P� 1 J. ENVIRONMENTAL A..SSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PER&IIT 85,09 KNITTEFn& ASSOCIATES.- A request to deve?,op a 7422 square foot ehild dayeare center within the Terra Vista Planned Community on 0.91 acres of land in the Medium Density Residential District (4-14 du/ac)located on the northeast eerr.er of Haven and Valencia APN 201-221- K. ENVIRONMENTAL ;ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9204- HE KENSLEY CGZPORTATION-A division of 8.41 acres of land into 3 parcels in ,She Industrial Specific Plan Area (Subarea 11)aocated on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Cieveland Avenue-APN 209-411-11. (Related file: DR 85--14,Ajax: If. 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 85-),0 - OLYMPUS = The development of 120 apartment u;,;;s on 8.66 acres of land in the, Medium Residential IJlstriet (8-14 du/ac),located on the w:E3t side of Archibald Avenue, south of Monte Vista Strei,'t - APN 262-141-11. r M. TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 -DEER CREEK- A j/equest to r modify the conditions of approval regarding thedesign and construction , Opal Street and proposed elimination of € pedestrian access to Opal Street for a 97 lot aubdi ision i located at the southeast corner of Banyan Street and Carnelian Street. N. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY: INTERIM POLICIES The Commission will discuss.interim measures ad policies to be applied to development projects along Foothill Boulevar"prior to adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Plan. Z O. ENVIRONMEN-TAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLAN AMENDMENT 85-03`-,An amendment to the Development Plan for the Terra Vista Planned Community to change the Ind,use designations in the southeast quadrant to include s hospital and mixed commercial, offic,R and,residential uses. Related file: 5qutheast Terra Vista A.Ja Development Plan. VII. Old Business P. SOUTHEAST TERRA VISTA AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LE YVIS - A conceptual development plan for the southeast quadrant of the Terra Vista Planned Community,located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west side of Rochester Avenue, and east side of Milliken Avenue. Related File: Vim 85-03. VI L New Business Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8514 - AJA -The development of two 1-story research and development buildings consisting of 26,490 square feet and 104,720 square feet on 8.42 acres located on the northwest corner of Gth Street and Cleveland UL I)ireet( S Pvorts R. PARKING REVISIONS S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATIONS It�:GAFtI3}ibG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS X. Publie Comments This is the- time and place for the general public to address the Commission: Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda: %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. s a A _ ., VICINITY" ' , r 14IY{dA HiMnitl• CPAN[YIFGIONALPAFR• t Y " (` COLLEGE a -.ii t 1;•8AT•n e•nY/1 I .. Smirol ■I r 1 n Q tl • a jJ E E 1 tt 3 NwMWwlu.Hle_.-:. ■...4w l � 8 a � .,o s i" 1 �� 'CH PA• f 4CIii NAIL l �i 14p i _ e ■ e ■ ■ WG•f i IYNCN f l ■ i ' .i vfrP a i Ana+ ■ ■GI � i 1 e CUCANONGA-GUA9t1 CGUNIY REGIONAL PARR - GNIARIG IRIERHAfIGNAL AIRPORC. , CITY OF RANCHO CU AMONGA CITY OF)RANCHO CUCAMONGA STALED REPORT 0 DATE: July 10, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nanny Fong,Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIG14 REVIEW FOR TRACT 11893 PLAZA BUILDEERS Reapplication for design review; of 35 single family lots on 17.2 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) located west of Sapphire Street, south side of 5anyan Street - AFN 1043-411-01. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of elevations and plot plan B. rurpose: Construction of 35 single family homes :r C. Location: West of Sapphire Street, south side of Banyan Street D. Parcel Size: 17.2 acres E. Existing Zoning_ Very Low Residential District F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Single family homes; Vpry Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) South Single family homes, flood channel; Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) 'and Flood Control East Single family homes; Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) West - Vacant, flood channel, Cucamonga Creek; Flood Control H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South Very Low Residential East - Very Low Residential, Flood Control West - Flood Control ` ITEM A PLANNING Ci)MMISSION STAFF REPORT Design ReiiePw - Tract 11893/Plaza Builders July 10, _985 Page c' I. Site Characteristics: The site slopes tc the southwest at 4ipF roximately 9% grade and has been recently graded. The site 'is bounded by the Cucamonga Creek and Demens Creek to the west and south. IL. ANAL11SIS: A. General: This tract was originally approved on June 2, 1982 as a suC�division only. The new developer is now requesting approval of elevations and plot plans for the 35 single family lots,. The proposed elevations consist of three floor plans ranging in- size from 2,055 to 2,530 square feet, with three different front elevations for each floor plan. Per the conditions of approval, the developer conducted a neighborhood meeting with the homeowners of Tract 9350 (south and east of the site) to inform them of the new elevations. According to Mr. 'Thomas E. Velrosky, a representative .of Tract 9350 homeowners, the attendees felt that the proposed elevations are acce t ibl p e (see attached letter). B, Design Review Committee,: The Design Review Committee felt that the prrposed elevations are consistent and compatible to the surrounding neighborhood character, which is predominantly Spanish theme with real, blue or brown tiles. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed elevations subject to the following improvements, which the developer agreed to: 1, Provide a decorative block wall consisting of plaster and slumpstone for Lot 35, consistent with the block wall on the:, north side of Banyan Street. 2. Protride temporary cul-de-sac, or some �nd of barricade, a,w the end of Banyan Street to the satisfaction of the Cite Engineer (see Exhibit 1'V). a III. RECOMMENLiATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider`al material and input regarding this project. If the Commissio,l concurs with the Design Review Committee's recommendations, approval 0 the elevations and plot plan through ,adoptionc the attached Resolution would be appropriate. R c skmitted, i ck, GmE'.� i it Planndr �ROt ,j>^,° PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Design Review -Tract 11893/Plaza Builders July 10, 1985 Page 3 Attachments: Letter From Mr. Velrosky Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization & Surrounding Architectural Style Exnibit "C" Detailed Sice & Grading Plans Exhibit '°D" - Detail of End of Banyan Street Exhibit "Ca - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 'F" - Elevations (14) Exhibit IIGII - Floor Plans (3) Original Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolution of Approval with Condition i I;t, ti May 10, 198-3 M4.ss Nancy Fong Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga `F 9320 Baseline Street Suite B Rancho �.ucamonga, CA 91701 rl, ' `,, Bear Nancy: As per our phone conversation of Thursday 5/2/85, I am writing you concerning the recent meeting among several of the homeowners in my T act,#9350. This letter will serve to inform you of the purpor and subsequent outcome of this meeting. Pursuant to the desires of Mr. Tim Marquard of Plaza $ i]dars 2nc. I arranged for a meeting at my home in order that Trim ma'.yht have: an opportunity to expose the nearby homeowners of the specifc plans ?ind elevations. The meeting was held Wednesday 5/l,/85. All of the Artist Renderings and lot layouts were available "� J for revie�r and Tim answered many questions relative to the project. Tim was very informative. i All of the neighbors in attendance were pleased with the pro- ject as a whole in fact most felt that these new homes will actually increase our own property values. Thirteen of the 23 homeowners in our Tract #9350 were invited and eight attended. Those wo did attend were the same group represented in the meetings held concerning this Tract and its development in April 1982. I hope this correspondance will serve to inform the City of Rancho Cucamonga that Plaza Builders has in good faith informed concerned neighbors of Tract f9350 of their intention concerning their tract under development. If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at work (7114) 533-2221. t Regards, Thomas E. Velnosky 6173 Peridot Ave (Lot 16) cc: T. Marquard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 •1.11T.Z1� ',�'�.4 �� � � ■aalii ■�■ ■CNN ■ oil III gait 1U rIVINI III���r��� I* s IMf1M�n1�1��11�`i�r7.„ ,�'� � �iMiHl �IIN� lllfl��•N � ' I t x; 1 Sa ptff\D1R\ �¢ y.f 4 ' / t A � pp9VyDf `1 �Ipf Ytit.yt tt.tty t ti ILI 1- 1 +41 jo . VY . � r NURTH CITY Or ITEM- RANCHO CUCA1\110\`GA TITLE:, PLANNING DINTISI(?�I c,XI;IBIT: 1�-b HED 1p ���i� r •"r 1 .�� � tt t� � �F � ir WITT + tea`.1® "'{ � n•!'�ati� t `It, Y f. v gm Vt Wf iy . tti,g �` `iy,�l `(\h .a •�; p ;tom :��• t fit\•` . •/ NORTH c CITY OF rrEm.—:Tf 1IS93 ! RANCHO CU( WONTGA TITI� ���! PLANNING DIVIRONI EXHIBIT---i,,� SCALE: /� r- a= fora ld R Qcih0 40 L . �3 6i.1r, Gf1tJRS C Il �l o 1 ' z B A N Y A �gQ1' Re T: 10 1 Tin Rat' 4 L'23_ Z 0 elaK f0hil-35 ry L � f NORTH. CC= OF ITEM: f RJAINMO UUCNM01\'GA TM E:V1 M AV bf &&&:St. f PLANNING D"10N EXHIBIT- `� " SCALES - �� ! a itl yI . ° `o ff x S 1 E R t� NORTH CITY OF I'EM: ANCHQI CLTCA1ONGA Trrtl;=_ o PLA1NNINU DIVETIO T EXHIBIT=���OSCpTR: _ w 1 gl i 7 i € ' 1_ / f u ICA E., ! i U i i7 rii Ma II mm y i rtfr t i i r El El 114� El 1 _ �N Ex �o. C Ell i nu °1cu Fri NIP 1 v Q b L C -l3 1 l � 1 S 1 a a all Ll v Ili r; It ®. " � w• UK � JAI �I 111 ! ® % M f1}fit r p ' 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 WAN i F j i n , _1 js��r �,• F��� y ■ ►itt sue. ■fit � » �� � .� r. VIC :LEFT z1EYATION - LEFT ELEVATION i i .HIGW ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION �,.l/' All corner dwellings.:and two-story dweltin� g�s shall have the side im m y rear elevations facing the street upgrn. dedwith additional woad tr r around windows and wood siding orplant-ons where appropriate,subject to review and approval b the City planner building permits. .Prior to issuance of i NORTH Cr-rY OF ITEM:— tiff RANUMD CUCAMONTGA TITLE: -.-E' 13 PLANNING DIV"101 EXHIBIT:a SCALE- /9-/7 G i g b Buz d e;d F1 El Z l."tt O V b Y^ ^^ Elio , F F - R A!f 8 i �M ►Ei �t ��� � � mil•. � Cl►� � ' t t owl ►� ! owl l ■ • ���1 ��=1i1♦F t t ` �i t i n i IBM 1 1 �IIIpB�I ii i` mom awn inn S ,1 l � 1 � , P v. now I3��[ � .u..a WNW =in i�ii�llt 1�=I1 n, \ y t d a i RLYO . k. d� 6 1p ER oY GV ' e �..��® y =NCY vL.N i Iasi Im o 1 �Hj -f• � � Q� ,G j z a , ac, �u f i `« - s e 'a _m L 6 o � J l'. W C� Itll El L� s�q«a W � G a I I F E fe F El P - -- -- Z — z o a W FF W A-a 3 �0-7. i 4 I � NAY Kay!. NORTH MY OF tFEN4.. AM Ar ]PLANNING DI'VISI{?:V EXHIBIT. SCALE __ A-pq 4 i Jill- I9 1 l 1 f � ° F E r J j L f �wa� r RESOLUTION NO. 82-40 A RESOLUTION :F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11893 WHEREAS, Tenth ,ve Tract Map No. 11893, hereinafter "Map" submitted by C/L Builders-Developers, Inc., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situatedin the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom lot/ tract subdivision on 32.2 acres of`land, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Street into 37 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and acti.,n on March 24, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as fgllows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11893 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed .general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment,'proposed; (d) The des-fgn 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 of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. } Resolution No. 82 f'l Page 2 (9) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative•Declaration is issued. SECTION 2s Tentative Tract flap No, 11893, a copy of which is attached'hereto, is hereby approved subject.to all of- the following conditions and tha attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1, A fifteen (15) foot e4w,,trian easement shall be desig- nated between lots 8 am 10 to provide trail access for lot 9. 2. All lots shali meet the minimum width of 90 feet at the required building setback line, except of corner lots where the minimur,- width shall be 100 feet, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A Declaration'of Covenants, Conditions, and'Restric- tions shall be established for Tract 11893 and shall include similar provisions which are contained in the CC&R's of Tract 93r including, but not limited to, a minimum sgiiare: foo"ge of each dwelling unit of 1800 square feet as,d a provision for tile or wood,shake roofs. The CC&R's shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and Planning Division prior to - recordation of the fital map. 4. During the grading and installation of street improve- ments, the southern terminus of Peridot Avenue shall be fenced to prohibit any access for construction vehicles or workers. Construction traffic shall be routed along t Banyan to the front of the subject property. 5. :The developer shall employ all known methods to minimize reptile and rodent displacement to the existing neigh- borhoods during construction of this project. 5. The design of each home within Tract 11893 shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Committee, if any, for Tract 9360 for their review and input to the City's Design Review Committee If there is no active Archi- tectural Review Committee for Tract 9350, then the Design Review Committee of the City shall be responsible'..For the review of each individual design. The Committee's review shall ensure that the homes will be ar:hitecturally compatible and of equal quality to the homes that exist in the area. Resolution No. 82-40 Page 3 7. Lots 1-7 shall be redesigned as wider lots. This shall be accomplished by eliminating one of the lots and widening the remaining, 8. The easement along lots 24-36 shall be reserved for equestr'jian usage of the tract and adjacent tracts. These trails provide vital connectighs relative to the ci.&s master trail plan, and stall not be ob- struc';ed. These restrictions shall be clearly out- lined in CC&R's, which shall be reviewed and approved by City Attorney prior to approval of final map., ENGINEERING DIVISION 9. Applicant shall provide temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Banyan Street as determined by the City Engineer. 10. Applicant shall reconstruct the existing temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Peridot Avenue with standard street section including but not limited to curb, gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk (if required) and relocation of street light. 11. Applicant shall contact the property owner of lot 13 of Tract Map 9350 prior to removal of the temp- orary cul-de-sac adjacent to the said lot. The remaining portion of cul-de-sac easement after re- construction shall be graded to match the existing front yard of the said lot and groundcover planted L to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12. Approval of -`final map will be subject to any re- quirements made by San Bernardino County Flood Control District in regards to lot A. A letter of compliance from Flood Control District shall _ be required prior to recordation of the map. 13. Provision shall be made in grading plan to drain the Old Cueamonga Creek at northwest of the project to the existing inlet structure at south- west of the proicrt. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL, 1982. PLANNIN/Gf COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. /'� LCF'.� f�ey i ng, Chairman • Resolution No. 82!y' Page 4 ATTEST:- T EST: lea4. r. y of �)e Planning Ummission I, JACK LAM, Secretary 6f the Planning Commission of the City of-lr%�ncho wd;�amonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing t2a�olution was duly :and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho CucamMiga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the:'a4tb day of April, 1982, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS.; Tolstoy, Rempel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: Dahl, Sceranka i I v A. p� r A 3 V. • y C o f Y. c b o L N G M vC o£y dn.N•i E op ro 57 2,2 c u a. ,__Y•_qq v 12 a pL a N bmp Y oov u 1 •� 'O O u L C'Y C V r A - `^O c O N CLi JY c^ 2. N� G utpd a u pyG V q qq �p.UV Ea L o GO 9 qb`q �C NIi•O�C� Y yr CJ.0 O�Ougq = •� y _ C •N V di �V � r NCYp• 6 O' 1-•-EUU E naTi y GEib� .TLm .DO VO .VO. A^ate O by v+�d q -_ =•a.. v Ng LO 3 I d 962m OfO tO. O Wuu� n e•E z« IO�U.E.�L "'^• E •Ni.W L .,d VG`C ^ C t NQ d ON Nr u.0 Cb H. n^ pq OM iG 9 IL N GY O¢� Nz `O t N6qq• �.-.JFF SG..G.d Yam. Y q M L ^Y 0 0 u Y Y q O - .O. Y.Gv E A E a y a V Ca CN 9�nn L o G •a,A �L L o z a.c G n ?L S. dY` t Y NN 4•�E.u. q iq O� Gw QN u GN W� c Lq W.F JYY Awl. •.ExW fLU�r.d ? 4.0 6 O y.. O t0 C OY �G Yy ,� CO .yet V Z O d L .�� � �0 u N ^ �c• G r+c Ye is .o+ ^CI qL. E O EE q' N.na 6Er q N N CC L r.G a O•u L G .-..E.. �^L. �. 9 L'O o = b 9 p =9 9 • L O �p N C .�d p b G F. p L � N y 6 vy)' tV GC 6Y q �a �6 � EO^ � .00 • y 9y u •^j Oyy2 .+L uq V y q L u 3 O y 9 0 C C 4.O ~ q W YV 2.q >0 06 � Y9 n b �' Y. D I • V Y t O O C � q O F co qq LO q 'Ia• .•`01AY Ca JOG Y T.y O Y ..2 c W N �) 0 0 9+• J c uEE y G p. E c L E N.SC .".. nlo n C iSSJ YO o G i V 1- O O• aNi C b n p d p •Oa v ^ i N d t O V b C CC vZ mz Gam^ yC p O, . 4 O u E 4 IA Nl ^..•q bb +L q MY A Y + C O ... �^. C q.p �.�.. 6�r Y• 4Y�. 6G�+N GN l-�d. C J 1- GU N • t ^ -c a - c i o n s c � 's`' g e.LA+ o a,o • ` d I. _,v oY Zlt. m C O 3 C�R G1 N o y � Lo cL.a s a u F E E 4 p Sa> _U. av C6 N4 C L AO pti Iq L r L N c" n �u� ueu.� a aM '• 'ate d.4, �N_>>c I ° a.�a nb L p>L pL0 9 V u•pa ... 6 I OLT6 � `CN p'C .. BE Y Ro. C 00 C za �uc. �r s,i a m _EEo oN L y ,aNM `c L a CCCQ a.:5-o rj, i 4 9 C L d L t _- C = M6 p NL gH L; L.q pnn p L.y�y a •pr p N p9 y c.�c �> Ca n C n:E. !Y of r'`p ~m y u� n+- E xyr6 E�: N uC pup L. u r. uu u u L Es ^ d cp n e' py eu a GE aui a as 1-•S N G N N u^ a..r� �A.. L G ?C i s O u Y Q2a <6m j..q C 04 ON SC Zz L9 a� O.a•.o�J.uy N.b I I I •�I. NI �I ^I NI �I �I u; b a 40 c c N ^ r d yp L C A O P Or C1� ai, I.0 G 624C a •� ^� � C 4 pC 0�6.bwd rL� �� Y YfON'h Orb.' �O^. n• _RN. rna. 0 o•nR. v oo pc� o. sn} uy vr� � °•.'p aJ.c S� L yyp nu VC O iVu ^ Comma w �� np O ry.N 9.-v ^fxN c6 aLV� v�4`�.•,y LL4 '`'� .. " a»o•u: �'.'�� ou, .Na..:L ac aLN/q Lac �� ps 'L'�Qt.p—a iNN y$.o A l 9 u � ^p L C�•E 4 n.T A E C 4 p U O y C.pi y U?�C a G U�. O cC w L. .�L ZOhd 4r . A O 'N OrO CLUY.r tug rYO.,r E Eu i � Nm •,ua .oa �c a.i �`ra�oy p tau `•_ •p� � � C� n l^ a t a ♦+ a �p CYL 04 U q A ra• u 9 L u 4 • u � y S�V v C C • L O� a N a D 0 a Y G y �9 ^ p a 3 "� a.Li ne.. o.L cnve'ii Aa i Na a anc pEry q� h G`N A N A C d q p L n A L b N 0 G u N 'L a E» `y.u.a-c u^ N y•�C C u�dc L.^pL L rOiO qY GA pE6 OC C .EE.: Nw tlUn` Lu .^-.'�+ pau aqa 0? ^ d ny�N C o R p M . 4 aCn 2�U•pn L.•. 'Ca O h>.a�p •Oh yp Y A P W .p0 �N •-a� > �; d Or �Y '� er V N u p `O a rang 15 _N O. G A O a O rp•� i S D• S U r„•C C C^N O O Y d u N pr G 4 n E b r p •.a an ` C r 4. b Ct .5 .� v2v u rua� CC u Na ovxe L5 t c c .A-b r^ �m.L. a 'a us nc9 LG is .-• ate+ o a -c a `o� vr"' `N` 6 Or UY•. L •_N UCS ` O riJ •� a�Y .Ni 4e� �� 4 `c o r... c a o. p.e A a•. ^^ cHz G +'• No 6a Wu.Y dr•�uo EZ^ '_ p ay g E€ N b ' m• Qi G r O G .• y n. •' C F u O V. O D 9 4 O»Viq L ua =%`N oCNr dn. Lp j O rn« _ cL .`'.cam o Fo C =n •Q '• °>o = :.v. nnvL O>ECE Cud C DLO `�N. i4Y.-C..� is uP00� jt N � % q yy 9GG W ALV ` ,.ru ,DUN V9iCN NN.N �rV.o_ U +^o� V u A u 4� � `C x•0..� into., v_LC OL... d Lu 09 E J .Ldid 2 ` rMr. n• vu a '° oaCCp m AEP� d0 y bCq n 4�> p `2Etb AC L e�i .Ys oceAc c' r EiiN~ nG A a0 Cry. t•. � Lq dn� o� C C �_ � u �G� P . iL ^-L EO U .•.� � ^ N ... W u b N N 2 L EEcoa~.> ELou2 ` ^ LY'O OEE. W aG p �9 Y 1y'.i Wa du N� aT �1u GOB o>p ^ .o E a> m_ .ci .�i Wi au Nai -QP uW yA au6 p. N� qp� gylq aC ^ r.y Au EE ON .n 9G9 9 ,a O u n 0 6 T Y L V O Z. o E Yo�.0 d - Y _9i - t rtO.,u Cn.. •pi GYL O•.ra•Or n. v.A.~.. .-.r�,u>^qn�. `p`, ? ^A o 6 5.2 !O a•-q V _� A GvfOa >p Y� YN o y_ wN oo. aN y' c.Na o N >•j I� N Yf d roc Yop mil..+ •+40 _ v a A N a �n OVi. 4 6 pp n y G u j O O ENE ay Y"o 9 y 6 h V ���qq =€ CCp Y= � Y o 49 V • 09 nN q3 U9 C CV ..0. 6r.f. .y 9 o pYL V u o A N f Y -d W NAIL u�.ne9a W. G auv Tr NOO `+ .dti G 9 09 O .E uov_ N Yq Y.Y A A Y E CC la �� Ln.YC � d f^.iV O =� Es [9i2 O 6`N- btL Ov�q G � ' EV.9Y �N d bo.�Volb L c t! . ETC+C 9aou iya �l N Lo.YS uE u> G C2 N aM a 0?ip'Y La y� O at.; _L od.4. C WOA VL aYs G.0 Lt� !> .2 ai py V C> V 2 5 y •Y' _a N b «3 p =oN au c�Yc 9 sE € '4 vi L E d a.a o• _ «€a 6L 9 m~A m �W.V>. p 7 p u O L•.O b 3 " C u Q V O Y_.q C o..N. a Oa~n Ca^ >j 1,.�V N E u V cCi !•C o� C G d �qar n O ^ U6 q O~L O�.0.9 Y 3� t..ln qN E ^ YV w� Lc �� �c �a o y« O !k CG p Y.� C Is Y >O L`. Y A 4 y=Nj E d O 1.. Y L L C you E2VC Nn9 o.gng Y ` L v o �f+ V •od€ tT 9 d LSq OC SS wx ` GY > O ooV UE J 700 C Ly EO a L COu O.L n�. _ud es ZI c ps.ao dr !� .I w r`4 y q T y b • . •bn '^L O u u u � � P � L a u G Y M 9 IIA Y C w �? O O L L y O C q O • ur A �' OC = h D N .>N p% • � V YG r OL. • V C � �N u +r^ Ln d O_A s pY NC O pt u� •N � LYV G C � AN 9v •.. =�pq q le �X O N Y.0 _ .b pM�•A., _D Y p t �` Y v a 1 ^ N N4 E P `q YLC n0 sN 04 .i,A 0�i � L ` C N Y ..� -C.4J� L.F p 'CU .y.,N OL a� 4Mu,r♦ O� ry p �W CW Nu A �2. A.Pauda .O. 78 YyQ Mq pV " uG S. a o� �Y,� n� � =r.`' Ca a..'c, yu L✓VL M E'a 'P'y uo oa.+ ... i, • +.G.� •.-P.0 '�' c d p y b uN ga qLu p u ,it4 �A V4. NJ O, Od YS C M� L1 LM L y•� NA� u u 6L,n Nq 4YL. COR y up -•C _mom N .Obi N w G C ^ L n^ N O ^ u D� U Vim. up'^ LC L•� Nb�. '0.0 C'' Yt V.^l 2� Ca. .•._. ,•. � .. ♦R dN dd•y.♦`. G d C gip. OC >b OW Vu ^V .vim N NO NV ^'yD C A 4 u u d K n ♦L., N a T W EaE C Y u P p w `^ •0+1- b y C d L T u C G O^ y D C So. ii.4 CvGo c HC ti ^� pP- d c �L 1; uG _Ou Qo CQ,n �N 12 u+�+2- HN "Z2 L•p: ^C .r•L Vuy� yy� ~I � L •�1 N � • • ��� G.r. �N O J G-G• •� m . v Z; �+ p a t .o -j.'."p v., G r c c G M u W iu• l 2 0 a ^ ^u€G y a OGt O C N caz. ? 6 .�,ca� aLtL � Yg - aNgY uq� OY •W • iAOp �MyY �4p �C. rnL 3�N Ov: ,,. •o ` ti G 4�o .E- _`y�D't' d'JN'.a v ua .vo cad ss .N. N a D ��. +•. ">c+.�ENS a At 'ono LA OC 4. Nu py0 �N U t G UciJ O 6�9.+ Y rl>♦ ONtu S-. G J+• "'u 24 "€raj "'a L ca"i �ot.� '.• p.0 'ova ,D ►a NwY��� � • =aG c:qo L`• rna soa '- dN = c�o.c du a c��oc lid "C Cw74' Ea.• c•'c•.:E wY �M 2A "C L y G S 1 SpC♦. D �t C4U a r N C e2.,m d U D_^A. C w d d q^O V.q`.G N O J u 4 i1 ^ d.•^.. N� 2E 6^.t`'.D� ^ ♦ 11i -` 'G 6TL d .. 0• uL S `=d�u NpP V Yl NM M •JG,DL v W •\ 4 pyVN ECU 04.G 6C C9 aL Ru �..E.aq D. pGw Lib V 2 J 411.•�>. � .6 J � 29L yy n _ �C ' L a �w t �N_O uv i� N YY uv � .i Wy1G L>iA ) A uAW CL NU 6P � p 4•+L SK pp A p >, u q K.Yu <e G� tit D Li�E:t� N4 v. G tl L tf♦- Wt 4•',V vfaE 'J..0 .... a>.L VI • O q r. • Z. ^ h 9 0-.• C V a'-. W V 6u : J � . . � . . . � � Lo \ \ } Ss 2 } \ {� €J ! % §kf f kE . — fi2 ` 3xcU. j 3 — w}|'` _ ! — i ! gg — , k = .—.E 2#= ) {= IE »\ )/ f / & ƒ/i) :2 §{ \Ei =X, � RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 11893 LOCATED WEST OF SAPPHIRE STREET, SOUTH SIDE OF BANYAN STREET IN THE VERY LOW 'RESTbENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of May, 1985, a complete application was ' filed by Plaza Builders for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of duly, 1585, 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?: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the obje.tives of the General Plan; ai,d 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 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 11893 is approved subject to the fo ow3S ing conditions and attached Standard Conditions: DESIGN REVIEW• 1. Provide a decorative block wall consisting of plaster and slum;,stone for Lot 35, consistent with the block wall on the north side of Banyan Street. 2. Provide a temporary cul-de-sac, or some kind of barricade, at the end of Banyan Street, to the satisfaction of the Cit} Engineer. { Resolution No. Design Review/Tract 11893 Page 2 k _ - 3. - Provide low maintenance, drought resistant ground cover behind end of Banyan temporary cul-de-sac. 4. All conditions of approval for Tract 11893, as con.ained in c Resolution 82-40,, shall be adhered to. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary Allk 1, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Plant,irsg Commission 'a, ;crie City of Ran• )o 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 loth day of July, 1985 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: C'MMISSIMm.).._ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: a .xv,p, - -- CITY OF RANCHO CJ"CAMONGA STAFF REPORT cjM���� O Ca •Y DATE: July 10, 1985 T0: Planning Commission 1977 FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7441 - TACKE71 - located on the south side of La Grande, west of Amethyst Avenue - APN 202-081-13,14 The tF,tative parcel map was initially approved by the Planning Commission opt June 9, 1982 for the standard 2-year period until June 9, 198C On June 27, 198a, the Planning rommission approved a 12-month extension until June 9, 1985. The subdivider is now reque,ting a second extension from June 9, 1985 until June 9, 1986. This parcel ma!) was reviewed regarding it:, conformance with the Gerlral Plan and has been found to be in conformance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Planning Commission grant the requested 12-month time extension for Parcel Map 7441. The expiration datti will be JVne 9, 1986. Respectfully submitted, BRH:BK:ko l ITEM B Ia PROJECT r SITE �Y t cCc,�sr - ''Y OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA title- CI V PM ° ENGINEERING DIVISION n z N' VICIIVI'I'Y MAP tm gage t• RRYilt Rx i.rKYlle L7/1ta IC s*.arr clrY:o Lnal sa t.rro B..uo. [t.rm V.lw TEiVFAT/VE MAP eeB.vne'G i7.B..TrL 5fT iN an,L•�.,,t„ E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA au..ouomc o�,t anmcmal - mlo.aLo m r21 qR-B.at rcr•. BEING A AZ"R&GENENT 0'IOTS 152 OF TRACT 2120 i>ete 6 f rat eats! 1 YB 9/49. iLLMpPeDc LI\tC U 1 ta•uaLs7T'tl G 2 aSf�to NS 6Ya tI.IL • j ( ELLS BS I Get>fRai1 iim T7Ir2 1 Y o]sll bar reams � aL01QiD aL aulnoerW. • i 1 ' I rg4cr NO 1232tl y I I l u taal� I I I » I as L-A-GRANDEa .�-�• • _ f'Bttrrli'+•1^bri\s(Cerir[l1Y — •�rlrriM wer es eoerrltB. 1 65.5• M5 ` t r IT go n _ •� c 7 mBt1a1. ___ _ [_ LL AL b t!r•Bw PorL�iL •a S�'LtIG � E o r.7g r�T.«• 1 } • a.. .G` W t'•s0 �s•M wLv � g ^ .-racertt•:ar-..•Be e.eanlB. .�aL1LtIBo rnrw }$1 —__x meeiBB+.Brr H -LOMFrA � � � s DRIVE Z. lY O J I � J w � `•.)f y to 6m 1•.. r _ 6 K Tra {� f•f J7a�ws ��� KZI.W•�'Z 7 4 __. _..... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAItiIONGA ENGINEERRIS DIVISION' _. ..__._ �Q, is-f �Gr67.�Gd�C'_ vi•' �l�/ Ta�-�.�.GrY.!/ .C/G `Y �L ,4'yO7G•ucY� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Donald Tackett TENTATIVE MAP NO. P.M. 7441 LOCATION:--North srtde of Lomita Drive DATE FILED: 4-13-82 —321'± west of Amethvst NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots l and 2 of Tract 2190, M.B. RECEIPT NUMBER: 31, Page 69, San Bernardino Co. FEE: $273 r ZONE: R-1 TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: J. Richard Newton GROSS ACREAGE .91 ADDRESS: 624 West "I" Street MINIMUM LOT AREA: Ontario. Califorria 91762 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE f Don Tackett 335 East McKinley 629-1549 Pomona, Ca. 91767 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1. Dedication by final map 'of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements-as -shown on tie tentative map, 2. Dedication by final mfp of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets:. additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other 3. Ti—ghts of vehicular access shall be limited as follows 4. Street vacation required for: S. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows:_ RCE 20 �'s TENTATIVE MAP NO, 7441 Page 2 Ahk fro— v--- ements (Bonding is .required prior to O Recording for ®Building permit 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lig�jts) on all B interior streets. 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *includin landsca ng and irrigation on meter CURB & A.4. SIDE- DRIVE STREET STREET MEDIAN STREET NAME GUTTER PVMT. WALK APPR. TREES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHER Lomita X X X X X X La Grande X X X X X X X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground'. X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative Poles with underqround service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The 1.11UW111y specific dimensions, �.e., cu -de-saC radius, street section widths) are not approved: 16. Th e fo I I They will ow�n9 existing streets are substandard: require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall te: subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ 'San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. `Approvals have not been 31ecured from all utilities and other interested agenAft cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirementlW that may be received from them. RCE 20 (� ';ENTA;IVE MP NO. 7441 Page 3 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: A. Cdltrans, for: B. City: C. County Dust Abatement Districts D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trench..are over 01 deep: _ E. Cucamonga County Water District: — _ F. Other: Map Control 22. If one;, a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two-way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be sari ±cted on the final map: 24. All corner rots shall Lave a corner radius at the right-of-way ine in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs c arification as fo ows: 27. The border shalt be shown to centerline of existing perimeter street-, or title explanation required. Parcel Map Waiver 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuafrce of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. (Bonding is required prior to ® Recording for All Parcels ) DRAINAGE 13 Building� permit for 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood I qod- 5 Insurance Program. This subdivision subject to-the rovisio Sion will be p ,ns of that program and 9 Ordinance No. 24. *' 30. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall along the entire north pro- perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through 31. I v cure f rater surf 9 culverts. ace i s �� .hove top of curb, 30 walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations: 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies wi a require to assess impact o increased i runoff. X 34. Provide private drainage easement and concrete "V" gutter on the south property line on Parcel Z and the east property line of Parcel 3 for the drainage of Parcel 1 & 2.- These easements will be delineated on the map. f I RCE 20 c TENTATIVE MAP No. PagE± Miscellaneous, _. 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. 35. Noise impact on this project will be mivI gated in accordance with the Nanning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation, 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re-quired: ------------------- 39. roper grading and orasion c teal, it�c1uding he praven'tatian of sad manta- tion tir damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. Apr: minary soils report will not be required for this site for the-follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the EnDineering Division. 41. 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 availabil ,:y of capacity.. permits will notin writin . 42. The CitysEngineer�shallT maker the jdetermination, incation is receivedaccordancegwith Section 664:76(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of th property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercisi Of any public entity or pukitz utility right-of-way or easement and the sigi tune of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final trap unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion thejthin time ofeFinaliMapdsubmittal,ttheffoTidwingtshall be submitted: , Traverse calculations (sheets) copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and benchmarks referenced, 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at 'sot lines. d i I I CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD a. Huns CITY ENGINEER 0 By: RCE 20 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE.RANCHO.000AMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7441 WHEREAS, a request has been riled for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8.2 of Ordinance 28-B, the j Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the I above-described tentative parcel map on June 9, 1982. i SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamony_ 'lanninr,following findings: Commission has made the A. That current economic, Marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time. B. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. C. That there has been no significant changes to the character of the area in which the project is located that would cause the project to become conforming or inconsistent with current standards. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission ;hereby grants a time extension for: Parcel Map Applicant Expiration 7441 Don Tackett June 9, 19B+5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chair km ATTEST: Rick Somez, 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 Comm` sion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the loth day of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS; r ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM?NGA CQCAU,� MEMORANDUM. ���? c [- Z U > 197 DATE: July 10, 1985 TO: Chairman,and Members of P nning. Commission ' FROM, Rick Gomiz, City Planne►" 1i; `i BY: Howard L. Fields, Assisi nt'Planner - SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-15 ASSURED MINI-STORAGE e- ,.onstruction of a min!-storage _velopment tote ing"0 I12 sq. ft. on 1.17 acres of land in the Industrial Parki(Suharea 6)'u1strict located on the north side of 4th Street, east of Turner Avenue - APN 210 371-03. On Ju.io 12, 1985, during its regularly scheduled meeting, the Planning i Commission directed Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. The l applicant has since requested reconsideration of the Planning Commission's decision and desires to work with Staff to resolve development issues associated with this pr,�3ect. RG:HF:cv I Attachment: Letter from applicant. j . ITEM `c e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DV!YING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85-15 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET, EAST OF TURNER AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBARCA 6) DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 24th day of October, 1984, a complete application was filed by Don Valk for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of June, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project.. follows: NOW, THEREFW, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: Based on the following findings: 1. The proposed parcel shape and size is not appropriate for the-intended use. 2. The proposed dEjign is not compatible with the intent of the district in which the site is located. 3. That the proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Industrial Specific Man and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the j, public health safety, or welfare, or materially j injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Development Review No. 85-i5 ,s denied. i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS LOTH DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. to►t, C airy?„i i I. ATTEST. Rick Gomez, D Ey Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OR No. 8545 Jul; 10, 1985 Page #2 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission 3f 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 ?' cn the 10th day of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: � sI c t ASr">"VRED MINI-STORAGE; INC. 1600 FAIRWAY DRIVE (714)370-1602 COLTON,CA 92324 HM"rd Fields Community Development Department i City of Rancho Cucamonga ' 9320 Baseline Rd., Suite C • P.J. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re: Development Review 85-15 Dear Howard: After some consideration, fc?lowing the last meetcng of the Planning Commission at w 1ch the above-refer1,nced matter was considered, our company :ould request that the matter be returned to staff for further design review consideration. The:lateness of, the hour caused my decision to made rather haztily, and on on second thought, the opportunity offered by the commission f,pr further review would be appreciated.. ' Thank you for !our kind consideration ivi this matter. Sincere Charles R. Wear Corporate Counsel June 21, 1985 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONurl MO�r MEMORANDUM Z U ? 1977 DATE: July Tt , 1985 TO: Chairman and umbers of t larding Commission FROM: Rirn-gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johiston, Associat Pla er SUBJECT: CONDITINAL USE PERMIT 3-03 - LEI4IS - The eve opment of a 377,b square Toot shopping _center including a drive-through restaurart, 1 on 8.67 acres of land in the General Commercial Di,&izzt, located at the southeast corner of .'ot;thiII Boulevard and Hellman APN "08-251 25 awd 26. This item was continuE,4 from the Apri'; 10, 1985„ Planning Commission meeting to illow redesign of the conceptual master plan. The project has since been reviewed twice by the Design ' Review Committee;, and final plans ar- being prepared for Commission reviek. The applicant, therefore, is requesting an additional two week extension, until the Jul.- 24, 1985 meeting. RG.CJ:cY ' c ip ITEM 0 5 smog HAND DELIVERED July 1, 1985 Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline. Road Pancho Cucamonga, CA 91750 Attention: Mr. Rick Gomr City Planner Subject: HELLMAN SHOPPING CEtiTER, S?;UTHEAST CORNER FOOTHILL AND HELLMAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-08 Dear Rick As you i;now, we have been v&rking for the past several weP''' v' h our architects in an effayt ,a conform the dasign of the subj 3, pping center to current City thlnk:iiq. While our efforts in this rega._ are nearly com- plete, the iresults Ya111 not beready for review by the Planning Commission t. at its meeting of Wednesday, July 10. Accordingly, we respectfully request p,. that tite matter be continued to the Comm'sslan meeting of Wednesday, July 24. : ThanK you very much for your attention to this request. Cordiallyy, '36 xhn Melcher A.I.A. Project Development JRr!!mb 11x.6 N.Mountain Ave PCB.Has 670 Upland,CA 91786 (714)985•4971 Developed by t*+R4.ttomes CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�C'ell STAFF REPORT o < y O _I- Z DATE: _ Ju,y 10, 1986 U 1977 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: M& Gomez, City Planner L BY: Nancy Fong, Assistan'� Plarmer �JIUECT: CONDITIONAL USE PEttMIT 78-03 - BOARS HEAD - The review of compliance with conditions of approval for a restaurant within a shopping center in the Neighborhood^ommercial District located at the northwest corner of 19th Street i and Carnelian Avenue - APN '208-811-59. I. ABSTRACT: The putpose. of this report is for the Planning Commission to review tf,is CUP to ensure consistency with the conditions of approval and to consider potential modifications to t the conditions of approval. r II. BACKGR"UND: The planning Commission, at its regular P-seting a;' May 2_, J 5, held a public hearing for the annual review of this ` CUP. Based on public input c-er the concerns of hours of operation. and advquacv of parking spaces, the Planning,C*mmission directed staff to study surh concerns and continued this item to this rogui.r meeting for reviewing the two identified issues. III. 14ALYSIS: A. Adequacy. of Parking Spaces: The recent •,.hange in the Boars t He,.d's operation to a tlinch and e .,ner restaurant with bar facilities conflicted with other bw fnesses in the shopping center in terms At parking. The original approval of the :UP ` had ta%ei into ,dcounm that mosc of the Boars Head's customers congregate in th(a eveMng hours and therefore would not conflict .with the other Wsinasses in the shopping center or have sign.Yici,-)', impart s,, parking. Parking Ste mmary. A The shoppino -inter consists at four existing buildings and one future buili;ing pad with ipproxim,tely 38,460 'squ,re feet in total grocc floor area. rhs available on-site parsing spaces provided for in the center are 210 spaces; however'. the coi:diticrs of approval for this CUP eliminated 13 spaces, leaving a total of 197 for on-site parking. - • i ITE14 E '?LANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Lie Permit 78-03 July 10, 1985 Page 2 The required number of parking apaces based on the type of use per current Development Code for each building are as fr.11ows: Building A.....................66.4 parking spaces Wilding B.....................56 parking spaces Building C.....................54.4 parking spaces Future Builoing D..............8 parking spaces Building E (Savings & Loan)....4 parking spaces Total Number of Parking Spaces Required = 189 spaces The conflict occurs when patrons from one use park in front of another use. Parking is available in the main parking area in the center of the project. The property owner should be encouraged to explore metho�_4s of designating certain parking areas for each user. Additionally, employees must park in the sane lot as the customers, thus compounding the problem. The proximity of 3 restaurants in the same building treat%s cc.-npetition for those. sark',ng spaces along the storefront. B, Hours of Operation: The original approval for this CUP limited tTie hours of operation from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. in order to reduce noise disturbances to surrounding residential neighborhoods. These operating hours were modified to 2 a.m. through an appeal by the applicant to the City Council. Due to a fire in the kitchen last -day, the business was closed for almost a year. 'The restaurant wa; remodeled and reopened recently by thF same owner and offers lunch, dinner :nd bar services, but without entertainment and closes at 11 p.m. Therefove, the .nature W� this business is consistent with the conditions of app*,oval for dais CUP. However, the Boars Head still has the option to operete this business until 2 a.m. I C. Options: The Commission may consider the following options per SF.ction 17.04.030(G) of t';e Development Codes 1. Find that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner, that the on-site arkin P 9 is adequate and that no ` action to modify or revoke is necessary; or, c 2. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that appropriate modifications to conditions are necessary. �r t r. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional':Use Permit 78-03 July 10, 1945 Page 3 IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertisedl�as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, property posted and notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that thel Planning Commission conduct aa-puSTic hearing to consider all milterial and testimony presented and select from one of the options '�Jescribed above. Re 5pectf y ubmitted, is Gomez City Planner RG:NF:jr Attachments: Letter from Surrounding Residents Letters from Applicant Table I - Required Number r' Parking :Spaces by land Use Exhibit "A" - Site Plan a Land Use Exhibit "B" - F1oor.Plan May 22, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Repoirt .te �.y TABLE I REQUIRED NMER OF PARKING SPACES BY LAND USE OF TOTAL BUILDING # SQ. FT/LAND USE PARKING RATIO SPICES OF SPACES _ A 1500 sq ft, 1/250 7.0 8100 sq. ft. Dentist Office 5100 sq. ft - 1/100 51.0 Restaurant/Deli ?100 :;q, ft. - 1/250 8.4 Retail 66.4 B 9,470 sq. ft. 1/250 38.0 21,320 sq. ft. Retail>Office 750 sq. ft. - 1/250 30 Assume Retail/Office 2-100 sq. ft. 1/4 Seats 15.0 Church (pending at 60 Seats review) of 50-70 seats fi.0 C 5440 sq. ft. - 11100 64.4 54.4 5440 sq. ft. Bob's Big Bay Restaurant Future "D" 2000 sq. ft. - 1/250 8 1.G 2000 sq. ft. Assume P.el.aii!Of`ice E 1000 sq. ft. - 1/250 4 4.0 Savings & Loan TOTAL 189.0 5/15/65 I wish to inform the Planning o mission t�,;It I am nod in favor of a business remaining open until 2A.M in the shopping center adjacent to my place of residence. I am not { able to attend your meeting,so I am sending you this signed note in:-tead. Thank you. le MAY 2 PM 17, cot Gt. c( .Pc I'M'r Ki i i ;1 °0 ' �� (O '935 l June 18, 1985 -hr. Rick Gomez j City Planner-City of Rancho Cucamonga ` P.O. Box 807 R Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re: CUP 7$-03/Boar's Head Annual Review t Dear AIr, Gomez In reference to our earlier phone conversation, the purpose of this letter is to reiterate our position regarding Mr. C. Douglas Gorgen (landlord for the Boar's Head), and our conditional use permit review. i Although you have recommended a meeting between myself and Mr. Gorgen before the next city meeting, this would be impractical for the following reasons. In the past we k have experienced difficulties is coming to a "meeting of the minds" with Mr. Gorgen, and I see the current problems as another example of this. Mr. Gorgen has retained the lawfirn of Beloua and Mannerino to represent himself. As you may recall, Mr. Mannerino spoke on behalf of Mr. Gorgen at the last planning commission meeting. Because of j fir. Gorten's actions, we have subsequently hired an attorney to act on our behalf. In addition, I feel this dispute s rez ly between the landlord and the tenant and should not inter:•fer with the CUP IsYoceediugs pending before the planning, p' commission. In reference to your statement about reviewing our =:rent business operation and the adequacy of parking faciities, we have complied with the Foothill Fire District code 'to reduce;f our searing capacity to 90 persons. This is a definate change I from our prerious business operation, and should have a significant impact on reducing 'the parking problems 7365 eaRellar?,Sulke 21.4,Ijar?el?o L7bucamopga,ealtibrnla GVZ30 (714)9Ei0-5h14; s u Page two June 18, 1985 Mr. Ri,T; Gomez City o; Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Gorgen has tried to make an issue here. Please feel free to give me a call, should you or Mrs. xong ,4ave any further questions. ref f h RI "A c3. age�1 President Boar's Head Barg an 11 s RLA/lb cc Mr. Ronald Beek Mr. James Barcena, Jr. j enclosures i A .t I u a d i o v p May 23, 1985 �J V Mr. i.3nald Beck Perona, Langer, LaTorraca and Beck 300 San Antonio Drive: long Beach, CA. 90807-0948 Re: Rancho Plaza (C. Douglas Gorgen) Boar's Head Bar and Grill Dear Ron: In follow-up to our telephone conve7.-sation last evening, enclosed is a-copy of another Notice of Default dated May 2?, 1985 prom Mr. Gorgen. He hand delivered this to me at last night's planning commission hearing. This meeting was held to discuss the Boar's Head conditional use permit. Some of the remarks made by Mr. Gorgen at this hearing were that we were impacting .the pa king lot with.too many cars, and that the planning commission should modify our conditional usa permit because of the major changes in our busi:i:ess operation. Mr. John Mannerino, the attorney for Doug Gorgen, stated that we have been serving quarts of beer to our customers, r thereby inebriating them quicker (vs. serving amaller quantities) and when Mr. Mannerino was in the Boar's Head he only saw two ! employees (a bartender and cook) working, and he thought this was inadequate sta�':fing to handle and have control over any customers who became drunk. The lady who awns the deli next door stated the following allegations: 1) That she h.s observed people drinking in our establishment before our opining time Of 11;00 a.m. 1 have spoken to our bartenders about this, and they say this has never happened. 2) That Mr. Bar_cena copied their menu in order to drive her olut of business; and 3) That our customers are taking all of the parking spaces to be +!,ed by her customers and that she has suffered a considerable 1Oss of business since we've opened. idaar`;{-n 1 gnr's 3'irtla III t'6erEret(9ffirr 1256iNEST>OGTCTHlLL 6820 CARNELIAN UPLAND,CALIP'v17d6 RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIF.91701 246 NO I IDIAN HILL BLVD. 714 96b1818 T14.9S 33 CLAREM INT,CALIF 91711 714-624.9637 o Page two Mr. Donald Beck May 23, 19E5 � rs Rather than go into further detail of what transpired at the meeting. I will forward a copy of the minutes to you as soon as I receive them. In the meantime, please ,read the enclosed Notice of Default and get back to me with your response. Sincer , L. Arcinage Vice President Boar's Head Bar and Grill RLA/lb Enclusure cc: Jame: Barcena, Jr. I4. 5SWES FOOT i6620 RNELf N General Office '125SWEST FOOTHILL 6620 S�4RNELIAR UPLAND,CALIF.91786 RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CALIF,917oi 248 NO.INDIANHILT.BLVD. 714.981.1818 Tt4•A89 8433 CLAREMONTE CAUF.91711 ;Y • 2'4 l..y11�M j'r ^�A } i i/�lfAl W/W iWj�{�N� r` 4t L_+}}Pj ''"t'"�' •� �1�ii•. d tt� '� • 9 r G 't"rl'7I .t' :.L t 1.t•,. s May 21, 1985 DOWNEY AND ROBERTS INC. dba BOhR'S HEAD C/o Tise Claromont 7365 Carnelian Avenue, Suite 214 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: NOTICE OF bErAULT Gentlemen: Please be advised that your installation of exterior awnings with incorporated logos and sign over the front door and win-' dow of the premises are in violation of the Lease Agreement, , namely, Article 3.1 & 3,2 of the COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS attached to the aLeaee Agreement. This installation was done without Landlord consen' and is inconsistent with the standards set for the s- pping• ceater.. You are hereby instructed to remove said awnings and repair all damage resulting to the strcco exterior •within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice or action will be taken by Landlord for breach of the Lease Agreement, Be further adviseSl that Landlord requests a formal walkthrough of the leased promises (in. luding the roof area) with your con- tractor to review the alterations and improvements. Please make arrangements for this walkthrough within thirty (30) days of re;7;ei?t of this letter. t RANCFib PLAZA `17K By: C. Doug s Gorgen CDG:bhs ` Certified Mail P 323 390 895 6634 Carnelian Avenue 91101 (714( 987-6328 sFS kA3ffdi3kK7��{Qt ;Rancho Cucamonga,C.itifornia9YM 71:•989.1767 1r LANCER PERONA.LANGER. LATORRACA & BECK 'MAJOR A.LANCER DAMES T. LAWYER" HENRY B-LATORRACA. A PROVESS40NAL 00APOAATION RONALO BECK ADMINISTRATOR. WAYNE M.ROBERTSHAN 000 SAN ANTONIO tlRIY! NANCY SUR SMITH RAYMOND H.GOETTSCH POST OYFICE sox 7046 ROBERT C',PIERCE LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90l07-0945 T.LEPHpNES: BRIAN G,HUMMEL DANIEL M.TOSNEY (213)425.6155 ROBERT H.ROGERS,.JR, (71a)995-}26J MARK A.KLEIMAN CHARLES K.MITC!i_L: RAPHAEL METZGER OUR FILE NO--. - •Afao Mefte,New York Bar June A, 1985 7ohn D. Mannerino DELOUD & MANNERINO _ 9333 Baseline Roadr Suite 110 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-1311 Re: .. Poar's Head Bar & Grill Dear Mr. Mannerino Please be advised that this firm represents Boar's Head Bar & Grill. Our ofrice is nct writing directly to Mr. Gorgen because of your repre- sentation. For over the last month 14r. G-rge.% has been serving numerous notices of 1,;,fault and has made otheL claims against my client arising out. of � e lease. It has become apparent to my client that Mr. Gurgen's ` sole purpose in servin; these notices of default and other claims is not only to harass and annoy my client, but also force them to vacate the premises aftea they have spent a tremendous amount of money reconstructing and improving thi; premises. Notwithstanding the fact my clients have complied with the lease provisions, your * lient, Xr. Gorgen, was fully aware of Cite improvements male by my client to the j Premises ;,ng before they were going o be made and was actually in the a. .-,d..es a numbers of times before and during reconstruction. He- was 1,i..ly aware of trz improvements and did not object. Fir;;';, my ^lient xeceive;d a notice of default pursuant to paragraphs 8.2. • _.S, and 1-4 `.Sr c, d, i, and j. Notwithstanding the inappropri atene,-- of the notice of defaut T.y =:lient, an May 3, 1985; forwarded. to Mr. Gorgen a copy of the approved plans ar,` permits submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These pl_a s were a.sr,, posted inside the Boar's Head and had to be seen by Mr. ;3orgen sLlice ne frequented the restaurant during its r^_construr_tion phase. In addition, enclosed was a draws.ng depicting t,o interior of the premises, thereby complying 0701-02 0 7-10-85 P.C. Agenda Packet a Page -2 -of 5 John D. Mannerino DELOUD & MANNERINQ Re Boar's Head Bar & Grill June 3, 1985 Page Two with request #4 of your May 8, 1985 letter. Quite frankly, my client did not understand the nature of the notice of default with respect to paragraph 14. With respect to the latest notice of default filed by Mr. Gorgen, it is my client's position that they are in compliance with each appli- cable term and condition of the lease, including the covenants, condi- tions and restrictions. In addition, Mr. Gorgen was fully aware of the exterior awning and sign for some time and never objected to same. The notice of default does not specify the problem(s) with the exterior awning and sign and my client would appreciate a statement setting forth precisely your position and objections, if any. With respect to the other items set forth in your May 8, 1985, please be advised that my client has supplied all of this information to Mr. Gorgen. He is fully aware of the precise operations of Boar's Head. AM Paragraph G of the lease has been fully compligd with, and in any event, is vague and ambiguous. Since Mr. Gorgen drafted this lease, any ambiguities will be construed against hi;:?. The food service is substantially the same as it was before the ,sre ind Mr. Gorgen never objected. My client does not understand your clients' coicern about the number of employees at the Boar's Head. As you know, live entertainment t has been eliminated in part due to your client's request. In addition, I understand that the Boar's Head will have more restrictive hours of operation than it.did prior to the time of the fire. Since my client does not have entertainment or waitresses it will have less employees. This should pacify Mr. Gorgen since he has been concerned that the restaurant will be ]xsing more parking spaces. There will actually be less parking spaces used than prior to the fire. My client finds Mr. Gorger.'s conduct in this matter a blatant attempt to unlawfully force them off of the premises. Mr. Gorgen has been fully aware of the reconstruction of the Boar's Head and it.s intended operation. Yet, he has sat idly by waiting for all of the reconstruc- tion and improvements to take place and now it appears 1.e intonds to destroy my clients' business. Mr. Gorgen has clearly waived and/or is estopped frog, asserting any rights he may have had in this matter. Should Mr. Gorgen institute suit against my clients they will vigor- ously defend Themselves and intend to Lring a civil action against Mr. Gorgen fox all damages proximately caused by his conduct, including John D. Mannerino DELOUD & MANNERINO Re: Boar's Head Bar - Grill June 3, 1985 Page Three I a . l + I punitive damages. I note,, in passing, Mr. Gorgen's state ,�i.;t to my clients that he will "spare no expense" in spending attorney's fees to evict any client from :.he premises. i Frankly, my clients would like to live peaceably with Mr. Gorgen and l operate their business. They are however being forced to the point where they have no choice but to retain an attorney and defend them- selves, and will do so, if Mr. Gorgen makes it necessary. In the event that you or Mr. Gorgen would like to discuss this matter with my clients, and come to an amicable disposition of this entire - hatter, please feel free to call or write my office, -- V truly you s RONALD BECK i i RB/mm t cc: James Barcena, Jr. Larry Arcinage 7 -`• VA ul 3i xrcz — a I I i Q0 -6 L—ot �i airy+ — . _ �� L —J ` Ik VA a .7� -•�� ens .1 •`• ' ' . . ; .f--f :. C,� E3 N"� r a rl ca o gas _c 5x -��- —�Q�j r 1 r �i9 � :: s -4• f •15 6L - �-IS •\ ' /d fir` S'+a ,r.,�. � 7/f� WOMB✓_ 00tIMElt -zoo, &OCi� WALL- 23 � Mj v i._ cM'.; t 1 _ ADZ) C� NGLr I,.YND�GJ . WALL s•7" 3 =741,vELrGG455 N CIV41vaE5 NORTH GFY OF ITEM. RANCHO CUCA.N ONGA TITLE: PLANNUNG DIVISION EXHIBIT:,!_. SCALE: . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cvCA MEMORANDUM o F a� Z _ U > 1977 DATE: May 22, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of th P1 nning Commission s FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant P1'nn r SUBJECT: CUP 78-03 - BOARS HEAD The Boars Head is operated by the same owner and offers lunch, dinner and bar services, but without entertainment. It has six employees at present. The Fire District has established a seating capacity of 90 seats. Attached for your review is a copy cf their ad in The Daily Report. RG:NF:ns I Attachment L. t: • I Z i q T q� Mt ' x # nTHa�s�ay l3 oz�„Prtme Rt (only, Iinne seFv d)�t s ,5r1 M ? Rac Qf Rib & ;l'z B B C * tc en': 55' $ �� �<{ ° a�T".k`��'a c,tif�� e�M�t��`J'tjtlglCt'.Dy^��4✓e�F� �; ' 'ti s � ,r-� 1 �— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cU�o STAFF REPORT o w � . v � DATE: May 22, 1985 W7 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 -BOAR'S HEAD - The review of compliance with conditions of 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 back this CUP for their review. The purpose of this public hearing is to (1) review the CUP to ensure consistency with the Conditions of Approval, and (2) consider modification 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 Xfire 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 from surrounding residents. However, the business was closed for a period of time last year due to a fire in the kitchen, The restaurant was 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 conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke 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 not 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 ail material and testimony Re�°presented and select from one of the options described above. e` su fitted, f• hick omez� pity an r ;IRG:NF:nS Attachments: Resolution 83-117 Plannning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1983 manning Commission Minutes of October 27, 1982 Resolution 82-98 Original Resolution 78-40 Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B - Floor Plan 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 ANU 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 mitigate the past disturbances associated with the use which are not in accord with the intent and purposes of the neighborhood commercial shopping district. TheT -ore the ,fallowing conditions are added to those conditions already -n of t per Resolutions 78-40 and 32-98, woeia,x,,��1�Y Gi���'• 1. The hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. .a ern: it lt�-93 2. Noise attenuating materials shall be installed to existing wails, 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. The Cnnditional 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 shall continue fr the life of this approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF September, 1983. PLA 1W. MISSION OF�TH-EE CITY OF RANCHO CUCP-iONGA BY• c. Dennis L. Stout, Cha'irman r ATTEST:' - C(frL_imL- Secret y of the Planning Commission 1 f� Resolution 83-117 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby- certify thae' the for,q?ing R=solution ,vas duly end regularly introduced,, aar�ed, and adopted by -the RYanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of zrte Planning Commission held on the 28th day of September, 1963, 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, Ak Jt cc I k- I - a PUBLIC HEARINGS C. CONSIIIERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION TO OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE HERMIT 78-03 - BOARS HEAD - This is a review of potential. operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended to resolve complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. Rick Gomez, City Plainer, 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 27, 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 owners 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 Kith the sheriff's department state problems with 17 and 18 year old kids �n the parking lot. He advised that these are not patrons of the Boars Head and could be Bob's Big Boy patrons, over which the Boars Head would have no control. He further stated that .many noise problems associated with the shopping center parking lot are not entirely originated by Boars Head customers and that many of'the problems, such as around the parking '. lot, are caused by people driving in off of Carnelian. He additionally stated that the complaint of bot`1es 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 most of the complaints come from one family, the Futrells, and suggested that possibly their religious beliefs play a large part in their complaints. Mr. Aroinage further stated that 60 to 70 percent of his business is generated between the hours of 11 P.M. to 1:30 a.m. and that if his hours are cur back, he could not economically 'keep his establishment open. Rick Gomez, City Planner, agised that the Conditional Use Permit was granted with the restaurant as the primary use and the bar an ancillary use. Judy Adams, 6611 Topaz, addressed the Commission in .apport of the Boars Head. She advised that she lives directly behind the Boars Head and has not been bothered by the noise problems since Mr. Arcinage took possession. She stated that if occasionally noise becomes a problem, she calls and the employees are quick to alleviate the disturbance. She pointed out that Bab's Big Boy remains open until 1 a.m. and agreed that not all of the noise can be attributed to the Boars Head. Planning Commission Minutes -2 September 28, 1983 r l C C Douglas More addressad the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating that the problem originates in that the Conditional Use Permit was granted for 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 ty, a of use. Mel 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 many 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.. 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 b•ting 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 oppositiorn to the Boars Head stat?:ig that this is not a compatible use in a res +ential neighborhood. t Gayle Dyke addressed the Commission in opposition stating that the hours of the Boars Head are incompatible with a residential area. f June Rice addressed the Commission stating that a bar should not be allowed in this area, however, a restaurant would be compatible. k resident at 6671 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that he has had a back yarA Hill of beer bottles and has had people come to his door asking to s use b ...;Lephone after:, being in a fight in the parking lot. He suggested E that the Conditional Use Permit should be for a restaurant, not a bar with rowdy patrons. Larry Arcinage, Boars Hea& owner, addressed the Commission stating that limiting the hours o oper`ution to 10 p.m> is not good business practice. He pointed out that Bob's Big Hoy 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 Head to close will leave a half empty shopping center, which could create even more problems for adjacent residents. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing,, Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 28, 1983 C Commissioner McNiel stated that when he knew this item was coming before the Comnission again, he visited the parking lot of the Boars Head around closing time. He stated that there was activity in the parking lot between 1,' a.m. and 1:30 a.m. and that by 1:45 a.m. the parking 'lot was empty. He ,o..nted out, that Bob's was alsry closing at this time. He also stated that he observed oma ear z-Aving behind'V.ie Boars Head and when he investigated, found that the chain had been removed. He further stated that he realized that limiting the houra may be the guillotine for the establishment unless they. change their method of operation, however, did not see any other -may. He advised that he would not like to be a neighbor of the Boars Head. Commissioner Barker 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 had 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 Fylend 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. He recommended that the Commission require the Boars Head to be a functional restaurant with a dinner menu and require i more compatible closing time or to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and require the establishment to close and be radnu :,d 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 tpe permit was based on the. Boars Head being a restaurant similar to the ore in Upland. He further stated that he realized that t&°. Arcinage and Mr. Gorgen have done everying they can think of to mitigate the problems and tte noise disturbances can be mitigated inside the building, however the outside noise is much more difficult to control and realiz! that some of the parking lot noise is attributable to Bob's Big Boy. Further, he was in favor of limiting the hours to those more compatible with a residential L area. Commissioner Juarez stated that people are b7thered by noise all over, however, they do not all cfmplain to the City. She ourther stated that this business establishment s Mr. Arcinage's livelihood anv she realized thal something has to bb done to mitigate disturbances, however felt the hours and days of operation were fine. Chairman Stout stated that &agreed with Commissioner Barker in that this use is not compatible with aresidential area and realized the Mr. Arcinage has t tried everything possible to mitigate the disturbances. However, iris preference wonld 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, could not see any other way to make this Ll3e compatible with nearby residences. .� Commissioner Barker asked if there was a way to insure that the dinner menu would continue to be in force. Planning Commission Minutes -4 September 28, 1983 C Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the condition 4 could be amended., to read that the dinner menu and the serving bf dinner was effective an September 27, 19B3 and would be required to continuefor the life of the approval. Commissioner Barker stated he would like to to assured that the establishment will not stop serving dinner after this hearing has ended 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. Comnissioner'Barker reco*ended thit•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 tha-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, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JUARE% ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Juarez 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 ■ a �aa ss D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-18 - HOWARD - The revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permir for First Assembly of God Church for the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues - >iPN 201-381-01. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.. Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 28, 1983 J. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - BOAR'S HEAD' Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Commission take public input on this item. Chairman King anuouzced that tine pub,tz_ was invited to comment, 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 approximarely.90 percent. He attributed this decline in noise partly to. the block wall, however stated that it could also be declining as it does in the winter months but increases in the summor, 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 sere as an indication to the Commission what kinds of problems are associated with placing a use such as this in a residential area. Michael Vairin stated he would .-ke to report what had been observed when the establishment was inspected prior to this evening's meetin.g„ He stated than the block wall requirement had been accompitshed as well as ;he planters which wer a required and a chain on the north entrance which has also been put. in AFL place. Further, it was assumed that this chain is being put up during evening hours, which is the requirement of the condition. iDoug 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 -laced on the chain but have .,�t yet arrived. Further, that he would not like to have a chain across that area witbout some type of reflectors because of liability. Further, that he had not observed cars parking in that area. Nice-Chairman Rempel 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 employeesf�*regarding the patrolling of the parking lot to F Eliminate noise and also to,�keep Boar's Head patrons from narking 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 wan quite skeptical tftt Mr. Arcinage would h be successful and complimented him -ind the shopping center owner on working out these problems with the members of the community. Planning Commission Minutes -15 January 26, 1983 c: • C.^�r7 r Commissioner Barker expressed his appreciation for the good faith g!r. Arcinage demonstrated in going about as far as any businessman could be expected'to go to solve problems. PLANPIED COMMUNITY 81-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPD4 NT COMPANY - Review nd final consideration of tho Terra Vista Planned. Community text nd final vironmental Impact Report. The project consists of approx. -tely 1300 . ao s and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on he north and sout and by Rochester and Haven on the east and west. Michael Vai in, Senior Planner, reviewed ,the staff report to the Comaissio; stating that taff was seeking final comment from th Commission on the proposed planne community and a recommendation to ." City Council dealing with the final ce tification of the EIR an, the plan d community text. Mr. Vairin further stat that an addendum had b1\en pre red to this report which stated that a reduce"on in the amount cf park d and greenways had taken place since the origna Plan, due to the applic ntIs use of the Foran Bill. The applicant had chosen o provide the minimu amount of parkland dedication of public open space. Fur er, the Commissin originally spoke in termb of a 60-40 percent ratio split tween public and private; however, under the provisions of the current plan, since the ssage ,�f the Fora., Bill-' t of overall open space requiremen had b n reduced, to approximately the ratio of public open space and 13 acres ese ed for PPra io of 42 acres public and 23 percent Private, a ratio of 77 percent P private. - Mr Vairin requested the Commission make a specific recommendation in the ,ies 1 ion to ishe City Council regardng the parkland dedication issue. In ra .rd t the Foran Bill, Mr. Vairin explained that the Bill states that °a al- ned dev opment shall be eligible to receive. credit"; however, the amount o-credit is be determined by the legislative body at the time specific dev- -nment propos s are being reviewed. Also, any other conditions the Cr-^l r wished than d shoulz! be included in the Resolution, Chairman King asked f the numbe, of acreage wha h would be provide,- under the 77 percent to 23• ercent ratio splia. Mr. Vairin replie that it was 42.6 acres r." public op space and 13.2 acres reserved for pr' ate in theasform of credit for a tota of 55.8 acres, the minimum amoun according to the Foran Bill. in-ad that this figure was rived from the calculnLlon of the estimated He also Pnumber of people contained the planned community. Chairma King asked '-w many acres would be provided if the apple ant chose to provi the minimum amount under the Foran Bill. Mr Vairin replied the minimum would h� 55.8. r..anning Commission Minutes -16- January 26, 198 � �- PLANNING-COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27,1982 Chairman Jeff hing called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon— :forma, to order at 7:05 P.m. The meeting ivas held at the- Lions Community OL__ - 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman icing then led in-the pledge of allegiance. f ROLL CALL- COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT. David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout,Jeff Icing COMMISSIONERS: F BSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director•,Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin,Senior Planner �x GJNSENT CALENDrtR A. TIME i',XTENSION FOR'PARCEL Mf.PS 6868 A`-ND 6726 Motion: Moved by Rempel,seconded by Stout,unaniriously a.:rled,to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS:.. li. C:s.1SIDERATIG1.N OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PE U0 T 78-03 -BOARS FI+EAD-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 of Carnelian and 19th Street. Michael Vairin,Senior Planner,reviewed the Staff Report. Jack Lam, Community Development Director,advised We Commission that the measures listed in the Staff Report were not intended to be all inclusive solutions to the problems; h*ivever,were intended to serve as a basis on which the Commission could act. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Frank Britton, Attorneyrepresenting, , the;appiicant 3991v. Miss'� eon, 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 approved by the ownership; however, the present ownership acquired the business on June 15, 1982 and could not be recDonsible for problems which existed prior to that date. Further, that the applicant was not aware that the original Conditional Use Permit indicated that the establishment would be a full dinner house,however had purchased the business with 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 area by security personnel, M:. Britton stated that this was already in effect. Also, a security guard had been placed by the ;^ont doc r who would be policing the outdoor area,seeing that all doors remain closed, verify ng that no minors enter, and prohibiting any person coming into the establishment under Elie influence of alcohol. In response to condition number three regarding blocking the entire northwest corner of the parking lot, Mr.Britton stated that this had already beer 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 ,ave to be accomplished with the owner of the center; however, suggeste that the Commission might desire to wait and see if the blocking of the parking lot would allevirie Otte problem. The requirement for speedbumps had been approved by the owner of t.re centcv and I'Ar.Britton indicated that these would soon be installed. Further, that heavy insulation and stripping would Ep installed around the rear door in an effort ;:o soften any sound escaping. Also, the applicant was agreeable to the rnnditior,.requiring review at any time by the Commission;however,the business could ncy ,leatinue to operate under the condition requiring a reduction in business hours. Chairman Ring 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. Britton replied that he would not be,able to proviti that information;however, Mr. Arcinage might. Larry Arcinage, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, one of the owners of the establishment, addressed the Commission and replied that approximately 6896 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 McNiei asked Mr. Arcinage when he expects to have the dinner menu ready to go into effect. f Mr.Arcinage replied 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 Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 27, 1982 • t and now he anticips`,ad 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 staisa,that he was agreeable to blocking off the northwest parking lot as suggested by 'staff; however,did not want to do the planting of the slope area suggested by staff as he.felt i! would not salve any problems, Further,that a wood fence had been placed behind the houses of the surrounding property owners,but the solution might be to put up a block wall. Also,he was agreeable to the installation of speedbumps in the parking lot. 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 landscagn:x,. Commission Barker asked how high would the waft be? Mr. Gorgen replied that he would suggest that it be 6 to 6112feet 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 vie to be analyzed from an engineering and sound attenuation viewpc,int. Commissioner Barker asked Mr.Gorgen if he was intending to place the noise attenuation wall at the top of the hill with the property owners'consent. Mr. Gorgen replied that he would be agreeable to placing the wall on the properties which are exposed to their parlono 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 iot 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 becaus a business should not be allowed to operate until 2 a.m.in an residential area. f' Bob Blascock, an adjacent shopowner located at 6636 Carnelian, addressed the Commission stating that while he could not attest to the noise problems at 2 a.m.,he has ''✓ occasionally worked at his business until 10 or 11 p.m. and had never been bothered by Planning Commission Minute:: 3 October 27 1982 noise coming from the Boars Head. Further, that sir.^e the Byars Head has been under new ownership there has been an improvement especially w Bch the litter in the parking lot,which had previously been a problem. There were i,o further comments and the pubii�'hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like.to address the issue of curtailment 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 should 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 McNiel stated that the majority of the problems seem to be created from the back parking 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 e::nergency. Commissioner McNiel then stated 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 amenable 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 area behind the establishment. Also, that ma;7be an appropriate way to deal with the issue since there is a`new ownership involved would be to pass all the conditions a:; recommended by staff with thg�oexception of the condition dealing with the hours of operation. Chairman King stated that he was aware that the maior grievance of the adjacent residents was the hours of operation;however felt that the prnblem of houx-s of operation in ccnjunction with the parking situation was what ma?.: the two uses inconsistent. Further, that he would be agreeable to passing the remaining conditions, chaining off the !ear parking area, allowing the hours of operation to remain as they currently are, 4nd 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 rJould be back before the Commission and further aol n would be taken. Planning Commission Minutes s October 27, 1982 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 use of this type,unless it was a restaurant,that close to a residential area. Further, that if it appeared that he wo''� lose the vote on whether the permit is brought back to the Commission in sixty dp,s rather than argue for an earlier closing time, he would:like to amend the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall so 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 wail could not be just a plain block wall but a wall with some type of deadening in it. Also, it should be a rough,textured surface or be planted with some type of vine. He also agreed with Chairman King that the Conditional Use Permit should come back before the Commission in sixty,days. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to suggest that this,N'pproval be personal to Mr. Arcinage because he may be willing to make a good effort to solve the issues at hand,but should he desire to sell the business,anew owner may not., Commissioner Barker stated that.he was still concerned with the 2 a.m.closing time in a residential area when it is fifteer 9 twenty feet from someone's back yard. Commissioner McNie?,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 this owner was hzig subjected to penalties based on what happened prior to his purchase of the bus:"less 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 2,31 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 bring the CUP back for Commission review at.the first meeting in January. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated th it it would but the Commission I might take into consideration th§ the first meeting in January may not give enough time for the negotiation of agreemefits with the property owners on the construction of the vrall, the wall eonstruction,'or time tosee if the wall does much good to alleviate the sound. Commissioner McNia:amended his motion regarding Condition 10 requiring review of the CUP by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 26,1983. AXES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel,King,Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker,Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Ank Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 27) 102 Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No on this project because they felt the hours to be incompatible with the adjacent area. 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 audience that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days of this meeting and that staff could be contacted for further information. Commissioner McNiel stated that he may have made an unpopular decision to some people tonight; however, would also like to go on record as saying he also would not hesitate to bring the CUP back before the Commission if a complaint is received. Chairman King recognized Edith Bartholomew, 5999 Napa, Rancho Cucamonga, who wished to address the Commission. Ms. Bartholomew stated that sie agreed with Commissioners Barker and Stout in that the hours of 2 a.m. are meter than any other businessin the surrounding area and too late for a residential area. Furth-'r,that she was totally against the sale of alcoholic beverages in a residential area. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7689"- STEPHENS A division,of 2.2 acres of land into 2 parcels within the R-1 zone Etiwanda Specific Plan),loc`ateed at the northwest corner of Summit and East/Avenues, Paul Rougeau,Senior Civ-,'Engineer,reviewed the Staff Report Commissioner Rempel asked if the area of local streets/had been looked into with regard to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to know where theyfare going to alleviate the need for dedication of roadway at the s>de or back of this property in the future. Mr. Rougeau replied that future,dedicatio1. was not anticipated because the future streets would bs installed so that the lotting patterns in a larger development would be 1 li developed to provide for the interiors reefs to be away from the border of this project.. ll Commissioner Rempel stated that on ot�,the shortcomings of the Specific Plan is that it does not lay out many of the stgee ,making it very difficult in approving parcel maps in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area./ Chairman King opened the�pu6lic hearing. Gary Sanderson, 9587 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga addressed the Commission stating that his client was in agreement with the conditions of both the Planning and Engineeri:i Divisions. In response to the existing streets, Mr.Sanderson commented that Fast Avenue and Sum 't Avenue realignments should not have any affect on this parcel. There were,,no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission itlinutes 6 October 27, 1982 if RESOLUTION 82-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUC41ONGA PLANNI4G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYINS 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 z Public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on the 27th day„ of October, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider _a .above item. follow.,,: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolves as SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed for CcnditionsT-Use Permit,78-03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances and bring tho use in accord with the intent and purpose of the.neighborhood Shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions are ad already in effect per Resolution 78-40: ded to those 2. Periodic policing of the parking 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 attenua jon 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 ound attenuation material as well as some a iti donal landscapirig between the new wall and the existing wall. The plans should be prepared as soon as Possible and installatiion, with the all r cooperation o property owners and before the January a8, 1982 meeting scheduled by the Commission. S. Speed humps shall be placed throughout the center. l ` f Resolution No, 8C_ Page 2 ti 6. An analysis of the building shall be conducted to determine the needs for sound insulation. Appropriate insulation Shall be needed. installed, if 7• The rear door of the business shall remain closed during evening hours, except emergency. in the event of an 8, The northwest pArking area shall not be use b Boar's Head patrons or employees and shall be appropriately posed. g. This Conditional Us,. Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commis,l'on on January 26, 1983, for a report on the perforiijance of the establishment. l 10. The business shall, alter its operation to include restaurant usage alld flood service during the evening hours. This is rEci�ired to meet the intent of the original approval and shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of th9s action. - APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TP DAY OF OCTOBER, 19a2. PLANNING CO MI SI N OF TTHC'r Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA B Jeff y C . n ATT T• , •Secretary of the PlanningJ-Lesion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of-%he Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cert-ffy that the fa_,,ing Resolution was duly 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 27th day of October, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, King, Rempei NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSENT: '"COMMISSIONERS: None RESOLUTION NO. 78-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCXIONGA PLANNING C0:¢fISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF CUP 78-03 - HONE - TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH RELATE) BAR FACILITIES AND MUSICAL ENTERTAIMIENT WMIN A PROPOSED NEIGH- BORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND 19TH STREET IN THE C-1 ZONE 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 Lhe above described proje_t. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTI n 1_ Tnat the following findings have been made: 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and landscaping and setbacks ea- are p vided which are ctmpatible with existing deve,, are in the surrounding area. �. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and N.- highways properly designed, both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. 3. There will not be an adverse effect upon abutting pro- perty. 4. Ir, requiring the conditions In the report, the Commission dEa:s suah requirements to be the minimum necessaryto proz4,t the health, safety:and general welfare. 5. This prgjpect will not be objectionable nor detrimental to eXip,6ng uses permitted in the zone dis trict in nhich 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 latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, 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 conformance with the adopted uniform signing program. 4. Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. 5. The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with Planning Commission review after 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 to all conditions within 60 days from approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF December , 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA ` Herman_Rempel, �Chairma Secretary of the Planning Commission 'i I, JACK W1, Secretary of the"Manning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, do hereby certify thaC'the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly y Introduced, passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a reg oar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of December, 1978. AYES: COMISSIONEAS: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: C01,01ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COM4ISSIONERS: JONES �'- 3 l F •10ti:ftt"*LOT'117R-4 2o1.ioa w!Wa1T.�iR.ry•le,FAIIT r =1.0 • � 2>a•O �S.:;r; �'�.h T- '. 1 '1•rDDO' :N•O. P J �d . • I mow+^���-+'�LK�rn4 +�2.r.[7 TZSS'Yt ti0(i{C-W b:I.M � 1.-_.. L=] -s coy-e d��'ot.o Na E .tri ;c y' �? c � r241r•sYi s+vti MnSr � 1 "_'-• r _r..l�.4 1�e^I S I ! i. '�— i d ia� ea a ar— • "' ¢ t s,rs.�A. Z —�ll�!J1TJ0\ - iPL.!4•a�@ I `�J. h4Ti•1 t� � _O C ZS to'o'-gf-_ rr/c„:' ..�.� / y- t { a�-1 ! r i. t :+1 1 .���- ■ ya. 4l' ' .� I 1 �ryo,.�y r-.--s/,���\.:�' _ ,ar�o!•lauunws ro e�v b ' i"•O'w2v l— "� "I—�� 'C lit i --en•»'n ac�y - t b��- t ICI 1 ( 1 I t i 1 I i h O' —t :.ter. •---�� : .r:�1a.s:-0�'6_.iKa' a <d.`,I ttiaor—• � � ,n:,c,.r i �>�•dt A•r1 .o�•of� sa�n.rsc� ax ct•+_ ,� � �y �i L^ Ire. -.a. ! •�-�1-' J.J._SI F 1 �., va''�•. Co. t?o't.v •4 vi ri `. } � l:tq 9'' �� 1 1 •te•T•u?'�a• F • 1 t •b i — •.� '� I.RR-N�LJr��.l ST�Er t " l E�He5 ' Ito �' - 60P O✓ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA «; STAFF REPORT oG' , 0 lc9� o a F 5*oo z U > DATE: July 10, 1985 1977 .TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City planner BY: Howard L. Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN[ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-15 - STRICKLAND - Tu allow construction of a 8,350 sq. ft. automotive service/tire store on 1.20 acres of land in tMyt Industrial Area Specific Plan General Industrial Distri:`-t (Subarea 4) located at the northwest: corner of Archibald and 7th Street - APN 2US-17.1-48. i. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reguested: Approval of a precise site plan and architectural design, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Development of an automotive service/tire store totaling 8,350 sq. ft. C. to:ation: Northwest corner of Archibald and 7th Street. D. Parcel Size: 1.21 acres. E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial District (Subarea 4). F. Existing-Land Use: Multi-tenant industrial. 0. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existino Commercial Center, General Industrial Distrijct. South Existing single family residences, Low Residential. East - Existing commercial, General Industrial District (S!�oarea 4). West - Exiscii,J commercial, General Industrial (Subarea 4). k H. General Plan Desionations: Project Site - Genera. Industrial District Subarea 4). North General Industrial District (Subarea South - Low Residential (2-»4 du/ac). East - General Industrial District (Subarea 4). West - General Industrial District (Subarea 4). ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT CUP 85-15 - Strickland July 10, 19`5 Page Z I. Site Charaet9ristics: The project site is relatively flat improved building pad within an existing industrial center. With the exception of sidewalks, all public improvements and parking facilities are existing. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The developers ,are proposing a 8,350 sq. ft. automotive service/tire store within an existing industrial. center (Exhibit "B"). The project will be situated on an Improved building pad ccmprising an office/sales area, waiting room, and a 14-bay rear service area enclosed by a 8' block wall with two access gates. The project proposal meets the parking requirements with 35 on-site spaces and the internal circulation is adequate to accommodate the proposed use and provide goon access to the rear service area fExhibit "C"). B. Design Review Committee: The Committee felt the architectural design elevations were incompatible with tie existing center and recommended revisions to reflect doming-at architectural elements such as tile r1jof, masonry parapet walls, stone columns, and wood trim. Additional Committee recommendations Ask included the use of similar materials/color and more landscaping along the west and north perimeter wail. Th,-: applicant resnonded to the Committee's concerns by utilizing similar building materials, providing more landscaped areas, and submitting revised design elevations which were approved by the Design Review Committee. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has reviewed the project and has recommended its approval subject to fire .protection u„basures -incorporated into building design and sufficient water rapacity. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the, applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse impact i on the environment as a result' of this project. If the Commission concurs with said findings, issuance o` a Negative Declaration would be in order. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan and City standards. r �Ta PL1,c,.;:..-Z COMMISSION' STAFF REPORT a CUP 85-15 - Strickland -July 10, 1985 Pa9i 3 IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in i"he Daily Report as a public hearing. In addition, the property was posted and notices advertising the pu5lic hearing were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received regarding the project. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the 'Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission can support the facts for finding,, then the tics of the attached Resolution and issuance of a :ga Cecla ation would be appropriate. R `.ly submitted, y �kic ume IV X I kPlanrrer !'.G:NF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map, Conceptual Landsc-iping/Drainage Flan Exhibit"C" - Revised Elevations - Site/Floor Plan Exhibit "U° Original Design Elevations Exhibit "E" Revised Design Elevations Exhibit"F" - Architectural Elements and Elevations of existing center Initial Study, Part II ftiolution of Approval Am k r ' F-3 J, !�"mYmaa' r = • s � sj� mnmwt �t�.n� �� IMMIIRib � oil u ZIaI4NIRk: ,i IYW 07gl/�!w� •.�'-,-.-�., +�Katti+mY�l 4 IItAM �e�nnt� ". i � '�K' q��1Y��y�_y pp1■ - r �>•� 11,IiH��11111� � swuiw , "�� atwnnw mp 2' Y., �,•F 7 r '�K'n••Jt�!`;�t�•r!.t�Ft�lryWiYnrTr..r1t -��t-.;r� - �.r;,t 6�� J t,?:f`1't 1T-•7,[•1 1 r'tz't C1:y r. .. 6. Imo—•' --- - �' �� i a f �. F er 1 � __gnc rn�altbdv �+ u�f�s Yn ii til,c of :1, Nl — V. _ 6 1 I . .. h - -�rrs:u�w��y.�n .h1N'�Ntl�i�tr1'_ t � -_• •i `�y f F- J C t' G At HJja - 3 lit 1 ;J a r� ►� �ru � iJ � , l� t�� � �I�i p�I� , � I 'f s i tia 1 — gu jjj �I ,IF Q 3 1 yaks' I' + Y � 1+ a R � mi �4]• � t Y t ��.+•q�� �'r'V' �i+21,':Tr STy't+,h ,�..•S �'� �h:` < r.; . ,tom y,�+cz; /� -F k• I: y _ r,vF L k til .1 i AM e �... s k _ t CITY OF =;CHO CUMUMONGA PART II INITIAL STUDY £NVIRDJn 4F,L +CRECUIST DATE' 57 APPLICA,tiT: �S%/LAC FILING DATE:�/YJ {,19 .S PROJECT: ✓rlGce.J Gr ,S� �" 7.Y`a fb'.�'T.' 7.7.ri'E.s`E/z�/,�C, PROJECT LOCATION: Z. E:?VIRO:^ffiNTAL IMPACTS .y �rv'�rrz.EE (Explanation of all "Yes" and "maybe" answers are regnised oil attached sheets). I YES rL4YdE NO 1. Soils and GeoloQv. Will the proposal have significant results in: a, Mistable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? ! b. Disruptions_ displacements, compaction or C burial of the soil? f c. .Change in topography or ground surface -_ contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification .Of any unique geologic physical features? a. 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, orssimilar hazards? h. an increase in the race of extraction and/or ~ use of any mineral resource? 2. lydroleQy. Will the propos results in al have significant ~ ' ltlts F--t a Page YES MAYBE SO Aft a. Changes in currents, or the course of. direction Of flowing streams."'river channels? s, or ephemeral steam / b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? / c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? / d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? _ ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? J f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? S. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, j either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer?• Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amuunt of water ether- 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 n; a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Meterioration at ::r41ent air quality and/or interference pit& the attainment of applicable t air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic d conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota t� Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, cr number of any species of plants?., b. Redec?' on of the numbers ';:f any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? 71 i Page 3 YES MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into an area l d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural (/ production? Fauna. Will the proposal•have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of spec;les, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals?' b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endingered rpecies 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 animas? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? - 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results a. Will the proposal alter the loca,ion, 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. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results ia: a. Change im local or regional Socio-econowzc characteris tics, 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 Plannine Considerations. Will the pro have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations,, objectives, Policies. or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An imp;-Et upon the quia9ay or quantity of i existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? �' o�rya .. YFs No 8. Trans�ortyCion, Will the prOposalhave significant t results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing, streets, or demand for new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking fao_ilities, or ✓ demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transpogta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? �! f. Alterations to .or effects oil yresent and �c potential, water-borne, rail, !nass transit or air traffic? g. Tncreases in traffic hazards, to motor vehicles, y bicyclists or pedestrians? N / 9. Cultural Resources. Will the 'proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbanL- to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? •— .1/ 10. Health, Safetv and Nuisance flictors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health ha2ard or hazardl, Potential health f b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? F C. A "risk of explgsion or release or hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals { or species of vector or pathenogenic I organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? y� f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? f h. An increase'in light or glare? Crage S YES N0 11. Aesthetics, Will the proposal have significant _ results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or v-,w? b- The creation of an aesthetically offensive sate? / c- A conflict with the objective of designated t/ or patential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal w have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? f/ I c. GG_munications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater Facilities? f. Flood control structures? _ t� g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including i goads and flogd control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results ins a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation c+f the consumption Yi of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible `x, renewable sources of energy are available? Page 6 YES `lAY3E NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or f sti.rce natural resource? a/ 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the�P-4ect have the potential to degrade the quaL, ty of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or Wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop. below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the 4isadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the err;i onment is one Which occurs in a relatively brief,, detinitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure. Well into 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 pant projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF n'L'1'.RoN ENTAL EVALUNTION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). Of 28 �'rj`ceJfdc�rl�Ctl. .eGa�c .0 y '000 y doh. % t � Pare 7 M. DETER.--- IO�T On the basis of this initial evacuation: Afik I find the proposed p=oject COULD NOT have a significant effect .find environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIO,4 will be prepared I,find that although the, proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there Will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures lescrbed on an attached sheet have been added to the project.- NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project "MY have a significant effc on the envi-nment, and an EN11RONMENT IMPACT REPORT .is required'. • J Date Signature Title 'r i 1 t _ r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. NO. 85-15 FOR TIRE OUTPOSE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST 6RNER OF ARCHIBALD AND 7TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIA. (SUBAREA 4) DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 6th day of May, 1985, a complete application we' filed by Bruce Strickland for review of the above-described project; and 4;HEREAS, on the 10th,day of July, 085, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, rfIEREFORH, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: j: . SECTION 1: That the following findings.can be tiet 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General l Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and l the purposes of the district in which the site is locat,:d. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions { applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the I public health, safety, or welfare, or materially i` injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a. Negative Declaration is issued on July 10, 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No.: 85-15 is approved subject to the fGllowing conditions: 1. Applicant shall provide details of the view obstructing gates for approval by the City Planner. 2. Applicanc shall provide 3' of landscaping along the entire west and north sides of the rear perimeter wall. 3. Applicant shall utilize building materials that are compatible with the existing center. AMftL Resolution No. UP 85-15 - Strickland Rage 2 APPROVED AND ADGTEO THIS LOTH DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST:_ Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary 1, flick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and -eoularly 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 loth day of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; 1 'ti $CL9a,y�L� Y OL dO�_=L n d'o qA O c .E 9 go qa `E + oc �o u A•Ar u .. c.M a9d'o. Lti'cam.. aN sd u L.q•n nT�n 290.5 0. ~pEaOY �S Y1rGT >�. €T cL.YD Yy 1N�U Oti: 90n0 C 0 P. ?O�e -T%d a.O� r,n _ w NNQ 4J �+ ti� �'ECU...6� L- .c 4..a O .V... n y0 V�d. Y L.60 d6n. dE��v U.2 S. rxx >� ,o'c ,amoyn �a u.A �.d� as coN ccs N.lmo O N0 8 EEEE - L xu o Quc ,` o^s N9 eu dc C M o d L A L 6qd ` dLLCO� 'T.Yd 9q¢ N 'Y N•.'.9M .. yN G}. y�qd � •�.d Y n gC O C ��^ 'V 6g � ^C E O u.- d oN o•nn^,fiL �.Cu a�^`N Y V }�L G ti O �+W O: r T...j VyyEE- CAEE QCdp nd.•r yOn N a6�y6 d O EA.O.gO tN�.L LVQ EG�. 1L.C T L E D• N O�r' . �:p c t N c 6yyO�C�Y Odds + • i c a L E y d O C 96 y.Ai Yt O d.N aYl N IT .It! t9� �- 1.� C CCb 6r Y l iE SA N S.- 6 .d�3 6OA �L pL.BU A6v2N e2— 1 N . t o O L o T O¢ Nap y E u. T ( a_»AI+ ' c y d 6 c _ .52. 0 y ENx Tau cWA ' ¢ pcd d. pm go Z ` d d'O O y 4• t O ram~t •n z' .dc Y O O ' Z So 9 L q C we L q. Y O iF. U YN4OO N u� ENEC nt�Y G � •.� G C �y � L �.N q9. G pTp.0 N h N O 9 0 v N N O O PC�w > A L w at n +t O� aE b01 N p � • M H.. 6a2 0 ¢ a IL-.q 6.�5 VOiq N.pcN N f~.l U � + V� J •a N 1.1 O y TMd� cagd jai rvT a aao.-•N•'ou� u^a iuda a d� OA.6^ C•5r p�dE ¢ EA O C • A Y�d -^ C a O^ G M t 4 p=G. 18.2 i y U d� Gy L r N L n •a N C O. . nd O Ly x � da Y p C C 2S^G. �Lr_ aCti TY a Z LY y. c y �. eEY enm oQu�a io vny`-FCOe r^y d u N ti V L. N Y Z ^ONL �d^O. `w pS"da00ir N9. L ESQ Yp. •I•J no .,d. u L - rrn9 m OTC W eY^ da w a Ny V Y CO. «dYgt0.1�t E O 4 C� A Cp V W O O yN Y. L ZL .O� C a.x.4.E d^ A�' O g r A g U.y'N G .O�yY LG6 C «LO.oX+u"icd sc N,o c p c N N c o iAN G3o �9 p'O U W C A .L � 9.r a.^� a g C r r..A Y O ^ C�q A • O Tab uaw VO dV..d.�>�O. Z^^xEzu�= C L CI O� r YC O Yr O aLT 26C ^Y Od00 LACd L T U UL ON C'O Tp A.. 'N O dam... 4.aj A V Q V�J d E 9 OI E S OI a O.N gg Y.d. E �L �p�b ^A Tn w0 V.W.O�C LC� ^ A G L r.:a u 9 ^ CA�` EI Y L O 9 n 4 E.d6 4HYv N NNL.S SNvU 6W NN V«�6 to-^_ aC 4id.L«d N66 V 9= ... p, oucad. a�ui �w A mi ui.T,ae.9 •a. ud�dN oya.ara. x A u Om•. O 9 b«^i LL u NY cat^ gi q y A 66 N.S`aA E^� G'W XL O + rtY yrj G'O C� Ad bA�N 90 6« .eEd 0072 NO=O ¢•a YT Edp.1 o a: a Lxc G Y cc C.1 CN +cOiu au- L c L � Y EYTq �� �.V B =peg` u , dO �L C J L^Y �S ^ AWS N.S Oa V [�icC ttGO^"a �Lp Nt dLe.A N V N�i LE Co � Y.0 .6� DorNq d N 'O 2 Y r C 2.2 A S 6 2 •i^u L.q'a O L@ d 0 Y r C .".S L y= 6 =99 Grn u ¢CYO V O }Y', L t C O.L 9 N d u N a Y V d Y x n« 9 x y C N .O S A N L aE LA C 9C A� 6.yea M. adWa ,.TO^a dy �a.09 60y xN WO^. xN`n C^uy Sq,U O C q Y o n + p 2 t*O- 9 .�C^d LN^^� yO '^dA a. aU^Ca�6N.A Agri r C N L r A Y N >d C LOLL O A u C\ O N N y C d S b L c �Y��. jAY A^+N- n9 po 9ad ^yY. E E u q A Qp V YTJ ZY _ UQ.a Nn� U.O boU 9a na �.a E t uYq d ^yirC •AW oN c t.,.M d dd^ UNN 9 w E d1 9a G� {CiT` n�p0 O C O n0 .m tl L VOl O to Gy Adpp C C% T� C 9 ^ r E�.'C OY O C d Ot} L ^C b> d U A A T.O a OEO� L L .OL N` OC.5-g. VY u . Ca9d^ . C lT > Y. d 6 d„ L O A i o G L 6 ~N+6 1�r N O n A.q 6 u U. M 9 6 a m M P L O O d N .0 c p u@ 0 �MYNCA Hv AiAO r b.ORO CO d ^ T-s OCOOd Tq0 L01 LO t C E (h Oc q OV d p d'j TO = d0 •�-4rI bC b tC O r L CCL qcm «. J - ^N Mx. O.. Cb dap. LCt i•d72 R 9~� p b y i q . O O L U d c> L I• q C EE qc > dYN �9L C �. N2AN Uu +• UL b^� t NT C T N m ` .'. c.• ^ NUN. d ^•MG dAN � b ' b0f x..• >T pN bb UY,O U� ..C- �a V O R d Y [t y p• ^ 4 O O a y b a d F /V. CV R a A a� A O.LL A ^a T Cb •O rn O L N t'U. u i r n% d o a a r q o d EE cxo n.rLO cY 0 C A d ay OV O _ L V A dU aN Y N.bm ,N Y ... MW E�Yv YLa.it N>.R Cpd Cp C Qf LOO.O N� a. L ta~ I+• Y d a�`'m d .'-bq aL� lac L._.- to ♦. u ZqN` E L N u d R d.Un p L' Y•f T q u Cf N L L O y LacA c q >sV aM Ew Eu t. arnoY.o-Na+Eu c �:' VI NqN 6N^ @v6i SNO HuYiL 6N Y��OV>OV p.N 60 4R� a 4.Y {LON6x O t \O t NI CI NI �) �I Q)I OBI aI �I I. M F Nr ^ cq S. •a s. n. a 2,924 ^> >^ d ba m g« N2. N o'. 01 dY. ney ;Rb ^n� NNbq Y _- a OS Td CC« ftb.pV3� Nn. �du^ Eq .~- pN Lq Lc Na L. @N4L 2 au "T� Rq R30. bM a` u«qQN aaa �b N bra Cdp aiL eL o b^ � w M «a GC q i.NC O NO. o ,dam «�. 90t dCJ N �d c „R•r �' q n = non. ��-aonx '+ a'a uii Aa o^ da Nub jb W^ Y C t9 YNwL `br^ =Nt hjYR , _ _ ...bL b N+' RE N d N Amy bpN �• �L�. �Nq bU 2i L� N L'.O Na pMy u 0 b•��b ay^ N O.r ^LL La"R 1.2 PjE i �yG. CVYCLIO 9 bd RICO bNO;`EEE 6 u=0 d bdO.Yp L p.q R t.0 p N x. L9�.� �a N ..�•O b b • Y C� ~ 9N 1.1 CC>AY.O a m«a N u b abi a9: c.Li u rn ^E d..• ` V c G • C7 u p 4 C O t q OI� u �'•N d N U V U n�Ly uERo u qc 9m nN. >a 9.4`i E",oy nLv @YNO @qb. }. CyN /�.pn 6ti 6b !-ON.Mq 606: 4NMR WdG.•+N«W ear N NI �yy �e a c >, mA u Yv L Yr cc A^ � C N C 1D•q p�u V: ^N •. N u6 IL.Y �! u E E c S d N O +� E Y T W E c b a O t G Y O G 6 A N O O p YQE �.y qET U RN N C a G >uE v u. FF Cq .�J NE L _ Lt �ACI OI vY Gp££CN.LW LO{C LL 6E O� t 0bly y. C SON Z »�? CEd AO NU W yY0 C� Wy OKYyTj U^ u�0 rL0 LL:uENEi yE^Y q+•YT� by > CE U 00 buu Yam, d00:.'.,Ix-. Y€qe L�Ny Ac Wq«ya m CL O •"'� �.uo Cc dyu r €A tOT dOC ggYp r � y Nd .� G C,..M^ V `rW pN NqT C O E. Y r0 A.EaC ` Y - u ,y+ d N.p�LL. NabO'^. 0... TVr^.•Y r �uN dLp.G p6 Md U Y,bd C ^90 N.O� dz i.<o U ..N tvyj pr o Bray ^ X� b'dd VOn N Y. N i{aii�C ^A O Y L N I. N C^O Y F N 0 y4 T p.d CC 6 d Y O y Tt �Y L ` N CI. Y q W N Y.p Y Y°1 !i. C CYp.UN E Eas 9NT-w N $ oa j e nLo py� S Y FLEy OL q0l� p �•-r� 6 6=Y� a�..i CTY• NAN TY. N u bcE p Lp Yue a v p L L^ TOY v t tr bu. Lrn3GYJt L �Avm h¢nN 9Ea:Ana re p r-uwL :o o-.no y.c » z iva � S A COL Wq an• 2.�,r d0 YO .Y� M AY A.0 a N d a EEY_ C=C q L O Y E v L S L 9 y^ � Na r01d Our C =9N0 r� LLB• c bL `++.n R. �nuq LY N G9E qA Y.i —o, YLq ~ > o Ao y •a ALA V iN d0'A ib +• ^ ai bT Y. A A d^ O d T O Y Q N C N O=. YA 9 d y N S b�G 9.y. pl 'o. bub Aq yyyq �00. Cvl ud pN L^ CVX U LLW y 9r�6 En p.�,d p0 �C YO.{pLY�N 6`� EV A. Vq6 CyUV,2 6w:c Or aou O ELF yLC Y yT v qC NNLY Nd.rrna �L d �NL ^ w i_ �G b 0• . b ..�E O ^ y O d Y.� �6r� u� �q r �NY v.5 yi ^ oc uc L OETM. yYAo.N n� c � a.,. avi cny La 6 NCY Ap ^a mo L` u j y � i L O� L a A.tiO AE Y 01t` Sys G. � a^.srn pTM FOb-�A^ Vp N Y YaN� ^ OI � 9NapiXL A 1N'O Aa9 OI r.4 EA yYb y0 C2 q O Lp'r NC� �q0. NW A.�i NVXO Yd ! Y^ E e TOu C. '^fy � V• N-��' n � q ^O �p\Ot LCYY O TO aTC q 1 Y u p OVA mu-- ACC 0... a Op Y L•r. q CbL'1 E� L u O r L F Na YY. »N •rC• SO+• JLE� 6 YnC N.�' <L0 CVN� U WW WES. 6Vu �n H npl ti b d � L ,` soo o G aco..NG mnqu «v c e .9v+ Noa v ^.G. Ll O YdA^ ae (`y{�` «AA bO LbLL O O rO p ya G OIa a� dW p V N L L S U S aN «... Yb�LL dam• N �� G9 C.. s, NL LM. `yN i'r.N. ji AqE �'O L� Arrn ^c �L L Ets s'a 'n a o€ L "Ac s- <ApxO - a. NN ddq@ y.N q OL Y. w 4a. Yd... ON w Y y OOd WN. 0.0 Nagy 9V A q ! q Y•q r CE.�.raC din N A C A V d C @ N �zrs Z23X tib b d C Zp Yq M« �NOd LP�r Mpgg. nU 440. >� T dp Nam.C. My+.. b b 0 d L L A L N L O d L V. V LL O ' a^c:'= Aov. a �~ a'A n o.. boom pcu .-v^o ••� .cd"f. = m oa pE o Lus oo L. uo N^ p yv 9 b w C OO�W GW � �nN YV GN KSO+6L.G KYM Ct O 'Si ,l t7 � x J ' 9� V9 O Oda A „ OA G y. CO9 ttU LNT OV«P� N iZ.2 L M^.9L aY�Gn O 0C19 G ^... _ �L4I W mC � U u .ram. Su yL A q � TL 9A0 ydaNc. ``� G pY q! C bL Y■ GaSCI CG 9� ptl. L �o= N pACC R r~„w Qc uN CM�.� CCU•~ Y i p A A= Y NgCyg A O �Ot L +.O Y v m C LL a g A TO dt] AY a0.^ �iY 4 A6 C� L CLL NIr NYy QI V+b Y�Z N C N 6 u A Q� $dCC O V C Yy,M gip` ~qE a ApN pp dF Y:.q O 9.p dtN d c LOq Y a O L i Mmy— Ld O1'gU Oia=o^ ^� Go «� b o,^. L _ �N 9= bLp �UCY ^.p S4 Y 69 9 aA^off �jOYO �=_ G w.a N... ng a avpi w m c r C LOAN dam. L �_ Ea N g y Q L M _ gg Y C NOV .O LY Y CE Oo •A Lb zr YA ^Q Y A d.i,Y COLN. abi Yua=N E Orb O� da a. Y� OH N YEC=Ai4N OpbO> Np��>S N.GO Nag 9A � qu 0u OA SON dOL1 A ' WN9F W YY �C U'L�SS .6w !O SS Q�u 1=0 Q Iz ,/7 »`a ` C1L7yr•.q G NC d ^ 40^aM aF.• 2E 1r.y W i y • uF=O= � L O L `� 9a3 O N W'O^t^.G O C y d N^L W L w V �dLo.i V u y d ZO sa L O M O..• L uyoL yO.T i.NU •+ G 'V U6M .a ; w Z. i•q n2 p r uq a V D L6e66''.0 •n OQ � pOL LO.Y C� Gc'O. nW aL ~ 09 aLi _ a.. r}'•`s � o Ntea• i coin > _ P � •'- �„�Y Q�q waN+ qy Vr L� �a cf30LL LNY RV �da a^P6 qM dO pLL and yy cd LF^UN b =y O N O oEi r. L L OI c y c'OA N 9 PI L 3;Z p. O d oN&s� EA'8C ''� NNN66« � L iZG P N qaw� •yi•L 6w A� F'a.N 4� 8L EEyy n OAR L 3 c0: pY NE3� nG.pN ci L'L O•d O•u dp�•U. GT. a L LT^ea p:0 ^W.c« a Ta�. •L AL �w�u t u '8= Qa Ntq O dq.Nd A✓UL Lr y0• 6t OTC w d^ E W c N G C p y A 2'2 Rua's EE o n a^L. E d cd9 d= yM G `.? L tt NT Pu ♦ TW B ^R C %�(1 d o L 1/�QW Ar QdNV V3l.O.Lar yyj9 TY�Y 4tl 6� WLNL Lt] SC at Q M a oo u o o Nu u N c u A Ol �+ a•2 Y� ON a � � � i.id wa ir g u Vi- a: Si a e a .O"Z^.+ Mr G QO T p DyY 3`O w p oQVig- E t c. ntiC ad V yti 0•�4' NN ♦ Y� � C C �aC `d anN Oq. ^Q _►O .Ld.. ao. � g c d z'ON Nal@ci UW ".wU cN C V y�Y w 6 Y. + wpC tI EE EE Via. f� Maw 1 TN Vy�. 6 N� N.01N dO CM Ly LI i:J �. V M L ^W s o LC ^'V L O OCcrY 6 C' p J p .•O.^y 6 R 6 S L W Z L 4.1 w.w N 0: Q L tJ•� � � U L 4 Q 6 w ii `7• � YOB O O� U O•« u Cam! Gi^ 1 aS yr a MV ra q �O-a1...p m�`o• .rn K 'g ny� C 2 u • C '. p E ���\\ v U C V E M Y U O i•` > Y 4-1 w w� q Eo^ 1. V �� r W q T TV 1y ON C 5_CL Y� U•'• ^ef w �E Cy MY °1 ouq u U N ny Y a d N dy 6 ^ N ^p Y Y E dti NOG V O u q O r L Y nN y9 Y!� `C aq Npu rnC Y9r ^^ qp t d O YVY �Oj MY O Ov >W� E Uy i >� V p� Cit O. 6Y N.0 CC « » O� C. Yt G6 N LL6 <6 H� 4piOJa tkI O O. 1 I �M Yq O u0 L loZ p y i V y` d Ix O. .Cy Nr V 2yOT p d Ol L G q a o Y y L O r `^ :5 r, ofw. zw G O`k„ W T y W qG L G V U q Y YO..y q Y •• O. V U d N T. 6•- d .^ o Eq c N EGE y O> ` aar+ 9 C`V Na tL yy Y N G C �N o=r � B. �s 4 o q�� g a y^ • on Ow vi Y? L L d p^ N V ^ V L tea• •„� V G qd yr C qU G d00 OC •r.�. G qQ G UO• E` qn qp6 vNO C 6 O C Q N v O LL G 9 6 L Y E.. CL. L i� vppN 4y V. C tit 9p� 6.p <6N Y O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wcAMO STAFF REPORT n�9 �. s1 O O Z CJ > DATE: July lO, 1985 I577 TO: Chairman and. Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Ass`stant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-16 - CUCAMONGA CHRISTIAN FELL��HI - A proposal to ocater a church facility within an Industrial Park (Subarea 4) at the northwest Corner of 7th Street and Archibald - APN 207-171-46. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a non-construction Conditional Use Permit. B. Purpose: To establish the Cucamonga Christian Fellowship. C. Locations:. Inland Center, west side of Archibald, north of 7th. D. Parcel Size: 1.68 acro E. Existing Zoning: Subarea 4 ` F. Existing Land Use: General Industrial G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Subarea 4, Mini-Storage South - Subarea-4, Vacant [3%5 - Subarea 4, Inotistrial Park West Subarea 4, Industrial Park H. General Plan Dasignations Project Site - General Industrial north - General Industrial, SouthGeneral TIustrial East - General ,.>as iaT West - General InKstrial ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT f11P 85-16 - Cucamonga Christian Fellowship July 10, 1985 Page #2 I. Site Characteristics: The proposed use is located within an (�~ existing multi-tenant industrial center. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed use is to be located at 9050 Archibald See Exhibit �%'% the site of the former New Walk Ministry. The major issue related to institutional uses located within industrial areas is compatibility with surrounding tenants in terms of parking availability. The major parking area for this unit is in tha front along Archibald. There are 18 available parking spaces for this unit dur?ng weekdays. This church will require. 122 parking spaces. There are 148 spaces within 2501 of the church unit. The only mina: conflicts appear to be with the fleet parking of the San Bernardino County Public Social Services and the Sunday operation of an auto parts store. The area of fleet parking was not included in available parking and six space-should be reserved for auto parts customers during church hours. B. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee recommended approval pending Foothill Fire -'kistrict final approval prior to public assembly. C. Environmental Assessment: The proposed project has been etermine to be a categorical exemption (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1), in which it will not have a significant effect on the environment which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. III FACTS FOR HNOINCS: The proposed,project is co, 'stern with the Industrial Specific San. Thn Nropcised use, t-,ether with the recommended conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the public health or materially injurious to properties in-- the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertiseu as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, j notices were zont to property owners withi►. 300 feet of the pro-acc t site- J - F �� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-16 - Cucamonga Christian Fellowship July 10, 1985 Page #3 V. -_COMMENDATION. If the Planning Commission can support the Facts for Findings, then approval of Conditional Use Purmit 85-03 through adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions would be appropriate. Respectfully subgifi5e), k 1 ;r r N Rink G';ez C"ty P ner RC:JM:ns Attachments: ExhWt,- "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "6" Site Plan ® Exhibit -IC-- Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval l it►�� �QS.IL' ''.Z'.m"`atr utsua =TM*r«�� r � . . . . oil subare subarea 10 1� NURTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING r • i • s cs w I_ K C V O < O O -n «� m z C ! � CCA ?o Ll ILI L f C ' O 1 Q I � m , i I � o CP I I� acroY �r(+�r nNN�.n w Ia a 'ro a i O 1- W 0 Mpr KN 07 N cwWr 01 1 m cl n ARCHIBAL AVEINUE CITY OF ITEM RANCH() MCAXIO GA TITLE: S I TM ` -L At� PLANNING DIVOONT EXHIBIT: 12�) _SCALE= G-s r r � c it t t 1 ! lei I l t t t r i _ �.; I - i I I I 1 I � i • [ t�i I I I 1 i Ott [ `. t ! ; ► i�[ I ! I' ( tf t f ( 1 I I i t l i t. i � t ► ► 1 1 t TO 1 ! I t t ! 1 I tai l 1 1 { V I ! r4 NCH AAA L Z) CITY 01 .: RANCHO �c �_ )NmGA T.ITt E: PLANNIi G DIVISION EXHIBIT: SC.AI,E.. Cto `, Cu_carror_ga (ctzziitiar_ F_ffocv:s4; , 8386 Lsucitc St,Rlncho Cucamonga,G,.47:30 G141487-1362 E^'JIPP:RS MINISTM t' lwvp Fitch - - The:.' It Jeff Richard Cungregauon ¢ Vick.Hotrver The proposed use of the building at'9050 ArchiFlld. Ave. will be a place of worship and.Christian Education for the Cucamonga Christian Fellowship, a member church of the Free Methodist Church of North America. E The laci: ity will be used during normal business hours as a church office. On Tuesday and Saturda even:ngs from 7:00P.M. to 9:00 P.M. the facility will be used for adult-Christian Educati n classes. On Ssnday mornings from 8:00 A.M. to 12::O P.M. , ana Sunday evenings from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. as a place of worship. The church employees would have little if any impact on the business F" ark. The church currently has two full time p y pastors, one part time pastors and a part time secretary. The reasons for selecting this site are as f•)llops: \, 1. The site has been used in the past as a church, and therefore is I alreaey designed for that purpose. Selegl'in€ ano*her site would C most likel�k require major,Istructural changes. - 2. The Inland Business Park has many business and shops, 'jut only ons is'iopen on Sundays, end none are open after regular business hours. Therefore, the site has a large number if parking spaces that will be available durina`weekeads and after regular p busuxess hours. 3. The cost per scgrare foot is within the financial ability of the church. 4. The facility is highly visable to the community. • Steve Fitch t �� Pastor of Cucamonga Christian Fellc-ship Th - 1 G-7 ',A church on the Grow" Aft RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCe.MONCA PLAT °'NG COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-16 FOR A CHURCH LOCATED AT 9050 ARCHIBALD IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, an the 1st day of May, 1985, a complete application was filed by Cucamonga Christian Fellowship for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of July, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission rescly d as i SECTION 1: Toat 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. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will ;ot be detrimertal 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 Development Code.' SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85-10 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become void upon - change of ownership, or the use ceases. 2. The site sh*ril be developed in accordance with tne` approved plans on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Industrial Area Specific Plan regulatiuns. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner and Building Official. i G_Q PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page #2 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, all other applicable City;Ordinances, and applicable community plans or 'specific plans in :effect at the time of occupancy. 4. Any signs proposed for this Conditional Use Permit shall be designed in conformance with the 'Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shell require reiview and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. ` S. If the operation of this chujrch causes adverse effects upor, adjacent businesses or c�perations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought beilfore the Planning Commission for their consideration and p(+ssible termiisation of such use. b. Pubiic assembly or Targe group meetings (50+ persons), shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code anT State Fire Marshall's Regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection Disitrict and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for' compliance prior to occupancy. 7. The building may be used for religious assembly and group meetings only during the weekend and after 6:00 p.m. on weeknights. &, Preschools or schools are not allowed by this permit; ` however, this shall not preclude nurseries or Sunday School. 9. During church functions, the 8 parking spaces adjacent to the auto parts store should be reserved. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF JULY, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHES CUCAMONGA { BY: •Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary i PLANKING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page #3 I, Rick Comet, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoixsg Resolution Lwas duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted'by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at'a regular meeting of the Planning Coinnissioll :eld on the 10th day ! ,luly., 1985, by tie following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSt ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS` . l i i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G�3 A STAFF` REPORT' Gad �? O3QQ K Z DATE: July 10, 1985 1977 ► TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Nimmission FROM: Rick Goiuez, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 85-05 —DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER CITY OF LOS ANGELES - A proposal to reapportion 4 lots on the north side of the 8300 block. of La Colina. These lots will not meet the minimum lot size nor the setback requirements of the Very t,ow District - APN 1061-191-10 and 11, and APh 1061-201-e9 and 30. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Reduction of lot size and building setbacks. B. Purpose: To allow Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to fee own their easements. C. Location North side of the 8300 black of La Colina J D. Parcel Size: Approximateiy 1.8 acres (4 lets). E. Existing Zoning: Vrrx. Low F. Existing Lund Use: Single Family Resi3°ntial and Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use and Zonings Nori h Very Low, Vacant Souti Very Lowy Single Family Residential East - Very Low, Single Family Residential West Very Low, Single Family Residential H. General Plan Dcsignationst r-oject ite - Very ow North Very Low South - Very Low East - Very Low West Very Low I. Site 'Characteristics: Site slopes toward the south with a 2:1 slope at curb aide. Lots 30, 29 and 11 are vacant. Lot 10 has a single family dwelling. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Variance 85-05 - Dept. of Water & Power, City of L.A. July 10, 1985 Page 2 II. ANALYSTS: A. General: The Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, desires to obtain fee ownership of the land under its easements. To do so, they are proposing to reapportion 4 lots. On two sets of lots thpy propose to swap the northern half of one let with the southern half of the adjacent lot, thus creating too lots with pride frontages along La Colina. Of the 4 dots, one lot currently has a dwelling unit, and it';, owner, Malton Youngblood, is in agreement with the proposal. B. Lot Size and Setbacks: The reapportioned lots would not meet the Very Low Distr`^t's minimum average lot size of 22,500. The two lots would >.,easure 17,845 and 17,2.45 square feet, a reduction of 5,100 sq, ft. The new lot dimensions would not allow the existing house (Parcel B) to meet the uL District j setback requirements. -urther, the setbacii requirement greatly restricts the placemerit of a house on Parcel A that is compatible in size to others in the neighborhood. Analysis of { this proposal has determined that the following setback reductions will oermit a building area suitable to the existing neighborhood (See Exhibit "C"). REQUIRED PROPOSED .SETBACK ARCEL PARCEL—B Front Yard 421* 37* No :hange Side Yard 101/15, No change 151/3' (carport) Rear Yard 30' 15' '14' * From face of curb Currently, the rEar half of these Jots ;Mls under the DWP's easement. This restricts the allowed use r)f the rear yard to agricultural uses that ea not interfere with the uninterrupted use of the Department of Water and Power. The exc;iange of trod would allow full use of the balance of 1-And. II. FAL(S FOR FINDINGS: The size of lots created from the reapport•;onment of land does not meet the required lot sizes of the base district. This and the configuration of the new lots will not psrmit conformity with required setbacks. Therefore, the following findings can be made: A. that strict or literal interpretatiin and enforcement of ) the specified regulation would rFsult in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship iiconsistent with the objectives of this Code. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Variance 85-05 - Dept. of Water & Power, City of L.A. July:10, 1985 Page 3 B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances: r or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of tha property that d_ not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. t �. D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties c"iassified in the saute zone. E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or wslfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report. and public hearing notices were posted on the site and sent to all -erty owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject site. { V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the' Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this Variance. If after such consi "6ration the Commission can support the Facts for Finding, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Res!�ctfu bmitted, u is G e ity Planner RG:JM:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Plot Plan Exhibit "C" - Setback Requirements Letter of Intent Resolution of Approval i .OS f r a L - VL AFC I os — " Y OS V NURTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIaNGA TITLE-�ltc_r 1trY jtil1AQ PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- & SCALE- �p P• \�' �59 �ln-, �3 ��ROE � ' /- 00. 0. f , - �6A Z�i,b 1 ^O ' , A ro0°0 pF�. .� FT. .1haA550. / 60Lti ,�r Z gT SE tP� 0 p1 0�'i' \ 60 � a. \�Ol• P��EL p - N RTH CITY OF ITEM.' RANCHO CLTCA M �'G�1 ' -TITLE:_ - o PLANNING DIVISION EXHIB t': SCALE. O Standard V L Setback Requirements 25 Proposed Setback Requ'sremernts CITY OF 1T&I RANCHO CLTCAMO\1GA TITLE: sic PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT---(Z _SCALE. N-L 4� Department of Water and Fbwer ��� the Ckyof Los Apples x TON IIRAOI.FY Cn.MMinn Nagnr JACK W.1 EENEY.Prrtid-1 WALTER X ZEL%IAA.1&r Pmidmi i'MIL It.t,\�F.Grams`.llaoaerr-mf Chirf Ptlrnrrcr RICK J.CARVSO \OR\tAV F.\I0I00-4-o.ni General tlomgw-Amer AVGFI.if.FCiIFVARRIA Ul'•\tF I_(i,oR(iFSOC. (w.mnr 6rnml Mnarer.Ilarrr G\H(11.1CIIFFC •I FR \oH\b\\ .('O\YFt'ti.(7nrt(•inun�mf Of i-er J1111117 R fD\YISO\..Ve Mf rr June 5, 1985 DWP Files P-32992 and P-63206 City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Community Development Planning Division 9320 Base Line, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Gentlemen: The Department of Wate,. and Power of the City of Los Angeles he-,eby requeats the approval of a zon# aariance and setback variance. Upon approval of the variances requestee, 've ask that approval be given to our request for related lot line adjustments. Enclosed are tb-.filing requireaents for the variances requested: one (l) site plan map, check in the amount of $272, unifoi.l application, three (3) sets of gummed labels-property ownership list and radius map. Also enclosed are the following required data to be submitted with the lot lines adjustment rercest: a drawing of proposed adjustments and existing lot lines, legal descriptions, title reports, and a check in the amount of $186. In connection wit.. the Department of Water and Power's program to s acgriire the underlying fee interest of-the Lugo Junction-Firestone Juncti<< Transmission Line Flight of Way 25B, an exchange of the Department's excess pareil, South 1l2 of of 29, Tract 7596, with the privately owned North 1/2 of Lot 28 and subseikuent merger of,the South 1/2 o:: Lots 29 aad 28 of the same tract into one lot is propo.eed: The new lot (see Parcel B of enclosed site map) wi1.1 consist of 17,242 square feet. We ftsthar propose to merge the 4 DPpartmt-It's two excess lots'consisting of tile South 1/2 of Lots 30 and 3 , Tract 7596, into one Lot. The new lot (see Parcel A of the enclosed site map) will consist of 17,845 square feet. Neither of the merged lots will include any portion of the Department's 450-foot-wide; transmission line easement located to l � the r.crth of the subject rroperties. The merger of the subject lotC would abolish existing. lot lanes aicd redivide the land into lots that are below the minimum required depth of 150 feet for the minimum net area of 20,000 square feet or minimum net average area of 22,500 squats feet. A seg;* variance and side aad rear yare .etback f variance to accommodate the existing two-story, single-, family residence on H- t I I I North Hot*Street.lee Angel".California❑A/aifing addrra.-Box 111.Las Angeles 9W51 Telephone:(2131 48142*1 Cable addrei 0 D191At'OUL 1 - Cty of Rancho Cucamonga -2- June 5, 1985 Lot 28 (14.8-foot rear setback and three-foot side yard) and the proposed two- story, single family residence on Lots 30 and 31 (17-foot :ear setback proposed) will be required to legalize the proposed lots. The subsequent approval of the lot line adjustu,ent =111 create two (2) nonconforming legal lots*(aee enclosed lot line merger The granting of the requested variances and lot line adjustment will be of mutual benefit to all, parties involved; namely, Malton Youngblood, owner of Lot 28, the Department of dater and Power and the City opt' Rancho Cucamonga, Mr. Youngblood nrw has liaited use of the rear half of his lot due to the Departcent's transmission line easement. The easement precludes any buildings, structures and flammable materials of any kind. The only allowable uses within the righ%: of gray are those grazing and agricultural uses that will not interfere with the free and uninterrupted use by the Department. The exchange of Mr. Youngblocd's rear portion of Lot 28 for the front (S 1/2) of Lot 29 would enable him to have an unencumbered fee-owned parcel.. The ne-t lot will be as useable and compatible to all other lots in the sur.oundtng area. The Department of Water and Power will benefit in its program to acquire the underlying fee interest of a portion of its Lugo Junction-Firestone Junction Transmission Line right of way. The Department requires the fee ownership of properties in this area over which we presently have an easement to insure the safe, efficient and uninterrupted operation 6f the transmiss"In line and to eliminate encroachment problems due to the unauthorized use of the right of way. The ownership of the fee title would allow the Department to protect the integrity of its high•-volti3e facility, thereby allowing us to maintain better cor'sol of the transmission line, provide better service to the public, and to imp;aave ^to=urity xelat:L; �s. j Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, we. have three (3) substandard unbuildable Utz. ranging in size from 6,916 to 10,929 square feet. These lots are a continual eyesore to the neighborhood since they cannot be developed independently. The appyaval of the variances and lot line adjustments requested i would allow the creation r,.f two (2) legal, buildable lots (averaging in size over 17,000 square feet) f4,lfilling the City of Rancho Cucamonga's planning goals to develop the area into a reAdential community. If you should have any questions or if further information is required, please contact Mrs. June Iwamoto at (213) 481-5941. tit'.ry truly yours a Chief, ,Rr. Estate Officer r� Gnclosures , 'K ,z-'EaF'+Y..+ a, �,M ;.. 0701-0 Q 7-10 .85 P*C. Ag�enda Packet o Page `3 of 5 RESOLUTION N0. A RFiOLUTION`'OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 85-05 TO REDUCE LOT SIZE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LOCATED .RIGHT SIDE OF 8300 BLOCK OF LA COLINA IN THE VERY LOW DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 6th day of June, 1985, an application was filed and accepted on the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of July, 1985, the Planning Ccamission'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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. 2. That there are exceptional nr extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply enerally to other properties in the same district. , S. That strict or literal ;r;terpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the i owners of other:properties in the same district. 4. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified I in the same district. 5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Resolution No. Variance 85-05 - Dept. of Water & Power City of Los Angeles Page 2 SECITON 2: Variance No. 85-05 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions. 1. That the minimum lot size be reduced from 22;,(00 sj. ft. to 17,20U sq. ft. 2. The setback requi,^ements be reduced as follows: Parcel A: Front Yard Setback 37' from face of curb Side Yard Setback 10'/15' frrm property line Rear Yard.Setback 15' from p,.roperty line Parcel B Side and Setback 3'/15' from property line i Rear Yard Setback 14' from property line j APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 1985. 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 foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,•'and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamongo_ at d regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of July, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGt?4 STAFF REPORT 0 0 ^� > DATE: July 10, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12969 - YAZEDJIAN A total residential development of �4 single family homes and two duplexes tooling 28 units on 4.78 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8' du/ac) located at the south side of Arrow Highway, between Comet Street and Sierra Madre Drive - APN 207-222-08. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. .fiction Requested: Approval ,s subdivision, ,ite plan, and elevations. B. Purpose: Construction of 24 single family homes and 2 duplexes. C. Location: South side of Arrow Highway between Comet Street and Sierra Madre Drive. j D. Parcel Size:. 4.78 acres. it E. Existing Zoning_ Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). t. F. Existing land Use: One single family home and-orange grove. E G. Proposed Densitj_}6 du/ac. H. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac). South - Single-family homes; Los Residential District (2`-4 du/ac) East - Single family homes; tow Residential District (2-4 du/ac). West Single family homes; Low Residen`cial District (2-4 du/ac). ITEM I ,_ �'— PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12969 - Yazedjian July 10, 1985 Page 2 I. General Plan Designations• Project Site--Low Medium Density Residential. North Low Density Residential. South Low Density Residential. East — Low Density Residential. West — Low Density Residential. J. Site Characteristics: Site slopes to the south at approximately [� consists of an old stone house in poor condition, and orange groves that are not commercially cultivated and will be removed as a result of this project. Eucalyptus windrows are located to the east side and west side of tJ, property boundaries and has numerous other mature trees within the site. A 6 foot rock pile exists at the south property 1•Ine. K. Applicable Regulations: The Development Code permits single family detached homes in the tow Medium Residential District at 6 dull ling units per acre under , she Basic Development Standards. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: A recent Land Use amendment has changed the desigrition for this site from a Low Residential use to a Low Medium Residential use. The goal of this amendment was to stimulate new r-sidential growth and encourage the neighborhood to maintain the quality of the housing stock and improve the general character of the neighborhood. The proposed development consists of 26 single family lots with 24 single family homes and t1io duplexes totaling 28 units, for a net density of 6 dwelling units per acre. The unit sizes range frGtt 1,430 'sq. ft. to 1,600 sq. ft. The ,proposed elevations are of traditional style with concrete tile, stucco and wood trim. Access will be from Arrow Highway uthere �dwin street will be extended. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee recommen ed approva provid d that the following improvements be made, which the developer 'has agreed to: 1. The v of pitch for the duplex building should be a full _hip or gabled end. 2. Front yard landscaping should be provided for all lots. The developer should try to save as many trees as Aft !` practical. The trees that need to be removed should be replaced exclusive of the required landscaping requirements RE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12969 Yazedjian July 10, 1965 Page sse, C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial.•Study has been a;; completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the iec'• Environmental Checklist and has found that the only significant 1pa1_. environmental impact is: the removal of existing windrows and 32 Hea mature trees. Yealthy Eucalyptus trees and those mature trees lincc not within building pads or driveway should be-preserved. Any ual` proposed block wall along property boundary should be inset so ferc as not to interfere with tree 'preservation. Also new windrows ed should be planted and front yard la.ldscaping provided to each -me lot. The above-mentioned mitigation'measures have been added .t Re, to the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval. If the -:!-Sic Planning Commission concurs with the Findings,,.issuance of a a ' tir Negative Declaration would be in order. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the Geneval t C. Plan and Deve opment Coda.- The project will not be'detrimental to +_s adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental on, impacts. In addition, the proposed use, building design, and site th plan, together with the recommended Condit cns of Approval, are in a. compliance with the applicable provisions sf the Development Code AOL-ds. and the City Standards. is IV. CORRESPONDENOE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report .,i ceS public Fearing were sent to all the property owners within �je 300 feet of the project site, and two 4' x 8' public notification signs were posted at the site. tal V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ial consider al material and input regarding this project. If the w? Commission .concurs .with the findings, issuance of a Negative r )pro Declaration and approval of Tentative Tract 12969 through- the .tic adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions of Approval -would be -in rder. Re submitted, ick mez it P f i RG:NF:ns PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT fI Tentative Trac+ 12969 - Yazedjian July 10, 1985 Page 4 Attachments; Exhibit "A" - Location and Land Use Map Exhibit 9 - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Tract Map and Tree Location Map. Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptdal Grading Plan Exhibit 'IF" !bnceptuai Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" Elevations Exhibit 911 Floor Plans Initial Stud,, Part 11 and Addendum Resolution of Approval with Cenditlons I e f , puli M FG R M LmIVI r A.h .. GC 1 m c F 11 ra eir. 1 '4 r NORTH k CITY OF ITEM: �. RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE= IMM-N PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT •� r•SCALE- k TENTATIV - _, ENO. 12999 - IN TUPL CITY OF UANCUO CUCAMONGA COUNTY Of RAN SENNA"INO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA wra a .rn m.es�a � r w r.a .rnv r ..whim �► Kv w ` . 7 y :�n • S u � Q � ..ra' a wpr•y u�� • I y I m. ,ipu.0 .rr> wrria� y r I• ,>r� � r 1 rwr y O ��• a e w Y } a a a r o • > Qr �_ MINTM1 _ NORTH TI'E1VI: -Jtwmo C.TMMONak TITLE: !&' ,. IPLANIVINO DIVISION T�EXHIBIT- SCALE- TR. }Va.9713 YRnCT ",. .^u r T 4 1 J11 • far .. — �, •`.• �: - i � r,•t• • vo'!•rc in51 L' - C •v© r - [ �t "+•,. G /fib 7 �-,.0711.Ia 4F � � �;`•4 4 ! <,"-p. ,�. �Sv •c.�co x o, �. �, �C�j .. "N CL p, L.G of ° ffmftl � 9O Q' �•w..G :O.T• O w '3• L' I a ria+n u •° .. ZZ 16 � N (( NORTH FLrtAt~�15 - CITY OF ITEM: -t- R.ANMO CUCA.MONGA TITLE _ i_f 'I LCt�r4N PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- ,_SCALE j• _ ,f- A! IL. 1969 26 LOT8128 UNITS 4.79 ACRZW J T'R. f ivo.3I/3 TRACT ( No. b 7100I Zo_� �.�� /ERR®� � • � / 120.7—TE .. a ,,,k Nra•�e•oa•M ^_' xanF�__�._sJ $�� 1 .,� az I M I n L 3 ® 6 w• $fl x I 1 4 g I JA1'15�/1►>ij n a --- 37i.if 90' I NORTH CITY OF ITEM.- RA NTCCHO CUCAMOlVGA TITLE: `I PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT. SCALE: t'' cr *Ri w , - _ SOU? 17 dgo PIK qc -4014 mow �• •'• — .K d.. — .:A � � ,ruac� � i ms! �f��• •6 r�F � •rao� � Q a � --E,� f r \ O •Koi .fy a � ,•�... a ° •-t,�--- o _ NORTH CITY OF ITEM: t2W RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE L �1 /� PLANNING DIVMON EXHIBrr- `�L SCALE. =-9 ARROW RT. 't y H n l :i Z • II jj . o fit s 1 y it i.i � �C.f • 111 I11 1' 1,w � f ' s lit '� ill O c M P � 1 �awir s 111 I l i z p,atr 3 y o £ tl n top if . ll 111 £ £ R ary " a'� a a 11 z I T" LLL 1 a 1 u1 ul FCC 3 it LI 3 a F NORTH 1'1 recta tltS yy I11 I]5 CITY OF ITEM: RANTMo CUCA. !IO?NTGA TITLE: 1V1�L- PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT':__ SCALE- S` x ,/D F o i CN G fta-- maw-, f +� u l, MF . __."' p-I�.NT ELEVA"i'I oN . -__-__„.��---- -r�x.e�• ELL'�/q�!cn!__ ..__ i r j- .� Taw• p� _ .-1" h`. PE � CfL�✓wT �.1 � � 00 i. _ c-�:'—'i`IdtFfT:—'s1GE.:�•LJ�.VAZ10N_y.__r _._._... -. •.� 1 0 m m� LRSJri' SioS`�L�VATON_._ _,,' / ='m'R�^Y'-{�VA'icorl, •,1 NORTH CrrY OF -IO C;UCAMONC7A TITLE: II Tn ' fC , PLANNING DW SION EXHIBIT: lip SCALE• �/' 'WW.II/Jn1RG 90NtG:---�--_ �r—1 j • S'1'p.rcr FLtyf4Ta��+ UNT O -OU►LLX �3r7' SIOR OL�V/�••7'f A! -•yy�w(.�r..•. •• :..• __e.•hae•6..rf�R3Yie'R Go' .r3.�•. nii 1 - UNIT A Fcf4.•R• riles 9MAMMArn".j 1 C ` NORTH CITY OF ITEM- RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE -AWM PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT----E?-2_Scn D eff --_— _----— J. 1 i 1 1 f--•—_____ n - —"_N_� OIL rOl [Ird OM 1 GIQ i @al •mYal >taYa1 Y0•WI UY w T 'rtP-za�r.. PLoolL ___SGcoriG_fLacla-. ELs*N .... SI•S1K UN T T O 0UPL.E,X 2 ST02Y --� — ---i ------ 1 [ 1 t , - t ew -r or toa uY a 1 rmr t.n w 1 j 1---J, �!IR+ST FLOop- .��GONO M..00R I - sr.-arc=_ _ . ...a►..urs_ _-, sr. a.. !I UN T T r� _Ut-1 1T-_' B .n . uN=T G 2 STORY w i v FORTH ITEM.- RANCHO CUC&MONGA ►3t�E: .P PLAN_M DIVISIaQ EXHIQIT._ scAu, d' -13 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCI-MONGA PART II — I31TIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: l, /L/ APPLICANT TILING DATE. MB _._.. �� 12 S . _LOG NU £R: ACCepf`v&x t — PROJECT: ? g/A�C� y1a _i�/tTf� 7 }_3h1�L TDTs�_Iel��S LJ/tllrS PROJECT LOCATION._ 1. ENVIRO,7,4--NTAL IMPACTS (Ex-planation of all "yes" and maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES KAYBE NO L Soils and GeoloQv. Will the proposal have significant resu is in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic talationships? b. Disruatia,, displacements, =Y-�Z':t,n or / burial of =.-il? C. Change in to,,_ phy or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction„coveri .g, or modification of any 'unique geologic o; Physical features? V e• Any Potential incr:ase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either, on or off site conditons? Yf f. ..-.angel in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. ..xposure of people or property to geologi_ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, cud— slides, ground failure, or'siwilar hazaress? ` h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydral - Will the proposal have significant: results in Page 2 YEa M_4XBE SO a. Changes in curre,its, or the course of direction r f of flowing stream's, rivers, or ephemeral stream f _ 'r.hannels? 0 Changes in absorption rates, atte drainage or the rate and amount of sur runoff? face water rns, C. Alt, ,as to the course or ow of flood watt.,. flow. .._ d. Change in the amount of surface water in an., body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water ff quality? v f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? V g. Chang_ in the gviantity 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 .1vicizes? 3. Air duality, Will the proposal have significant results in: r , a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? kF b. Deterioration of ambient air C quality and/or Interference w`_ h the attainment of applicable F air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperatcre? c 4. Biota f Flora. Will the: have st in: proposal gnificant. results a. Change in the characteristics of species, including•diversity, distribution, or number j Of any epacies of plants? b. ReZuetion of the numbers of any unique, tare or endangered species of plants? t pare 3 YES ?LaYBE �0 c. Introduction of new o: disruptive species of plarts into ta an area ? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural prod-action? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers or any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any n..ique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new or eisruptive species of animals into an area.. or result in a barrier to the rigration of movement of animals? Y d. Iicterioratior, or rect,,val of existing fish or wildlife habitat? �J 5. PnAulat'_n. Will the proposal have significant ` r::zul:�s in• AMk a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human Pnaulation of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or r create a demand for additionol housing? n. Socio-Economic ractors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics,:inc'uding economic or commercial diveplty, tax rate, and property values? b• Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, I.e., buyers, y' tar, payers or project users? w/ 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the ' proposal have significant results in" a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. R conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental / entities? �✓' C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES r!AY9E NO 8. Zran820rLatiOn- Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular / movement? \/ b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for .� new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, oil demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? V` e. Alterations to present pattArns 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? o g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, v bicyclists or pedestrians? v AML 9. Ci.;ltural. Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, .� paleontological, and/or historical resources? _ 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant ri;sults in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? V 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 cf vzctor or pathenogenic organisms or the xposure of people to such organisms? Sr e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. E.c osure of to potentially dangerous p people noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? f .-) t Pa e 5 YES4YBE NO 31. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have signifl ant results in a. The obstruction or degradation -.of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an ac','hetically site; offensive c. A conflict with th- objective of designated / or potential scenic corridors? V 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need fainew systems, or alterations t) the followigg: a. Electr_c power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? -N d. Water supply? � e. Wastewater Facilities? V <, f. Flood control structures? g. Sol..d waste facilities? h. Fire protcction? i. Police ;,jr0tettion? J. Schools? ff k, Parks or other recreational facilities? 1., Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? v 'a. Other governmental services? V p 13. 'Enerey and Scarce Resources Will the proposal t have significant results in*: t a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? f b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sou" ) of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or Perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? Page 6 , YES MAYBE NO AGL e. Substantial depletion of any nonreneciable or 1� scarce natural resource? 14. Mandator Findinsts of Sielificance, 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 communityi reduce k the number or restrict the range of a;rare or y endangered plant or animal or elimina,ite important examples of the major periods 14 California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential do acl4eve t' short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environment-a?, goals? (A short-term ;impact on the environmen4`�:;�one which occurs in a relatively �( brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into t#e,future). c. Does the project have impacts :which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?, (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects df an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of 'paint projects, and probable future projects), i 1` d. Does the project have environmental .effects d which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ _ •/ IL DISCUSSION OF MIRONMEENTAL EVALUATI0;1 (Lie.. of affirmative ansTgers; to k the above questions plus a discussion 'of proposed,mitigation measeares). I t a Page 7 ZII. DE MM1:11ATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a sir=,ificf t effect on the environment, and a"NEGATIVE DECLa=.,2t0:i sill be prepared. I Xind that although'the proposed project could have a significdnt effect on the environment, there will not be a significant a ,fect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NE ATIVE DECLARATION WILL Be. PREPARED. ElI find the praposeii project 'MY have a significant effect on the envirnaent, and an'`ENVIRO 1104T I21PAC .REPORT ;e wired. - �� G1J Date Signacure Title r- I ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY, PART II FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 22069 2. Hydrology (b)",(i) The construction of this project will increase the amount of paved surface area Which could result in an increase in the amount of surface water runoff and a decrease in the absorption rates. However, the proosed drainage system for this prrouect, will handle this increse. 4. Biota (a), (b) and c - The" development of this project will introduce and add new plant species to the site, which will provide for a diversity. However, the development of the site will cause the removal of the eastern and western eucalyptus windrows, 9 oaks., 20 pine, 3 walnut, and other miscellaneous trees. The developer shouid preserve trees wherever possible and provide front yard landscaping. b. Socio-Economic Factors (a) The surrounding neighborhood and the project site is located in one of the older areas of the City. Most of the neighborhood housing stock is in good or fair condition, where some homes are beginning to show signs of age and the need for intensified maintenance. The City's housing rehabilitation program recognizes this part of town as a target area for rehabilitation funds in order to preserve the quality of the housing stock. Therefore, the concentration of public investment in conjunction with the right kind of new private development may encourage individual private maintenance and rehabilitation of housing stock and improve property values for the entire neighborhood. r; RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TN.E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP MO. 12969. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12969, hereinafter "Map" .submitted by Hagop & Yegia K, Ya=edj ian, 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 a total residential development and subdivision of 4.78 adres into 26 lots with a total of 28 units, regularly came before the Planning Civmnission for public hearing and ection on July 10, 1985, and. WHEREAS, the Cite Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set i;r„rth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Plswning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at-the public hearing I NOW, THEREFORE, this Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard tc Tentative Tract,ry,. 12969 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development,,Code, and s; Dcific plan.; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Flan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (di 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 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. �-aa Resolution No. Tentative Tract 12969 - Yazedjian Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12969, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Condition:, DESIGN REVIEW 1. The roof pitch for the dgplex buildings shall be revised to a full hip or gable end. 2. Existing healthy,mature trees shall be preserved, as shown on Exhibit "C", R'herever possible and the block wall and grading shall be adjusted accordingly. All trees to be saved shall be enclosed by a chain link fence prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and prior to commencement of construction. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. A hydraulic study shall be required and shall be submitted with the final grading plan for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS loth DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stc2t. 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 Commmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the loth day of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONcRS: t ~u S33'51:5OYa^ C6N. ^Q Cyr�.�b NbO Y�.ds N5 A LYC �i U.-.VtO Yd Nn �L gO.LL EO OL LQ.O Nay A' 1�b •O. Y.D xY o c A uv o b� 0.01«nr toy on E L p g6gT YA b G az �x BEd Yo �uA Er dp.et 4. quV y6 Qt S ii YAQ O E!•O U O O. >A A' Y l c^ an u�uas. s au« N`^ Qn�.'ar q'-'u M.U�Z n^m o'.dc"'..c$ Y „d,►u. o qoL. 'Q'o +.u' aow— E M g n y OI D O' 6 Q y z gTA bE�� Cb A L _ CE � LayT^^ _TE CYOQO VyY nC OIpO dGn V`�w9 •'7 o�Ya a�y y=.ram 9d LO EEu NLC y► C = y y E d a a .0 L ar... C.D N C O'Na G. •'a S ^ >O O o y q y L d y b N a ^U V,� U u U g.-U4a. .►..�Y .y i'' .Y CQM CWd..NcO L .•`j Yy L OV Y .C.N .O M ECOi^�°Fia mEw;—E6oL�A� _M�a ^ ..+,EN A4Q dC V Y E tL a Y.q N b p L p N N L A.djLCO~v.VC s+ N6 b^ E O b 6 d A N a 0 O q•• a►p. O C Y ^. y b a V f O C Re=ss Ny�An y.- vgLay Ain aL�y ay..�i ...�`i'n ua'c^on >�"�►oay.^odu ai wt' ' as � ,•_ N �^ L` ►L ► T ^N ^YV>6 �Oq are—, A o'C E4^ yV L EC�Cd uy ad+^E a C� 'u~Yudi� aOmc Oa •b •D y N E ++ _oY_ yiw aYA LNL`>viV'.au.gLc [ u ivcd ►LNUYr c n^ Fcs co► o.•-ua s-- e=oo a''c.. ce$« cyn^u+'`.�c. cna'o m' Qn5"5 G N HI � Ilf m ii Z _ Y CM .dy R�li CNE s f, �C • I. N V . O.r J u a�Q>n Q1NA M Y 6y�...LL aav^^ 'DA EENSOm va cNaeq cM.► o YM�n dds.oY a _ m a av d� s dy a+ OOy.-%t�y0 Y Y►�N..U► � A F C G� �:. .~. �O N V a A AIOy�y1r G L d �.D S►V C O �A C C � u y bY^aOVOOTINma p W. U h rLL g ns^U o O LL O C O E !• f C V Y� > L n R G'C Wo n�� � ~ NQ y`► cL ^a Y < nm c D ► > Lou ►� Y L`p•. 6 S d O V b Y C d A .4. o > > .no m Y N. Y. ¢J Gb•=i T L �• N t O�y 6 b Y y N S q N y T EN VIN 4L 2 O. 6n fA 6v-i NN.Nt u-- JO t1L «Ya Gb�Y a r v_Y , O O Y` Y «'• M n. � p�E a p S q L n O p. ^o' Y �v Ci�\ �nvo IN q an id swMn s.A <ru� Nc cr nay o uv u= opo Ruo .cc v.L�.Y fiNVCL'• Si.-� ulv. vo E e •L N.00 Nvy OOIAV!biUM O.•I. NOOa Oyb d'NN i L�. pY o Z �ONL EIVY v'w�C�C�LN GN.�: �V^7 ?�N O a2=V �Lp 4J p yNM u. YL. SNn=aai.V. « L V •O �',i1YC bb01VA SAY.U.w cY..Lw '^•..c.U045 Ly W<YVY I bIL G.T• �^ b L C gi � vo_.N '.•acY o.�oalY-EdY^ .qa. q Cr�L°c G G "=Y L= •E uy Yo NE} ur GG�. i�r�N Yd USN NLiI V�c6 V' � Y ^CI aib n 40 TC= nN.Y L c.^. L Y nNCY v'.'N v ^a€ce �rnp c� giY:'•'p^_.' a �p Vie' a n•G u � �E N«Yap °• ` L Low L L•Ln�.L.�'w`.u� Ya =I a'O L. mdc L `�Y VW EU. ^C p �oL e�OI.�..� Y.C^�^TUCY ...0 Y^r LL ... qN• V.0 y3 « _a =Q S •+ r N. an M i' M L Ci.,C, O VL Od Lou CV��CNp.9�Q L� T a 4Ybf0 60 �i n�V Cy YNYS N `^cE vqi OIi �^Y8 C bC Y1 p I @g �a� E p O Y y i L Y ppY d c L E 6 O y. O C T U r•I � NI rIl N' �I •� .`b_'�c �O yuCL aY i,. G.ti. ■ 'bK ^.M barb . U�VN jOOS O'4 b«^L aI L.6 b O.PN�yyy LN y0 ua� N ^ LOGY L N C �L q w 6Y. M d E Y y Op�.w�• C•• SL O U.. oi+ `.qE .�•O 9 , `A 1dLGy.a GDN Vy gtiY c� qu no'o Nq i�% r"G cEE v•-Y ,^�^^o G N E 4 n UUA4 L O C n of w OY wy r.fi wNNUK y O y G Y .••. H^ n dy TON .LiCi yu ^C Nyt N�.q to IS Nabw L NU.On� �, 3pppT:NU a«'b yapn,a q^oCG.CZNIU L.DjgTJ_�E OLD« C^ Mq0 Ya l v4 �Yp�1N 60.V C�".... .V..O�G.L G �cMa N O Y A L O LOG L .• «!q^e 6` N Y r.n ..• .i o n a �� Y �y�t C i L tNF E.� w2n O LnbY 'Y�Yp VO y2 �N LT bu.= j01 I Lq D• p9 y� LQ�L"'. N e ♦v y aY+M,p A L V � j V r I a n«� �• Y o/�� y �y L''^ 6.i.c • L E N p'^S Yr LTaN np ONF ^a tJ9�ygM L„pI �Na...00 ti 04d ba a u� G•c'. i s s .� n $ '1�n p oo�oo. tz .i.c Of C M A y r V O n L Y y N O C L we YGh `Q YL NyL �iN.c Loy ^6— i C w O b d E Y EN ^n' 4; �G T'j r Q.4 gIJ.CN Do LVOpa✓..9 NV StY 0.pNY .-:22�y�:.'-°.yY•.Ni COI O OwF L.+ v.YEn¢ o^Y LCM^,o "Yu i� a L>'�'� o'Y z q p waaYm C L q wi E O AOgN L�t1^O VY V ny KpCCG wNn 1�t NOw K�:•L htO KY rant. U 'Ut S IL-•G. OE. 'p n Y 9.L+pI G 1=••aE.X N N N K w Lp �r . yo••'e c co a �4 Rom. LLYc� TMM • o.c qR ma`ro`G'o. Yb+b �wi i'�^N K J �• tb Y�1 �U ORS 4 L 1��G O G Y N Y p y q D Y N N p G Y T L O O y }U Q^ • p�b ro • ~ L 4 Y r U Y p p C YZ d�• t U Nb _G L • C NW U YM bU � w 7Cro� �•+� L � V.L Cb�$4 t •YNT io L eUiu� Z .. •.. u ;�y N c O N.�+u }7 Nu CcC�ee Lu Y YR YL S� u^`NNY:Y YNb Ua N� '.N. �M Ca CJ G.oe O N ay'i Sea; O� FiR CNa - NOONN�y LR q L C~x 6 0 4 Ct whip OL� NX G NY LN Yro SU. G =G.e 6Z EYH Oq OO L~N. ML N+G-L Vp O•�S•y^�NO6 11.� C.V.pro C ay. QR.yNTjS G'tC'l db C '� NLO 'Q t,L,GY C'1 u�.G.� 3Y±E + NOCOL Y^ ~V WON Y +u ONLggN �Cq.M. LW royLY u � pyA nL> N� ae ` oa sc a.Lw "„Yy tT+ NV O ^x M CLC d+.H CCLIN N OIL�yI b _ Y NNy uL r,.GO@ tiN E Y Alt G Y U^ G P L Y rY+�gN EG nt. Nam^ GR^N NL�OLe+CtT! G+t•jTG R L N •.L. E CjU � LLVUGt4u� O+�bgt RJ 6 Z N •Yc O 04ON� yYbCC^Y Nti '� 4N.+ <N 2N0 Hw.G iN Y. ^R�f e, q0 <9�Q6 4u Y•ON6w l t M Y Y u C c^-)b `R Mom. taiql O N� o v' .3 W N Rn u+ W uO G N >Npp� qLa c * ob N. `o. Luao >o� 9sa ,.,NL Y�•pY T UU Rui O.Y G � 'T �aGp M�.upc p i T G NO O.r O� �L ropVb YU^Ot G ro.-. Nq M Y•Yi�W � 4C6N ay Lq-[ 9.N•• N y+ q^ C S^ O:^M.0 FN _R � 4pyy��aN i E Y4 c � ?N +Y SG GM a� L.p ^ O Ryyyu U NU T 4 �" p bip yq^ Eb R�O C��C � �N • 4� p„my o Y'^++ ^ti G Ylr Du Olj �Y4 pi• � Nba Grro 4G VyMro U40.00. by ..C�.Cgg.OOg¢ Cy a« <y 4C Y y� tly 'O.0 +E.i �ro 4 d0 Yb C L- b t fO 4 O. 4jU' y CO^ 6L4 Nb L O.r N .L TQCC ti�i;y R b Gp 6N G ro0 L '� C du0 Ca N -..a, ' q bNYw ON C OUA, ro L.O+v bA `� T. YYLp4 JG a "tl"�'^^ ^OG4Y�. L V EE Y� s U d R EE i aaiNO 4 AL.m i <9N t=n.4i <t1 69 h CN�q <GGR 4 NGro4 6n�v1�M y w ^� N ary Y 9 � • N NIL cc WY C� LL y> � Y c N • c �^ Eu a^'I uGE dtS.J urt W c6 gOEILc � C o0 WqE O cd 0= cU S, aqa aY G4 a.Y as'_d •' d E S La O a �1L 6u ttc yEU uuN L L-v OI.0 DY u�D vuoL..N+. r2In r du •^dcna.d ! U c •'au .,.'c+c••. v� � qou.� oq.LAA Ym •N v� 9 p 5n S_ �Ep. Ct.jA o W Or N AO E....�PIE. God C E n t Cd CioN DOl � ,G.LOiGY CgdM y ^ N �A qua. .->O =y.` gV�yQ OLo � pCAq yyN«E oYVYq .D MP ^a6• a 6t.YG0 Nq- U ^u�� Oa da.-. OEga.Y- a'L. u Uoq OL N s w €aic u H �• ^ u y V 6 ^ }emu^ dT2� Yam.'VyaL daa m LN EE-0 N�IDL ou L O d L LY W A`Ncu Ov-� J p�d••D- O dNW PAY Ty O yl n^I� nnv¢ m�u�` n�o I�iI n uc L a.im p vEm Y d In>tGd Y Lc ,cN 6 E dVd D .may � W �LV �"A�•u HGL 3LLLInpA9 1-•t1Wi F76d4N 6•�n•i.0 Vl D.Ya N Yfl _ O N� ID S ^Oa da �Ta yY L da u Y ro .i L.OM Y Au _Y VI aA. a E v p c n q O Y y C T 6 Nu u d V u n Na L y C c � iU qdY �uA u daT wlY q^eu C _ uud ^cJA dy L O�bO EO oNx u =c to aL+ C.fi n C c c ' d L HILL o^r v2 " . v y `m c c o n o u c EE 3 4a n 9 w c a Y N C O C u 0 « pcpv O Cy`IU co �q Av uy En a.O.rt 6i .^C• Iyu E o O+N cu u a n pa LY EI"N dN N a y.:nAi �,,Icd 'vo D aT C +NsrD C ,r •^-L N W nu d� A.n EL dO. 6 O j d E N^L O n: vT2 N ` Yu Ny^ " _ • L u 6 ��nn a^ oodoa Ir rnn Y Y N v �` L d aDi >c «aN qi m€ qy oETI" o L i C 6 4 A C D 4 n a y d V E N C g T =a C i Y N S G O n L NLy Y.•R ^_ NaaA ?Y qa C D YL CL D Y OI � D Tag 'eGeEgO y, L ' nDgy VINO A OCC o•.c.«Y c: uoY O L= ^W p d=�dCd. C >T ^_ d6C nC O •].1 dcWN .d. O LCY >d« PaI n WEa au N ti N I • t00 CUC�L �L 9. - LUh r�0 OUM O�^9.0 LE t E u —6 Cu d 1 T a O p a q a p H aFLS a o o� T C .3 v • O i 1 0 C NO r n � •Oi N�d aq a'T L •' � L qnE t NOq S� d NO Cb¢ L.0 • qcu C q ECE 1-• uEE a b 0. Eua CL 5L =0 ENN ptN ^ v,Olc b a a CN ^ dE9 a uo ua ay v nefunp NY.>t a sq Ny L y EugiW� E" vLn L EE ^gip. L 6y L n Ll Ud d Tq E ul O q a a9 J n u qoa C.P cEE EE w T >- N q U L a G q Oq N py. 0 to .N.1rp rt U. GOT E N Yt ^a 9 E N N E a E d C3 L1.p. n Ay Un E U,a O QO•�W Qv.., ^ U9 MCA saa.GL 6. ZZ5 22 O N N < 11f 1p Q ~ �•I �I f f �f J 1 • 1 GT C as V �09t Lam. OyA bf —02t ZAW y iy O .O =O O fa] ' 9 L H�•LO^ u € L dtdiY G i �4 L o aaai m'c a�qn 9YNT�- i a S= 9 Q. dp SueE aq C,Oi�t L a L aq O v c y qaT•^ 'c^C a y aE A N C N d C C n . N �O yu 6 iC! CqN C P� �rl O1. E u0fi 9 a. �CCq �9 aa .O . qd cv y a rd y �i�' Tp. U q a9.^ Hy. C 2 E a C O V AdC Q.S N Aq alti. � y�Y..0 pgnON LpY II NE ate' TNT�'q p d0 ^O 03 up L• ^ Y q Ot a t y o U T v yE iL T ev �E av U O mq 9.ENS EC V q aL1' 6� U p .OT C YLL N O E NC L o Eo h qa V Y u nU q p ~O1 O N p yTp E L L L _ uy C 5 p0 L� E NO vui.��v ay.. a O a a0 L 0 L N� H rn a.. 6 S q W O U q L .a. a N O 9 O11) as Nu cE w pmNo a 2t .-C. -,a- uL� Cu. yLt Lv'i Eat �` 'cp i q N LE 24a.N ,� 1 T. N0O q]� tb q N >h•r. 6L •] Ot•:2;Xz MCP 69 bN CLY N 6 as WNO '�%i U tJ �A C]O n2 Qr QO QOIY 1"•O 6 q d ti - YY 82A ` OO.O • OL •�fO.C�•J d �O.aa .. u ^ U L L�Q Q t too • A , V w 9 q L N O C O Y uG0 .GU t N E v a N r o w .+ L N q L a E u S.n Ca v i N ¢ C a>. U.. E • L. N S N >• yO y ti C d • 'rgdn2 O A • w0 >l..A O WT NNQ nO d L L n`A W U ma 'a. aAEaNi. q 0n2 Ny N9 d n0S c L 05 C9 Ti^..l Jdq n Y L E pp S N i Cw n6A Oqq LCT GUPp= w C v.-m•-y V. �e aA+•'9 �'^ Ei aA iQLq wE q AlC • A Z. TaAi P i^ LUgL Cw L.. tiL �yT .2o .O aLi 2tp nV.' 6q 01 d A.� Lu^Ou b NS aOi. d nN�`N qL toy o 1 d 'C dG Ltx nowt yL¢N �c RN EL E'L gEE�..r q F = c G L y. n�� na oy n P. L d>n G o o pa AZA �.\ O aW u Aa O� EL �L¢ A aUYt. 9a 01 E y0 �di La AUOL q�-W U Oy C ; L ~ G L A a ml A; ¢ N o q y c n {J u w A` [� c aq�aq d2 t ONa HA EN a Oy. G N 66 m.- 4dN� t10wM N9 6V-� U LCo� W.0 NL Lt.I. Sc Vp yo �b `m OI wr �•�L � � 2-r oo d •O.rd pu�Jm u C « u yU L d Oi C z.r's •� a I w Ay-a Ay u L= E. C1 T N c.L m e $N i o L qay H n ion E C 46 dA y0 Q U 9.w 1^-5i ua 4� d.ON �CZ E LJw N ^ ¢N.'G W- d q ¢p S q V Su �d Ems. VIJ C N _ O d m O� C C.M uE C� SOW as E nicE .'E q q. 3 V 'C^ �Y qGY Nu Y,0 Up SO C� C C Yd O ,2m qy ^ NS SN C ...CV nud 4 a y 1 Adw b NN ti am q •1_ \ q u p C9 i C O .. L� NE` N� y W O E u� �w �� d ECE N C ot + O 3T ���. C C L L may E S 4 u E ou�i to z a p. C« 'C AEE... w ✓FG V N u Oy Gy b WC a.1 az qa. L� I U ONu.. a ad «e• da�i c�. Ltn c.= id n —b' vc Ac�a. Yu« • ^ CC �L d A dd 2 v 09 V.�a�+ Ja aT+aTi ON OUL O u d A a O dJeJG. 'il o I � s a da -p a 3 o d d= ..0. C NNZ S rOi bu NM l d L W =C da 1 Y a q o N fC'L Q ti j aTi pdj �T L a H c y d O O f d E d O a L a y «�c 6. �d o L W 2 L 1 2 bzt b � d Y a y O N O d u C d o c Y+u E A Q U 2 K�o i a. e c a> w. p dC Cd U p�'N d vda SyCj O�w �"N G N P as Ou LGY b d k7 =:5 « anN: aN J.tea' � _ . '30 -- CITY OF CUCAMONGA co o MEMORANDUM U �> DATE: July 10, 1985 • 1977 TO: Ch6 ,man and Members of t Pl nning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner B4: Bruce; Cook, Associate Pl nn ` SUBJECT; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-09' - KNITTER AND ASS CIA - The development of a child daycare center; and, p eschool within the Terra Vista Planned Community on .91 acres of land in the Nedium . Density (4-14 Ju/ac) Residential district located on the northeast corner of Haven and Valencia - APN '201-221-11.. r BACKGROUND: Subsequent to the advertising of this item for public hearing, a revised grading plan was submitted -.eiflecting significant revisions to the site plan. As of this date, conceptual approval has not been obtained f,'r the grading plan. The Grading Committee has responded to the app`tication with a list of corrections. i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a continuance to the July 24, 1985 agenda. RG:BC:jr ! ITEM J CITY OF RANCHO CJCAMONGA c�ycnniotr STAFF IREPOR O O F � Z DATE: July 10, 1985 tsn TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil:_ng neer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistait Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL, MAP 9204 - THE KENSLEY CORPORATION A division of . acres pf-land into parcels in t e n_ustrial Sp,cific Plan. (Subarea 11) located on the north~iest corner:'of 6th Street and Cleveland Avenue- APN 209-411- 11 (Related file: DR 85-14, Aja) I. PROJECT AND SITE 'DESCrl- 'TION: r A. Action Req%ested: Approval of Parcel Map, B. Purpose: The development of- two (2) one-story buildings for o ice manufacturi*.g purposes on tonight' agenda as D. R. 85-14. C. Location: Northwest corner of Cleveland and 6th Street. D. Parcel Size: Parcel I = 1.82 acres i' Parcel 2 = 2.72 acres Parcel 3 = 3.87 acres 'tOVL 'acres E. Existing Zoning: kineral Industrial (Subarea 11). F. Existing Land Use;` Vacant. _ G. Surroundin Land Use: Nonexisting industrial building. South - existing industrial building. East - vacant. West - existing industrial building. H. Surrounding General Plan and Develiipment Code Designations: Nort - In ustria subarea South - Industrial subarea 11). East Industrial subarea 11-: West - Industrial (subarea 10: ITEM K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environemental Assessment and Parcel Map 9204 July 10, 1985 - Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The site slopes approxiately 2% from north to south an;i consists'of grass and grape vines. II. ANALYSI9l: The proposed Parcel Mali, 9204 is the site of the future ea ve o,vent of two one-stcry research and development buildings consisting of 26,490 square feet and 104,720 square feet also on tonight's agenda as Development Review 85-14. The larger of the two buildingsIs split by a lot line which requires special treatment to achieve building code compliance. However, the requirements will be deferred until building permits are requested. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Postin. at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached reso ution conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 9204 and authorizing the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted; LBH:BK:jaa Attachments Map - Vicinity Map - Tentativd' Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study 'r 4 a subarea 7t}e O O + O -+ + subarea + + f TE - " 6th p ® ® A � � O Z O LU O subare fl O O �e OCOCAA(Oy t1tl@ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' < r r Parcel Map ,t ENGINEERING DIVISION 9204'__' z � I977 ' VICINITY MAP l � pnS e �!� i __= If - I'I II N. _, '� ! } J � f r r 7• f f e ���r���� �` � � •-��� wAire�an�'v:uoio c�i+c9..iw� { _�.....��• o_z••_ ass. RANCHtU CUCAMONGA N• ~�� RESEARCHES DEVELOPMENT CENTER G KeMEr j, ``��rrctirh�^ � —' • : CITY OF RANCHO CUC I%10. !' A 'title; Tentative ' �� ' = s f ray, pal ce!Map rim ENGINEERING DIVISION 9204 , � 1977 ��� pIge <� ENVIRONA(IENTAL REVIEW L(00�. M APPLICATION z U� 1977 > IN ITIAL 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 [I of the Initial Study and make recommendations to Planning Commission. .:The Planning Commission will nake one of three determinations: (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. I Date Filed: April 10, 1985 Project Title: Rancho Cucamonga Research S Development Center I Applicant's Name, Address, Telephony: hensley Company, 4665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (213) 858-1740 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: Gilbert Aja, 23117 Plaza Pointe Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (714) 770-2829 Location of Project: N_ orth of Sixth Street, West of Cleveland Avenue. Assessor's Parcel ' 202-411-11 List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: GradiR n ermit, buildingper mit - � It 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project: (2) one—story buildings for office/ manufactur�ne use Acreage of project area and square Footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: 8.4 acre site 131,210 sg, ft. proposed buildings Describe the environmental setting of the project. site including *nformation on topography, soil stability, plants (trees), ',zpd animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, lari use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their usF, (attach' ,necessary sheets):_ Unimproved land area, slight slope from north ,r,soutb. Nwtural ¢rasses and dead vinevards 1 Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumula ' actions, cane ion which although individually small, may as a whole have significant a envirov+mental impact No. t, v 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? 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 S. Remove any existing trees?• How man-t? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? X Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if *iecessary): 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste mat wild r,nerate daily. Spec. bld es tis this project g y: g. - unknown at this time. 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project: Spec. Bldg. - unknow^.1_at this time. 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this project, 'ip cubic yards: 46,s44d cubic yd. 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, !omplete 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,'stattments, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation _ c a de Planning bha Date: April 10, 1985 tSigna re Title p sident I K 7 t L_3 RESOLUTION NO. t A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9204 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP w. 9204) LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND CLEVELAND AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 92G4, sunmii;Led by Kensley Company and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Cleveland Avenue, being a division of Lots 11 and 14 of Section 13, Records TownshipSan uBernardi o Coulty, State as eof California;in k and of Maps, Page 4 of WHEREAS, on April 11, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map and WHEREAS, on July 10, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the imps,yement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable ,for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting ' property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a•Negative Declaration is issued on July 10, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9204 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS LOTH DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy eceetary op- a, I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commissio:j of the City of Rar,..no Cucamonga, do hereby certify that,the foregoing Resolution was duly and reguiorly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Ccmmission.held on the loth day of July 10, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMGNGA RECOMMENDED CONGITIONS OF APPRUAL LOCATION: Northwest corner of 6th St, and TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9204 Cleveland. Ave. DATE FILED: April 10. 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of tots 11 and N!m'BER OF LOTS: 3 14 of Section 13, Township 1 South Range_7 GROSS ACREAGE: 8.41 West, San Bernardino Base & Meridian per platASSSES5OR PA`-'L NO: 209-411-11 of Cucamonga Fruit Lands, Tied in Book 4, Page 9, Records of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino ***it*k*ir9t*�Ir*t*tk*:Fticick*ic**ieiF*!hF**dt�l*t***tk**ie**�iticirk*kirik7k*irk*sFie*****:kkir*int**k-k DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Kensley Co. Horsten As,- L. U. King, Inc. 9605 Wilshire Blvd. 27405 Puenta Real 2151 E. "D" Street. Suite Suite 120A Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Mission Viejo, CA 926 Ontario,CA 91764 i Improvement and dedication requirements, _! accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cuc —Aga include,, but may not be limited to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following right--of-way on the following streets: (measured from centerline, i '•60 total feet on 6th Street 44 total feel on Cleveland Avenue —total feet on If X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Y X 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: on 6th Streert except for one 35 foot opening as shown on the tentative map. X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. K-lam X 6. All existing easements lying wiW n future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on tha map per City Engineer's requirements. X _ 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. Surety X 1. Surety shall, be posted and an agreement execut ' to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recording. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following:�� 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit for C. Street Improvements Pursuant to the yty of Ranch Cucamonga Municipa; Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into ar. agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance.. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,: sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interlur streets. 2,' A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements Prior to recddation: urI A. i e- Drive Street tree- A. . - Me -a'�3 n--""-— Street Name r-utter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Liqhts Overlay Island* Other 6th St. X X Meandng X X X N landscape & Cleveland X X X X X X Irrigation *Includes landscaping and irrigation o,, meter -2_ K-11 X 4. Prior to ,any work being pefformed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an en,:roachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroa6ment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay •Par the relocation of any power poles or other existing pubic utilities as nec-ssary, 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undirgrounded. X 8. "istall appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and marking4 with locations and types approved by the City Engineer, X 9. Street light locations, as required, are 11 to be approved by the Southern California-Edison Company the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on `decorative poles with underground service X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to •the issuance of building permit. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. D. Drainage and Flood Control X 1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be K required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map., X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage.entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage studs, for the project shall,hall b. P e submitted to the City Engineer 5. A drainage detention basin per• City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3' K 1 E. Gradinn X 1. Grading o€,the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Bui'Jing Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. �X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological. report 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'--De 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. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Pere:its from other agencies will be required as follows. i CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District - X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water —I—San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to - issuance of a-grading permit) Other X 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 telephone prior to street constructon. 1 X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga { County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is requirel. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. -4 X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment_capacity will be available at _ the-time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8, local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail 'Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be.submitted to and approved by the .City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit issuance for X 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the ,;City coverilig the estimated cost of apportioning the assessfients under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following, s hd"Tl be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets)„ copies or recorded mars and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bcjpch marks referenced. G. Special Conditions X i, Prior to recordation, a Notice of Intention to fora, andibir join Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs_ 'involved in District,formation shall be borne by the developer, r X 2. The building across .Parcel 2 and 3 shall require special _treatment to achieve Building Code compliance prior to issuance of Building Permit. i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. NUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: CITY OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA cv o.1, STAFF REPORT u, =n O � ' O F �z U > DATE: July 10, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston,, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-10 OLYMPUS - The development of 120 apartment un%ts on 8.66 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac), located on the west side of Archibald Ajenue, south of Monte Vista Street - APN 202-141-11. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a site plan, architecture, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of 120 apartment units C. Location: West side of Archibald Avenue, south of Monte Vista Street D. Parcel Size: 8.66 acres E. Project Denisty: 13.8' du/ac F. Existing Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 du!ac) j' G. Existing Land Use: Unmaintained citrus orchard H. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Older single family homes with multiple units on some propertries,-designated Medium Residential (8-14 du/act- South - Single family Lume, elementary school, designated Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac) contractor's building, rental yard, designated Medium High Residential, (14-24 du/ac) East - Huntington Villas Condominiums, Tract 12532 under construction (small lot subdivision), citrus grove; designated Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac) West - Single family homes, 5-unit apartment building, duplex single family subdivision, designed Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) ITEM L g PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-10/01ympus July 10, 1985 Page 2 I. General Plan Designations: Project ect ite - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) North - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) South - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac), Medium High Residential (14-24 du/ac) East - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) West - tow Residential (2-4 du/ac) J. Site Characteristics: An unmaintained citrus orchard currently exists on the property. Walnut trees up to 12 inches in diameter are scattered amongst the citrus. Along the north boundary, two sheds and a garage exist on the common property line. Access to one other garage is provided 5y a dirt road or the site; however, no easements or dedications exist. K. Project Details., The project consists of twelve two-story buildings with a total of 120 stacked flats. The units range in size from 615 square feet to 901 square feet. Recreation facilities include a tennis court, pool and spa, exercise qym with racquetball court, and one tot lot. Common open space equals 53% of the net lot area (35% required). II. ANALYSIS: A. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committeee reviewed the project and-required the following: 1. Adjustments to building plotting and patio orientations as they relate to adjacent uses and open space areas; 2. Visual relief to roof lines, particularly for buildings facing Archibald. 3. Redesign of the parking lot at the southeast corner of the site; 4. Continuous sidewalk network to connect all open space 's.reas; 5. Wrought iron fencing (versus a solid wall) along the boundary of the school play yard. 6. Enhancement of the side building elevations. 7.: upgraded carport designs; 8. Patio fencing to match the buildings; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-10/0lymaus July 10, 1985 Page 3 .9. Enhanced architectural treatment of the office, laundry, and recreation buildings to match the apartments; and, 10. Survey of existing trees to determine those suitable for preservation. All of the above items have been reflected on the development plans and/or in the conditions of approval. With respect to architecture, the final design is a significant improvement from the original submittal; with variation of roof height and form, spanish tile, furred out walls around windows, and combinatic,i masonite and stucco finish. Exhibit-"Ell shows the recommended architecture, whereas Exhibit "G" shows the original design. Regarding tree_ preservation, a survey of all trees was conducted by en,arborist, applicant, and staff. Other than the citrus trees, the majority are Walnut and California Live Oak. They are generally in poor condition with little aesthetic value, having grown up naturally from the base of the citrus trees. One large Maple and a Euce, yptus tree were noted, however, and will be saved (see Special Condition No. 2). A slide presentation or photographs of the site will be available for Commission review at the meeting. E. Technical/Grading Committees: The Technical Review and Grading Committees recommended approval of the project, but a potential concern is the existing buildings to the north. Three buildings are on the property Tine and access to a two car garage is provided by a dirt path across the site. The northerly perimeter wall will jog up to four: feet from the property-line around the existing structures, but access to the garage will be cut off. A review of the title report showed no easements or dedication for legal access. The affected property is 140.feet deep with access to Monte Vista Street. The distance between buildings, however, could accommodate a driveway to Monte Vista Street. 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 E of approval, the project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts. Regarding traffic, the current counts are 3,100 vehicles per day on Amethyst and 15,600 vehicles per day on Archibald. The applicant estimates the addition of approximately 156 vehicle trips per day on Amethyst and 624 vehicle trips per day on Archibald Avenue. Regarding noise attenuation, an acoustical analysis- in4icated noise levels greater than 65 CNEL within 300 feet filom Archibald Avenue. L_3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-10/Olympus July 10, 1985 Page 4 All buildings within this area must have special design features to mitigate 'interior noise and a 6-foot high wall and/or berm, plus shielding of upper story balconies is necessary. The project plans and conditions ; iflect these requirements. If the Commission concurs, isuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before! approving the application, the Planning Commission must find that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Further, the proposed use, b-jilding design, site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval must be in compliance with all applicable regulations of the Development Code. In addition, the project must not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item hds been advertised in The Daily Report and the property posed. In addition, the applicant ;field a neighborhood meeting to d'.acuss the project and one dozen surrounding residents weee present. One concern was raised regarding school children crossing the driveway on Amethyst Avenue. To help mitigate the concern, the plans show a speed bump, school crossing sign, and elimination of any tall shrubs or trees near the drive which may block visibility. A special condition is also provided. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review all input and elements of this project. If after suet, consideration the Commission can support the facts for findings and conditions .of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Re 1 sub fitted, e ck q mez , it elann r RG:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E1l - Architecture Exhibit "F" - Floor Plans Exhibit "G" Original Architecture Exhibit "H" - Letter From Arborist Initial Study, Pare II Resolution of Approval with Conditions i 71 L N U-) o _ � ...•P�EOJGGT 5/T- j u.wa .twr M 11.�t�O fit, unrrr s�a.� wo � V NDRTH CITY OF ITEM-_ZMAT-,o RANCHO CUCA"Vla'�GA TITLE: PLANNING DINnSiON EXHIBIT--. _SCALE. •-. r i _ i 1ro.i4orryrtrr.0 �OdtCY• M.r rw� �r� • t 714� t V d NORTH CIT OF ITE 1: b' '•/,a RANCHO CUCANIONGA TITLE- PW"T '.ING DIVISION EXHIBIT.- Ae SCALE._°" L-1, 5 , 0 MIR `P..Li, 'i1t� `fin-somas. S avur.�� t•'+'fs+. \ �r � 1 Y `';:� 1 t4+•r-:= M °_ q �°�� f :• v` ° c_. rt,,�. r` 3 .��t�\ 'ttjrvlt�'ill fv� #3$I y tit°1 Y t 1�o`LTI 8 Z�a\\��� 1 ' a1► {� J es�+aa*...�cse.fssQ tru, ,.;t-g� I'.a -111:1--.*-` IM B� `, =a,._,r�'i �;�y •...w*+i - i �v.g �1, h OC`�\�: .,�,,,�i °�iys��tb . �v i tA�,lt �,:•y'�t � 7i YY y w,: rl<DRTH CIT • y CUC"ONIGA TITLE: s = t� � .}j. ; �� _ ' _ '� _ ^.M •'ac, �..� .. _; ~;�a .x-w' � gyp. r< r. yLTKW Y.Y . .. � t - f1leLlt�•/...� 1R71ON Y•V P NolaH /C[wr _aEC77oN Y-F �� rw.. �TY OF IT E\i: PO or- to jo RANCHO CUCAMaNGA TITLE= jgrA0 ptA=A/ Lt PLANNII�'G DIti'ISIO�I EXHIBIT SCALE _ r' .... L 2 i � y J, Fl• •�� CITY OF k RANCHO CUCAMONGA f lTLE PLANNING DINITU N, EXHIBIT =l SCALE- . t B UDLPDLtiv� o , CITY OF ITD I: ZM AW- D. t`��T liO CLTC`�1V OiNGA TITLE- PLANNING _ /' DIVISION EXHIBIT S-Z- SCALE. L..-1 o �5l { i a VaL�I"JLI � Cis\ C 717 CITY 01' ITEM: gRANCHO TI-LEI PLANK NG DIXIM N EXHIBIT: ____SCALE= •YY.�.w 111 :;r�.�u..: y wa i t'•.>Ys t'i ei'iF 4i.,st tii�'v:. .� �w""•`�•• �'l:ii>71:�r�•,~ ~' "T't°:f`"••> �,� ..,,,�; '�....::.::�'•',YtiJ ?�'�....�=��y: t;f..'�'i;:•cxs��;yw.--^•:-•.�.^• i•,i E r : :.. ....• Yam•` i -. • �Y �� .: .� �� .y flI11N �Illillill � 1 ifn!! t ...'yip ,�;; ::. : ..:�f,�:�:�:•w'� :. :';�K lip�±•+.y�s�+ '.ti `.mow kFC h.:1"'. 1 1% (t r JL' MES M. GRIFFIN f ��G• , ,+ (714)4961952 LANDSCAi E CONSULTANT 34082 PEQUITO DRIVE.DANA P03NT,CALF.92629 6-19-55 Mr. George L Hamill Ex. Vice President The Olympus Group 1720 East yarry Avenue Suite 209 Santa Ana Ca 92705 re; Trees Woodwind Apartments Site . Rancho Cucamonga Dear Georges Our quick inspection of the trees on site yesterjay was I think, sufficient to determine that as a group they are in poor condition; being dead or dying and7or so badly mal formed as to make any corrective measures ill advised. The planting consists moatly of the grove citrus; with a few Prunus , some walnuts, California Live Oaks, aYclump of Eucalyptus and a a;ultiple trunked Maple, . Sume thought was given to the possibility of relocating some of the better trees. Such a suggestion should be ruled out without question. Relocatit�n- as a possibility should only be r-onsiderad when the subject tree is a top quality specimen or has been declared to be,an "historical monument" to be preserved .. Conditions should be such as to ma%e success in relocation a reasobably safe venture. There is,no reason what so ever to I assume relocation success in the case of any of these trees. I In some instances it may well be pissible to retain certain : trees in place provided the tree or trees are of a genera and condition thaw will make suchrepair and culture worth while. Normally it is cAnsidered better to purchase well grown, disease free plant material; that Is start off with top grade material rather than run tha risk cT --reading soil borne disease already on site. < There on on site two plantings that_may well become worthwhile �- foi;al points to the development. 1. A muliple trunked Maple that appears to be of good quality, at least can be repaired and. I balievet can be made into a valuable clump. Proper pruning and installation of a system of cables will be needed. Care should be taken to protect major feed roots. Protection during construction will need be taken. more r. L-1 �. 2. There is. on site, a well formed, multipled trui;k-Euc alyptus that . I believe, has considerable merit. It would not be possible to relocate it. But it could be repaired and maintained in :such a way4a7_to become..an asset to.-the property. Thif,-_tree also will require such remedial work ......' as pruning and cabling. In coth cases mentioned. great care must be taken to avoid damage to the rootirsystems. "And to avoid trunk damage during construction;; During the walk-through a walnut clump '(Six or seven trunks) of regrowth was consideredasj`a possible focal point subject.' I went back to the site yesteriliay worning and checked more carefully. I found that the tr{�nks 'were regrowth from a fruiting walnut with the common fault in such cases of being of too weak structure as to beilworth the effort to maintain. It should. therefore be discarded from consideration. In summary then,'I believe relr1cation not a valid effort, and that retention inplace to be applicable only to•the two subjects mentioned (the Maple and the Eucalyptus. Please inform me if I-can be of further he sincerely J es M Gri .r JAMES M. GRIFFI ` Consulting Arborist Experience: I am a professional_.-iborist with a concentrated background in Arboriculture, Landscape Management, and Ornamental Horticulture. As an author, university professor, and arborist, I have advanced innovative and practical approaches to park maintenance, and tree preservation. restoration, and. maintenance. Application of the concepts obtained from my knowledge and experience has resulted in direct, yet sensitive .and realistic solutions for numerous public a7ed private clients. Prior experience includes operation of my own land°,cape/nursery film in La Jclla from 1931 to 1942, and Professor of Ornamental Horticulture and Park Administration at California .State Poly- technic University in Pomona from 1949 to 1970. In 1970 1 retired, Professor Emeritus, and have carried on as an active prnfessional consultant, primarily, in the field of Arboriculture. I have also developed street tree master plans and tree inventories for cities. Consultation has been provided for clients on the preservation and restoration of historically significant trees. I have also given expert testimony and fire da-mage assessments. Education B.S. Ornamental Horticulture California State Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo, CA 1949 M.A. Edu;.atinn California State Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo, CA 1953 'll li Proirtsion.:l Affiliations: International Society of Arboriculture California Street TreL Seminar California Landscape Con rac L. to p rs Association Publications: Lan,scape Management (textbook) 1970 - 1975 Cantractors Data Manual (textbook) 1972 - 1975 CITY or RANCHO CUCA-%ONGA FART II„- INITIAL STUDY ENVIROM ENTAL-CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT: FILING DATE: LOG NUMBER-:_Z1� PROJECT:— es- ..sr., e•aas U !SG tG-fiSt� 6 6 PROJECT LOCATION: A41 I. EMPONMENTAL I7-TACTS (Explanation of all "rest`and "maybe"answers are required on attached shects). YES M4YBE No I. Soils anddGGeoloQv. Will the proposal have signlfrl aat results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, d,splacements, compaction or burial of the -oil? c. ,Change in topography �,r ground surface •G contour intervals? d. The destruotiot,=cover2ng or modification of any uniqse geologic or physi.al features? fie' e. Any potentia;' 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, landslide., mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate.of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. ii drolog . Will the proposal have significant w E results in f ' Page 2 YES :"_kYBE No a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sur runoff? face water c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface wt�ter$, or any alteration of surface watex quality? f. Alteration of groundwater c :,).racterist3.cs? g•. Change in the quantity of groindwaters, either through direct additio)as or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquEf er? Quality? Qdanticy? h. The redaction 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 Qual_ity. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mo?,ile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of^ambient air quality and/or a+� Interference with the attainment of applicable air rnalit•e standards? c'• Alteration cf Local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? l 4. Biota l-rra. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, �I including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. cr endangered species of plants? r`re Page 3 YES `L�YBf iy c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Aft Plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal•have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of ary species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare L 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 ar wildlife habitat? L 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant resul'v.s in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, cistri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the p. pro osal affect existing t fusing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Soci_o-g_ c__onoaic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: e. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equi;lably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or ;roject users? w 7. Land :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 conflict with any designations, objectives, tt Policies, or adopted plans of an entities? Y governmental c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive fir}+ recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES MANBE No ?. Transportation.. Will the results in: proposal have significant a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? r C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? �- 'Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? a. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potantial water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will tha proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical Laa4mrces? 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: it. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?, b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards:, c. A risk of explgsion or release of hazardous substances in thri event of an accident? L d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or p�thenogenic organisms _r the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentiaily dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? i �* h. An increase in light or glare? Page $ YES iY0 11. Aes thetics. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. The obstruction or degradaticn of a"y scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aestheticall of s Y Pensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the p°Dposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? L d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? —� f. Flood control stru_tures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other xetreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of Public facilities, including ' roads and flood control fa,-:lities? �• Oyer governmental services? 13. En__reyand Scarce Resources. Will the proposal +ter have significant results I. a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial irrrease in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of .� new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of nod-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renew,/b� le sources .of energy are available? I. Page 6 YES MXY$E NO letion of any nonrenewable or e. Substantial dep scarce natural resouico? 14. Mandatory Bindings of Sisnificance. a. Does the project have the potential t,.. degrade the quality, of the environment, substantially 6 reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below.-self susta!ning levels, th eaten to el,.ninate a plant or animal community, reduce the r.uwber or restrict the range of a tare or eno-ngered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of,the major periods of i California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve Cport-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relativeli `. brief, defirfitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the'.sture). c. Does the project have impacts which are i y individually limited, but cumulatively f considerable? {Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects if an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, j and probable future projects). 4 w, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, eit';er directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF..MURON"ENTAL EVALLiti;Jo:: (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). t �_` � y _ PaCe III. DETER�2INATION , On the basis cf this initial evaluation: - I find the proposed project COLTLD NOT have a significant; effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECI--%R&TION will bs )repared. I find that although the proposed project could have significant effect on the enviroi-anent, there will not be a signal cant effect . in this case because the mitigation measures describ?•d on an attached sheer have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECL.AIV.,11O4 WILL BE PREPARED. ? I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENV'IROY:LFvT IMPA T RUPTP is required. Date Signature Title i t .q E . r F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUC MONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELgPMENT REVIEW NO. 85-10 LOCATED ON THE f` WES5 SIDE OF AA,,fY :LD AVENUE, SOUTH OF MONET VISTA STREET IN THE MEOTtht RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 29th day of April, 19853 a complete application was filed by The Olympus Group for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the loth day of July, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the Genpr,l Pl wq 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 ase, 'together wife the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental .o the public health, Safety, or, welfar3, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the envirormant an.a that a Negative Declaration is issued on July 10, 1385. i SECTION 3: That Development Re�lew No. 85-10 is approved subject tc the fu0 Ching conditions attached Standard Conditions: OLANNING DIVISION_ 1. Speed bumps and a acho-I crossing sgn shall be installed at the Amethyst Avenue drivewzy. In addition, no trees or tall shrubs sha ; be placed in a manner which will obstrz:ct visiLility of the sidewalk from vehicles entering or exiting the project. t� 0701-02 o 7-10'85 .P,*C, Agen a Packet . o PagC' of 5 Resolution No. Development Review 85-10 Page 2 2. The existing Maple tree and Eucalyptus tree near the northwest corner of the property shall be preserved. Final recommendations outlining the exact measures to preserve the trees in a healty, thriving manner sbill be submitted with the required Tree Removal Permit and attached to the grading plan. 3. Final design and construction details of the wrought iron fence with masonry pilasters along the school J play yard shall be .provided on the construction JJJI drawings prior to issuance of permits. 4. Patio walls and/or fences must be provided consistent with the building architecture. Final design and construction details shall be indicated on permits, working drawings prior to issuance of 1 5. The architecture of the rental office, recreation buildings, and laundry buildings 4 -:z?.l incorporate design elements of the building architecture such as tile roofs, masonite siding and architectural E details. final design and construction details shall be provided in the workings tllrawi:.gs, subject to the review approval by the i�lanrinq Division ` prior to issuance of permits. 6. Upper story balconies shall be 15D square feet in size with a minimum dimension of 6 feet. In addition, balconies shall not encroach into a setback area more than 2 feet. 7. Variation to the exterior stucco and trim color shall be provided to reduce monotony of the s4:ngle color scheme. 8. Outdoor storage shall be provided for individual units, suet. as carport lockers or storage closets adjacent to patios. Construction details shall be provided on the working drawings. 9. The carport lattice shall be architecturally integrated and connected to the main structure. In addition, a minimum 10-inch carport facia board shall be p,:nvided. rinal Aesign and construction details shall' be indicated in the working drawings subject to the review aitd ,approval of the planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Resolution No. Development Review 85-10 Page 3 g 10. All outdoor mailbox locations shall be cevere,l and appropriate lighting provided. The final designs ,and construction details of a free standing structure for this purpose shall be compatible with the building architecture and included in the working t. drawings prior to issuance of permits. 11. The perimeter walls and retaining walls throughout _ the project shall be constructed of decorative material subject to the review and approval by the Planning Division. Design details shall be indicated on the grading plan and construction E drawings prior to issuance of permits. 12. Low level lighting shall be provided in all open space areas. Construction details shall be provided in the working drawings prior to issuance of permits.. 13. A final detailed acoustical analysis shall be submitted with the construction drawings to indicate mitigation measures necessary to achieve interior noise levels of 45 CNEL and 65 CNEL for exterior areas including ;balconies. All construction V documents shall be consistent with the acoustical recommendations prior to issuance of permits. The E final design and construction details including configuration and use of materials shall be indicated in tha working drawings subject to the review and approval %y the planning Division prior to issuance of permits. 14. The final alionment of the northerly perimeter wall, which is ofi,et near existing structures at the property line„x shall be subject to review and approval by the Building and Safety, and Planning Divisions prior to issuance of permits. 15. The final detailed site plan, grading plan, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check shall be drawn to a scale of 1" = 201 (or larger). APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS loth DAY OF JULY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY C" RANCHO CUCAMONGA BYt Dennis L. Stout, Chairman Resolution No. Development Review 85-10 Pagc 4 AML ATTEST: i Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the C#y 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 regul r meeting of the Planning Commission held on the loth dajr of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: { NOES COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: . 111 r oCL-.T—---..�— Nvcn. ^a .o....�r - c'c o. . °1c1 '0 a iY NO Lfi G d0 O +loF.-.c .O-Od Nyyy Ym u c n z d 9 • G?9 O ST O T L.pL ;60 �'L M dt. t�N GO.�E 0 0 E w.mW Cr o �E y�y �. vtz�d `r u. u Z rE ao c aA � .. d i0 y�+ O Cp2a�� Ld^� tLOy... c=.n NVA.VT ^LY. Evy CL Y2 ^ O40 qyV a�.NN d.� L �Vd ea ct 9ry l�yL 4OIV� O C `d' -> C:06 EC^.1wd d.� Ep0 n c NyF` E •'V 712 r^` O djy d <Oy Ac NOl'O N. Od MO €'otE cad ^cE.O Or Cy V�{ac...� yG`a N 6p,Y'pL C.T.N Ca y d V Oy N Oa � dd_ GYQ E.qa ` O� 9 > 6 EE EE G u .adc itl rN.- n aa� d ep Ye YUYo _�. 0 pp yY i EGTw y yd[LJ.•.�''] pG dEY.�.di Ord �% . V L Ny'O Di«y90y0 F .-..- d Gvu'L. Ld NLN l d V Gy 6� ram.^C nU a � i .� - j u � d .pc.5Erp cac�.i r O^^yN �A at N.a-0-2 x uC O�Y:L,O�O�i>d Na N ENSpuu� V q d d ^O O� I i —OaL3d« � N •y � d E r spy y'^Y q0 . W i • L q y G C,... ^0 0 ; � Y o E 333g m V O G' � dyc N Y =Y `Ey CbNVAd. c p E 2 L o •jl � z _ � ,e GiE ropy H H O O ^ Z N +• ...1 d .N.. > ip, pC� UTy 6� 6 � A _ 6 • Y � YET. O F N2 6A,{ypi,N EE o m C.p Z G O p 4 p O y u 2 dd Od E c e A c ' � d �y o O.+E 4d•aN u � o to .V.. 1..f�. J N n p • 4 V O E �.o+sc cp ua • odY^ o.°n.- .duo.•-i o".c ,dv<�Tvam dY a o="o' C G M y C:L.�C o O = •m L q O w u N +Y ViC up €dua � s." i ua. � NN qq ao" no a"• 0 a u n11 uuc rc' '2-2 u� q Ed o yc ,ON q r O d N o,e9p uY'0" ro o�AYp H dcc« nu ^E.�� SO•n O. 6LO yyL qY vE 6}^LEE.Q� LCd C V 6C O aV. d q Cl N L d W > du.o- L r q n0 q N tb,p.T � u OYL L pr9 q N C n o= n LL N� c•+C�dN a N.� a�a N9 _L NgiC y Yi '1'� u p N.�. u f' = g N a N Y u M p.�V u Z^ O=A b p N C Y..0. V C C�.G •rC«d d d H N X.'n UJ C..0. q O y N y 0 L C O A d y N .•�U L _y 0 0. �r d Y} •� ^'Y°a'" WU� pL C CA �roiH u Yo-w ZZ A m d u N 9 H d O•� N Nr t tT T q G G d 0« O 6 • `G L ; oE'C dLpA rgg�Y d� L t� N vl d q 6 Ci L•y aM CI M N T4 O[n L 9 c p LOOL 4N dCNO •Lt] NAdgas U�r QCV .dr pYN A.^ Y rpm N .,•• O ^O aN O q qOq y H 6@ C E 6� • �� U N.dC 3 O OTiy.m O C.�� • u�O V C. 6tLC Cq pAVY q4. y0 d�Y O 9Y N 6 A o qu W EE C N 9 qr 0 C r d 1 u 10. C�N�• Y O• q A C E r. ��'^ i C 2p '° qC N^A�CLUT ,•o, Yu0 U. C •a C b.��p.� +r+T. "a. °`c.. `qY� ut' •�c La�Yi �,on Tie W .off La =.a nq p w CV A�Ey AYt f).Y>N CEY pygj Cdzd Qa y LtdiL au AYr �L UC dd A Tapo �6« ONp d C V d 4 E�n6 OtCT='^tLVO r CC� .Oae«�ti uo Eu ^S ...qO L_ CC� N u N N Z 2 N d L O a 6 4 A N 4 G •bi b C .••I N 1.1 O I V 1 7 01 6 - n+T•O�d dlf q p4 •�.p Y.O q9`u ►owc .O.Y^ '> dwgnC YdTdN dT.Cd ...a p9 bum. c= La p Dm ..2 OY,q Y. L C w2•�. ij do doL Ly� E V Y N d w m N i E C Lp C X L(iy = C Y N Q d 9 N 7 6 4 LT` H w ..9. • 1� AYO.L@ C E�.} p'• ,zA Yi'n�n qu i�qA da dr qA �, c Y rA.^ 'O Q 6T Cy vu O� LCd uV au N+L•L q.•AL N.0 =OqL Nd•.0.+ L, NMr� ^E Nd„9_.,.C-�.�Nu� �LY qY C uu q q N w 0 r wWL C 9 d •� s •N 6�pV YC^NS y.O p'iP ~rCLa N 9 OCC GN c d q .l.•• O O p Cp L 'C.E Ge C Ar M N 6 N q o1N C �UL N'r7'O 6m7. C�YUrY 9N •d0 .2nUt4� Z E E- Gr- ' C:`v N N �p u N 'O..C� C •N,t V Z N a�wC L I.dp9.0 •.' q�� yaY aa0u .CA LNA•-L YT�+O d.6•Cn r 9Y.-.C9O+puA AgL..dC�N E ud p0 Y. E N p r G •• NMu Hr d. G L.V V Lq Ny C. C� y�L S.o CnV r• n Nuh C =J t N Y t)y„9•�q i w O d Ll �TN H L yLn G T «c.N p y o •`O N U F y .0 U '•O N N 4 N O d d� pW u d O • • p i9 Ed9 ... pud YTI'r N N COv' OWHSY Y y r NQ L N n 'v O9 rn u TY 2E y d9L t LgCO� E d A d rt`CT•�pp. G L4L C9 G> amn,cda �n� ir•.�c uH up - d u� T. o.d�un ddapdo w000n� 6 1�Z NOA 6ro Nye Nyq j�d C6LLCE dOd A L CGvs 0 6V p6d AM[Trr ayYNC 1-•rgCVC O ® oogo co a .co:eYci .cam o�ood= �Na,go �t 01d c E yw q d doL N6 a Lugs nvq qd^ O O 6 + daY d0• d o. �. c • u e=dsd. �.d �N q Y Lao°Los m A d L a c o co v. q Gar a0+ ' O�S.�.p K `• wz Ya 'C y^ .^do M" a Lv>• Y°o'"o YN a do qo qo d No o .o y d L O L O q C q y L 3 d O L u V L 0 NZ N n 5 d •N r iq 5 o2 YLv.WU� a NT. yL�pp C UY q^ .. Ndcu dO� SL Y Uc d'�W Wcp NU�� d~dc+ •O y. td+^ U m. N Loos aNa•- N. rn ^ q k Ay Li C- 6L •.i9 Y. LN' 4fN cYN i 11 ee qe� N..a aY cd >^Lead yN Sa+Q Et Lgau w0 yLy La q LTG bu ~a.QOp.. L�L� d� pYf N+ 06 F ('1•U AC Ld e Nu Eq N Mqj.. N L1N NO UNsd qT >^ Cd C = px >Iv gVLai Qrbi O yL dac OY O V N O N N LC .0 dr t y,c i =G> 9 C=Y• Y9L EN�� dq ^ d� ^LOd dad .N•. �a L �e .y.•L a NnoLL u ccc o v...:�. Y r� oL �' 'Oi E Eau. sw`• a ^.oY rn ..; �u uA qod b q N m N^ c N` E N O h N t 6 N U^^CT>C t A N 6 0 K al'• O 11 C Y L�O 9 6 N JYI o oz lh s•a� a�u'C o�. u L T dd a rn� �^� ima mwu Txn is ao+ zo,o ago r fC c q = aLi 7� 6. w u�ccY.d .s C S'QaApa yL •N�.c C N O a L Y UY Y ~ PS.^. q L Cd 9 c 8 p^ 9Vb L� Lqa + c 9g1.rc. Y Y 9 E0O6+ yCZg1 ^ ^N Y 01V H QO UyY O,O N dda2 A2. y qT OOL E� c 1O o c 'c M.o+ A FS o. O B E Y o• o �°.o d n 6s uw A yy� i z c o N NyQ. ac da u a Lc r°Q' -Nd" ML qyo = az-c N «, o q•cqu T YNNN Y TE Y 3"" tC+.yy. =N tT93 CQdQO OCNi yya + �N N � • d 9 d NY~N N� L Sa� AV y �� EUd y q Nq pi 0 d � �^ FLL � O.q q L E9 u 'om.. ew+-+ dY rca Lso,try YL q.�NO C 'A Q YUgq r (4LO.p0 as NOY C� g dud • rcn ^ .O« L Gy L .L'�.00 N Nye�Lam. L9q� G^QN. N Ob y L ..d • ^ W^qr; u; ,O U Nc >Y�'O d q.On1 q IYT C a. QC L 'a9 q COY L T9CC ^ ZY dOgC NC'U Q W» O L g C A L.r• N W {�.q q d L 0 0 1.2 .� ga ^L.Ov. L E. X.Oq •-Y '.ti d~Udd �>G LA.o.S NEE a9Cy CC L4 d+ y 6Q6 O KN6q W66u,t/�uir c L G y Li s'oy. .era d=o4 as c^a T^vaq y ' dal gryiN 'rN a Ga CNI MOA —age •,r Yu aNi d d _C y '^ �•�x cub w i`U 1- N=SUEE 2 Ab E G •U L •E O E d m G Y T .W Y E E • a^^ ^CE 00 .3 LA V Coaa' A EEC ^a y. q N AE O u�0. i •'i pa L w Yriiw G g LL M1E G. 5-a-, w G y Z EKdo a •'• F. wv A do owd �.m 41 Wyly Lam` O dN� H woN OluN Y yO • d.o q n .A b u.O 3 Ayot..Y-v�i W ao q w•Q ��y C 6 aC Cl•r �L� F C E do w G E A q p vz € p�Y V •p - mom U N yV ECYCUC t • J LCLiT O• m6 Ti! _ tt ^gCdrtl AC � StJ+L+J C yid p w =CL w. O p ^q En a Y 00 Y 0 9 M L U N Y"• q En Y O^w G U �d+ O q'C q a aI 'O y T r•O e L6 NC= Gy�ay+do N r uaN Oa wa0 doT`y+ Si e• y�L Wwp.L do d9 � � N U GL 'O NW•� N c �, •Y.. p. .-E pp m •'^E d p u N E 4 y O.O..A. J Q�U y G W u0 A C T d� A O• R m G d 6b Y m >qtn a'Li AE L d C C o_ a ,-Lop N o a L v L=+ n ab� �= vn ��.nt.. sA iovrn ry-�q y rwWi o.�Ay'� n=A�..o vi �' aua h O S •,y I RD 14 Nam D 42 Oa Nq wo,Y ..Y�1�• y0 uL� N iOC •u Nw E •LO.�+. .ON ayi O�Ly �+ C.-. ��� y L • b U G O q .G N 6 p �u E=O b a d . • • r wn Z. m G L L d ^u Y u u N C q G D O Yyy S v N a 0 ^6 G C a i°o" pY y way u ^eG « ANN A .vow r . �+ :. L w q NL q> a d� U •n eE q c U o p Y Wy ,pLq 2cN2 AO ^ yd>1 A LE ^ inC a CN tI.-.� D.Ot G.2.. wAiY ��wt Aa d^ En MU D.a • 11p..tiV LTN R u 2 O.-.G Ga d i ELN wN O~ a9 yEE YUC N.Y a yuY.t yA ra q a d W G~O.' DOLL E ct^ ^O OOd 6 E Cd N� Oyr aLV• a�.•� q` >. L c N`�.d• �L d S.. G^L C a L I da.O OI Y6U E ^ 5 O U> • �U O. ap,w� h C6wLrLY ` q6 AY r.V al On 6� G V aArn LtaE N L'qN V, ropl >• H2G1 ON6L Ali N G r Y U U d N 4 O� mt� Y� c WLQ -uN ^ � S.Q OC '.a•u^ a C NL U1O.w3p •= dOa a0 Y � ..Y.>.y NO ONN pp Yr y N4W aN b . _• Tam w �< G ^C6g. E OKS S�^ ���OI G� 9 Ca0 t6lpgadi �.. 04 E11 OGulu C•^•. Y00 VVAN - I d 9 m q E W 0 9 Ep6^Ep. 1�N L V M N N G S +�. r L E'Ic` Q F q q,: 9 L O w g O E L>C•O 6 6 L 61 G V W W W E 2 0.w M Y ' L - 30 .dC00 9G00+0+� 1 �i • C 9 A Vo.Y.'O CY ® rc Amp Z6LL Y u®\ A �pn C O a aY qd 9 0 N d .YIN p oao d.� C _ .+E a' >c C n• T 9 Y. N GUI y '• d N 6 Y L q nS dZ. Y v O E �.^ •C O �a o m yey o r_.. LL LH i« Ol G y 4wY y Oyler yd p .9 GAa o.rw ITN ON uC6 �Inq OL W w 4. N 3 I. d 9 QE .E � EL yd yin.O."' d In y c W N a O 6 A I,.-a �..- �q�d L y 4 N N'O 0Y .NV d >O 1�L•. N d u d 0 d n i O >. a d.A Y p itl n• v 3 d C P^ - _ LLm.OY 40u VO OI iO .Oi S U.3.�-W Y= `^ b L� 2ArC ME >9G 9 d S C DOYW GY. N V9 :w CM 2.LR 6 V5 C � U' tJ I 2 J ca c c i me a.. V. A \O V M E 9 Cw NMp. M Idr N Cy _ C p Y V G d i Q c i E Y L L M Y G M Y '^'a��Ew 'oN m' a =9W c rn a vL u^v ou.a. v .-o �vgwn O O C y Y == u T L 9 S Yli�. U yGYN CO9^ 9 m-- 9 VA C Y G 'n� a dIL 6: q.Yr'^ Y C o q Y� Ld T d GY =i yo YO 9G y •. pp q9 Y .n.� O dN LaOi..n.4U �O ay qy aA^ 4 .�6. O Gy Vll. qY C 4=tz Via„ mac 2. as « A. �a O1 p N. .-. u i ty _= d 'P3 dlr •it0 G �Y G —0.q w Gy O. NANO Au O LO d ^ A y VcT Of Gu�4y C LN pgq M �� d0• Y.EEs .� Ol O dY9Y �.;p� N taq li .Y-.O y L u AA9 dO U G� nN d �d .— JCL ab C d r .... « N Y i L 4+T•l d W O•N d Y y:. ^u yc R.l � 60 Y A Ni O MOB � 0 � 09 GOA .+p NW n« �d N V7 di C L.O p� n • CY. Oy CN.:u._. 01�a Ca a O G G N� Y «.-. a� LN N r�OA�` u�US yYaa3 q u O y f L V L �,,,C A n r C T O C 6 V Ol O y _ .�p� 5�q N Od 0 G G N OY o 2t V q V G L dY u d Olu`.v '^y omn� yd a rnw mac . Yla.Y:JA ouiN +�.a ea`.N .Gn pl G9 N OIE A yF0 u LOE4Y-N g6qb9Y �O.b l.An N+c••O. Ned Y Q 9 lry� Ou Cq: mnu wq, q NVO.N� SA NO OO.N.AE^` E 6 O d d .-I W VY :SO. CJ06= 4i QO 401u !amp Q y. O d • A N�O'L y O YO.� • OL Ob t a �p OCD�• y •Y LEpE yy Y N C q T L N �• M C .�b U `y 6 2 N b lo N d+ y u r d 0> d y N r�L rn N S • ^ dd^�. U U bp6y UaT' utL �d cps Cp C A d LO� bL _ Y yNyp N NLVab N 2 .L . �Cbd= C T ppNf 4o iyC r Yq oNl dO N l Y�C . dE'q NW Sy •rY. sr � O.+a C� O'Op C Ly� bb YOo q CW lgdc+ d L •O PCa^^ oQG 6apr E,.d A p+y y qb C.iIObO yq � L pW 6` •'•c b2+C N�[ y r W� AVLaLi u t,t a. STA •i...b NYy^ yT �ub WOLPC u pt7 _ ^� `ququ� YT _ EN9 ac qo �Q o •.•j L�" N y6 qW l t1L CT y Su0 V ^ U NO LL ^j � 01Aa NV Nbb b^d6 byo .UO dy. dAb sy. y�r uyi� 9 O b b N 6Vrrp. yyji LO 1.10 G.O N E L EQ ity Y. d A b. .pn. L b+ L L S C! d YES'^ 6CLN yd .H..� . Cpy 0. p AN E a cL UC\+ pU 6b O6. Os YO r••' a O T A 41 x + A q U y pyy EEA \p•O. W qU �a ��� 6• r L EAU. u �b TL]d n. s C a 0.0 b g L u A y+O Y N A^W f. Lq N ���6 rqu _� C� qY udu.CL AL y C e N� e^ o i a".anW Niq+ iyWi 4Lbi> od Ny iy yngL»u Y9 m ^ qo e XX o NOW. ^ �6NM VIOwr N9 6Y.w !{i 6� W-YINL VGI. 36 t3V 6 W ti N ti v nN u allo «d O• C y C+ u L Y� U NW y by ON a S b O � ` 01 C. s �� L�c 9Uy � • Q _+ d _ C y • b sN o u N n y a q� c y ` PiW^O Yiu •ems L O. u CL p E W H R ub y� }f ^O� CN. Of VIJ b +dJ L u N N w �� �a YybiT Ty H iK aL•i qu`$ p T^ Lt Op •+b 9N E OQ .S S cT W b C �Y d q. `6 O Ohm p•O ^ V 1 3 � + o O a p y qs b«•^ L NN r-Or G bb » � � OI O � + mod= `b �.•..0'PI qt O OCCb N. �Q Or. tit! G � N O O^� .. dA !?L WS WgANO: !L W•+ W Y < V H RHV ti i • dL c Q 4' W I ��� Cyy Z C ^y H N O AQu � Y y.pT 4-3 V Zc y.O .n.q OL d O. O.UC V L v L.Y Np.O Vq L dq NU d�0 Vq OtAJ dQ6 N a4 N M U d C L V N Y d Y y L O.'2 kz. wa- L d N�y 6 CG ZON p Yp UN dE dtJ � c.^y 6 pV Lu u� o ^u o. nvl awA� w di �c phi n NM Y cq ^9 Ld L f K .ate ' p Zoosc U L d Y Odd EE.A ^ AY Olp 9 �N pO W y D Y 9 O d im iAq p+dfL 01 C` �n 00 Ca GNP �O.Yp. 4� » Cam. CAN 4�N 110. QL 1�� dJ t�i G O. • U MM MA yV E O •• w d L O N Q c L�s O V y N ' M L N. W Y. E O d G +� ^ N VCV bye i5F q N yy O . r Q p L O Om 99AON Ub cb Au L Rt�q COI 1 cda c� VC1 V W t 25- VO.r A q�y N WT Gy Y Np A t N a .^a^M O.i V e a =a q E LL� n N> c =oat a c 92 IY C L ti c N V gg •_ G O ^M O Y� O V Z A L G �♦ L� Sy G O Nd •gip � 6 Q`Lc yL �L dpj c u q ua+ o c c L A a e'er tpi w ^ OON 01y�. 0.9 qO6 d>S =W oW Y.M O a01 OVl pCO C y quad Se - Ask ^ c N y y9 N p 6.5 Yq dON VOu A dU. Ld dls U N�. �� � bl hl mI _1 CITY OF RANCTIO CUCAMONGA CAAlyo STAFF REPORT rs •n O O F DATE: $ Z U Jmly 10, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Ot.n Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 DEER CREEK A request to modify the Condition of Approval regarding the design and construction of Opal Street, and proposed elimination of pedestrian access to Opal Street for a 97 lot sub-division located at the southeast corner of Banyan Street and Carnelian Street. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting that the Planning Canmis—` sion reconsider the Conditions of Approval relating to the li canpletion of Opal Street and requirement for a pedestrian connection. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Tract 12801 subject to the closure of Opal Street along the south boundary of the tract. The Conditions of Approval require a ten foot._.pedestrian access easement to connect Tract 12801 to Opal Sj~<r , and require the applicant to design and construct a cul-de-sac to terminate Opal Street. A public hearing is required for the Planning Commission to reconsider these two Conditions of Approval as reques•�ed by the applicant (see attached letter). II. ANALYSIS: A. Pedestrian Access Easement: The Planning Commission required the pedestrian access easement to provide access to Alta Loma Junior High School. Presently, students follow an indirect path to school. The required pedestrian connection will provide a direct route for students from Tract 12801 and tracts north of Banyan to Alta Loma Junior High School. The alternate route east along Mandarin, south on Beryl, then west on Lemon, is undesirable for several reasons. Firstly, it is a longer, indirect path. Secondly, Beryl Avenue carries a large volume of storm water during rainy season. Lastly, sidewalk does not exist on the west side of Beryl. The problems associated with the access_way as described by the applicant was acknowledged by Stxff. However, there are design features that can minimize security problems along the access. Further, the access_can be &signed as a ramp for bicycle and handicapped persons. ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12801 - Deer Creek July 10, 1985 Page#2 ..Options: The following options are available with respect to the pedestrian access easement: 1. Mitigate developers concern through design solutions including, but not limited to, fences and landscaping along the easement to protect and screen these two lots from vandalism and security problems, or 2. Require Opal Street to be connected to Mandarin as originally proposed by the applicant, or 3. Modify the Condition of Approval to eliminate the requirement for the pedestrian access easement. B. Opal Cul-de-sac - The applicant is proposing two alternatives with regard to the completion of the Opal Street cul-de-sac. The cost of improvements and disruption of access to 2 lots are cited as reasons for the consideration of a special -cul- de-sac design. However, the elimination ,­ connection (as on nall a on d the Opal SVi`ngs g y r-oposed), resulted in a cost s:.Vings for approximately 120 `reet of street Improvements, and resulted in an additional lot for the tract. The applicanTts preferred alternative would be to construct the cul-de-sac and landscaping as shown in Exhibit "C", at their cost and expense. This alternative would provide minimal construction and inconvenience to the two property owners during construction. This inconvenience could be reduced to a matter of several days through careful coordination and use of a 7 sack concrete mix for the driveway approaches. However, the proposed design does not meet City standard and would provide inadequate turning radius for street sweepers and fire trucks. The second alternative proposed by the applicant would be construction of the cul-de-sac per City standard, with a credit.] given to the applicant towards systems development fees. The commitment of systems deviopment fees for this purpose would require City Council approval. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that this projects systems fees be applied toward the construction of this cul-de-sac. However, there has been no precedent established by Council acticn for the use of systems fees to satisfy this type of Condition of Approval. Options: The following options are available with respect to the Opal cul-de-sac: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12801 - Deer Creek July 10, 1985 Page #3 1. Require construction of the cul-ue-sac as shown in Exhibit "B" and refer to City Council the issue of . credit towa,.d systems fees to tine applicant for this purpose, or ?. Require Opal Street to connect to Mandarin Avenue as originally proposed by the applicant. 3. Approve construction of the modified cul-de-sac as shown in Exhibit "C". r IlI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted and notices se— i_- ai: property owners within 300 feet of the project site. IV. RECOMMENP,ATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a'puMiic hearing to consider,the applicants requests and select 1;rom the options provided herein. tel sub�ii" ted, RG:DC:cv Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Temporary cut-de-sac _ Exhibit "C" - Modified cul-de-sac Resolution of Approval with Conditions 84-123 Minutes of October 24, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting t Y F J" , -3 u 4 , S 1 t i cl 1 May 23, 1985 _ l Rancho. Cucamonga Planning Commission 9340 Baseline Road Suitt B Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: Pedestrian Access and Cul-de-Sac Design for Tentative Tract Map 12801- Generally Located On The Southeast Corner of Banyan and Carnelian. Dear Commissioner: At the Planning Commission Meeting of October 24. 1984, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 12801 subject to the closure of Opal Street along the south Boundary of the project. Based upon public testimony the Co=ission voted that Opal Street was not needed for further circulation of this general area. As such, the Commission included two conditions of approval *.hi.ch required a ten foot pedestrian access easement to connect our project to Opal Street and for our Company to be responsible for she -iesiga and construction of the cul=de sac or. Opal Street. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to reconsi- der these two issues as is outlined in the remainder of the letter. tie first would like to request that the Commission amend the conditions of ap- prova-1 to eliminate the requirement for pedestrian access. Attached as Exhibit "A" is an area map indicating the proposed subdivision design and it's relation- ship to the surrounding neighborhood and existing junior high school. It is our opinion and the opinion of the homeo-aners on Opal Street, based on the Commission's determination that Opal Street sbou'ld be closed, should also be applied to pedes- trian access. It appeared as though the Commission was ccnce-ned about pedestrian access for school routes. As can be-seen from the map, adequate pedestrian circu- lation routes are available through our subdivision along Mandarin to Beryl Street and down Carnelian from areas north of the project, Currently, the school pedes- trian traffic has been utilizing the other streets to reach Lemon Avenue and the school without any problems. We would watmit that this will not :range end in C fact our will project provide better access than which is currently available. through Mandarin onto Beryl. We are asking for this revision for the following reasons: r. 1. The houses on either side of the pedestrian easement will be very diffi- cult to sell. We currently have this situation existing in our Red Hill Tract.and have still not been able to sell one of the houses. We have had I to discount the price of the house tremendously and it' is fast becoming a k. no protit situation. THE DEER CREEK COMPAW POSTOMCE BOX488 ALTA LJMA,CALIFORNIA91701 (714)98)3323 /YI-4 d Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission May 23, 1985 Page 2 2. The school is a junior high school and a pedestrian access.easement through here for this age children would provide more problems than bene- fits. 3. The easement between the homes will lend itself _o theft, vandalism, graffiti, and security problems. We cannot prevent the future adjacent homeowners from constructing wallas or fences along the easement in order to protect and screen their rear yard areas from this easement. 4. A majnrity of junior high Fchool kids ride their bicycles to school. This improvement if built, would not be very accessible to bicycles as the design will require stairs since there is a significant grade difference from the project site to the level of Opal Street. Tn conclusion of the access easement issue, we feel it is unfair wince the Commission decided *o block vehicle access to then require pedestriaL access at the cost totally tL the builder. approximately $5,000.00 to $6,010.00, especially when the original design submitted by our Company was for a connection at this point. We hcpe that yoc- can clearly understand the concerns and problems with . this access and respectfully request that you mend the conditions to-eliminate it. With respect co the cul-de-sac on Opal Street,.we generally feel. that it is im- fair to require our Company to cover the entire expense of designing and construct- ing a cul-de-sac for which we did not intend to provide, but ome which was desired by the adjacent residences and ti« Commission. We have mo basic alternatives with regard to this matter. Exhibit "B" indicates the current condition of. jp&l Street and the location of the new curb,'gutter and sidewalk as it would be re- quired under the City Standard Drawing for a. remporary rul-cis-sac. This cul-de sac design is one whico can be b,iilt within the existing right-or-way without having any right-of-way acquisition. However, as can be seen from the drawing this new co-istruction will adversely effect both adjacent residences through par- tial removal of driveways and the entire driveway approach in order for it to be constructed in accordance to the C�i'ty standard. This reconstruction will not only cause a week delay in vehicle access to these residence, but will cost approximately $20,000.00. In contrast, EXhib .L "C" indicates completing the end of the street with curb and gutter with a simple radius equal to the width of the street and comp.ceti,.., the surrounding area and slope with landscaping and irriga- tion tied into adjacent residences. This improvement is estimated to cost approxi- mately $8,500.00 and would not conflict with adjacent driveways. We would propose two alternatives with regard to the completion of this cul-de sac. The first alternative, and our preference would be to construct the cul-de sac and landscaping similat• Co that shown in Exhibit "C" at our cost and expense. The second alternative would be to eoRstruct the cul-de-sac with rll of :t's Potential problems and conflicts vita adjacent residences with a credit given to us towards our systems development f_e. Our first phase of 31 homes has already paid a total of $37,910.00 towards the systems development fee. This second phase will yie;d approximately the same amount which would be more than enough ; f. to pay for this improvement. The reason we ask for this credit, is based on the Rancho C%,,camonga Planning Commission May 23, 1985 Page g fact that it was not our design tc terminate this street but rather the choice of the City based upon the desires of the residents on Opal Street. We bel'ieva- the best alternative is to follow the design shown on Exhibit "r" as this pro- vides a completed look to the street, The other cAzl-de-sac design does not provide the adequate turn around distance for emergency vehicles_ It would be frivolous to spend the amount of money necessary to construct the design shown on Exhibit B for tha minimal amount of benefit that it provides. If allowed to construct the cul-de-sac as shown on Exhibit "C" we would, as always, provide the best quality worimanship and provide the residents with an at ractive com- pleted look. Our Company's philosophy and desires have always been to provtda !lie City and surrounding neighborhoods with the best possible situation. We are proposing these two issues to the Commission because we sincerely feel that these two is- sues need to be altered to provide for the best environment rud design for this area. We have talked to the neighbor e.djacent to the project and he was in con- currence with the cul-de-sac design as shown in Exhibit "C". Further, the resi- dents on Opal Street have voiced their, objections to the pedestrian access not only at the public hearing, but to us an numerous occasions. We respectfully submit these requests with confidence that you will give due and full considera- tion to these propos ils. We will be more than happy to meet with anyone at the project site to review this and will be available for answering any questions before and at the meeting. Sincerely, THE DEER CREEK COMPANY ss A �y� f• , Michael D. V'airin Director of Aaministratian and Planning MDV/ac cc: Rick Gomez Lloyd Hubbs E .. t') ' 1•�4 1 Q; i I � � ° I 1 , it it � S� i [ � •_ !i�B\ Gam. �� ®. 1 �\\'�L• ;����_{ •aJ 1 .fir •s�q��a JQ'E • I c., o. L1 ,,` RR, u! jj. ® :Tt�l l�, � .\ i �'� , a � � ' a � r 1 • I } � �:�., t �� ''3 `p•.i 1 ,.� � is I � i i` I. - ' ' { ♦'`�oJy '•.� �'; • vino' • �i,� ! ,� I:�• • � w .. • �� • ,) 3NI Z� i 6-al �:1 rIVII.Ni015z; 1 M- 7 /zYo €etfsiYPfeYSA Mle. E%!5'jNfy ,-DAKMOI0e WA�;P JiS CAHLE +..�. � � • � 73t£6 a� WATOK MfTeK l47 ;1 ORtY&'Nfi�' P:oPo:ep pqc � f � NORTH CT OF ITELvI HO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISI(W EXHIBIT- � SCALE- 9 LAND"4os vmiM hEcA ,� _, _. . AND Lo.;NrrU(! fKRI(yh'1'1H►11 '�C httWt.�'f DWFd.LtNtis W`•�,90���pplL M �1ttSrtK6 DRAM" 14 NORTH w CIY OF ITEM RANCHO CUCA.MONGA TITLE-- PLANNING DI v JISICXN EXHIBIT=�_,SCALE-- j � i RESOLUTION ND. 84-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE �PLANN NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIvE, TRACT MAP ND. 12801, THE DEER CREEK COMPANY, WCATED ON TH SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BANYAN AND CARNELIAN STREE 'S - AM 062-3,61-01 AND 1062-371-01. - WHEREAS, "entative Tract Map No. 12801, hereinafter "Map" submitted by The Deer Creek Company, applicant,, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, deGzribed as a custom lot subdivision on 32.3 acres into 95 Lots, regularly cams before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on October 24, 1984; 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; 6nd WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the pubic hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission_ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1s The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12801 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 the tentative tract is consistent with the:^eneral Plan, Development. Code, and specific plans; ,c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development p, aposed; (d) The design of the subdivision';- not likely to cause substantial environmental and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. M- ta tl Resolution No. 84-12:" Tentative Tract 1280 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration. is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No.. 12801, a .copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prior to issuance of bu-lding permits precise designs, architecture and plot ' plans shall be submitted for design reviev.; and approval by the Planning Commission in order to assure architectural compatibility with the surrounding homes (i.e., exterior and roofing materials, and design theme). 2. The developer shall be responsible to install and maintain the perimeter lardosape parkway on Carnelian Street and Banysn" Street prior to annexation into the City's Landscape Maintenance District. I 3. The appropriate drainage easements along the rear property lines and within Lots 7 through 12 and 78 through 82 shall be deeded prior to "issuance of building permits. 4. Carnelian Street east side parkway design shall be continued. 5. The existing wine'row shall be removed and replaced with a double staggered row of an appropriate variety of Eucalyptus as approved by the City Planner. , 6. The California Sycamore tree shall be planted rnd. incorporated with the Eucalyptus windrow street trees at the pedestrian and vehicular openings where the proposed cul-de-sac streets back up to and where connecting streets intersect with Banyan Street. 7. The new portions of the west side property line wall shall be a combination of rock pilasters, to match the City's surrounding historical- rock structures, and block stucco between pilasters continuing the Carnelian wall theme from the south. M-(i Resoluticn No. 84-123o� Tentative Tract 1280k Page 3 ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. The curb along the south side of Banyan Street shall be located at 22 feet from the street centerline which will require removal of the interferring street trees and incorporate a parking aisle. 2. Street "C" shall connect to Banyan Street and Street "D" shall be a cul-de-sac. 3. The proposed cross-lot drainage system shall be approved by the Grading Committee prior to Planning Commission approval. 4. Mandarin Avenue shall confinue and connect through the entire tract east from existing Tract 9448. . The proposed Opal Street shall not connect south of Mandarin excrnt for a 10-foot pedestrian easement extending to Street on Tract 9287. Within Tract 9287, the- applicant shall be responsible for design and construction of—a c_ui_de-sac on Opal Street where it terminates north to Tract 12801, to the satisfaction of the Cit Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1984. PLANN G CO,MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Sto t airman- ATTEST: f Eck Go :, Deputy Secretary I, Rick omez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cu amonga, 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 24th day of October, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT alk i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -• • �V L a d �9 L^ ro O IL Eau 7 `or S^ L 1.CC 4UY C.N' tuiW � GO � �LY< u.0 9 ,,,,�p • to p , C A y a ro v?Y U E•+n O. T=p�.• LC=^V o�� by j7 �^= TO E`.-.0 a d Tu O n= UQ Q C H ° n S'.'^ G U-p- ocL ei4�Ee 9pN = n u�pb G 3=r ni p�p 9 y O .G P.�. 4.A Y^ =U� 8` y NOCy q 0 4 q .Q-.N N. & V�t t Y E. �� A T COMq79 N. a�u p31 UtiQ Owns 40+U•u ��.°L. O. -..6..Oi. =Nrq� Oy A 9� 4. qyU w. ac p p1 C: 94np. qU p ue GC6c^ `a w' In Ttpurr„... 460,E do E.0 Ej L9 ti .+ O° ppT �=N UCE q =C E �O O UO. 9 4O w L s•3V C> _.E UGN .fl. p U Oq p • aN � .9 q a � U. U° GU. pu < Y w=•3 111 Aft at Q a � to ptd a F _ F o "'— _ :O L �E t4uuaa^ 1!.1 a r cp Ea`off•" W � a YO � 9" M_• 40.d t' t r re. O. V d 69 G GO yIN yp.AL=p 2 • , 9 t q N p oJ. N — u E. - s isa q � .rn a. q Mom= L y 1 G gNg N.vn N �4 2 R� C Ic K u i- u A _ O•.rL d a l CQIOu L t U O=&q 0 O1N O qC d' y o uuod=L' J EN aaG ep� cu� a P? d Q rod. 'v NQ $ NO tpi O P y Q? any L ^.�u.c � ue.0-N �Zvgij K LCL U N c L .• O � q`NU u Y q Q Z tLi •e .� C _ _. L oEdo e"on z�.cEi Yam` `= L..;an �NaNdu=N = c`.�cc No s •'-a+.L, _gym PE n o we q sEi m � E r N ^ N O g 4 �. O _ O rr 6 =r 6• C V L Z Y O d O D U N L N u u O O u u r t a `. �'•.c.o c 5`d� Q Pu Ru. ^CeEi 1.U.9. �Cd Po COCu �.P. Y d:ia.. y L gi i.•N O. i q.Lrm tl N O r�.� qE aL xcoV�'vs L. Sr C5g.2o p�Yrr _ •Q na �b uL e, • ..C Ear EJ O GE1� a�. L n 2.5 O �. q c c v'a . eYniY �saa n E Qii R L LU �o CVW e� ... F L Loq "dc n` Qc suaw`GL- �E..co: va`o�u qe> ...i,_ � n mru• �� >c c ..c F o. c d d o e C`M.ri� q'jY U`Q� V� r U Lrc U. c Nq c73: N S`y L +>•yQ L QC CC C q n C O O.pa np aII C Nn �=r No S.-No wtiq <u .r..OSugd c LGQ.� dpnpE �.^ L�66 •... .•P....� O n.+ Y q G +a N c g i M_ ' y i=q •pinn ^" C E td u.` b^'oa C �.� ti.�"b �Fa rdi� v��0 E D� Li E VNb YY ty L. b u^ 75 Z T`�O L Cpi N v.�C •Y C= b dQ u �. V bU p o Y N G • N J• 'e u C£ L ^q"o'irkm p.`_ b b > N s e c T m y u gv d cv n' �q bo'�N nL<.q L wa',n, n:q c " u ^ �d 0 `C b E t i V q Y 9 v C u L rs d_b y Y u^U v. _ .b EOaLCgq uOp .per 'np4\.w'r iCN•� ,Y ... `6 uOCb EF"CI� cb m �a L ?-0.s d dY uo.Nu u G T b O v N= y w o N u E^u m o d u L Vpba 6N q dC o �O�C p 0 g L O G u L.E n i•l~ D�`C T Y• C V q y 9` O.nt.L N C�6� CC y•,' CC= q^ Luq n n �rw N=ON ^� u d�4U p? nb n`VO nW b iC bLu Ty � E gT,ab C6Vg0 »Q�"» .a TYi n`y _C.Y-.'iN q i m Y� q`c N . ._.`• .� .L.,5�u z c c O V^y �1. urn L ddaq b•C^ r� <60� •tiE p O� u n O9 .G N b c ip io iAa 9Yc a.w o�- ^Y„c d Ic yo �o e •.. .. cLv b m . O M~ YY iC >Et qqN a ,morn TC N O. b CL p.�c� GbN bd bo �b L � NnvY` pY dx n nL N by 2>N d Du 00 4Z u Y uN . N O.q•, oaNi biOb Luby4 Ecu� tc �^�._ iey a v a u b o•c ,r p a .. o q o ., c n u` L_^O N a'. Y wb od n Y O Nb LggN bVod �.. p ny�, c aoa ncy c. y ^^g`. Lbm.� �iL�`o ^N a:La dba ` d tat ll_ .n.� Y LY u d v NC i N E GYn TY V LO y �b ^.�u b:b N /-•>.� 6�,1 Gb FON•O•.iie c 4No.b N06.; d` Lio LN. G i N� ? o �-v�C OMutf dN C~ Q y ♦n c� YV n q- d O � C U y U� 1r C{Uy E E 4 L CI -.F 'p a "•O�� ~ 1 �.^u s^any 5 ++...,.. Qj a. v ^•Y r.Y 0 Y tl � W �� C U C +H N O i y.,•-N .r R�uq «.4�au m �i �o rrn � a�q6 Q-v 4.L =q0 RY «dL a•uatcn n;•"=u .Q. u'c �n "'++. .`;.c aw ti- 6 sL'uv E .c -A KZu a .oc NC a „tlH. oa•�r. u o e L��Y ► q� `r d.4 U�4 O •d mo e.Q-Q'UE u� OS .drL NLIyY "•o LI 6� ® ace a o- «u'W� ao na WN o. q L y ,- \ taLa os <y I o � 12, - C � I $o " « qw •.'a tl .fie, J o U«._ov u n •a c- V 4 vL. @ UnY vW Q.y �>V =y V ww yrA vmL N V UY ! 3 NL M ; tlC d�� 9 V4� N u3y_ �yU D AL e1 My v n .�.. a i •�W a a Cn n YU +v nav ~ n v 72 O Oq w V u D Q e m.n'0 O �2t:dN "o uw^ a i .a u��Y X,''H'• Eo'e vdo aA o no i c 'av dr: AYH I �2 aH $"any LgLn L O lJ �'�7R vQ4 L` nd HL O••4 Mp tP UO Be W -py.YO •a` `` �• 6A F C Y L O q Y C d C V `d Pn HM O ^vOG. v..C. vVX Z Q J EEC gOCLi C1t O� H Hw M� m�r� AG .�L L •y H g Lv N yqp Y1W Yc �d H.26. Q 6L ^b ="•Y Lc....0 H V=L I D Q2 L UpN-. u- wa� �:NLOL •'i4 C YLM E OO n c t Oa ++ x wO E� Nq qN.-� N26 e� Q 4:�.UOL ST •tl MEY 1 L IT t» l� 'J.W t UY Ul O ^. q. L H v^4t,t v►Y DG` O d ��bCtt Y= aDo G YET `� V laV PNO L.T 4 di :a 'Ub 4�� d n0 nndC v C YC gEwl� L1ti 46O fl.V = IJ taDi WF2 }Y1�.4 V YQ Dr G �f 1 I L.L.Qi .w.�O ' •' 2LWN0 rwa (y- lb 79 p ( ysa�g l cI". O N w Y �T• q � C L `4C- „. a`.. N O� Y ^m q L j o ! 4E znit O —�. < $� V p y� q v o � i V.9�b Ei 9 yCp L Sy _ a��eji�y uu b S Y' C N.tp "y O V L xadi O � l YO a E O ^ O �LL4.+ VO �.. OC 6N Oi.O Ynw.9 Z' YyR.U. Vn MYY �� y4420 ES ai A L CL • O\. .-.» Id9 41 J��6`y 6V� �1 4 „L O cCc�v �� WZ t�lpR NG: LL N L� .. e�e� waY,� oL=a-. ,yeoD weppec3r n C� ` � C Ley Y La E Y64CN yCu aNdSO� v. V pO. L Mew 4 L „ Geuo 6. YY G dnw Or ywL .cov V`.` vE uo` G'a�n wsgTg�c, av nD � s -z S J. T5- o^�_ $� dao t y y Y a c G�._ � dw y Y �O NL_y C /aL?V.2 YOT V7+L`�a 4w�� w kd bw. Ep c NnO�w'`v . � of 9a�pi.yL' wC vL O{ � c ` 4v pay .Y,4uo �anq v�.� tea.•" n� n� Y vyy� .wipe N"' �O`Li .Cp �•�o.p+..q E.y 0 EE ad w4 Ys�. NIGH +E>6dC 1aO� yCO`a9 aw. CN q� VN rti w pw�� VvdjO .�Y3 Y.� C1� Q• Y.N` Gy r a-0 ^ L'o c��q iV�G aQOal boOa �LO^vu..RG. K ^.�' pMR �R �D TY4TC CBEo. VH.Y.O lT aCc� OO..O. ydi p1N OYLN — .c. Y�d..ty ✓ R � > >V �G ��VL �1�i8 n O C wa i Pt t, W J a 1•.L •Y Y �� M w L. N O Y t M CC O N Q Y 4 L p ~ U. C .c.'yTiu a. L r c dN yo o L � �r 0� w a C N S Ld 4. 1 r Y 4 • r v • C S- p �M• 4. �a ^ O tl .'l C 0 y O w O O u B L ,p C x J e a O v pN r S M L 41 `NO YC Nywyi N _ _` G il.^� S�'• CV t' u�. f.1 u L W y;C Z, M w� ` '+• 2 c Y A •� •O �'groi v� � o�N.Y u w e y N ¢ N C L M Ga +C i � o- t�.. a�a c �sr o�trv4 0 ...`� `�;a 4-'�• .44+F^ oo-y. c.�. Gad ' �NN u�• ` `N`9•C � GN 44 Y �rn�•L� OL c. 4 L F6 GVJ dC O ry ..bra a. O.•. qR `L L V+ d rL•N C wA 0 E S E l Y F4 0 S+ u U ... r �a1;r Np L v2luo ^Tt LwL. Lt p' L ..". '$.� N • DSO C� LC• L41 r•� O �� 4C. � �06 \� •.0 `6 W .Y•�..:� Nw E4 l � O. 4� C Y~Y aN Mr y b+ Y rn M T y L u =1V �6 Cy `rC u.-. d �' w4 = VurF• �,y MY NO V qap Ti �L .�'•+�..ui v`a « o` n o �`' N.4 .w•o CrW VC N� uw O.pi u dP. 4y p v`C y.M M YV. as _ a api„Y A ..W O• Y 4a P. N S r••ao;5-= vv Yw LN a 6.C W�N V L W 7C v I ^I It 1 2 r• � � '� r 0 0 cc w ryj� V 4 ur r C F M 4 L y Y r M EE ' Dr 4 O car' Z•.� u � W �c�V >V 'i Log T`.o 51, R V W Ea WJ L `C= C�nd` q GCS w N 0 •F My LL a S G � � � � p• � j L1 �C L G` �' � V r. G G L M C L rs Ct� a ol v E •� c ` 4 =G 4 _ r Lil JAA— ,, k uc o c FSL � C• n,. `Nm oN .ca a'c =� pJ C7 6Y Z q O .nJ wl d• C w YA N_C O. = a� r a �c .c"$ a d n m•- N n.Y u N L •' L 4.. N V Nq Y ,rC O^•L' C a`oN m o m yc � `� AEU �` Orn GL �W � ON j6� M py o a u d •�{�y ^W OW 2N c=� .�� u N'� N r'�m N y 6.+ Ln y a. w i• Y �N a,a 9� E �M ~Y •G`_ CEO u.-.O V >.>. !- �ma Om,Y C 4 Y ... u �c f.�• Kw >N1 .cam :lo o..�.N yo 6Y .i ( ltik I 8:00 Planning Commission Recessed 8:15 - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 DEER CREEK - A residential subdivision of 96 lotis on 32.3 acres of land in the Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) District located at the southeast corner of Banyan and Carnelian - APN 1062-361-01; 1062-371-01. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the' staff report and suggested the following amendments to the Standard Conditions: Page 5, Condition 2, amended to require dedication of 14 to 17 additional feet on Carnelian, and Condition 5 amended to require vehicular ingress and egress dedication L-i Banyan and Carnelian for the length of the project, with the exception of La:. 20 on Banyan:, Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Vairin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the staff report and Resolution. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant had spent a great deal of time and money researching the Eucalyptus wir-,irow and felt that successful preservation could be accomplished. Art Bridge, 8715 Banyan, addressed the Commission in support of tFa windrow preservat•kon. Kenneth Bird, e287 Opal, stated concerns'with additional traffic on Opal and suggested a cul-de-sac at the end of Opal. Neil Murphy, 6095 Sacramento, stated support of the windrow preservation. Robin Beaman, 6207 Opal, stated concerns with grading and flooding. Melinda Ryan, 6258 Opal, expressed concern with additional traffic on Opal and rats coming from the removal of the citrus groves. Gerald Dun; , 6213 Sacramento, expressed concern with flood control. < Pam Beaman, 6207 Opal, expressed concern with additional traffic and additional water runoff on.Opal. Bill Melzer, 9009 Regency Way, expressed concern reaarding grading of the site and water runoff on Opal. - Barbara Bird, 6287 Onal, requested cul-de-sac on Opal to alleviate traffic. Seggie Pasillos, 6212 Sacramento, expressed concern with water runoff and drainage. Planning Commission Minutes _6_ Uctober 24, 1984 F. Demien, 8768 Banyan„ stated support_of Eucalyptus preservation. S. Hammerl•, 8796 Banyan, stated support of Eucalyptus preservation. A. Vuhrati, 8780, stated support of Eucalyptus preservation. Chairman Stout advised that some issues raised during public testimony were not under consideration by the Commission at this stage of the p.-ocess, but would be considered when precise plans are submitted. Rick Gome:t, City Planner, stated that City staff would notify concerned individuals when the improvement plans are submitted if they would leave their name and address with staff. Michael Vairin, representing the applicant, advised that he would be available at any time to talk to adjacent residents about the project and clarify what is being proposed. There were no further co:=ents, therefore the public hearing was closed.. Commissioner Rempei addressed the windrow preservation issue and stated concerns with saving the trees. He advised that preservation would require. the City to incur a lot of liability and recommended that the trees ba replaced with an appropriate variety. Commissioner Barker stated that citizens had expressed a desire to preserve windrows in the City wherever possible in an effort to retain the character of one community. He disagreed that the trees si.nuld be replaced and recommended that they be topped and saved. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she didn't see the need to widen the street to the full 22 feet. She additionally stated that removal of the windrows would result in the loss of Banyan Street's character and was also in favor of topping and preserving the existing trees. Commissioner McNiel stated that most people who enjoy Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees either don t have them on their property or they have large enough lots that the trees don't bother them. He recommended that the trees be removed and replaced with a more appropriate variety. a Chairman Stout stated that Banyan is not a residenL.'al street and will be a major east-west thoroughfare and whether it is widened or not will carry a lot of traffic. He also stated that Blue Gums are not an appropriate tree for residential areas and that the windrow should replaced and replanted. Commissioner Chitiea addressed the street issue and proposed the possibility of providing emergency access and reversal of the cul-de-sac as suggested by the residents. She asked if it would be possible to have pedestrianaccess at the cul-de-sac which would be acceptible to the Fire District and alleviate r the traffic problem. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 24, 1984 i r� Chairman Stout advised that not only would the Fire District's access needs have to be addressed but also some type of access to allow students to get to the junior high school without going all the way down to Banyan. Commissioner Rempel stated that if a cul-de-sac is proposed going south, permission would moMe than likely be required from the people on the north, because people wouldn't want to see an opening, drive up there and nrt be able to turn around. Commissioner Barker stated that the street as designed would encourage more traffic going through on Opal. He further stated that Commissioner Rempel had a valid point., but fire access could be allowed through the use of turf block and still allow foot traffic. City Planner Rick Gomez advised that it might be 'best to deal with this issue oti a general basis and stated concerns with making a technical decision without knowing the ramifications since the Fire District was not represented at this time. Commissioner McNiel stated that the street should have access to the school and if that issue cannot be resolved by a pathway, the street is still essential.. He further stated that it rouid be mitigated by design. Chairman Stout stated that the consensus of the Commission seems to be that emergency access needs to be provided as well as pedestrian access to the school. He suggested that ttie design details of hin thiz. is to be accomplished should be worked out with the Engineering Division staff. Michael Vairin, Deer Creek Company representative, stated that there are two engineering problems to be considered; drainage and grade at the point of the cul-de-sac. H: suggested that the best solution might be to take "E" Street and drop it parallel to Mandarin and cut the street off at that_point. Further, that the cul-de-sac could be designed in accordance with the Engineering Standards within the existing right-of-way widths, which is acceptable to the Fire District, Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission still wants to have some type of pedestrian access. s Mr. Vairin replied that the design similar to that used in Beer Creek's Red Hill project could be used. Chairman Stout recommended that a condition should be added to clarify the windrow replacement. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to eliminate Engineering condition 1-A of the Resolution, thereby requiring the wi&�Wiag of 't Banyan to 22 feet and removal of the windrow; addition of.a fourth condition to require that Mandarin Street be redesigned dependent on final engineeringh Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 24, 1984 M rya t decision; Opal Street be a designed with a cul-de-sac at the north and and have rovisions for pedes r'ian ;right-of-way• and a condition to clarify the R win row rep acemen o e sat!s ac ion o -he City Planner. AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, MCNIEL, -OUT g, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA ABSENT: COM[ ,3SIONERS: MONE -carried Commissions Barker and Chitiea voted no because of previously stated positions on the windrow issue. 0;00 - Planning Commission Recessed { 1 5 - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present { Chai\out ced that it was staff's recommendation that Items M, N, ' and can the November 14, 1984 meeting and suggested that they be consuence. M. SSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-04-A - HAVEN (, AVENUE OVERLAY ISTRICT A General Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial Park ,'.)proximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haven Aven b%en ten Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with tvenue Overlay Distric'",'- APN 208-331-01, 12, 13 and 208-341-01. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-04 HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT A, Development District Amendment from OP Office/Professional to ISP ndustrial Specific Plan) for approximately 40 acres of land located or, he west side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow H hway, in conjunction with the Haven 'venue Overlay District - APN 208- 1-01, 12, 13, and 208-341-01. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRI SPECIFIC PLAN AME)'iDMENT 84-01 - RAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - An ame moot to tF� Ind.ustrial Specific Plan to expand the boundary of Subarea (Industrial-)Park category) to include approximately 40 acres of land loc *ed on the_west side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow ighway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District APN 208- -01, 12, 13 and 208-341- 01. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Bill Kirkland, West Coast Netting, addressed the CommissioXtating that he has been working with staff to receive input and address sociated Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 24, 1984 -a3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA gCAA,10STAFF REPORTNn> UZ DATE: July 10, 1985 1977 TO: Chairm,_a and Members of the Plz;ining Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil, Senio'e Planner SUBJECT: FOOTHILL BOULEVAK WEST STUDY I. ABSTRACT: This reprrt is the first in a series from which the Interim Development Policies for Foothill Boulevard crest will be developed. The topics to be discussed at this time include the boundaries of the planning area, framing of the basic issues and concerns, initial concepts for: the Interim Policies, and primary planning goals. II. PLANNING AREA: The s:._jested boundary of the planning area ranges from the westerl<< city limits along Grove Avenue, east to Deer Creek Channel abutting the Haven Avenue Ov�.rlay District and Virginia Dare Center. The immediate vicinity of Foothill and Haven Avenue need not be inelvied, as the area is already part of the Haven Avenue Overlay. Getr Creek appears to define a more logical easterly boundary. As shown on Exhibit "A", the depth of the study area follows the boundary of General Commercial, Office Professional, and Medium Residential property along Foothill. Also, the study area extends to the boundaries of vacant and/or developable property which may impact the corridor such as San Bernardino Road south. o� Foothill near Grove, the west side of Vineyard north of Foothill, and land near the intersection of Turner and'Foothill. Existing single family subdivisions abutting the Foothill Corridor are excluded though they would,,iof course be considered in the planning process. In addit-Wn to the land west of Haven Avenue, the area along Foothill in Etiwanda has similar characteristics and could be included if the Commission feels it is appropriate. III, ISSUES/CONCERNS: The major topical areas of concern include land use, urban design, traffic and circulation and economic viability as discussed below. Land Use: The study will need to address land uses on vacant or developable properties as they relate to neighborhood compatibility and transition, appropriateness of a vse given size, configuration and access to properties, economic viability of uses given site constraints and arty unique or special problems. The re(ault will be to reaffirm the current land use pattern or provide appropriate adjustments. ITEM N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Foothill Boulevard West Study July 10, 1985 Page 2 Urban Desicn The Foothill Bo ulevard corridor lacks consistency of architeMi al character or quality, landscaping, pavement width, and maintenance. In addition, there i!, a mixture of incompatible uses such as older single family res-idences and high intensity commercial. Numerous small parcels and inefficient utilization of land is also a constraint. Urban design guidelines must be provided which address the major design elements such as architectural style and landscape treatment for both street frontages and the median island. Traffic: The traffic issues relate to providing efficient and safe traffic flow along the corridor. The intent is to balance the need for access to individual properties as well as allowing Foothill to serve as the major east/west transportation corridor through the €ammunity. Items which must be dealt with include driveway locations, local street access, and the median island configuration. Economic Viability: The study must consider the impact on existing' viable activities along the corridor and develop a strategy to enhance land uses along Foothill Boulevard of community-wide significance. IV. INTERIM DEVELOPMENT/POLICIES: Completion of the foothill Boulevard Plan will take hetween to 18 months, depending on the scope of the study and the level of detail desired.. Both yet remain to be finalized. In the interim period, however, projects will continue to .be submitted for City review, including Projects with no unresolvable problems. Development of some of these projects may be consistent with— the City's long-term goals for Foothill Boulevard, and their?approval desirable prior to the completion of the Foothill Boulevard Plan. In order to deal obiLctively with projects submitted in the interim period, it is suggested that the Commission adopt a set of goals e' for Foothill Boulevard. These goals should be relatively simple and should express in concise terms what it is that the City is trying to accomplish in the study area. Based directly on these goals, staff can develop interim policies and guidelines to give the Commission an objective means of evaluating individual project proposals in the interim period. The intent of these interim policies would be threefold: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT_ Foothill Boulevard West Study July 10, 1985 Page 3 r; 1. To accommodate approval of development projects that are consistent with th ,City's long-term goals for Foothill Boulevard.. Projects that fit, in the Commission's judgment, in this category would be permitted to proceed without undue_ delays, subject to the interim policies and the Development Code. 2. To prevent development of projects that are clearly inconsistent with the. stated long-term goals for Foothill. Boulevard, 1 3. To postpone approval of development projects that have a significant potential of interferring with the stated long-term goals if approved prior to completion of the Foothill Boulevard Study. This would include those Ithat may in some sways be interdeperdent with other properties-in the immediate area on access, parking, circulation, drainage, or other provisions to be addressed and resolved ti by the Foothill Plan. V. LOVG-TERM GOALS FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD: The General Plan places a heavy emphasis on the role of Foothill Boulevard in the City. As the City's main east-west artery, it has been the historical' location for a variety of relatively intense uses. The General Plan identifies in 1iose terms the disagregate Mature of existing land uses, the heavily auto dependent commercial activities, the importance of Foothill as a traffic carrying artery, and the need to strenthen the viability of existing commercial development. What is needed is a focused approach to the problems and opportunities of Foothill Boulevard. Hopefully, a clearly defined goal statement can serve as the firsx step in that direction and be used as the basis for development of the the interim policies. { it jj PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Foothill Boulevard West Study Ouly 10, 1985 e le 4 For discussion purposes, the following goals have been outlined for ` the Commission's consideration: 1. Land Use: Provide a viable setting for a balanced mixture of k residential and commercial activities of community-wide. significance compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Urban Des_ign Establish a high quality, unifying desion image wF ch promotes a sense of identity and reflects cananunity heritage. 3. Traffic and Circulation: `arovide for safe and efficient r traffic flow and optimum vehicular and pedestrian access within the corridor. 4. Economic Viability- ' Support and strengthen the continued economic viability o` the Foothill Boulevard corridor. The goals statements are. intended to serve as a guide for development of the interim policies. -Therefore, the Commission should discuss and achieve a consensus relative to these goals. It is also importpnt that these goals, in spite of the complexity of issues, be kept as simple and as tangible as possible. VI. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Commission review the report and provide staff with direction in the following areas; . 1. Study area boundaries; i.e. should Foothill east of -15 be included in the study area; 2.. Response to major issue areas; and, 3. General consensus tf the goals and interim policies to be used prior to completitiod of the plan. With appropriate direction, staff will return at a following meeting with a draft outlining goals and interim policies for the Commission, consideration. R .. 'submitted, ickxr omez City�Planner 4 RG•C . Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning. Area Boundary N—Li =UOLjq :paL1u C]C�LJ •:S}• a. ••:ica'!',:}}:::=:• `ri'rby.•C;iri i�s:��'r usv.:;si:Gr;?f;7;; .�: ""t i•i -�.�• :?r'r": •'1... 'a•:�a:•::.;•{:;:::•h . }?na,:ia:SC^'ti.-�...= �' Gi:.'ahc�:��fit:� �:©:::av}a�:{:•�:};:}. "r•''••._'-fi':-�;r,;C'.__ i r'�r a:rC�3:}13��{.:.f••a'•:Sa::C:�'a•av::a? !•:�,::%+:C .�;A:'I:i;� ref :� i.'. 'S'r" f•q ;:•{S!�> • " .� a:26.• a a: . '':':' .J•• .r .l•{L .. •.. "�• .�•' •is NORTH I CITY Q�^ �4�i ITE:�,i- I RANCHO GU �t�I�i�GA TITLE: _ 'a1 PLANNING DIVISI N LXHIBIT. �� �_ JAI —5 • fin. _ I � S Y �y �,. a" • s 3Y ' n e CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c>SCA�rgi, STAFF REPORT a 1 r�- r_ -n O O F $ Z U > 1977 DATE: July 10, 1985 TO: Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission. FROM: Rick G^mez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANO TERRA VISTA DEVELOPMENT PLAN .AMENDMENT 5- ., - LEWI A), amendment to the Development Plan for the Terra Vista Panned Community to change the Land use designations in the southeast quadrant to include - a hospital and mixed commercial, office and residential. uses. Related File: Southeast Terra Vista Area Development Plan. SOUTHEAST TERW''JISTA AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LEWIS - A conceptual development plan for the southeast quadrant of ` the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, ,nest side of Rochester Avenue, east side of Milliken Avenu.. Related File: DDA 85-03. I. BACKGROUND: At the May 20, 1985 workshop, the Commission directed Lewis Homes to prepare an Area Development Plan for southeast. Terra Vista. Specific direction was provided as to uses adjacent to the hospital site, designation of the auto plaza, and redistribution of 386 units currently designated for the Milliken hospital site. A copy of the workshop staff report and action agenda is attached. This report provides a description and analysis of the revised land use map and Area Development Plan. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:f The area under consideration extends sputh from the Recreation,Commercial district on Milliken to the future junior high school site on Rochester. Exhibits "P and "Cr show the revised land use map/density distribution plan and Area Development Plan which indicates product types and density. .-All 386 units from the Milliken hospital site have been redistributed on an equal amount of residential land. The acreage in each residential land use category, however, is shifted towards medium Hensity with less land designated High Residential and Low Medium Residential, as shown below: ITEM 0/P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Terra Vista Plan Amendment 85-03/ Southeast Terra Vista Area Development Plan July 10, 1985 Page 2 Land Use Map Residential Acres/Dwelling Units District Current Proposed LM (4-8 dii/ac) 83.3 ac/ 501 du nn A ac/ 267 du M (4-14 du/ac) 13.6 ac/ 122 du 50.6 ac/ 455 du MH (14-24 du/ac) 20.9 ac/ 397 du 39.7 ac/ 754 du H (24-30 du/ac) 28.7 ac/ 775 du 11.8 ac/ 319 du TOTAL 146.5 ac/1795 du 146.5 ac/1795 du The Area Development Plan provides a greater level of detail than the land use map by specifying the unit type and actual number of dwellings in each project. Six basic product types are proposed ranging from single family detached units (5-7 du/ac) to senior housing (26-30 du/ac). Two senior housing projects are shown and include a density bonus for affordable housing equaling 97 units. Area Development Plan Dwelling Units By Product Type District Product Type Density iF of Units LM Single Family Detached 5-7 du/ac 240 M Village Series Single Fam. 7-11 du/ac 36b M Village Townhomes 10-14 du/ac 130 MH Family & Adult Apts. 18-22 du/ac 418 MH Senior Housing (w/49 du bonus) 20-24 du/ac 400 H Senior Housing (w/48 du bonus) 26-30 du/ac 336 TOTAL 1892 units In addition to the above, two narks, trails, an elementary school and a Recreation Commercial District are shown north of Church Street per the current Terra Vista Plan. South of Church Street the hospital, medical offices, auto, and commercial layout is similar to the amendment originally proposed. z i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Terra Vista Plan Amendment 85-03/ Southeast Terra Vista Area Development Plan July 10, 1985 Page 3 i III. ANALYSIS: The following is a review of the Area Plan as it relates to Planning Commission comments at the workshop: Uses Adjacent to the Hospitatc The Planning Commission stated a preference for office type uses on Orchard Avenue, senior housing in proximity to the hospital, and residential uses next to the park to encourage maximum use. As illustrated on the Area Development Pian, medical offices wrap around the hospital to the south and east to make up a 31 acre health care campus. On the east side of Orchard Avenue, additional office type structures are illustrated. Two senior housing projects are shown for a combined 736 units, including a 97-unit bonus for affordable housing, The locations are intended to soften the transition from multi-family to single family units, yet are in proximity to the medical offices and hospital as requested. The drawback of these sites, particularly given she number of units, is the distance to a neighborhood conmercial shopping ;;,,enter, roughly 1/2 mile (southeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. Regarding the park site at Church and Milliken, family and adult apartments are located to the east Ind west. According to the applicant, the design of this park will be more urban in character for passive recreation and large multi-use lawn areas. Other parks in Terra Vista, such as the one abutting the easterly school site will be designed for active recreation. However, the final park design will ultimately be reviewed by the Park Development Commission. Auto Plaza: At the workshop, the Commission stated adequate land s ouTi lii remain for potential auto sales, but it does rot have to be identified as a primary land use. In addition, the Commission was concerned with potential conflicts between an auto sales area and residential. The Area Plan indicates 41.9 acres of office/medical/auto/gommercial property between Orchard and Rochester. An auto plaza is not specifically designated, but flexibility exists and the ultimate use of the property will be determined by market conditions. Residential Uses: The Planning Commission stated that redistribution of the 386 units cu-rently shown at the Milliken 1 hospital site is appropriate if density transitions occur in an orderly manner. As shown en the land use map, transition occurs gradually by one oensity range, except at the northeast cor.'er of Church and Orchard where a senior housing project would ea:o the transition. The Rochester hospital site is designated laedium Residential and townhomes are proposed. Other areas designed Medium Residential would be developed at a lower density with j attached and detached single family homes. I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Terra Vista Plan Amendment 85-03/ Southeast Terra Vista Area Development Plan July 10, 1985 Page 4 Environmental Assessments The Planning Commission previously recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration for the hospital amendment. Staff has reviewed thr revisions to the amendment and determined that no signficant impacts will result. In essence, the rearrangement of land uses has no significant impact on traffic or r circulation, since the permitted uses remain_ The same. If the Commission concurs with this finding, a recoav iation for issuance of a Negative Declaration for Terra Vista Development Plan Amendment 85-03 is appropriate. Environmental assessment for the Area Development Plan will occur at a later date on a project-by- project basis. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Befr •-, approving the land use amendment and Area Development Plan, the Commission must determine that the request will not-be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposals mus be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Terra Vista Plan which encourages flexibility over time without alterin,, .he basic concept of the Planned F,anunity. ` IV. CORRESPONDENCE The Development District Amendment has been advertised as a public hearing 'm The Daily Report newspaper, the propzr+y posted and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. V. REECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Punning Commission review ail elements and input regarding the Terra Vista Amendment and Area Development Plan. If the Commission determines that the proposals are consistent with the facts for findings, adoption of )jthe attached Resolutions would be appropriate. Re ¢e`ctful i `uitted, -l b ck! omez Cit' Piann'r RG:C.l:jr PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF REPORT Terra Vista Plan. Amendment 85-03i' Southeast Terra Vista Are? Development Plan July 10, 1985 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Current Land Uses/Density Distribution Exhibit 9" - Propsed Land tine/Density Distribution Exhibit "C" - Area Develorment Plan Exhibit "D" - Text Revisions Exhibit "E" Planning Commission Action Agenda,May 20, 1985 Planning Commission Staff F:port:, May 20, 1985 Initial Study, Part II Terra Vista Development Plan Amendment Resolution of Approval Area Development Plan Resolution of Approval' l , ;A Q`s�� z ii33 t3 4 ! y� e 2 ( 41.1 Z i c �afi �A zo cc 13. $� � JAG � �� �; •� la W. 0 AMC AA A {� At It i .✓-.f 1 �• %�`•• 'l, �� .g ` "gr sit li �( •�Ijw.CT"w'y �i C8 ��a '� A ar����� gym_._ �. : �:�' i CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONL GA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:-'�-/_SCHLE: ""' FUTURS 't bK *� 11MOR N.M.WFU MAST QUADRANT--- „ telur.a/ I 1lf a< ki RESUMMAL ��� ®�edri Ie•Nw g. (!1l1Y1-ll /L'11;� aaal.c �rpr-ra• x alTDD3 / - Iq>MiW - aqa ac Iaa uan b {� t4° •� CC oarawrce�ar, VltVL is � ' P` ::�—CN ' LJttO - anima 14,9 AMS CI x aU Dal R . - FOOTHILL LOULIVALD T lss LAND USE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION ORIGINAL BURR 28.1084 f ♦�aunaAnowonaxraar NORTH CITY OF ITEM. 7-40A A ANI RANCHO,, (.,UCAMONOA TITLE: 'PLA.Nh RSYC' DIVI'SK?N EXHIBIT SCALE- \ atei7 tj A. i' 11hr I = [I41 k•t �J�� 7 g� � � 1 svw is it ij .r tom, i _• � ���• �� •.� ! 't i t o •C "SiX a _ b�fo n'4 �M �1 i ��� 'f1 � f� �'w'`•�r,Gat-Y��i. od CITY OF RANCHO C CAMONGA TITLE, PLAN1o1INM DIVISION EXI-HIB1T.- -_J—_SCALE '°"® i .�pVU urtTs or soum- � 6AiT OVADIIAHT t //eN.u. stcsn �I v. .� Gib � � � REstOEIMAL _ no YVU Lim, 1]1\l tt.T AC: fa.t AC A'�OY + + ; fe//.Y. iii f.c ev. r,mrrMw/oartscsilw O r 11Fa.0W {•F..•.+j� u: J��O .•O' _ � H. Ys/esry b..a/w. • :.1 ` �sw _ �\ oetvc NC®awemem.wo� o OS+ AI ljlAl eA,rl.rk. H0314TAL. a1T OAC. G 11 At» H+ l++OmwA� /t O.Y. d1RtWldGVAViO/COW==AL r' .11N AAq++viwOm.w. mmCAL COMPLEX - -.1..AC. E asCr�/Cet rs. .1 AC. P A.fs FOOTHILL OOULLYAlD • ana+o ' LAND USE/DER31TY DISTRIBUTION:AMENDMENT NO. 1 dUNE.28.1ses •fountu/r tA+A//A1T C+aT Mom wm NORTH CITY OF ITEA4: RANCHO CUCAMONGA, TITLE: PI,,VNNING MOON EXHIBIT. •2- SCALE 4 _.l 9 1313i d INIggg, f �lII �sF 9lE9: /3' �y a j� a _ Ic {y—g�' Ac cc !d1 ��`,�• + R dif Egg A. ` � a � VS?-,tti •�D9Z' � «.�-e....�— � q� � y •� s age •! � � I�,l III�I _ �sYf .�� =:. �^� :.: 'r z�" i F�-� � Yew '�4� •. �.��'� t�{�,.E��,. • r, f �a a «n 3Eal y° t w 40 CITY OF ITEM: � •� RANCHO CJCAMONGA TITLE-. � PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT-- _SCALE: p-lo�'P LM =1ifl t MAST 3 �i ` ' rH.H �� S � /,,. � �, ���4����, 'lid CP►�r:C �� �F• ?��. �,�C�Ji ,���i� � it--+��^a,� 'T`` t.. ...� �.' _ i •a � -i-rAAt VDI ' � 4 • Lam. tY. ApS NA July 2, 1985 Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320-C Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ATTENTION: Curt Johnstor. Re: Amcmdment No. 1 to the - Terra Vista Community Plan Dear Curt,- While we assume that correction Hof the amendment text is to be ccanoleted after Planning Commission action '",we have gone ahead and made the necessary corrections to conform the text fl the amendment which is now before you. Using as the base document the original amendment text as submitted to the•Planning Commission in March, very few changes are necessary. Enclosed are the newly revised pages for the Land Use Plan, Statistical Summary (with footnotes), use regulations, and the explanatory graphics at the beginning of the text. The rest of the text as still useable as su;mitted. 1 Cordially, LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. it Kay Matlock Project Manager enc. k f 1156 N.Mountain Ave. P.O.Box 670 Upland.CA 91786 (714)985-0971 r+.cuci 1 �i �1 Developed by Lewis Homes _i / � C ad " Lmc � E o CA into N 1,f' O O L `C11M:. M M. W Z i to[h(n O .- 1t� r a fU`0 d tV w = M coN M m G y 7 to to to to M rq�--•— i+ N w a d gO o. d aLi � 1,N N ch C3 CD Olw t\`cn O to ON.— O r-MN m m. N a+ � L rn�¢v c= �pC7� 'r NdU MSO tDOO ClOOO ; ONNm C, Q 7tff .— O U Nan Q �n _ •- oo .-ri�an o�orn�aN M.- M i U C Y � p to w'v '(i m �- c ai d y V U � _ comma ¢ M UZ= E X J m _ o wtn m .Q U S CR .a O O U u°' J + ' aZv' m w to E Em2 ty p myt 1° c aciN X E d E Saw'. E Z t- N 0-CDa to c °«wc4 E U oLLmpE Q - mwm �- `^c cM L E EU o .me- m_U c Jff ww 7 w MOaM 6 tn.- cc AfML vc LCxovt° t D.oao Qn E 'moo� x Qua � otn4)( E , o MW ,.,UI UUZOQ'.L.`� d tnU .:tnLL F- Z L o p tnn � � CU ej � a � 3_ > . .cIr c w v 0 y L N Y I W a: c .N. m m > > ch _ C=C•Lm m IUO�� tn w m 4. CO N y0 O T�C a+ C IA m C m d > . LT 3 a1 O C G J C Y O.0 ca'n N Y co�mm� � Co 03 c I ,ON4-a_ N 3Eaim ° C° o +'aC XLnE.�+ odmN,! I mm .°C C jp.m•7 U i y to 7'� C N+�+i E r In_� c. N � � u LNp -a S ctn) 8 U= In (U tnn a) �m y —Ep 1-- U _ W C a In +' a� a d p N L �. p m._ V4 as c m E m 0 N c _ A N N L M ° m p • N V O G.p 3 O y._Y Q O L ar C N, d >`t ++ Nta M M. t E .0 5 m In >. N C. a7 H L as .r d o o N p, a+ 0 U — n } W > L Y O a) a. a7 'p L).'� aJ Q.. C to y . tea, omc, maE CuC CEL ,., m,�„ '7�aca>r. E o ¢ a L �,m p d am o m ° c m (U 0a m cQ LLB c o., L a o Em ° u ��y. > a spa a) a)u''tn.c"� Q Gl 3 d.N )(V N c) L c^ ° - to >. w� MZ �u Ema_+N �oo � 0 L Est >- =k � M �am+ a 0LU II- �Q 3-°p.a j 0 0 f0 �a C �� � �_ y ca�a= U aci-0 Ztn ro 3 �— E 7 `° °� tTN Op E"' a d�a'. L G 3.y 3r° c S m Q ° >.,o- U N LZ1 a)-p al•—+•. m 0 E C CL lu LL. m , m I `C O—• N > mLU.YL a3IEn.�EC E N to m •0 J Y a� tn E N a E 0— p a> m 6N_ pposa O s 7_ cl N a) O -•'1 1 3 M "' C L ,y i,� d:,.+ C c�a= >> 7 y. �V. G as. E a c c._ - a as L o ._ v U V)3: tn dro �u L. rn�: Qaci wEa CQ �. to u o c w N p L— ,, „ m. p umN3 0Clny ym�= � sorntn a�i �ay„ RC Yams f m�2 Q.a Z m.'ON QasQU U UN2 i LlQ1'�:� C C 8'E a .0o.° Ln ex�et • c N An m c >. U m c N 'N tU •L N C 3 N Q O y 0) N ~ N +Q) tn d C O N = intn 0) C U m+t O N 01 7 c EL 4- at m ,,.. > p, = m N O !A L N 'a O U ca R1..'CLq .+ C Q) a0 0 + +' d L ai 40 C 6) C.0 a) 4) J 'a .0 3 .L v V EN O C'a L +' H O o v=c..''• U. n U d >. E m ate) L >�«; n• ami N N a L ` ° a o'E ° w u f0 °L)m Lmm L L- Nc c N N 41 m N,_ N C N 61 Ln C m„N m Q d m m m c m N N _ G) N N L d C a) C to cUi+' a a) a) :� �.•n. u C �� C aCi N Q m .� N 0 U U 0 ') > a � �j Q) a1 y N U Voi Q 'C N m C C N N N ,U .J V L N 'O N L d C y c L u u N c m �o N 3 M a1 3 C u 3 a1 V S] C n L. N >- d O E io= O aI — C t+ d: ..r L.L N°"' m L 4. w N E :° m i O' d d d o+0 O H E t ra o y n' w 4 d E'c am N 'a 2 n. o Wl d N x. U:° E d.� d—.0 N d 41 ).. q)'a N 'a .0 E U N t N�+ N tJ L N`a•� N N .0 y @ C) O N t- U O U O . O F a W� S O U ¢ v O E o O F Q s.. E «� u 0 m to N V O a+ O co m C �+ = U C C� N N c o s- c `° U aNi y w• o c m m m�° U. N a .+ L m� N C.L .`L a .0 N N 6) N C..L N y fl �. .. C m smi E o N Gt v N c�. 'a 0 S. L ,o_ N c . .n cOi .c N y O 7 .0 m C C 0 d 6C1•I :7 C C U = 01 .O+•C+ CO a :3 a o .a y °' c v a o o.. 0 u E � o E o C N � Q o U m a'C+ "� C"= m O L p L i.+ m m `�' G 4- a)•tn O Ln)' N N L L Q >- G. > y c m N d L y a .+am+ L C U C C)CD InC N t. w dj. m ++ N aOi L C U U � tf NO gn N d d m In L > U U 3 m S U N a.T 3mo m C m m i �+ d3 G1 N.� tn N C 3. c !n .>+ N m N L v� N N � 'a A >` t0i1 r L •O _ .3 C L. ,[ C R �`O N a0+ r ,) 7 C d N .O 4-1 L N C). a+ Q. L C C L. c 7 Ul II o� 3 v E v 7 N� ` cl C: m CD U O —�v- N .0 �y. 07 d d 'a C) - C 7 O O U', m:�t►. N. O E o O F 0. 0: � Q: d to Q U U ¢m O E o . > E _ vs w CID ' . gill � s IF l iw N ! �. m a w CA u U I A 0. CL XL Ili. _J 1 wr uisyx� ?��• • co V gwti� 00 e amp _CO m co'c cr cc # �e �c m . o .d a S M e mcR 4c tC N W g f Fla .. C1 N O m a O V. l ....................................L �..cw .n+ " s' a ......... L Cl N N W V. c t tu W c La x Ou VA ul ZE Z • {�Q ' Qf Y7U. `r W 0 N. Q — �[t• -.vd-Xilllw 2EO 1 i� r r Z U. 0 4 43 c a W W g o c ccr W � Q C ri ccIV c �pylyc� ffiuj ,CL r� J. 0.50 G L V , ev 1J=7 r ¢ r M -co v CV T s ro P, M th £.O 7Ch ) -4 p' � ❑ In U1 ro O d F .N N N [- v N t EC '� - N �-m1. E H� W� Q UI H•'I 7 N ri \ F O O.. N n d 6 ti U or to ❑ c \.14 . ro n A N m of 4 Ul rn r Oi-7 ❑ - 1 m a14 a U❑ � C, n� 1 f CITY OF RANCHO CCGkN19NG:� PLANNENG GOivIINIISSION. i Z A' EINDA v a L977 ' Monday May 20, 1385 6:00 P.M. Llois Park Community Center Gallery West 9161 Base Line ReadRancho Cucamonga, California PLANNING CO141ISSION WORKSHOP ME A VISTA DEVELOPMENT PLRN AMENDMENT 85-03 - LEWIS ,j r Environmental Assessment and ,errs Vista 0eyeloj ment P~an Amendment 85-03. Le_wr s F- An amendment to the 0evelopmant Plan for the Terra Vista Planned Community to change the land use;, designations in the southeast quadrant including a hospital, commercial, office, and residential use-s I. Introductory Comments and Staff Regart 6 00 - 6:15 ... 1. II.. Presentation by Lewis Oevploprrent Company 6:15 - A-30 III. Discussion of Related IsSuesiConcerns 6:30 8:00 Adjourn to May 22, 1985 regular. Planning Commissio.. !•.ating 8:00 R fanning Commission A ,LI n �r "SEE ATTACHED Eye h Parr S-l AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN An Area Development Plan shall be prepared for the southest quadrant of Terra Vista, specifically, the area ex'ending south of the Recreation Commercial District on Milliken to the Junior High School site on Rochester. Future modifications to the Area. Development Plan may occur. USES ADJACENT TO HOSPITAL 1. A Senior Housing project in proximityto the hospital is encouraged. 2. Consider office type uses on Orchard Avenue, 3, The park should be adjacent to single family, apartment, or condominium projects (versus the hospital or a Senior Housing project) to encourage maximum use. If the park cannot be relocated, the trail system must be adjusted to provide improved access. AUTO PLAZA 1. Adequate land -area should remain for potential auto sales. An auto plaza, however, need not be identified as a primary land use. 2. Potential conflicts between residential uses and auto sales, such as .n-Ight lighting< and glare, must be mitigated with special- design features during the Development Review process. RESIDENTIAL USES I - 1. Redistribution of the 386 uni::s on the Land Use Map is f appropriate if proper density transitions occur. 2. Density transition preferably should not exceed one density range on the Land Use Map. If not, special design consideration, such as transitioning building height and architecture, is necessary to ensure neighborhood --impatibil'ity. 3. The Rochester'-hospital site should not be redesignated with a density higher than Medium Res idew"ial for buffering of the existing homes to the east. CITY OF RANCHO CULJONGA j STAFF REPORT O DATE: May 20, 1985 1977 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner. SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENOME NT 8 - 3 - LEWIS — An amendment;,to the Development Plan for the Terra Vista Planned Community to change:the land use designations in the southeast quadrant including a hospitals commercial, office, and residential uses. I. ABSTRACT: This workshop is scheduled to facilitate Commission review of the land use options, and provide direction relative to uses surrounding the hospital site, the auto center designation, and residential densities. The amendment shou'd then be revised accordingly, the environmental assessment completed, and the project scheduled for final review and consideration at an advertised public hearing, II. BACKGROUND: A'� the Planning Commission hearing on April 10, 1985 the Commission recommended approval of the new hospital site, but expressed concern with the change from Auto Plaza to Executive Park, and density increases surrounding the hospital site. The City Council reviewed the Commission recommendation and continued final action until the Commission resolves tha remaining` issues. Based upon input from the City Attorney, the Council determined that the amendment is inconsistent with the Terra Vista Development Agreement unless all 385 units currently designated for the Milliken Hospital_rite are reallocated on the land use plan. A revision to the Development AgreemE:�t must be mutually acceptable j to Lewis Homes and the City, and requires Commission and Council review at public hearings. Three basic issues need to be resolved as follows: 1. What land uses are most appropriate surrounding the hospital/medical office site (i.e., residential land 1 use intensity and commercial uses)? 2. Should the auto center remain a primary land use east .ryl of the hospital site? PLANNING COMMISSION 'AFF REPORT Terra Vista Developa,cnt Plan Amendment 85-03 - Lewd May 20, 1985 Page 2 ANk 3. SFould the density of nearby areas be increased to accommodate units displaced by the hospital/medical office site? 'hese issues are discussed in the Analysis Section and Land Use Options for discussion purposes provided. In addition, Lewis De�ielopment Company has prodded a letter explaining thn amendment. ?II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION? the following graphic shows the current land use plan with 7.3acres of High Residential (386 units) at the new hospital site, and the Auto Plaza center between Milliken and Rochester. A. EXISTiNG CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL OP ( LM LOw MEMWDE1AS" M NC t MH tyl LM M i M emumLawry MH r.Eollea wcrl oE1 srry LM H Fr�,p +sm p LM LM OMMERC!AL LM a Cr_ COMW COW&RCIAL " LM L M f G tonsamcw. .�--/ NC NeavciilmccMV6AQAL JrH RC flECEEA mr-coms—AL LM OP OFI�CEPAP.Z MIXED US {. Ltd M LM LM i Iy!s. sCC ALO FFM fP LM IF MO ' !.aE5aErnUL R P &Gl 1- L�RL:^. � RC JrH JJ*�+aHcwsatooL/ : MH/ LM E E1FxtAnrselroa � : P PARKS E MH H0 MSMAL a P. " H Bus STW 91a4ACl 11 iy H OOFFEFIC1Al E) HO.PITAL 11 {74,!ACI I10AAC7 .I MFC OFFICE! AUTO/ 1 OFFICEflCIAL OFFICE OFFICES 116JAC1 µ62AC1 I � GPI EN ASS* OCIA}'ES I ,EXECUTIVE..—A mrnICALI_ PARK P4AZA ,K PLANNING COMMISSIOr— 'AFT REPORT' Terra Vista Develop acnt Plan Amendment 85-03 Lewik May 20, 1985 Page 3 The following graphic shows the amendment as prul+2sed by Lewis Homes. T:Le 386 snits from the new hospital site ar,,, redistributed by expanding ties residential acreage south of Poplar Drive and increasing the density of the two properties on the north s�•ie of Church Street. The total land area for residential is about the same as the current land use plan (1.1 acre less). The Auto Plaza designation is removed, but automobile sales is designated at the intersection of Foothill anJ Rochester. B.'AMENt1IIENT" Al G-MEPT 9ESIDENTIAL 'OP LOW ME'.dHMOEHs"T M NC MH M LM M ME .—Daum MNOENWY p IV{ f LM LM r COMMERCIAL J CC 1UQMMU mM CQ MEWK0L LM LM E F.?A C COMMERCIAL NC'HEA."18oFH000 coasnau. rS JrH Re RECrEAnONa:Coan�r+DuL S I im QP OFFICE PARK. E l MIXED USE E LM M LM M 1`14M CIAL RESTAL ANM h4l"RIRL P M � &INO OFFICE,COMMERCIAL,MEW SAL F' 7 - (now) PU2 1 SciDt►AS�=AU13LIC FieJrH E AzacltwralsalO�t;,.y�el �C MH LM E FIFM`NFARvsCHom ,wamI t MH CrMH; PAM Fi0 u P 1j �` • eussmF M HOSPITAL 16A ACI 'i 44 MFC� OFFICEiGEP'CAW . MEDICAL/ COMMERCIAL�43F ACt ,!ILYO OFFICES 121A ACf I � GRUEH A—+LSOAgTE$: 'AflK L �CPArIKIYE�r,,i PLANNING COMMISSIOP' AFF REPORT Terra Vista Developb�ot Plan Amendment. 85-03 Lewit May 20, 1985 Page 4 The following is a breakdown of the nand use category in each acre4ge for both the current land use- plan and the amendment as currently proposed. COMPARISON OF STATISTICS F03 AMENDED ARFA C A B ALTERNATE ADOOTED AMENDMENT AMENDMENi� PLAtZ No.1 NO.1 ; i RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1003 '1003 1G03 RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE 59.9 5818 599.9 • L M 17.6. 17.6 IFS 13.6 17.6. 13.6 s NIH 13.6 a H 28.7 18.8 2$1 NON-RESIDENTIAL ACREAG- 72.9 74.0 72,9 • HOSPITAL(HO) 70.0 10.9,i 10.01 a OFFICE/COMMERCIAL/AUTO/MEDICAL 46.2 43.0 41.9 RELATED FACILITIES(MAC/MOC) • OFFICEMOMMERCIAL/MEDICAL 16.7 21.0 21.0,• RELATED FACILITIES(MO/MN7)' TOTAL ACREAGE 132.8 13Z.8 132 y PART OF? HO PARCEL r� IV. ISSUES/ALTERNATIVtS: A. Land Uses Surrounding the Hospital/Medical Office Site: The hospital a-..d medical health- care campus wil uhitg focal point.. From an urban design perspective, the land uses surround•',ng the hospital should provide an appropriate interface and transition to complement the project. 'this issue of compatibility relates to both residerhial and commercial/office land uses. PLANNING COMMISSIO' 'AFF REPORT Terra Vista Developir� nt Plan Amendment 85-03 - Lew4 May 20, 1985 Page 5 Residential. The current land use plan has Medium Residential 4- 4 du ac and Medium High Residential (14-24 du/ac) on the north side of Church Street. Development at the lower enu of the Medium Residential category could be single-family homes with townhouses, condominiums, and apartments built at the mid- upper range. Development in the Medium-High Residential category could be a wide range of attached product types. Given this wide range and understanding that the Terra Vista plan allc.ws flexibility of land use categories, the Commission ? should provide direction as to the most appropriate density range and/or product type. Commercial/Office. The Terra Vista Planshows the Auto Plaza on the east side of Orchard Avenue directly across from the medical health care campus. Does the Commission feel this is appropriate or should office type development be 'grated along k Orchard Avenue to create a buffer and transition? 1, B. Auto Plaza: The amendment as proposed would eliminate the Auto t 1az�a as a primary land use; however, automobile sales would remain as a permitted use. A review of locational criteria for Ask successful automotible plazas reveal that fre: visibility acl access is a'key criteria. • In addition, the minimum size should bz approximately 40 acres to permit from 6 to 8 dealerships. The Auto Plaza shown in the Planned Community Text would not satisfy these criteria. However, if the Commission desires, Lewis Homes has provided an alternative land use plan which specifically designates an Auto Plaza at the northeast corner of Foothill and Rochester. C. Residential Land Uses: Three options are provided below with respect to re istributing the 386 dwelling units currently provided fr at the new hospital site. The Commission should first iiscuss if the redistribution should occur. According to he City Attorneyt, if some or all of the 386 units are not specifically called out on the land use plan, an amendment to the 'Development Agreement must occur. Lewis Homes must also agree to the revision. The following alternatives are provided to aid the discussion: PLANNING C(1;'MISSIOtC-AFF' REPORT Terra Vista Oevelopiitt�l,,at Plan Amendment 85-03 Lewi� May 20, 1985 Paga 6 AM I. The first option illustrated below would revise the residential land uses south of Church Street and Poplar Drive as requested by Lewis. North of Church Street, h;,,ever, i:he land uses would not change from the current designat ons. The result of this alternative is an overall reduction of 188 dwelling uni-cs. ff B.AMENDMENT#11 C!DNCEPT r SIDE T M NC MH M LM M 11 LM ww►eD;n+DEnsm IM MEDMDOM" MH MECtu"MOE"M 1 L.°7 H ucclDEnsln 1 P , LM LM C MMER IA LM CC cowiuvmcOMMML LM E LM f` C coraoEnau { NI --wmcwcmmcaL i ItH RC .tnxucocwmcwu LM OP W=PAW Lltii• +icED US M LM LM tfi*"C FT+arlaAt MTAPAMsr+SM04y" p 'L t x"c 406W czmma.am= h th4`".'40 aruceE.COhLtIEgLryA(MEPJCAL U U4SI- 101! RC JfH JtRa0n t1CalSdflDi IPoo®I E , MH LM I. cra+F ARY Sawa MH P xvs cu.c) r IcesarK P ..kWiTAL M. , ' MIFC� `({ hfEDICAOFFI 7/A1EDItiN AUTO. — 1 OFFIE7 y rpOUL ccc kTaAcr tanacr iC �'� �I�xx rt�socutia� AEXECUTIVE PARK PARK �. i . r PLANN NG-coMMISSIor AFF'REPORT Terra Vista Developu at Plan Amendment 85-08 - Lewis( May 20, 1985 Page 7 2. The second option was prepared by Lewis .,omes and provides for the total distribution of the 7J86 units south of =Church Street and Poplav Drive. The 14.3 acres of High Residential at thj Milliken hospital site was simply relocated to the Rochester hospital site f C. ALTEENATE AMEADMiENT41 CONCEPT RESIDEN-T OP �1 LM M I� LM LOW Dva" NC IMH M umutat>a�rr '. .. t,EDRaatnca+DCT+srrr LM FI WGH DENSITY p LFd 4.M MMERCIAL LM CC CJUWA MCMAU10" LM. C coGaaEnwa� LM E NC xEr+�.rplDooco6e+Encu� JrH RC t�EA=<wAs.eotiam�a. LM OP DFFK$PAnK MiXED USE LM M LM NMFCn h0U.W=WPAxMRES0eMAL LM RAL ES 'a °u'° E LMOFri==AM3=ALFMS4X?ffwp E P BL{ QUASI-P BLI RC AC axaaareca+ +ootc.� 4 E MIi LME ssrrAnY^cxooL . , P NMI I MH ' $A HO HOSMu- W Top I �J HDs►ITAt. 00 AM W NGLaleU NT TD F%tLTING 1t^ MFC cAcl IL nxrau,pr it NIED'^lV COMER COMMERCIAL!!U. AUTO TES iD'F..1A i 141a ACl. 1!i �� ,,.,..C7 oetA —MPA K L 4ARK CUT1vE PLAZA l �i 0 -a� � PLAK3ING COMMISSION( WF R`"0RT Terra ,ista Development Plan Amendment 85-03 - Lewis( May 20, 1985 Page 8 3. The third option available is to approv. the residential land use changes originally proposed by '.ewis. &AMENDMENT 41 CONCEPT D QP NC- M LM ^�• M i LA7M�aveknwmm. u MH iMHwwrme+'+ �fLM H roacaCI P �� LMt l CC cw Co.rxwt LM LM E LM ` C I { ! Nc J[H RC �n F4KMTI oea.oia�t j �+o I LM �_ 1 OP w=Pr BKOWSE LU M LM nwCUUz emr iu isPc5cemros P LM jIL Mop f P Bl{ QUAS;-PUBLI RC JrH �vuasooau.o..� MR E E eamaMrso+ooc nn.��„ , P MR UsMa N Hp nowaru.. ka • , H uuwMWAL M � ornecnxaut AM l OFFIpl ' v u �� {t1.0 AC1 WK 1• D. Area Development Plan: As a means to help resolve the land use issues created by the flexibility built into the Terra Vista Plan for adjusting residential land ases, the Commission should consider requiring an area development plan for the southear- quadrant of Terra Vista, The benefits of an area development plan would be to solidify density ranges and prodcct types cn specific sites. Preparation of the plan would, however, require additional time and considerable effort on the port of Levis. If the Commission can provide specific direction, preparaticn of an area development plan would be desirable to help address concerns. v PLANNING COMMISSION '4FF REPORT Terra Vista Develop ,at Plan Amendment 85-03 - LeVisC May 20, 1985 Page 9 I IV_ RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should provide specific direction to Staff and: Lewis Homes relative to:. A. Land uses surrounding the hospital site; B.. The auto plaza as the primary use; and C. Distribution of the 336 dwelling units on the new hospital site. In addition, the Commission should discuss the possib '- G,, ,or requiring an area development plan which addresses the issues and oncerns. i Res tf l) sub fitted, I ick. omen i it�r' nner jj RG:CJ:ns Attachments: Density Distribution Plan Correspondence from Lewis i I 2 + k E A t M 1 135 _NO M Gig ig rat a -kmvwA _104 _5 M .Y _ »OP 141_.�— !. 95 M �� �,llt ur�iwaewr. uaswao M ...�,2M 10! !4e- 175 ( T011 - MH rmww+am.n �«,.W .w..nv.p 'r LM 1 MW OOi11T AWOYI'W. f n3 !M 99 LM Vj� !tT LM 9 CG ca�wnea.eeu ve (r \`• C i LM � 59 222 MH E E i NC mro.ornmw.at JrH AC ++on m.erw LM iX pP ax�.uR i JrH M (r M SH !( M 223 m ( TP8 i p Lm LM w..owabc LM ( 106 1 Aft95 AG � .kH,waHwiS.+.00tn.�, f.� CP $�., E 397 M LM �-- 7, M MH ,l P !22 - 239 NOP H 261 1 + ^pP386, .M C NO �J OP t reA_C_ t M�. MAC N 0u,a,—' FiGiMMQ Density Distribatiar Ptah V L-1 R /r G NORTH CTY O ITEL1�;: /s-- R&T\TCH-0 CUCF4NI(JNGA T:iLg- PCA' NING DIVUlaN EXHIBM�.�5CALE-c.: y I I CITY OF RANCHO CUC;.'S0;1GA I PART II INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONM.NTAL CH'CKLIST DATE- - APPLICANT: ��Cg 6s1n.�tES — FILI:tG DATE; yLF /g LOG PROJECT: t:�4^eAj T' v S( PROJECT LOCATION: tllfiTi C.. I. ENVIRO:�NTAL IMPACTS � l� (Explanation of all ,yes" and. "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geolozv. Will the proposal have s-.gnificanfi results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? / b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction of burial of the soil? c. .Chang-, in topo raphy or ground surface contour intervals? d• The destruction,-covering or modification of any unique gerologic ar physical features? e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, a`fecting 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- F slides, ground faiPure, or*similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extr&c.j• on and/or e t us° 'f any mineral resoarce? . / look y 2. Hydrolc�y, Will the proposal have significant results in: C page ,Z l YES MAYBE No a. Changes, in zurrents, or the course of direction Of 'loving streams, rivers, or ephemera c l stream hannels? b. Changes-an abssrption rates, drainage or the rate and amount of surface wateratterns_ runoff? / c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? / d. Change in the amou::t of surface water in anv ' body of water? e. 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 a -ditions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the .amount of water other- C wise available for nublir water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? L 3. Air_QMRLI . Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary 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 condition, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flbra. Will the proposal have significant results in: a, Change in the characteristics of species, "including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Page 3 YES iLa Y BS VO C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into an area? . . d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural Production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, includinf diversity, distribution, or numbers- of any species of animals? b. Reductio;t of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5, Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- 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? G 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional Socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diveity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed amon., project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the Y o- proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or ` planned land use of an area? / b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, ift Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities?' F Page 4 YES ;L4YSE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? / c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or L demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e Z 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 vehicits, bicyclists nr pedestrians? / 9. Cultural ttesosrcPo. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the Proposal have significant results in: a. Creation cf, any health hazard or potential health hazard; b. Exposuve of people to potential, health hazards? c. A risk of explgsion or release of hazardous substances in the evzit of an accident? d. An increase in the number of indiv{,duals or species of vector or pathenoge_,c organisms or the exposure of peuple to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f.• Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noises levels? AML b. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? 0—35/ Page 5 YES �aYR£ N6 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 with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal L have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e• Wastewater facilities? 1 f. Flood control structures? g• Solid waste facilities? ^� h. Fire protection? I. Police protection? l J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? r t' 1. Maintenance of Bublic facilities, including roads and flood-control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Eneray and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal V have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b,, Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? IF d-. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? / ' Page 6 YES MAYBE N0 ep_ e. Substantr.al depletion of any nonrenewable or al scarce natural resource? / _ 14. Mandatory Findings of SiQlificance. .•jec- a: Does the project have the potential tc, degrade of the quality of the environment, substantially ?.abi*: reduce the habitat Of fish or Wildlife species,,, ssz or _ cause a fish or wildlife pop�ilation to drop ust:: below self sustaining levels, threaten 'to s: n13- eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce` ._ .3r tc the number or restrict the range of a rare or plant endangered plant or animal or eliminate f. v amp important examples of the major periods of astc; California history or prehistory? .jecl: b. Does the project have the potential to achieve to a short-tern, to the disadvantage of long-tezm, S environmental goals?' (A short-term impact on the Ls environment is one Which occurs in'a relatively Z.t -. brief, definitive period of time while long- wi, term impacts will endure well into the future). T" jec_ c. Does the project have impacts which are li.- individually limit+,d, but cumulatively t considerable? (Cu:,ulatively considerable e I. means that the i/cremental effects of an -03.. individual project are considerable when viewed z w_ in connection with the effects of past projects, gc• and probable future prole^ts). d. Does the proje� .ave environmental effects .ss.• which will _ause suovtantial adverse effects on human„�eings, either directly or indirectly? / DISCUSSYON OF'Eh'VIBON_TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). G�- e 4.,t s Page 7 III. 2ETE3`11NAT1O1T On the basis of this initial evaluations - I. find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, UI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to. the project. A NEGATIVE DECLAZATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project K46Y have]a-significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMT L PAT REPOR— s equi.red. Date i� ( S'S tare Title i ; Affik i i all i e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TERRA VISTA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 85-03 REgUESTING A CHANGE TO THE LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT FOR THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF TERRA VISTA INCLUDING A HOSPITAL AND MIXED COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE WHEREAS, on the 10th day of March, 1985 an application was filed and accepted on the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of July, 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 saoject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land ARhk 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 and intent of the Terra Vista Planned Community Text. SECTION 2: -The Rancho Cucamonga Planr, no Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on July 10, 1985. .r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Coder that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 10th day of July, 1985, Terra Vista Development Plan Amendment 85-03. 2. - The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Terra Vista Development Plan Amendment 85-03. Resolution No. Terra Vista Development Plan Amendment 85-03 Page 2 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS loth DAY OF JULY, 1988. PLANNING COMAISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Some.., Deputy Secretary I. Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of tt City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herebycertify that the foregoing Resolution w. July and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commis -n of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commiss�im' held on the loth day of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-:pit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: s ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: N r RESOLUTION NO. (' A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SOUTHEAST TERRA VISTA LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST SIDE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE IN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, on the 13th day of March, 1985, a complete application was filed by Lewis Development Company for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 1.0th day of July, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the a,Nove-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as fe- ows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met and the Area Development Plan for southeast Terra Vista is approved: 1. That •she proposed project is consistent with the u objectives of the General Plan,• and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Terra Vista Planned Community Text 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 Terra. Vista Planned Community Text and Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, will not be detrimental to the putrlic health, safety, or welfare, or matErially injurious to properties or improvements in the t.; vicinity. APPROVED AND ADOP- 0 THIS loth DAY OF JULY, 1985. i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST• Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary n� I, Risk Gomez, Deputy Secretary of thF 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 Cumnission field on the loth day of July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS': NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: d { i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 0 0 F Z U > t DATE`: July 10, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner rr BY: Howard L. Fields, Assistant Planner t SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-14 - GILBERT AJA The development of 2 one-story research an development buildings consisting of 26,490 sq. ft. and 104,720 sq. ft. on 8.42 acres located on the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Cleveland Avenue in the I Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 11) - APN 209-411- 11. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a p_,cise site plan and architectural design, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Development of 2 one-story research and development buildings consisting of 26,490 sq. ft. and 104,720 sq. ft., respectively. ' C. La ition: Northwest corner of 6th Street and Cleveland Avenue. D. Pare-;'ze: 8.42 acres. E. Existing-.Zoning: Light industrial and warehousing distribution facilities Subarea 11). F. Existing Land Use: Industrial G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Existing industrial building, Light Industrial/Warehousing Distribution Facilities. South - Vacant, Light Industrial/Warehousing Distribution facilities. East - ',Vacant, Light Industrial/Warehousing Distribution Facilities. West - Vacant, Light Industrial/Warehousing Distribution i Facilities. ITEM Q PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-14 July 10, 1985 Page 2 H. General Plan Designations: P;.,Jett Site — 6�-.oral Industrial North General Industrial South General Industrial East — General Industrial West - General Industrial I. Site Characteristics: Project site is a rectangular shaped parcel that gently slopes to the south at approximately 2% grade. The site is covered by weeds, sagebrush, and unproductive grapevines. There are no significant land forms or cultural/historical aspects regarding the project site. I1. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project proposal envisions the Rancho Cucamonga Research Development Center consisting of 2 one-story concrete til�. �-o h,tildings, with loading doors at the rear for potential warehouse and manufacturing uses (Exhibit "B"). The proposed buildings will have a modern style of architecture incorporating glass panels in the frant elevation, r individualized color accent treatment, and enlarged plaza areas (Exhibit "D"). Other features include pedestrian orientation and indoor/outdoor employee luncheon area. The conceptual landscaping plan is adequate; however, the project frontage along 6th Street is subject to special landscape and design considerations. The site has adequate internal circulation to accommodate provisions for 475 parking stalls, which is 25% more r3rking than is required 6y the ISP (349 required). This surplus parking is integrated into the overall site layout and could handle future expansion or conversions to more office, manufacturing, or warehouse uses. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee j recommended approval of the design elevations and conceptual landscaping plan subject to minor revisions such as expanded plaza areas with raised planters/seating, greater degree of pedestrian orientation, and an indoor/outdoor luncheon area. The Committee was concerned about the long expanses of blank walls along the west elevation and requested the architect to explore additional design embellishments. The applicant responded by addressing all of the Committee's concerns on the revised site plans, with the exception of the I arch=_actural revisions to the west elevation. The Commission should refer to Conditions of Approval on the attached Resolution covering this cmicern. r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-14 July 10, 1985 Page 3 C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has reviewed the project and has recommended its approval subject to fire protection measures incorporated into building design and sufficient water capacity and access for fire fighting equipment and vehicles. D. Environmental Assesment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the app R cant. Staff has completed Part II of the environmental checklist and found no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with said findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would €re in order. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site flan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support the Facts for Findings, then approval of OR 85-14 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Res tful ly�yWitted, / is Gomez City ner RG:HF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "At° - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "O" - Building Elevations ExhiW- "Eli - Landscape Plan Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval Q-3 vlouu Future city 1 T— son Hall lwlwu�swryr"��u•n� rwarbrx�rrwrl uwwu� ��g��rsN d L � • � 1 S i i I E � rD ' Y SO zw Y MZ 0 ; f-- rro:. I V C ? 1 =/�CL �E cc Ul r - CDD LU •. i � � � a r ��r a�13itl14 NlXf4 i Nr 1 Q Cjr CL eL 19 Sir LLJ Ate, •t _ • 1t'j�\� �1�p� vLU oa ZLU ix w to 9 � n•M 1 ➢ i •i I 1 aKit' r .Fd 1 Q'�o a�Ra y a M'NNE& LPLA w4 i m Lu ".:� � �� - •� ;; "p o2,. 'fit y Z W CC LLI r - 3 a otS x . LU L' W . i r r f { ISO U LZu a z- 1' cc co J •s. 4 sw ul ys o_ f _ LTT �� t33uis i �i r r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- PART II - INITIAL 5i'DF ENTVIROir%`1iNTAY'CHECKLIST DATE: f�llY /D. IFes"_ FILING DATE: tl'�,rZrf LOG Iv'UMBER: D2 8.5 PROJECT: EfIL.✓�OE.l�-O PROJECT LOC?TIO.: L,�rs •mow ST'Cp2iuF�_ p cf -i7r-T/f T T iFir�l� I. ENVIR0IZIENT L IMPACTS�fF'11�L/�ir✓A (Explanation of all "yes" and '-maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MLAYBE 140 1. Soil; and Geolo¢v. Will the proposal have signi�icant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? *, b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? F d. Thf� destruction, covering or modification ' of ny ur, que geologic or physical features? e ALY potential increase in wind or water Arosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? •� f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g- Exposure of people or property to geologic tazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- s-lidos, F ----nd failure, or*sinilar hazards? ./ o- h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or ` use of any mineral resource? 4. ir 2. HVdrolow, Will the proposal have significant results in: � C�'q Page 7 YES wAYBE 210 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction. Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in ,bsorption rates, drainage Patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water-in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality?' f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through dire,-,_ 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 os flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will. the proposal have significant results a.. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? 't b. Deterioratior, of aft-I.Int air quality and/or interference with the attainment Of applicable air quali::y standards? c• Alteration of local or regional o oval climatic affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? f 4. Biota Y iFlora. Will the proposal have significant results n-I a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Q—tQ — ' l Page 3 YES ?L4YBE SO C. Introduction of new,or disruptive species of Plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Pauna. Will the proposal-have significaut results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, includ'-4-g diversit y, distribution, or numbers of any species ofanimals? t� 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? S. Population. Will the proposal have signif$cant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, dinsity, diversity, or growth rate of the hu:',,i population of an are a?a. b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio•-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have 1' sigr'l—cant results in: a. Change'in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? Lam- b. Will project costs be egiitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? yr 7. Land Use and Plann4;ne Considerations. Will the i Proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? v b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An Impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-cosumptive recreational opportunities i - t Pare 4 YES L4Y9r ,LO 8. TranslDortatfon. Will the proposal have significant results in: a: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for net street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact Upon existing transporta- tion i tion systems? / e.. Alterations to present -Oa-'terns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goons? f.. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit it air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Lam• 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, Paleontological, and/or historical resources? y/ 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? �r 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 organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? Aft 4: g. The c-eation of objectionable odors? h. An, increase-An light or glare?fJ yl f Parse S YES =M BE 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? 1 c. A conflict with. the objective of designated ar potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal ~ have a significant need T(new systems, or alterations to the following,: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged Otis? V ~ C. Communications syste`<,' f d. Water supply? V e. Wastewater facilities? f Flood control structures? i% V _ � . Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection?• J i. Police protection? Y J. Schools? _ J k- Parks or other recreational facilities? 1- Mainte; public facilities, i -z roads control facilit -- rcluding m. Other governL_;e, al services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results inc a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? V b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing ~f sources of energy? r_- An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption w V~ of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? {/ - Q-13 Page b YES MAYBE No e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? f 14. Mandatory Findings of Sicnificance. 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 ra ge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major California history or prehistoryperiods of b. Does the project have the potential to achieve t/ short-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 ti.e while long- term impacts will endure well into the future), c. Does the project have imp-acts t hich 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 beings, either directly or indirectly? _ ZI, DISCUSSION OF KtitqEo+;, 1TAL EvrA1U TIO:7 th (i.e., of affirmative answers to e above questions plus a discussion o2: proposed mitigation measures). y � Z6 �� ! � '��� _ / �� �. �� .� � � r i ,//t��. `//� .16f/ ems,�.'- l j�/'1--- C �,�,�F.,. �_ V ���'�" ..�GO'lrt.�...�a'IL�G�[� �iB,a.Q�i+�F�� iC1�'�[�,,,. f� r.�_ f 4 P' r E I r t i I t t �-�� _ �+�, . ;',:__ _ f rr Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: D /T find the proposed project CpL7� NOT have a significant effect an the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect E in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATIp\ WILL BE PREPARc.D. I find the proposed project :L4Y have a significant effect on the envirr.acnt, and an I;LnACT REPORT is required. Date ` a Signa re � Title �� a c i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85-14 LOCATED Or NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND CLEVELAND AVENUE IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL & WAREHOUSING DISTRIBUTION (SUBAREA 11) DISTRICT - APN 209-411-11. WHEREAS, on the 24th day of April, 1965, a complete application was filed by Gilbert Aja for review of the above-lbscribed project; and. WHEREAS, on the loth day of July, 1985, the Rancho Cuaamong& Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-descr::aed project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can 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 the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Cade; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materi.ily 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 July 10, 1985, SECTION 3: That Levelopment Review No. 85-14 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: I' 1. Applicant shall provida a pedestrian cop^ect'on from 6th Street. 2. Applicant shall provide a special landscaping corner statement at 6th and Cleveland. -17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OR 85-14 Page #2 3. Applicant shall provide additional archite .oral AIL embellishments to the west, south, and ri:)rth elevations of both proposed buildings for De ign Review approval prior to issuance of builGning permits 4. A combination of landscaping and berms shall- be provided within landscape setback to screen parting �. and loading areas. Berms shall be undulating with �{ an average height of three feet and a maximum slone not to exceed 3 1/2.1. 5. Landscaping shall be provided along building - elevations, within parking lots, and within the landscape setback in accordance with Industrial Area 0 Specific Plan requirements. 5. Twenty percent (20%) of the required parking spaces shall be compact 18' x 161 with proper signing to so designate as for "Compact Cars Only ' 7. The open space/pedestrian plaza areas .hall be designed as pedestrian oriented focal points and include an integrated sidewalk syster,�, plaza areas with seating and shade structures, drinking fountains, and extensive landscaping. 8. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided throughout the project. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS loth DAY OF JULY, 1965. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA QY. Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucaronga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutior 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 July, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: °LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ui% 35-14 Pare #3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSa cl/ � I a dy^ t wTi+ CACOA �� awn.+a NaF. A....bC..Ld U«y. a�A T 1_ 6 E9 d`N Np E vYdid 0-0 •VW�J LdAY-b v�i n .0 N VyN 9.t a A nT� 2. Ac ry ^ n yat s-a ,p 9� LCn S- v'1.dM En� yOa 06 ESL. '\7 ct.gquo rnu Aa �dc Ld _C oaE$cad qdU � — O °ibc cLLrb�>.Ya bN» y� t O C y E_G Lj c9 ps ate . " u2A asci Y.oa ya IM Yb T _ C AAY Y a Oat+L Ca 2 O A Y S q V O. y .qc"nioyaca u .Lb n d.N.. «saa,ye«a t .> COX YT w Y u �N. N p ^ N Ey dyu �. �-oEy E{ O r.a .L.2 r q gg o uw. A d� N AL G L N C ar r cygv. T G o. « T^ yaD «9qd' s T. yN Oa vlsy C �U nc Ly o E a j nr.a YL �a L . 00 �h�LO d6 a naa rqa uW NE p a} O N A �Y. d0N` bR M Y E nG C Q Y E yaQ EQw. .Mb EC b wcE b nEaE ' OpL mo2% bE A. aC t0, d•. .� C 3 u O1 Sy i a ww yn A —2 O Y yM a O.T O 0> =N O C E b~ s e N N w T L N d L L n O b^Y N 6bSNL A2'� rOCa N 6d'.Yy QN�b«2 60Am pUIs 0 ..l � •� O. � R's= po$E y.6 t�L O� V � GONd@ Tru c I a Fd a u r 333w o Lr. U Nu N rnN:e ua. as as tta� 3 r 0 ^V a C G Y^Y W w do X b e n. A n cN OEQ '^aa.w caw w>s h u � O y0ad� � b it >a1Nu.Oi r�iq. M OEE N nr C 2 L q a i C p Z A� 4�a `.1,� p Cy p A 0C^tdi ` O 06 gL« 9 VVVlll �1 n, q q ma Ac9,_ny v 3 -Z r \ d aa.- o a nq cacido " 1 G 6 f �.pcc coma c°�ao.� L•-¢�Aa Ya m.a . �.. .• u G�G a0i^a L YP 0 a p.� 'Q L Ey�r Y.0 as ur OGP^ NYY.COErnY0. 2¢,�E'��-O GV 1 L3.O �+9 9p 0.y Ya �EyFE _x qOL Vnq > xyn xn aV a,, N aL ' .•p C pgO1L Lo yL .YCE L W �n ;u .+V 1A 06.pi q C Py LC^ auyL j a N �.,.-y G a v amu N .ti1y i yw 6 p N L A^ y v.a L C^O.^-10•N n=.y.6+gdP N i C,3SY CL L 0=0 y Y Ula 4J ca .c$a'm y 6. v. L 1.. oL r vocn es L'a rnoq. aH w�� L ^ C Y. HY Ll + q^E y w xEG yOgS PrnD uvlOY�x p�C.Yi.Y mn xV0 U Lo u,..e1 E>uNLQ. Oa.9 O� c Nr �C �9ri d�j N O_. dv Na�TL V9w n. U .1+N q+ a^p N T:0 N"C �. O q O1 CP GGNJJ p W L L YQ _y q O 01p q O. 4-2U C n •� q Y a,•`U .S^^. Y 2>>u n �1 N Y Y N.N N V G NO OC`V �G yEa N L.rn .y-a x C v(Y1. O Y C F 'c=L a`� LDv� .'�•+ u q u.^ .O x LAC Q 60 �1 e`j�i •' E,O LEE y _�E wa. O.-9 •'' C`6 LYY w rndL 3. d EE d�.W= ad CE C N ! �d^G G y u Y A l E 6 L•p G ^ Y j V b V C+ G E.Lin 6. Y n Y d^ H y N vTi L.2.2 d U. v^=i u G.y iJ+• u- V 1e 0 s C O: 4V ^6. W+•r-S �C 6Lgapip Nn6 k z C4+ W toy a L P Lq oq 5*+ cz oL i+'Y dyes^ y N�. qy n^ m� cd °i uax y w c ^.p.Ys 6BOyO L O� iN aNP,L L9N y qEO Upq^ C+x+ 3L y �C� n., �1x we.6 yT o a1-.x C.w LV. yY .cox vj Aou Jl C.E�Zl9rj m�^�O x �.: .� x 9y Yqq L qY NLui VY g4yy q V GC.< ^un Y x yc� yn x.L. E.q�•c o'$ o MY o,.. , p 9 Y O nL ,aC d� ZE d} a y. YL yY _ =-a{,1 W nOV 1 Uc L COL a O 1 nr. y O V _ ^ VN O rn0.6 Yq Lua N^.Q 6E �L CYu yOy '�� H Lx01 y AJ'�lq y= yn N.Z . ^.0.i �E • VNYu= d.Y d L 0 ,CV v'y nrni>._ C 9Ego0u �S_ y'• 01 c x ,n Y >Y C1 tL. q L �rn� 4 �• P L C �rrc Ra Ox N V-8 N'^ C C •• x30'moo rn�9 t5 E y O V ' ti 9^A t0i0p xyU p2."q 2 O NU v ONN �p �LOO 7a 9 ku 0 A Vy9 cy W I�qG c O �L.Li 1. 9 Cgg Qln t� C rndCC YLL di rn`VL cC9E NC �Cy nY O �q� ... LE LV.O yy p4C^0 VY' V iJn>Ln'�V' q nLd •N0. 1-L..rnu Lx00 .CON y1 ^V pL d6Y quLVn YYEVI�Vx V — \\1 V 4 4 V y.L E Z q 0 \aft, �'^� 1-•.MYNCO F.pi �y6 �� 4 y v�tmi 9 aL ¢O uba f; EctldL 0 :d=.qN n � Y O • dl c9 ddyty 1q dq'^ NO at 2L E >C O Wy Vwd - �N ^�V'O Ln.. R R 'SI: alb•! 0.:Ag0.0 N��d aqi. ��ur q9 VNaN a on dR sd �w C. .'a.Cq� Ol,•O., X NG �. 4T.^ C. Ld 'd G E � L JA c r OVY.Q t yC - c Oy ^a d�O GOIL..LO RO L �y�j^ '.EG O' 'ay C rr G.NGq Jf_= a.N d,r NG N.OpY E Y u N N E T`d M�pi K o�q nl cw n w. � V wy dE ` d a c a oN `wi aR dv,d. a �w� a d i E N I E d d U d rn t 0 L T a T u a i E O u L c,L q d E N m E d L N�+ O' N y V O G€6 N O•q V O d'O L b N.RN 6 ^ QN =I^no �-Nt Cw R nno Cq�os .[qu- �i+aanM L�U da9 bC a 1" OGpI C6 r-L�.w I, N.N. to� u O n •-x n 6y C.�. el rnL a�G O N9m FO N N n d0'LL G rdr 9E O.ie d4u r o ppL Odm d LO^ a�u I^il y pqy fL LR • �'N^ cds9 EC .. b� ywy� LC 'X 3S Ldn OZ T= � '7 ^ Nb0 dN cd� VO.G. N Im Lrdn OT ^YLc d b�qY • GC� p.E q N_ V EE E C�.Y N� O R L�N p a 4 C NC 6w '2 yam. � �w qLs Vu O.y 6n6 dl•. p, Ld uNa A bG al _ N VO OL� 5C. t N.LL CZ a E `O d yy9. N d aaigv 9d d uw �UyaLi a o i L d as c �L yc 9a L q Odp Np d�•.Sd ^q d L gg N � b >n r b to NAIL~ cy-V O L Lp >• wi0 � p GGygi N. ^UE� ^VOo t E KO r� d1•L • � L` O'adl Q U +CN6q IV4 py Vlyw �� wT �I �I n •,I 1N, �I el �;I ,� �{ I I ^u a YWyat u2 ati Ety... A l.I Olp OLU01 C Y cL N gi ILui xis �' Oc�o u dcCj L.j :G nELLrn EOM o' oC R. m a 02 '.JO ay a. ^L R �I.�w'+ Ciy .�QE «00 LL pEVO NNLL.� Ydy � �U� z. NNgda AObI W y Cam. 6 y N ^ '� aLGM.N F N 1- au ACpT add CL 41 y U ydy aLu'a u U CL t09 tpm. aV Cud C . a YaL.E- �CYR CY ^ 'O `a YC; OC Nam' SUUY A��d _.^y > N �4 Nd'L^ 6 t4 o` � •N tW~J uqp JR NRn a QT.au C SL z O.N. •C a...m UnL aR y�Y CpRCCo .a,� u.".U O p a� o ^L E a b 'O N a4..y C r«i C A�u OLTV O OLN nY 9 1 LL N O 1-tiWL L�6LLLV1 6..0 AY.0 VI bUd . o 'N^�a E A a d• Y N x R a o t 0 �L Y V d a+py G 9 N L y R d a d p O a E`y ; L Q Y C N O 9 a Lp, V c ayi� �6V y.NY qaY � L O a A� s aRT AY 6.. r u R E >w� 4 - a A > a� ro a ms .•. P y a�.a A9 r dC� T y. Y C �. ^S yuC dL MLLA E N x^ AL Aa «aa u AOR� A O>q. C Y L C G 9 t b P R n a C.YC y an Era a.Yr nL ktLUN A Lq .'yam+ 2 4�p O9 Mu R E aNi O NN y a RF'AO� }q. C ay .R Y Gpa «a V AYEE Y '.. x Ada t E nr �CnN F Z ~n N pp p pa R a A V E payT y ".L n L G G u Y u O Y N L j Y G.Y OTy �.p n >p. L9E O F N LL qd AQ � Y�.^ny C oJ.... d daN 3 t E s E R alit �q ^ N SR 6T y� R N T N Or Tam G E >E E O ca. N` u q u. by �W C Cx •- q ` Gy. �q p tL A F NS G ~S� WUdd Wes. nc.. a � OC9..�CEdd T^ LEO epia9« . u p ^ a la. ULa CC rnE LOa O.O T L d dH >Y Lid CF Nv T Y Y.... ^ T L L I� F'Na V..+ JLE^• G YL-9CA 40.m> isWLL WES 6L.«.y K U roo ac Pox Nnm d '' m anao ^.« C N d E dli ep L u_ P p �� 2 � � C M L q O •�O Ep oo O W,I ��� N d >•. a p •p.•O. G N'� 'U 2 a.• oO O d T N= NGIk C P^aL• p'^ iY:L•d+ ip.d WbusJ Y 3 x G W> AP^O b 6 •f� N 2E. .-.b N C� o d F L L d N p P o ItLVL P o L A p a O L O.. •cj aEa b uo e•^ w.Oa oNP�6q dT L o y. y V 6 A�••G•• dyb n. u u mu�q .o� o d x e. Nye v QL dOLPG yE cCvEA „ T d LC L L �x^NCLi W9VH x O p�. d Cd o0>f ^9.9 p u..C.L G x ^E p �• pT L ol u.m�u ¢otoiu`o an H vT u^ I _ ^� ol Y'�E p o L -u a c m o.�.p. civ 1 LO 1 • a d P qy iJC G dPd IS q C y .52W Ad OunOff— a �9E d PO F W • YGy N m y L P y C u la-, c p L F .-E a =a u. P 'q^.a-o ddiaci a, A x N g V•A 0 V A O d 0 a� i. FE CC .. byq^a L,9 >R x O ^OGI o C -wyp t �^ Va d vy ^C Ld >. Ad..'. L C dy Mu pE ' A= d. C Rp G E. d. O H. b L 4.d Pq N E CQ P d d a p.o Y >•O d4ob— r ayC vdd �x^d�E �E ToL ya RPcP_ W'x�n mC_c aiC yd? .^d-.'� uo d L.y•op.ia � �^��d . GE p uxL uGp $9 lu -o dq .d.5 G Ctd9 d R N uou E, x ELxO qyr =Lay i CEdd 6 y N L ^� y n — '^ p9 n Y>Gp p, LURy p VE E n6. God Epppy aaC. P u p L P a — co d u. P•p• pE Om ' id TY u _ o y d'!•C y P H d P2. x E d d q H — Y L�1 9 F 2. N G d v! .p a N p r CE n. dw a=i p d cA ci oui dd A VVf•. ¢qqC G6•r E.�y 1 INNS W UV 6 FL?�-6`2i\4.+Y+ oac-Pli T L d Y •+ �' _ 1 a s 79 O Tq�aN a �' me'•'F io.O. aBb 'oa is osav�. +u v ► 21 n G.PC qT 60 c Oyy� �a Go +^q' AV yL Y,e r 'Wn6N Onyn CE�..NS -p Y C Y.y N qL d $• W. A� A c «^ 1ua V•� L.O�H � CN EE :..J _'• q'M nuNN q� �La V d O ydj V L Ll L+ ciao W.• .L-a2�+ ::iY Na LL n � .ay v �� � ~va L ^�� 9^W6 N O •?.V. 0 LO.� Y \ 6 d D O.. _ L q^EQ N`�W Lail— 2 C . .dam Yv0 q 9a ^ O1 O T O Ta•^ �NdQ ySLY q�Y4. o Y Y q O D +W L y e c d A N nW WMN ail 6C q 4. � UO Q M L Lc M MT�E a • O � � TwL q W O S L fj 9 N W T M i aY L O L Y 0.d d nuj c O ti � • 6= OC U CJ L N a 4 O�.OY eE e1n � O dY. Qv i •y.YN F3i C N O N nn p. On OL � q az vd m d = y 21 N c- #- aEid .N.Y .fit ati EEgL. 34 LC N E N Y~ �^ •� q W. Ca aON C^ ¢��G NN. Ltd L E G Y 2cN avN Ea cg. Gq 6 PL W3 V UggnK G q S -:is _ m lsT U c9 N'- m y YA Eom O u. q oar. d. mP du m� C.0 Cq mQE 6d �CL ONO y .� an d n•-. ,..z m N q. ME Lm d� q y pup _ d� i, L gE jmv mT q w acm ^ NFcin c tkS Ru 02� n � Ru cc J Ar i u � Y Ci Y Z Y m Av L m n L u L Cma C 6 me o9 CC 6N� .r 6•r- �.� oa OWN 6.�u�i •CG H� LA�m N o II O W d L LO >> O q' dy NaOi =u9 N L o a C =O Y 75 C ud � wa _ iL � s « �• ^N Y�r L m tY L cs B u U w\. � p.�N W O4 C � D•q � L L Cm d OCO A m9 O� m. to Gw:. aW LL W F AVE ut m CO O q N M•V .... F•Y.0 Q6.N Q.�if 02 O Is i Z.^ 1Lm••� Lm RM N I.i C N tD 1� p � .-•i - -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GUCMnN STAFF REPORT �'� • a � c9- m n O O F � Z DATE: July 10, 1985 Ul- 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commi'ss•ion FROM Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PROPOSED PARKING AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN I. BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting on May 22, 1985, the: P1—a n ng Coi fission directed staff to prepare parking amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development C de.. The proposed parking amendments will deduct non-occupancy areas fro.^: parking calculations, provide a ratio for research and hvelopment uses, and policy clarification concerning off-site p�xking lots. If deemed acceptable, these draft amendments would be ,pro"ght back to Commission during a public hearing for approval by Reso ution and forwarded to City Council for final adoption. II. ANALYSIS: A. Deductible Areas-from Parking Calculations Based upon analysis and review of commercial/industrial building design and cons.truc•t.ion techniques, the following interior building areas would not be subject to change based on fc ore tenant improvements and aria reco"landed as deductible building areas from parking consideration: o electrical/mechanical rooms o shafts a staFrifeljs o multi-,story lobbies i If the Commission c,or:urs with the above-defined interior building areas, then the *Wwowinq modified language should be added to Section E. Parking & Leading_Requirements (page III-29) of the Industrial Specific Plan Exhibit °A" c f. Following interior building areas can be deducted from the overall parking requirements: Electrical/mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, and multi-story lobbies. ITEM R PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Parking Amendments July 10, 1985 Page 2 B. Off-Site Parking The Development Code specifies requirements for the consideration of off-site parking lofts through the minor exception process (Section 17.04.050D) as shown in Exhibit "B". The Commission expressed concern over the pedesf.,�ian safety aspect of off-site parking lots and directed staff to modify the Development Code tent to mitigate potential traffic conflicts of pedestrians crossing<* mid-block, lack of,(pedestrian orientation, and sidewalks. In response to the Plan ing Commids4on's direction, staff is proposing to amend Section 17.04.0501) to read as follows: Off-Site Parking` The City Planner may authorize maximum twenty-, five 57.) percent of tNe required parking for a use to be located an a contiguous site, not more tnan 300 feet from the building entrance on the site Pf the use for which such parking i 1equired, where in his judgment such off-site parking will s(..rve the use equally as effectively and conveniently as providing suci�, parking on the same site as the use for which it is rewired. The City Planner may require conditions as deemed necessary to ensure utility, availability, and maintenance of such joint use of off- site parking facilities. C. Research and Development Parking Ratio In order to adopt a Research and Development parking ratio, it js necessary to first define research and development uses for the '! land use type definitions in Table III-2, and then identify the applicable subareas within the Industric? Specific Plan ;Exhibit "C"). Staff is proposing to define R&D as a separate category of E industrial use with two subcategories. Office/Research & Development/Off ice: Activities typically include, but not limited to; building use types resembling office more than industrial space, but includes in addition to office space, research and development facilities such as c .--uit board assembly rooms, "clean rooms", and computer 'Facilities. Such uses are typically less intense than pure office, but more intense than traditional industrial space. The uses do not produce odors, noise, vibration, or particulates which would adversely affect uses in the same structure or on the same site. Where 24 hours on-site surveillance is necessary, a caretaker's residence may be permitted when approved by a Conditional Use Permit. Research & Development/Light Manufacturing: Activities,typically- include, but not limited to; "high-tech" production and assembly assembly operations rooms" andde otherme R& andf ciliti s oassociatedCe ff ice with roduct high n d i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Parking Amendments July 10, 1985 Page 3 r F technology manufacturing. The uses do not produce odors, noise, vibration, or particulate which would adversely affect uses in the M same structure or on the same site. Where 24 hours :on-site surveillance is necessary, a caretaker's residence may be yermitted when approved by a-Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that research and ievelopment uses would be appropriate in the Industrial Park and General Industrial G categories as shown in Exhibit "C". s B. R&G/Office Permitted Subarea 6 and 7, 12, 16 Conditional Use Subareas 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14 C. R&D/Light M�anufacturin e�rmitted Subarea - 1-8, 10-14, and 16 E In addition to the above revisions, staff is proposing to amend Section E.3. Parking Spaces Required (Exhibit "A") to include: e. Research & Development: 1 space per 350 Square Feet III. RECOMMENDk:-:aN: If the. Planning Commission concurs with the language and the extent of the proposed revisions to the Industrial Specific Plan and 'Development Code, then staff will schedule a public hearing and prepare a Resolution of approv?l and accompanying Ordinance for the Commission's consideration. spect I'subniitted, r Ri 2 j City Planner s RG:HF:$r s Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Parking Spaces Required (Section E.3) - Industrial Specific Plan, Page III-29 Exhibit "B" -Off-Site Parking (Section 17.04.050D) - Development Code, Page 48 Exhibit "C" - Proposed Changes to Summary Land Use 'Type by Subarea, Industrial Specific Plan, Table III-1, page III-S Exhibit "D" - Current Summary Land Use Type by Subarea, Table III-1 dM Exhibit "E" - Subareas.of the Industrial Specific Plan Parking Spaces Required E.3. Required parking spaces shall be determined at ttie following rates: N a, Warehousing or building for storage: 1 space for 1,000 square feet b. Industrial/Manufacturing: i space per 511^ c� arc F^mot . c. Office and Administration: j •1 space per 250 square feet i d. Multi-use tenant where office use does not exceed 35% of building area or "Space" Buildings: I space per 400 square feet. E.4. 20% of all required parking stalls shall,be devoted to compact car use. Minimum stall dimension shall be 8' in width and 16' in j length and marked for compact cars. o , E.5, All Parking areas shall be screened from public View through the use of berms, land- scaping material and low walls. E.6. All loading facilities and maneuve•ing areas taAureanoox LOAnINGDOCK must be on site with the use.' ' E.7. All loading facilities shall be permitted only in the rear and interior side yart' MULso m areas except within the Heavy Industria'.: i t---.--�4 uaLIS category and rail served buildings. ( = E.8. Aisle width to loading docks shall be a 64 minimum of 50' width ecclusive of truck parking area. E.9. Loading docks shall be setback a minimum of t ! 70' from street property line. E.10. Loaning facilities shall be adequately screened from the public view except within the he.vy Industrial category and Rail Served buildings. E.11. Minimum aisle width adjacent to loading areas shall be 16' one way and 281 for two Way. 111-29 Section 17.04.050 chW-acteristics of operation; requirem:,its for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedrsles or time k limits for performance or completion;requirement. for periodical review by 1 the City Planner; and such other conditions as the City Planner may deem necessary t�,- ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, and to enable the City Planner to make the find.ngs required by Section 17.04.050-E. (a) Fence Height. In any district the maximum height of any fence,wall, hedge or equivalent screening may be increased by a maximum two(2) feet, where the topography of sloping sites or a difference in grade between adjoining sites warrants such increase in height to maintain a level of privacy, or to maintain effectiveness of screening, as generally provided by such fence, wall, hedge or screening in similar circumstances. (b) Setbacks. In any Residential district, the City Planner may decrease The m n um setback by not more than ten(10%, percent where the pronosed setback area or yard is in character with the surrounding neighborhood and is not required as an essential open space or recreational ameniky to the use of the site, and where such decrease will not unreasonabl; affect abutting sites- (c) Lot Coverage. In any Residential district, the City Planner may increase the maximum lot coverage by not more than ten (10%) percent of the lot area, where such increases are necessary for significantly improved site planning or architectural design, creation or maintenance of views, or otherwise facilitate highly desirable features or amenities,and where such increase will not unreasonably affect abutting sites. (d) off-Site Parkin The City Planner may authorize a maximum twenty-five 25%) percent of the required parking for a use to be located on a site not more than 300 feet from the site of the use for which such parking is required, where in his judgement such off-site parldng will serve t,ie use equally as effectively and conveniently as providing such parking on the same site as the use for which it is required. The City Planner may require conditions as deemed necessary to ensure utility,availability,and maintenance of such joint jr use of off-site forking facilities. (e) On-Site Parkin . The City Planner may authorize a maximum twenty-five 25%) percent reduction in the required on-site parking requirements when it is proven that it will not result in a traffic hazard or impact the necessary parking for the use. (f) Height In any district the City Planner may authorize a ten 110%) percent increase in the maximum height limitation. Such iner lases ma3* be approved where necessary to significantly improve thi, site plan or architectural design, and where scenic views or solar access on surrounding properties are not a:fected. C. Application, An application for a Nliror Exception shall be filed with the Plar-°.ng !'?••nee � N 0/ ti .TABLE 111.1 SUMMARY LAND USE TY?E BY SUBAREA O PERMITTED USE o CONDRIONALLY PERMIr'CED USE tSSETYPES _ Sti3AREAS 1 2 31415 6 7 IS 19110111112113114115116 MANUFACTURING oistom • o 0 o s e • o s o e s e • UW r��+.t s : . . • e. o • ea e a•• •. , Medium ❑ a'❑ a o • i e • o e H e e BF S.E,AR.C}iSc_p RESEARCH A DEVELOPMENT/OFF_(CE:Q c ❑ _ M 0 tr o • a❑ •__ _RESEARCH ix D£VELOPMEHSJ. _ LIGHT MANUFACTURING,® .s it s.1 _• 1 ® • Y WHOLESALE.STORAGE USTRIBUTION — j ht.-r,x r• :a-• • �;, s.y :v.:e•:a:. a.e o v � Heavyt7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �'❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • COMMERCIAL :'b:: • -r•, I�ittiiia[strative:aodEttB".y^ - .e: .•- 'o•°Fry . Agricultural Supplies and Services • • • •• s • • •1 famotive Seat n3 Storage c ❑ ❑ ❑ Automative U t Truck Repair•Mires ❑ o e ❑ s 10 ❑ Auton,4ths Sales WARM�i —a Building Contractor s Off[ee and Yards • ❑ c a ❑ e o •1 0 `t�W,tlTcig";�'oa'iiactoi�SRera_ge. Building Maintenance Services • e • e a • • e p,o • �?d�9•�pplies;"andes�r t, � Business Supply tall Safes and Services s • e s o e o e f + • �Fltisfgess"�"apPo'riE_'Sec�� .��'k�—'1[r� or ��.tis u • ��.I' Coirtmunication. rvice- e a • o • o ❑ • • r• ❑ • �CoAvettie[1ce.Sales - Eating and Drinking Establisttrnents s • • p • • • o • s o e o • • r G Mlen - - - 'Extensive Impact Commercial ❑ - 6Ft 4a. Financtat insurance and 4ieai Estatr v ❑ a.o s o , ❑ s s ''Fral artd Creme iry��� _� •fl' '�; `9 LTY +�4>meid^aa[es 2i`xl Rtn ter,-- d x K' • Hotel/Motel ,• a e w s � rYSes rest 3 . f a f .• . a• �1r:••' Medical/Healtti Care Services a `[7 o s e ❑ C1 e p a i Peisorial Services;sir r : .F],.❑ X 7?'it Tz'%Or=- PeUoleum Products Storage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ {'�tofes'sidnal.Services•'s.�""i.t,::r"�r..c -T•.•s ::•r_: .z.. Recreational Faciktles ❑ ❑ C n n d a • ❑ ❑ ❑ b e a a 15 Scrao Operation a CHIC �.::.. .. i .. JWministtative Gv[o Setvices,.���"`i:�=s"w��--:,•,-r.: a p;_ ®. •t a ,r>:xg.s. • a.� .s_w� Ca lturai 13 ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ .. tjExtensiue'lmpad'UtimyEa�it esf'�•'�`, t: r? �!j' �"}7' = Pub il c Assembly ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a a d C ❑ ,�4trWic Safety and IY,�Tity'Sernces.� �...ur;�.emu�4 �:'p?,q a Ct w; p.'C~• o rt ❑ t7 q• _Reliatous p5semyty a ❑ ❑ fl ti3. ❑ ••• 'a ❑ fl ❑ ❑ .'{ 'NOT£Nmenadted uses i¢ertn'Rd Ill3 IZYJRTH 11 CITY OF ITEM:BAP11041 6 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE os�d� g PLANNIINTG DIVIROi`3 EXHIHIT e SCALE- TABLE II!-r SUMMARY LAN® USE TYPE BY SUBAREA • PERMIITTED USE ❑OCNDI110NALLY PERMITTED USE .�USE TYPES SUBAREAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 910111213141516 MANUFACTURING Custom • v • • o • • s • • • • o Mediu ❑ ❑ o m r i 't A= • ❑ 0 • • • o • • �ltrifmum�i} vy�' _ Heat._ Lot MM • WHOLESALE,STORAGE,b:m-RIBUTION Heave e°'a;Q..,e ;a •. ❑ o ®• ❑ o 0 0 COMMER;IALow ff�wc _ 'Agriculture,Supplies and Service; • • • • ® • On Q • Automotive Fleet Storage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o_ro notive�r ruck Repair v`9 p -Minor • •' 0 ❑ ❑ • • p • o ❑ utorio£!igtrk'��E e -r'M . •R ®. • Aatomofive Sales ❑ ❑ ❑ NEE MOM�ivs Se�dc�Station: =� k Building WE M Contractor's Offi-;e and Yards • ❑ ❑ ❑ • ® ® e -or�t-•ac"tw�s-5toragt•"�•� t. Building Maintenance Seriic o es a • • • • • • ,, Yo • 8 M In fSuppli'ers C,4i. festi �• ME--. �- Business Supply Reta,l Sales and Services • • • • e • • ® ® • uBusinesn SupporE Services �;. - I _t:� • - Communication Senlce� • o •' a v • ❑ o ® • o p ��'oir�eirTer a�essac��eridc�• - Eating and Drinking Establishmer.ts -• • w • -- Extensive Impact Commercial • was#--Fc•03'.-a - �- Financial,Insurance and Real Estate Services ❑' ❑ ❑ • : ❑ ar�3 Ber"erage Sa!es� FaiEll ❑ �7: Funeral and Clem • Q � leavq Fluii;rrierst F ❑ ' M. fl Hotel lMotel ® .®� 'flan" • Medilcal/Heali Care Servkces ® i' �: ® -+ `' !� •s = � p p • • • ❑ ❑ O p p p s1?ersc�nai Services �, s Petro'sum Products Storage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r �t't7fS10rtaCServiceS'r�" Jar t+ �?+� �... -sytsi.� .u{• -' i Ma' •`••'•;••�; ti3,• �.. -«..` i¢moo AD`..�SAai Recreational Facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ,O ❑ ❑ . ® • -ElepalrServices .Q RScra Operation civic tl4dininistrative-Oleic Siervices �"; �• Cultural ,. w .sa ,.i� ® ® k �+'. ®, w • ®. • • 4 sY ❑ ❑ p co ❑ ❑ ❑ E�atensnre`lrmpacutilltyactlltfes, "*,' „` 3 .rT- s f r .Public Assembly ❑ r p " ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ hE��A&Safety and Ut llty Se"svib " i;: ",°M © a � ct t3 A A o: ❑ .t� ❑ �, Hail ions Assembl p 130 0 0 o a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NOTE Non-marked uses not permitted i° 'i m : VINEYARO HEl4'NAN I h �. �. -,1• AF.CHIBALD TURNER.. i u _..•� K•• -•-/Sii{>d MAVEN MILMEN AMk 1-15 �' � /% !. •r. / :' ROCHE,STEA EEK lo ra t•r-m. ITA � •} �r �n e? rn •n Apz z m 0C.i�Z Z \ R f� p r. � — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT' m � O O DATE: July .10, 1985 �� Z v > TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission 1977 — FROM: Sack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS Since January of this year, the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and City staff have been discussing the processing systL-m through which projects are reviewed and approved.. The discussions were intended to be mutually supportive and productive, resulting in a number of recommendations to the City concerning way- to improve the revJ.ew process The recommendations made by the Chamber committee do nut involve any changes in philosophy of regulations nor the philosophy of quality of review but are directed toward mechanical aspects of development review. The attached set of recommendations were presented to the City Council in June. While many of these recommendations do not specifically relate to Planning Commission procedures, th-y do relate to many aspects cf the Community Development Department program. Further, the recommendations contain one pertinent to the way the design review process operates. Because of this, the City Council has requested the Planning Commission review and comment on those recommendations pertinent to the Planning Commission. Resllpctfull submitted, f' y 1. y Jack Lam Director of CORMunity Development Attachment r% h 'r1 S GOAL 1 IMPROVE 'P'riE DESIGN R--yIEw pROCESS R_e3.�Pst Conduct'Design Review Committee meetings as public meetings, in lieu of present "workshop" (closed) meetings, Effect This change will be beneficial in many ways. It will tend to Promote more orderly and objective proceedings/findings; it will enable applicants: and others, to observe preceedings, thereby gaining a more thorough understandi.zg of City's design goals, and it will assist' in achieving a higher and more uniform level of development for the City. Request Change the Design Review ccmmittee�meeting format as follows: A. Begin the consideration of each agenda item kith a brief (not to"exceed five minutes) introduction of the item by-,the applicant. B. Follow the applicant's presentation with'?'the staff analysis, discussion, and committee findings. Effect This; change will improve the zommittee's understanding of the _ applicant's proposal and the applicant's understanding of the committee's fJindings. 'F J 3 o S " ` GOAL 2 EXPEDITE THE PLAN ChECK PROCESS Request There should be. a Plan dheck Submittal Coordinator within the City structure that provides a one-person source of informatic�t' for developers regarding the. status of their particular project as its goes through the plan check process. Coordinator would monitor the building, engineering and landscaping process.. Effect This coordinator would also be a source. of answers to questions from the developers or from staff members as they relate to any particular project.- This type of position could be further delineated according to the size of projects. Request City staff should be increased to handle a. minimum .of $150,000,000 inhcus.e through aLt. phases of plan checking.. Effect The outside plan check consultants should be hired to handle the increased business during peak years i.e.. 1985. The City staff should be increased in the future years. ' Example: $200,000,000 maintained staff at $150,0o0,0oo' $400,000,000 maintained staff at $300,000,000 or 75% permit evaluation of previous year. t Request The Engineering Department review for completeness and appropriateness the Civil Engineering Plan Check Consultant's comments prior to returning the plans to the developer. Effect Provide the means of the plan check reviewed by the Engin=.aring Department. Request Assign a counter person to handle residential home improvement plans with designated hours. Assign a count.-ar person to plan check tenant improvement pans with designated hours. _ 2 tr Effect Would eliminate disruption of staff personnel and help expedite the plan check of commercial, residential and industrial developments. Request Divide building and aevalopment projects into categories of residential, commercial and industrial. These should be further divided by size. We also recommend nominal elapsed time and direct labor hour expenditures be established for staff work in each category, and the-actuals tracked for each project. Effect This would allow the evaluation of staff efficiency, the determination of causes for problem projects, and provide justification for further budgets. This would also decrease the amount of refusals BY the City caused by forms not being completed correctly for each particular project, which would save the develcape,rs as well as the City valuable time. J5C002JB600 i o 3 its.