HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/08/14 - Agenda Packet0701 -02 o 8 -14 -85 P.C,. AGenda Packet o Page 11 of 4
I
cn
U,
C+
t
A.
cny oF
RANCHO McAimo,\GA
AMh
PL&NINENG CONINI SSION
AGENDA
U
>
1977 W-_DN-ESDAY August 14, 1985 7:00 p.r ,
YATOAS PARK COMN[UNUY CENTER
9,161 DASE LINE
R&MCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
L Pledge of Allegiance
11. Roll Call,
Commissioner Bar-ker Commisslc�ar Rempel
Com-issioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout
Commiasioner Mcglef-
Ill. Announeements
W. Approval of Minutes
July 24, 1985
V. Consent Calendar
77ze following Consent Calendar items are expected to be njutine
and nonrcontroversial. They will be acted on by the Commixionat
one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any itein,
itshoold be -removed for discussior,.
A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMEN- REVIEW 85-08 - AJA
The ion of sLX I- and 2-story garde-n _73f—fi(--e
E575stra-c-t
buildings on 8.5 acres located at the southeast corner of
Aspen Avenue and Laurel Street in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7) - APN 208-351-024.
VL Public Hearings
The following items are Public hearings in which concerned
individuals may voice their opinion qf the related Project. Please
wait to be recogniied by the Chairman and address the Commission
by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes Per individual for e,",,h project-,,
J
f,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 85 -19 - LEDERMAN - Construction of a 35,557
square foot general retail center on 3.22 acres of land la the
General Commercial District located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard mid Ramona Avenue- APN 208- 301 -15
through 17. (Continued !rom duly 24, 1985 meeting.)
TIME EXTENSION AiD MO.DIFICA`"'ON;- FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -08 - LEWIS - The
development of a 377,665 square toot sopping 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 Avenue -- APN 208 -
261 -25, 26. (Continued from July 24, 1985 meeting.)
D.
VARIANCE 85 -05 - DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES - A request to remove the minimum
lot depth and rear yard setback of a lot created by the
merger of the frro;it portion of -three lots on the north side of
J
La. Colina (8300 block) in the Very Low District - Ai-*;v 1061 -
091 -11, 1061- 201 -29, 30. (Continued from July 1985
meeting.)
E.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -35 - DANNA - Review of
outstanding issues regarding conditions of approval for &
recreational vehicle storage yard on 2.4 'acres of land in the
Low Residential District, generally located on the south side
of Base Line, east pf, Hermosa Avenue - APN 1077- 051 -40.
F.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 8428 - HUMPHREY TRUCKING - A request to
operate a trucking firm, outdoor storage and retail of building
materials such as rock, sand and decorative rock, and a
caretaker quarters in an existing building on 8 acres of land in
the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) located at 8604
Pecan Avenue, south of Arrow Highway - APN 229- 141 -8,
229- 151 -24 and 26.
G.
VARIANCE 85 -06 - PLAZA BUILDERS - A request to reduce
the required 22,500 square toot minimum average Irt size to
20,000 square fcoot for a proposed 5, lot single family
subdivision in the Very Low Residential District (1 -2 duiae),
r
located at the west side of•Sapphire, south of Jennet Street -
APN 1043 - 121 -3, 1062- 161 -1, 1062 - 011 -3. (Referred by City
Council - Related File: Tentative Tract 10349)
a,
H.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-H - BRETHREN IN CHRIST-`
CHURCH - Modification to approved- Master Plan to allow
two temporary.trailers for classrooms doting construction of
permanent, education facility.
f,
L MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 11549 - LEWIS - A
request to mod ?y conditions of 35proval for Tentative Tract
11549 to delete the requirement for Development /Design
Review approval prior to recordation of the final map, for a
residential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots in the
'Very Low Residential District (1 -2 du/aa) within the Etiwanda
Specific Plan located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue,
south of Summit - APN 225 - 181 -02, 04,06j 07, 08, 091 26 and
43.
J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -11 - SHEPHERD OF THE
T
HILLS CHURCH- Construction.of a 1,458 square foot church'
addition to the existing ehurc4 Wn 2.1 acres of land in the Low
R
Residential District (2 -4 dujac) located at the northwest
corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Avenue - API,' 201-821-
050.
K. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CO1 ?IDOR STUDY: INTERIM
POLICIES - Commission rev-iW of interim policies to be
applied to development projeets along Foothill Boulevard
prior to adoption of the Foothill Bouleard.Plan.
V11L New Business
L. BASE LINE PARKWAY /MEDIAN DESIGN -72 RRA VISTA
VIR. I.?ireetcr',s Reports j.
M. CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE WITHIN TERRA I.
VISTA - Property acquisition for an elementary school site of
approximately ter, (10) acres located in Terra Vista Planned
Community in. *Ae Central School District. Recommendat ons
from the Planning Commission. or, the proposed site are
requested.
N. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION CONCERNING THE
DEVELOPMENT' OF THE OLD CUCAai?FNGA RAILR6Xl)
DEPOT
i'
'.i
IX. Public_ Comments
L.
This is the time and place for the ge: ai7ml public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed her'v are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
X. Adjournment
Ask
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations
that set an lI pan. adjournment time. If jtems go beyond that
ttrz they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission.
COOAMONGA-6OA5T1 [OOMTY REGIONAL 1 4
MARIO INIENNATION -Z - ,.11Ri6RT:
\°t CtTY OF tAaicNO CUCAMOM"
X
,K
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 24, 1985
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at
Lions Park Community Center, 9151 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESET IT. David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel,
Dennis Stout
ABSENT: Herman Rempel
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Senior .Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant
Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Jack
Lain, Community Development Director; James Markman, City
Attorney; John Meyer, Assistant Plasmer; Janice Reynolds,
Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jack Lam, Community Development Director., +.nnounced that the Planning
Commission would be adjourning this evening's meeting to a workshop to be held
on Monday, August 5, 1985. He advised that the workshop would begin at 5 :30
p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, located at 9791 Arrow
Highway, Rancho Cucamonga and that the topic of discussion would be the Reiter
Gateway project on 4th and Haven and the Foothill Corridor Study.
Chairman Stout presented a Resolution of Commendation to Rick Gomez for his
years of service to the Planning Commission and the City as City Planner.
APPROVAL OF MINIlT S
Commissioner Chitiea requested that "wholesaler" be replaced with "wholesale
operation" in paragraph one of page 10 and the addition of "adequate for other
areas of the City" to paragraph 5 on page 13 of the May 22, 1985 Minutes.
Motion Moved by Barker,, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to approve
the Minutes of the May 22„ 1985 Planning Commission meeting, as amended.
a
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -20 - FORECAST - A
pr.:posaI to construct a two- story, 8,706 sq. ft. office building on .614
acres of land located at the east side of Utica, north of Civic Center
Drive in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) - APN 208- 062 -07.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -19
WOLFF LANG C R TOPHER - A proposal to construct a ,�q. ft. two-
story office building on .69 acres located on the east side of Utica,
north of Civic Center Drive, within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific
Plan - APN 208- 062-09.
C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 - ARCHIBALD ASSOCIAtES -
Reapplication for Design Review of adding one new elevation for the 9
single family lots within this tract in the tow- Medium Residential
District (4 -8 du /ac), located at Monte Vista Street, between Archibald and
Ramona Avenue - APN 202- 181 -05, 06, 15, 16.
D. RESOLUTION MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-
- BOAR 'AD - Locate in the Neighborhood Commercial District at the
northwest col of 19th Street and Carnelian Avenue - APN 208- 811 -5S.`
n
(Continued from July 10, 1985 meeting.)
E. TIME EXTENSION FOR COND'TTONAL USE PERMIT 83 -08 - LEWIS - The levelopment
of a 377,66.5 squares foot shopping center nc u ng a drive - throuqh
restaurant, on 8.67 acres of land in the Gen ral Commercial District,
located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman - APN
208- 261 -25, 26. (Continued from July 10, 1985 meeting.)
Motion. Moved by' Chitiea, seconded. by McNiei, unanimously carried to adopt
the consent calendar, with the removal of Item E, Time Extension for
Conditional Use Permit 83 -08, Lewis, as requested by the applicant. This item
is to be readvertised for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
F. VARIANCE 85 -05 - DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER CITY OF LOS ANGELES - A
proposal to reapportion ots on the north side of the 8300 bl-o-R—of La
Colina. These lots will not meet the minimum lot size nor the setback
requirement of the Very Low District - APN 1061- 191 -10, 11 AND 1061 - 201 -
29, 30. (Continued from July 10, 1985 meeting.)
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the applicant for this item would be
submitting a revised site plan as a result of the neighborhood meeting which
was recently held:
f
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 24, 1985
ti
1
Upon the City Attorney's recommendation Variance 85 -05 was removed from this
agenda, per the applicant's request, to be renoticed and readvertised for the
August 14, 1985 agenda.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -19 - LEDERMAN
Construction of a 35,557 �q.. ft. general retail center on 3.22 acres of
land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue - APN 208- 301 -15 through 17.
Chairman Stout advised that the applicant for Conditional Use Permit 85 -19 had
requested a continuance to. the August 14,, 1985 Planning Commission meeting.
The Chairman opened the public hearing for those who would be unable to attend
the August 14 meeting.
There were no public comments.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue
the public hearing for Envlironmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-
19, Lederman, to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 1985.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE 'PERMIT 85 -09 - KNITTER &
ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 74ZE square toot child daycare center
within the Terra Vista Planned Cormnunity on 0.91 acres of land in the
Medium Density Residential District (4 -14 du /ac) located on the northeast
corner of Haven and Valencia - APN 201- 221 -11, (Continued rfrowi July 10,
1985 meeting.)
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewe' the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked, based on the figures provided, if the parking space
requirement would be 15 spaced provided for teachers and 30 for other use.
Mr. Coleman replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Barker referred to the Design Review Committee's requirement that
the design of the Haven Avenue parkway be coordinated with the Terra Vista
landscape supplement and asked flow this would be enforced.
Mr. Coleman replied that Lewis Homes had provided the City with a landscape
supplement for Terra Vista and that this would be monitored through the plan
check process.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
The applicant concurred with the staff report, Resolution and conditions of
approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
July 24, 1985
John Melcher, Lewis Homes, advised that Lewis Homes was the co- app'ilcant on
this proposal and also concurred with the Resolution and conditions of
approval.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by V_ -Niel, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution
approving Conditional lr,e Permit 85 -09 and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL - carried
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-18 - HIGHLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH - The
establishment of a church in the Rancho Plaza Shopping Center at 6642
Carnelian, generally located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and
Carnelian Avenue - APN 201- 811 -60.
Ban Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
William Enns, pastor of Highland Community Church, advised that the church was
sreking this Conditional Use Permit to allow time to build the pErmanent
ch,irch facility at Highland and Carnelian. He additionally advised that the
fr)nt door to the building is free - swinging and always unlocked during
buiAness operation, however, panic hardware had been installed on the Dear
doer to the building.
Chairman Stout asked what the church projected as a time frame for the new
building.
Pastor Enns replied that 18- months is the church's target date.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel to adopt the Resolution approving
Conditional Use Permit 85 -18. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT
NUES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -4-
i.
July 24, 1985
t�
.1�
;a
M
j
J. CONDITIONAL USE PER14IT 83 -11 - DATA DESIGN - Re%tew and consideration of a
time extension` ang conditions of approval for two tGoporary office
trailers located at 7915 Center Avenue.
Dan Coleman, senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Dom Salvati, representing Data Design, stated that it had always been Data
Design's intent to install the street improvements and they had begun
soliciting bids this week and hoped to have the improvements on Center Avenue
` and the interior street completed wi ±hin sixty days. Further, regarding the
permanent building, Mr. Salvati stated that Siltron had been moved from
Gardenia two years ago to try to improve their position, He stated that Data
Design had invested a lot of time and money in Siltron on developing new
products and had recently nut in a new management_ team, which Data Design felt
would place Siltron in a :urn- around position. He advised that Data Design,
did not feel that the er, iomic condition of Siltron warranted the construction
of a permanent building, at this time,,but hoped to be in a better position in
two years, Mr. Salvati stated that Data Design had been in the community for
17 years and felt that they were a good carporace citizen. He additionally
stated that there had been a mi_ understanding between Data Design and the City
because Data Design was not aware that the street improvements had to be
installed withinrthe two year perind from the original subdivision date, but
thought that the next time a building was constructed, Center Avenue and the
interior street would be required to be constw,acted'. He advised that this
extension is neec.ad in order for Data Design, to eintinue to operate.
Commissioner Barker asked if new bonds were posted.
Mr. Salvati replied that they were.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that as he understood new
bonds were not posted. He advised that when the City Council granted the two
year period for the trailers, the applicant also requested an extension on the
street improvements. The City Council approved that request on the condition
that new street improvement agreements be expended and required the posting of
new bonds. However, staff has no records of new bonds being posted.
Mr. Salvati stated that after Council's approval new documents had been signed
and Data Design had continued paying for bonds.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the City has a record of the
old bonds; however, does not have record of the posting of new ones. He
advised that the applicant might be paying premiums on the previous honds.
Mr. Salvati stated that he could meet with City staff to resolve this issue.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 24, 1985
i
f
Chairman Stout asked if the two year completion date for the new building was
based on some type of financial projection.
Mr. Salvati replied that due to the introduction of new products and change in
management, Data 'Design felt that Siltron was on its way to economic recovery
and that in a two year period a permanent building would be warranted.
Chairman Stout asked what guarantee the City would have that the permanent
building would be constructed within the .next two years, given that it hadn't
been constructed within the past two years per terms of the ° onditions of
approval
Mr. Salvati replied that either Siltron would have improved economically
within that time period, or a decision would have to be made to close
Siltron. He advised that Data Design's home office, engineering service group
and Sierra Provisions are 1so housed at this site and if their economic
conditions continue to improve, they could be housed in the permanent
building.
Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Salvati if he received a copy of the City
Council minutes of September 7, 1983.
Mr. Savati replied that he had received the minutes.
1_
There were no further comments, therefore, the public hearing was closed.
Commissic:,er McNiel stated that the City has been very 'liberal in this
situation and would agree with staff that if a time extension is granted, the
improvements have to be done and plans submitted within 99 days.
Commissioner Barker stated that it is frustrating when very small businesses
come into the City and make a sincere effort to comply with the rules of the
Commission or City Council and they make an attempt to function in the best
interest of the community even though compliance increases their overhead.
Additionally, that Data Design vants to maintain as low overhead as possible
to enable a company that has operated at a loss for two years make a profit in
another two years. He advised that as far as he was concerned, there was not
a lot of question on the issue because the minutes of the City Council meeting
clearly stated the Council's intent that in two years the street improvements
would have to be put in and the trailers removed. Additionally, the minutes
reflected the City Council's requirement that new bonds had to be posted and
the Improvement Agreement conditioned that if any development occurred within
the two year period, the bonds could be called. He advised that he would not
be inclined to vote in favor of this extension and if the other Commissioners
were not so inclined, would strongly suggest a limit of 60 days.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- July 24, 1565
I
I
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she could appreciate a business having
trouble gett.ng started, but if this business is not operating at a profit
now, she would have a difficult time understanding how they are going to
construct a building in two years. She advised that the street improvements
should have been completed before this time extension request came before the
romnission.
Chairman Stout stated that the improvements were to have been done in 1981;
however, the agreement was so poorly drafted the City was unable to enforce
it. He advised that Data Design came back to the City in 1983 indicating they
didn't know they had to put the street improvements in and it was made quite
clear at that tisie they had to do so. Additionally, when Data Design came
before the Commission in 1983, r;:was against an extension, but the Commission
grated them a 6 month extension with the idea in mind that if the street
improvements were installed within 6 months, the applicant could then request
an appropriate extension on the temporary trailers. This decision was
appealed by the applicant to the City Council, and the time limit was changed
to two years. He further stated that to ratify this situation is slapping the
face of every applicant who has had conditions placed on their project and
faithfully complied with them. He stated that Mp would not be in favor of an
applicant who doesn't keep his word after ha, ;ing been told several .times;
therefore, would be in savor of denyiag the request thus allowing the (;UP to
expire.
Comm..: ner McNiel stated that he agreed with most of the Chairman`;
comments; however, would be inclined to grant an extension but on a vp-y
restrictive basis.
Commissioner Barker stated that in any other situation, he might he inclined
to agree, but in this particular case the City had been down this path before.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that the street issue could
become independent of the trailer issue because the street improvements are a
condition of the parcel map. He steed that the City Council extended the
time period for the street improvements subject to the submitting of new bonds
and the signing of a new improvement .: ;ent. He further advised that the
debate of posting new bonds was the `issue of whether Data Design's 1981
improvement plans must be brought into compliance with 1985 standards.
Further, that if the improvement agreement has expired and new bonds have not
been posted, Data Design must submit improvement plans that are subject to
1985 standards. Additionally, the trailers were a separate issue and brov4ht
before the City in 1983.
Chairman Stout pointed out that Data Design had approached the City in 1983
because they had already moved the trailers on the property, without
permission from the City, and urgently needed a CUP because people were
scheduled to begin work the following: Monday.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7 July 24, 1985
Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the parent company had been operating at a
profit, it seemed that they cou`1 have made good on the °r word. Further, that
she didn't see how the Commission could allow this situation to continue;
therefor, , Mould be in favor of detrial.
James Markman, City Attorney, s4.�gested modifiz -ions to the Resolution to
ref'<<ct denial.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to modify the Resolution by
changing the title ;from approving to denying; Section 1 modified to state that
the following findings cannot be made; Section 2 modified i; state that the
extension of Conditional Use Permit 83 -11 is denied; and the striking of
Section 3. Hotion carried by the following Vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CHIfIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT:: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL carried
Chairman Stout announced that the following items, were related and would be
heard concurrently.
K.
L.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND cnNDITIONAL !SE PERMIT 85 -02 ISHII - The
Development of a one -story church and associated small storage bFildings
totaling 14,740 sq. ft. on 3.88 acres in thrc Very Low Residential District
(less than 2 du /ac) located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and
Hillside - APN 201 - 101 -027.
ee ential District (less than 2 dttlac) located on the northwest corner
of Hillside Road and Haven Avenue - APN 201- 101 -27.
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Ron Ishii stated that he had worked with the Design Review Committee, City
staff and the church on the roof design and advised that the Church felt that
the elevation with the additional roof treatment didn't add to the particular
design concept or solve the concern of the massive roof. He advised that a
spanish concrete the had been added, the slope of the roof increased and
simplified from a hip to a gable design.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
July 24, 1985
t
Commissioner McNiel stated that the design with the cap was atrocious. He
pointed out that the length of the building is about 7 times the height of the
roof, and asked if there were any oche, jesigns Mr. Ishii could propose that
would be acceptable to both the applicant 7.0 the Commission.
Mr. Ishii replied that he did look at different designs but always came back
to original concept. He advised that the building had been turned so that
there would not be a straight view of the chapel and that landscaping could be
a factor to break up long horizontal lines of building.
Commissioner Barker stated that there are other design alternatives for that
concept, but if a selection was to be made from only the two proposals
submitted, Exhibit "D" would be preferred. He questioned it the placement on
the pad would sufficiently mitigate the massive length of the building if a
person were traveling down either Hillside or Haven.
Mr. Ishii replied that this placement appeared to be the best compromise to
minimize retaining wall to north and grades to the front of the building.
Commissioner Barker asked if it were necessary that the building be one long
building even though property is angled.
Mr. Ishii replied that it vas necessary because the plan has a large chapel
with a cultural hall, which has to be at same level.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the only relationship to mission design she
could see on this building was the red tile roof; the design seemed to be more
contemporary. Further, that the design of this church resembles the church on
Sapphire with its massive roof, the scale of which she found offensive. She
additionally stated that the landscaping is never going to hide the roof, and
would not like to see another one like it in the City.
John Parent, 10475 Vivienda, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the height of the
building and advised that his home was directly above the church and would
lose his view of the valley with construction of this church as presently
designed. He stated concern with the traffic on Haden and that the City Vas
concerned that Haven Avenue was being instutionalized with the construction of
so many churches.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner McNiel stated that the alternate proposed is out of the
question. Additionally, the design could be very easily altered to give some
relief to the massiveness of the building. Further, he would not be in favor
of allowing this project to go through.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred and stated that the major element is roof and
its design. She agreed that there must be alternatives to reduce the roof
height which would make both the adjacent neighbors and the Commission
happy. Further, she could not support the project as proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes -9-
July 24, 1985
r
Commissioner Barker concurred.
Chairman Strut concurred and stated that the Design Review Committee had
requested the applicant to prepare alternatives and of the alternatives
proposed, the ones presented to the full Commission were the ones most
acceptable.
Mr. Lam advised that the Commission has option of deferring back to either the
Design Review Committee or the Planning (nmrnission and request the applicant
to prepare alternative designs based on iu ;►ut received this evening.
Chairman Stout stated that he didn't see the necessity, of going back_ to Design
Review, since the applicant had received direction from the full Commission it
should be relatively simple to come up with some alternative designs.
Commissioner Barker disagreed and stated that he wW ,,t1d prefer to have the
designs presented to the Design Review Committee where people can talk in a
lesq formal atmosphere and not take the tremendous amount of time it takes at
a public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed. because of the massive changes requested.by the
Commission.
Chairman Stout asked if there was a time 1 „ait on the associated parcal map.
Jim Markman, City Attorney, replied that the Commission should ask the
applicant to waive the 50 day time limit on the map or a decision would have
±n be mace at this meeting, which from all indications might be denial.
Ron Ishii, applicant; waived the time limit on the parcel map to allow a
continuance.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to continue the public hearing
for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85 -02 and Parcel Map
6:094, Church of the Latter Day Saints, to the August 28, 1985 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried by thy. following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RENFEL - carried
Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be
heard concurrently by the Commission.
E;
Planning Comission Minutes -10- July 24, 1985
"
r M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -02 -
" Ame�i ing ection E., ar ng oa ing Requirements page 111- 26) to
include defined interior building• areas that can be deducted from the
overall parking requirements; Section E.3, Parking Spaces Required (page
III -29) to include a parking ratio for research & devia opment uses; and
Table III -2, Land Use Definitions fcr research & development uses and
identification of the applicable subareas (Table III -1).,
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85 -02 - Amending
Section 17.04.050D concerning r` ning of -site par ing ots to iUFee additional
language to clarify public safety issues.
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public heariag. There were no comments, therefore _
the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Stout advised that these amendmen�s had ben discussed by the
Commission at several meetings prior to this hearing and that they had been
continually fine tuned to arrive at this point.
Mot °•on: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel to adopt the Resolution
recommanding approval of Environmental Assessment cnd Incustrial Specific Plan
Amendment 85 -02 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKiR, MCNIEL, STOUT, CHITIEA
i
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL - carried
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded b•- NcNiel, to adopt the Resolution
recommending approval of Environmenta ,sessment and Development Code
Amendment 85 -02 to the City Ccancil. M ,Prried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, tia_. 1, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL - carried
NEW BUSINESS
0. DEVELOPMENT RE:'IEW 85 -22 - EDWA.RDS CINEMA - Development of a 6 -plex movie
theater of 25,188 square f st or, 13 acres of land located at the northwest
"arner or Foothill and Haven (Virginia Dare Center) in the Ceneral
Commarcial (GQ District - APN 1077- 104 -01 and 03: Related File: CUP 83-
n7
Planning Cc* ;ssion Minutes -11- July 24, 1.985
z
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed %he staff report.
James Markman, City .Attorney, proposed an amendment to Planning Division
condition 3 of the Resuluiion explaining that an overlap conjunctive parking
use of almost 10% would exist assuming that ali prupr)b W office pads ore
developed. Secause of that and because of the differing hours of operation,
he advised that it is unwise at this point to deny a trade off of the •.heater
use for any or all of the office pad uses, but also unwise to preclude the
other uses a second look at -at happens when the theater operates. He
addi',onaily recommended ti.: t agreement be recorded to assure that any
pro: active purch;aci-s would ha.z notice that there is an approved site plan,
but the office ,tructures which could operate at the same time as the movie
theater, at least in the summer and an vacations, are not ;�-sured urr,wss it is
demonstrated that the parking needs are met. Mr. Markman then read the
following amendment to Planning Division condition 3 into the record;
3. Under the current shared parking concept, the construction ce each office
structure adjacent to the theater shall be def -erred until specifically
approved by a modification to the CUP for the side. Alt the time any suish
office structure is proposed to be developed, the applicant shall submit a
detailed larking analysis to determine if there is adequate parking for
all then ating and proposed uses. This study shall be reviewed by the
Planning mis °ion. if a conflict exists between the theater and other
uses, thf 6- Planning Commission shall consider a modification to the
applica ditional Use Permit to re.uce the sguare footage of the
unbui`' r(t._ ming office buildings in an amount commensurate with the
parkt,g overlap, limit the hours of operation of the cinema, or other
appropriate means of assuring adequate parking. This condition shall be
incorporated in a document approved by the City ;attorney to be recorded to
provide Notice of Condition to prospective purchasers of the subject
property prior to the issuance of a building permit for the cinema.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Don Christeson, Christeson �oigany, stated that the Virginia Dare Master Plan
was approved in Deceiaber after many hours of deliberation over parking with
City staff, park'ag specialists, and representatives from Edwards Cinema. He
advised ;hat f�-incing had been obtained and building pads were being sold and
constructed based on the approved site plan. Further, that he objected to
coming back to the drawing board at this late date with second thoughts after
the master plan had been carefully planned. He advised what the City Attorney
was proposing would be financial disaster tc the project. Mr. Christeson
suggested '.hat the theater be allowed to go i:ito operation to see if there ;s
a prob`Len and if a problem does surface, deal with it when the last building
is submitted. He stated that if a parking problem does exist, the size of th-:
last bO lding could be cut back eliminate the known pi:blen. Further, that
the Christeson Company has been cooperative in the 2 1/2 years it had taken to
process the project through the City.
Planning Commission Minutes -12-
July 24, 1985 am
Chairman Stout explained that the reason it had taken 2 1/2 years to process
the project is due to the fact that the Christeson Company had made two or
three major revisions to the original plan. He advised that the Planning
Commission is very careful in considering these types of projects, therefore
it was not as if it had taken 2 112 years to process this proposal
Uan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that the City is in concurrence with what
Mr. Christeson has stated in regrds to allowing the theater to proceed, which
is the reason the City Attorney was requested to draft the amendment. He
advised that the only difference seemed to be that Mr. Christeson is referring
to one pad, while the City Attorney's recommendation includes the two pads
adjacent to the theater. Further, that the reason one office pad was not
considered, is because the parking does not equate to the over lap.
Mr. Markman stated that the proposal would only apply to Hach office pad
adjacent to the theater and that no one is suggesting pulling all building
pads off the market
Mr. Christeson stated that he did not snderstanO why this project was before
the Commission when approval was granted in December.
Chairman Scout replied that the approga.1 in December was for the entire site
and that each time a building goes,;,zo the center it will be subject to the
Development Review Process, just !tKe any other building in the City.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that all the condition
proposed by the City Attorney is intended to do is formalize what Mr.
Christeson previously stated. Mr. Lam advised that Mr. Michaels of the
Christeson Company had contacted staff and stated that the Christeson Company
could not accept any of the options outlined in the staff report. Further,
that a discussion ensued as to what conditions would be acceptable to the
developer and to the City, and based upon that discussion with Mr. Michaels
the City Attorney was requested to .raft a condition, Mr. Markman was
requested to draft a condition which accomplished the Ojectives of both
developer and the City which Mould give the City some amounc of control yet
still give the developer the latitude to propose a building at any time.
Additionally, all the condition does is put into writing that if there is a
problem, the City has the opportunity to discuss with the applicant the
adequacy of parking and does not limit the matinees or put a time limit on
I when the developer can construct another building.
Chairman Stout explained that all the City is saying is that based on
representation made in December when the master plan waz,approved, it in good
faith believes that the applicant's parking concept is probably right, but if
it is not right the City wants some protection. Further that the City
r, }orney's proposal is the minimum amount of protection that the City can have
to pt:�vide another alterative to revoking the Conditional Use Permit
Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 24, 1985
Q
Mr. Christeson stated that his concern is that he had approval in December and
now the issue is being re,pened. Further, that the City had an opportunity to Amk
put conditions on the theater at that time.
Commissioner Barker stated that a number .of years had been spent on this
project. Further, that the theater was not part of the original plan, but
came in rather, rapidly and almost at the last minute and the Commission raised
several concerns. He advised that no one was trying to destroy or delay this
project, the Commissin is simply trying to do its job to assure that down the
line people aren't parking and walking across the street from __the Lewis
project or the pri„-ect to the north. He further stated than A,yV.i.s
attempting to act responsibly in trying to take care of a problem tsa'x >ll _
it occurs and to assure that people who are buying the office pads know that
there may be a parking problem. Commmissioner Barker requested discussion
regarding the proposed lights around the theater and stated that he disliked
them.
Chairman Stout disagreed with Gem^issioner Barker's comment regarding the
lights.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she did not feel the lights would add to the
overall project and stated that there might be other forms of lighting that
might be more subtle and attractive. She additionally referred to condition 6
of the Resol;tzon_ re4arding adequate lighting, and suggested that decorative
lighting be extended to the back of the building.
Chairman S {:out requested that the marquee design be submitted to the Design
Review Committee.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, suggested that the Commission defer
discussion on this item to later in the agenda to allow staff an opportunity
to maet with the developer to reach a consensus on the amended condition.
By consensus, the Commission deferred discussion of Development- Review` 85 -22
to later in the agenda.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
j
P. NOTICE OF ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DIS,RICT'S PLANS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR A
SECOND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE - Alta Loma School District > plans to
acquire the Op ci Winery property located at the northeast corner of
Highland and Hermosa as a site for a second junior high school.
Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed tfoe staff report anc requested that
staff be directed to prepare a letter outlining the Commission's direction. -
-14 : July 22-4, 1985
>4
Y
Floyd Stork, Alta Loma School District, gave an overview of the acgjisition
procedure. He advised that availability of the buildings would be -,'minimum
of 3 years.
Commissioner Barker asked how many students Would be housed at this junior
high school.
Mr. Stork replied that the District estimated a mWx ium 850 students.
Commissioner Chitiea requested that the school nr+, be made a fortress.
Commissioner Barker stated that architects sometimes deal with sound
attenuation by putting in no windows and agreed with Commissioner Chitiea's
comment,
The Commission directed staff to prepare a cover letter outlining the concerns
regarding the realignment of Highland Avenue and the City's request to review
and comment on the school's design and off -site irWirovements, as discussed in
the staff report, and to also include a statement regarding architectural
compatibility with the surrounding area.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Corraissioner Barker requested that staff reconsider having two design review
p -ommittes, one for residential other office /commercial, to provide review
f consistency and reduce the Design Review Committee load.
r Chairman Stout agreed and advised that with the new budget it was proposed
that staff be divided into those categories, therefore this concept might be
possible.
The Commission requested that this concept be discussed by the full Commission
►' at a future meeting.
� , r
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85,22EDWARDS CINEMA (continued discussion)
Jack. Lam, "om unity Develf'rpment Director, advised that staff and the desbloper
had agreed upon wording �,or condition 3. He explained that the developer -has
a proposal for one of thi! office pads; therefore, a consensus had been re,-,6i:l
to reword the condition to refiact that when either site dovelops it does not
exceed a requirement for'85 parking spaces.
James Markman, City Attorney, read the following amendirent to Condition 3:
Planning Commission Minutes -15- Jury 24, 1985
A
3. Under the current shared parking concept, the construction of each office
structure adjacent to the theater, insofar as the same require more than
85 spaces, shall be deferred until-specifically approved by.a modification
to the CUP for the site. At the time any such office structure is
proposed to be developed'; the applicant shall submit a detailed parking
analysis to determine if #.i_ere is adequate parking for all then operating
and proposed uses. This _study shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. If a conflict exists between the theater and other uses, then
the Planning Commission shall consider a modification to the applicable
Conditionai Use Permit to reduce the square footage of the unbuilt
remaining office buildings in an amount commensurate with the parking
overlap, limit the hours of operation of the cinema, or other appropriate
means of assuring adequate parking. This condition shall be incorporated
in a document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded to provide
i9otice of Condition to prospective purchd0rs ofc the subject property
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the cinema.
Chdirm4A Stout asked for discussion, regarding the proposed ligh ±s on the
theater.
4
Glen Gellatly, Bissel Architects, stated that the applicant felt rather
strongly about the lights, which occmrrn.ly on the fr,7nt of the building. He
advised that the lights concur up the very nature of the theater and reinforce
the accent color band. Further, that they were important because of where the
theater sits on the property. He further stated that the lights are 2- inches
in diameter and do not flash or move.
Commissioner Barker stated that this project started out with a specifcic
theme and had maintained that theme throughout; 'however, considered the lights
a blight to that design.
Commissioner McNiel Stated that if they were tastefully done,` he could
consider the idea but did not feel that they were necessarily appropriate for
this project.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that there is an element of excitement to having
the lights around a theater, but was not thoroughly convinced that they are
the best answer. Further, that she was not strongly for or against the idea.
Otto Krqutil, Senior Planner, asked what the intensity of the lights would be.
Mr. 3ellatly replied that they would Nye lour intensity, 40 watt bulbs which
would be clear.
Chairman Stout states that he liked the lights and felt they were and,
r interazting and subtle idea.
The Commission determined that the lighting concept would be acceptable under
those conditions.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 24, 1985
� T
Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding the decorative lighting to the
rear of the building as proposed by Commissioner Chitiea.
Mr. Gellatly replied that the rear of the building would be a very important,.
f, pedestrian circulation area�and assured the Commission that the light g would
be done nicely*
Chairman Stout explained that the Commission wanted lighting which is adequate
and architecturally compatible.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution
approvitg Development Review 85 -22, With the second amendment proposed by the
City Attarney to Planning Division condition- 3 and the marquee design -he
reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following
voter
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _ REMPEL - carried
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved, by Barkers seconded by MCNiel, unanimously Parried; to
h. adjourn. The Planning Commiss�'on ;Idjourned to the August 5, 1985 workshop, to
be held at the Rancho Cucamonga W'.lghborhood Center, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
t'
Jack Lam, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 24, 1985
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
wl'n' CUCAafp
z 0 0
U >
1977
GATE: August 14, 1985
T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
BY: Howard L. Fields, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR Ot ft,nPMEU REVIEW 85 -08 AJA - The
construction of 6 one and two -story garden office
buildings on 8.5 acres located on the southeast corner of
Aspen Avenue and Laurel Street in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7) - APN 208 -351 -024.
I PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of design elevations for the
Laurel -Aspen Business Park.
B. Purpose: Development of 6 one and two -story garden office
buildings.
C. Location: Southeast corner of Aspen Avenue and Laurel Street.
0. Parcel Size: 8.5 acres
E. Existing Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 7).
F. Existinq Land Use: Industrial
G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Vacant, Industrial Park
South - Vacant, Industrial Park
East - Vacant, Industrial Park
West - County Law and Justice Center (under construction),
Industrial Park
H. General'Plan Designations:
Projec, Site - Industrial Park
North - Industrial Park
South Industrial Park
East - Industrial Park
West - Industrial Park
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION S'AFF REPORT
DR 85 -08 - Aja
Page r2
I. Site Characteristics: The project site is an irregular shaped
parcel -fiat gently slcpes to the south at approximately 2%
grade, and has existing streets and utilities extending to the
site.
II. BArKGRGUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting on April 24,
1985, the Planning Commission approved the issuance of a Negative
Deciaraticn for the project :proposal and directed Staff to bring
the design elevation back to the Commission for review and
approval.
II£. ANALYSIS:
A: General: The project py,opsal is located in the Rancho
Cucamonga Business Park and" envisions 6 one and two -story
office /professional Wildirls "having a- traditional style of
architecture. The intent rof the design elevations are to
emulate a campus like setting. Three building designs are
proposed with each elevation to be repeated twice (Exhibit
"WY. The Design Review Committee recommended enhancing the
rear elevation for Buiiding "A ", either by special landscaping
treatment or additional architectural treatment. The applicant
responded by providing additional glass panels to rear
elevation.
This review is for approval of the design elevations only, the
Community Development C,ireciar will provide the project with
conditions should the Commssion approve the design elevations.
IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider all material and elements of this project. If the
Commission concurs with the Design Review Committee
recommendations, then approval of the elevations through adoption
of the attached Resolution would be-in order.
P fully submi+ ed
i
n Coleman
Senior Planner
DC :NF:cv
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Elevations
Exhibit "E" - Landscaping Plan
Resolution of Approval
■
oP�Future City 0 EG' 1
:� Hail `� 1 —
• `•.� 1 � t •r�i I
FC RZ1H �® '~
m h{
GC =ME won
"F M
1
■ ■!�■ l ;' INDUSTRIAL SPECS
s
■ LS.P
L I
J
i
CITY OF ITEM:
RANCHO CUCAMONTGA Tr,-LE., � Tioit/
PLANNING DIVOQN 'r9 "
EXHIBIT- SCALE-
A-3
i
I
I` j
LL-
l
c
eggs g 1ij
ta- �
mi
Me z
ujacm
0
� U6 om
z
MLL m 0
=)O 2
JW� d
= o
S°- z
'77
a
0
m q
x m
m
�n >
C)
`I z
za > a
W o 3Om W
0 -r
. O m,-
> o
v o IZO
o z Fxz n
m
is"
J
` � a
A -4
CD
e
m
m
Fri
a
0
z
LIA
A
�
D
"i ODD o
-
r iS.
Z n
A �Z SC?7
.
• lis4 z,l
ya air l��i�)
III
0
IM
. .11 (
�e_lI
z,
•'� tlllu,�
LY+
•
omr-
f
}�a�I
ira
00C
o
o •
-nm
�" ''
Gg C
!I -
�
D
"i ODD o
Z n
A �Z SC?7
.
z,
f,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CriMMISSION
APPROVING OEStGN ELEVATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW No. 85-
08 LOCATEC ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ASPFi-'IkNUE AND
LAUREL STREET IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK OISTR%T
WHEREAS, on the 11th day of March, 1985, a complete application was
filed by Gilbert Aja for review of the alhove- described, project; and _-
WHEREAS, on the -14th day of August, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission hel-t a meeting tr, consider tha above- described project;
and
WHEREAS, design elevations were reviewed by the Planning Commission
on the 14th day of August, 1985.
follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commiss'i.gn resolved as
SECTION 1: That the,following can be met:
1. That the proposed project is consistent with the
objectives of the General Plan, and
2. That the propajed 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 with ea0 of
the applicable provisions of the Development L .jde;
and
4.•• That the proposed use, tisgether with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, s& ety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to prop;;rties or improvements in the
vicinity.
SECTION 2: That Design Review for Development Review 8508 is
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. All exterior materials shall be reviewed by the City
Planner prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Flat concrete the roofing material shall be used on
all elevations.
3. Any changes or modifications to the design
elevations will require additional review by
Planning Commission.
°J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
Development Review 85 -08
Page #2
APPROVED ANG ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF i''E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY.
Dennis L, Stout, Chairman
t.
p ATTEST :'
Jack tam, Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing .,:Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS>
ABSEN: COMMISSIONERS;
r
I
i
q. _ 43
lu
4
a,
"TT-'r n A TTfIT -Tr% nT Tr' A- RTriKT11 A
STAFF i iF® `,9a
Q r
o Z
� 'r
1977
DATE: August 14, 7,985
TO: Chairman ana,, Members of the Planning Commission
FRCMi Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -19
LEDERMAN - Construction of a 35,557 square foot general
retail center on 3.22 acres of lard in the General
Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue APN 208- 301 -15
through 17.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevati ^:?s, and
issuance of a Negative- Decla- ation.
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Existing Commercial, General Commercial
South - 'Existing Single - Family Residential
East Existing Mobile Home Park, General Commercial
West - Existing Commercial, General Commercial
C. General Plan Designations: General Commercial
Project Site - General Commercial
North - General Commercial
South Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
East - Medium Residential 4 -14 du /ac)
West - General Commercial
D. Site Characteristics: The project site is a vacant corner lot,
paving a 3 slope to the south. An existing frontage road runs
along the north property line that has been vacated by Cal
Trans (Exhibit "B "). This frontage road will be incorporated
in the overall site plan (Exhibit "C"). Other than indigenous
weeds and grasses, the site has no significant land forms or
cultural aspects.
ITEM 8
PLANV N5 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 8, -s9 - Lederman
Augusr 14, 19a5
Page #2
qM. +
I1. ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing a general retail center
comprising 3 buildings and consisting of 35,557 square feet of
gross 'Floor area. Major features of the site plan include
pedestrian linkages to the retail center from Footnill
Boulevard and Ramona "venue, plaza areas with fountains and
seating areas, overhe, trellis .work and canopy that will
provide shade. The project will have main access via Foothill
Boulevard, and secondary access from Ramona Avenue. In
addition, the project provides for 1 61 parking spaces„ when
only 143 spaces are required.
The project proposal meets the intent of the General Plan and
complies with the chopping center criteria (Section
17.10.030,E -5), established in the bevelopment Code such as;
group of organized uses, uniform design /landscaping theme,
drainage /grading, and coordinated vehicle and pedestrian
access /circulation.
B. Design Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the design
elevations and recanuended that the architect bring the roof
overhang out in order to provide shade along the walkways,
provide an increase in pedestrian - orientation from public
sidewalks, and provide special landscape treatment to the
easterly corner next to major anchor. The applicant has
complied with the Committee's recommendations as shown on the
attached exhibits. Staff is concerned with the lack of trees
along the store fronts (see Exhibit "E"). Staff would
recommend trees minimum 30 feet on center consistent with
Planning Commission policy.
C. Technical Review Committees 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 fightina
equipment and vehicles. In addition, a Hydrology Study was
required by the Engineering Department in order to evaluate
site drainage. Mitigation' measures involving drainage have
been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
• D. Environmental Assessment: Part I -of the Initial Study has. been
completed by the a!pp scant. Staff has completed Part II of the
c Environmental Checklist and found no significaw+ adverse impact
on the environment as a result of this pr;,Ject. If the
Commission concurs with said findings, issuance of a Negative
Delcaration would be in order.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 85 -19 - Lederman
August 14, 1985
Page #3
P .
£II. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General
Plan and Development Code. The project will not be detrimen);al to
adjacent properties or cause significant adverse enviro mental
impacts. The proposed us, and site plan, together wi��h the
recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the
applicabij provisions of the Development Code and City Stan6rds.
T IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been adver�ised in -The Daily Report
as a public herring, In addition, the property was posted and
=J ces advertising the public 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 Plar ang Commission
consider all input and elements of this project. If after such
consideration the Commission can support the Facts for Findings,
then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance: of a
Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitte
Coleman
Senior Planner
I
DC:HF:cv
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - S,' *e Plan and Frontage Road
Exhibit "C" - !'3:2 Plan
Exhibit "D." Elevation
Exhibit "E" - Landscaping Plan
Initial Study, Part II
Standard Conditions of Approval
Resolution of Approval
23 '3
`
E
D
NMI HM -ro��wc ��n�a wru�lawra yrrrrr.re
W11 J.�3LiGtlY wAYRYiC37 N�1 I rsmrawr.r, ers�� 1VI y ' 0•
�O�'w� SnVIOOSSV HOSIMC d3NliVd
VIM"" Iva Itww;m owwww
0 UBINSO 11]IOUSWW00 IIVJ.3H
vtv DU*Mktv ,3431%3%
I
cm.
y
m
L
!t
a�
�s
" N
3
s
I
I
x
M ;
Q
,
I
n
11WYO�M YOtg71r111L�.0lqNYY
vm
S3IVmsav WMsm 3� tL?kaYd
s
L
!t
a�
�s
" N
3
s
I
I
x
M ;
Q
,
I
n
HaIN33 "IfflMiawwoo 11VIZ-H "4
ELL BRLVIDOSSV 143sin3a wnyvd
V
A V
3- 9'
MEM
ki
S a ���••• •n.0 in7 70u0YiY..f1001C:` -Iy
«.Ll.d:il0�,..lYWIINiY.iN �i31t�313 ,roei1rUWOa '1��13� 2 • 2 ,.
9LU d. S31y70SSV moss a ii7uuvd 1 i
r i d
i a
1 .-
I
i• I
i•
1
a
1 All
I �
' h�iN�� �tt1�i3�IfwJ�1Cl� �ItfJ.3�S � 'i
avrNwnaf `.ulaasa•1Mrruve�wtLmvlArl+aw r � '
Yi. `` S31tllaOSSY HJSSfCiO tli"9R3Yd � � .j
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
w�
i
II
I
I
e
I:
CITY OF RAICHO CUCAMONGA
Afts
PAR". 11 - INITIAL STUDY
F'ZVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
APPLICANT:-
FILING DATE: .!�f%i��/ „27 _LOG NUMBER:
PROJSCT:i`t'E/2�rr?` �¢.� l��Evl/!G�'�✓
PROJECT LOCATION: J <fi�L° o Y2-
I. ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required
sheets).
on attached
I. Soils and Geoloe� -. Will
YES MAYBE NO
the proposal have
significant re;;ults 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?
e .Y
d. The destruction, covering or modifications.
of
any unique geologic or physical features?
_ e. Any Potential increase in wind or Water'
erosion of soils, affecting
either on or off'
site conditons?_
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
g. Exposure of pejple or property to geologic
hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mud -
slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards?
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or
use of any mineral resource?
2. HydrologY: Will the proposal have significant
`
results in:
Page
YES :L9YBE \0
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams,
rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels?
b. Changes in absorption rates drainage
or the rate and
amount of surface lateratterns,
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 direct
ad6izjons or with-
drawals, or throw gh interference
aquifer? with an
Quality?
Quantity?
/
d
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for
if
public water supplies?
✓ �
i• Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards
~-
such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air Quality•
results —in. Will the proposal have significant
a• Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indire-:t
sources?
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or
Interference
'- 1✓
with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards?
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air
t/
movement, moisture
or temperature?
4. Biota '-'-
—
Flora. Will the proposal have significant results
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity,
distribution, or number
of any species of plants?
1
b. Reduction of the numbers -jr any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
C?aSe
3.
C. Introduction
YES MAYBE �0
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
ins
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
of any species of animals ?.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species cf
animals into an area, or result in a bartler
to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
5. Population. Will the p roposal have significant
results in:
AM
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or rate
growth of
the human population of an area?
j
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in local or regional socio- economic
characteristics,
including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and
values? property
-
�.''
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
_
among project beneficiaries, i.e..,, buyers,
tax payers or project users?
7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the
Y
proposal have significant results in?
a. A- substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
-�
b. A conflict with 'any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
entities?
/
-^
C. All impact upon the qulait Y or 9ua tity of
^
existing consumptive or non - consumptive
'.
recreational opportunities?
(/
i
Page 4
YES
;'AY9E N0
B. Transoortation, Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
/
b.
Effects on existing streets, or demand for
'/ r
new street construeticn?
c.
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for
new parking?
d.
Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion
systems?
e.
Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion
or movement of people and/or goods?
f.
Alterations to or effects on present and
-�
potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffir_?
g.
_ _..
Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
�+
9. Cultural Resources, Will the proposal have
significant
results in:
Aft `
a.
A disturbance to the integrity of arc;aeological,
paleontological, and /or historical
resources?
10. Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the
Proposal have significant results in
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
b.
Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
c.
A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
/
substances in the event of an accident?
f
d.
An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposure of people to such
organisms?
j
e.
Increase in existing noise levels?
f, -
Exposure of pen ie to
P� potentially dangerous
noise levels?
�!
8•
The creation of objectionable odors?
h.
An increase in light or glare?
f f
Page 5
YES uaT3E 0
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
resulGS in:
a. The obstruction or degradation -Z any scenic
vista
or vi .a?
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
have
a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the following:
a. Electric Power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
41/
C. Communications systems?
d. Water supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
s
e ✓
g. Solid waste facilities?
/
h. Fire protection?
POli;:e protection?
Y
/
ti?
J. Schools?
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
M. Other governmental services?
13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant
"
results in:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy?
/
C. in 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
f
of energy
SY are available?
' Page 6
' YES `.AYBE NO
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or t
scarce natural resource? ^_
Joe
14. Mandatory rindin s of Sienificance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of thL 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
endangerec plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods cf
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one whicd occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure dell into the future).
C. Does the project have impacts which are a
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). v
d. Does the project have environmental effects y
which will cause substantial. adverse effects
on huaan beings, either directly or indirectly? y /
ZI. DISCUSSION of ENr-LA LcyTAFL HVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of
proposed mitigation: measures).
A �-.
ell
..��
t.�A-VL -�
� Page T
I7: DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
gh I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant a feet
on the environmat,t, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant .
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this,aase because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A. NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARPD.
I find the propo� - �' project.,.:SAY have a significant effact on the
envirnrent, and an � XkWJRO:NT DIPACT REPORT is required.
Date
l
Sig ture
Title r
r:
4
w
i
'e 123-/x%
!1
�J
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PANCtO CUCAMONGA PLANNINP. COMMISSION
APPROVING CO',3IT P AL USC, PERMIT NO. 85 -19 FOR
PARKER /DEUTSCH LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND RAMONA AVENUE IN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 29th day of May, 1985, a complete application was
filed by Ken Lederman for review of the above - described project; and,
WHEREAS, on the 14th Aay of August, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the aP)ove- described
project.
follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rand4o Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and
the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto., will not be detrimental tc, 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.
i
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse imcdctc on the
environment and that a. Negative Declaration is issued on August 14, 1985.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85 -19 is approved
subject to the`foilowing conditions:
1. Provide 3 foot landscaping along west property line
adjacent to building.
• c, Provide texturized connections from streets into
center.
a, Provide fountain /seating in the ` plaza area at the
southwest corner.
.LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
CUP 85 -19 - Lederman
August 14, 1985
Page #2
4. Provide off -white color samples (stucco) to the City
Planner fr— approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
G Tile treatment on the parapet walls shall continue
around the corners within the front elevation.
Engineering Conditions:
I. The put-.ion of the frontage r0LJ within the project
shall be vacated prior to the issuance of building
permits. A request letter and appropriate fees will
be required to initiate the process.
2. A lot line merger to consolidate the existing parcel
site into one parcel shall be completed prior to the
issuance of building permits.
3. The portion of the existing alley adjacent to the
site shall be reconstructed as approved by the City
Engineer.
4. Construct an access connection from the terminus of
the existing frontage road to foothill Boulevard.
5. Provide a system to convey drainage from the
easterly terminus of the existing frontage %-�J to a
location acceptable to the City Engineer. The
system shall be located in a public right -of -way or
an easement provided to the City.
6. Provide extensive landscaping treatment at the
intersection of Foothill �kd Ramona.
7. Uniform Sign Program shall establish uniform size,
placement, and single color for tenants. Major
tenants may have variation in size,. place -Int -nd
color; provided that nc -morm than 3 colors tall be
permitted within the progr7A (except for logos)..
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONSA
BY:
- de -nis L. Stault,i Chairman
ATTEST:
—Jac." .am, Secretary
r /9
S �c�
EN
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
CUP 85 -19 Lederman
August 14, 1985
Page #3
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Cornission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission 'of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
F1
°o
w
c
M ~
2
o
W
u
0 0
K
O
+W'J ti
5 g
I
L O
r
a
3
so
I
O r
Y
a
1
i
Y IT aLiuZ �`OYV.u.>
t} LV . i
AV`
p
yy
OqO
LC4�
�l1
W
"R Z
gY
Ll
�
V
La aC WZ 4Y4n
w G
N 4O
ii
..'s •
6�u AQY
C�
pCL «i
Y ✓bVy
V. ca�
OpL
✓�� f
O✓
aJ ✓A
.�(
��1wJy�
VI-
Mpg, =v
■ •f Y C r n w. C O� V
✓�.,�T%i4✓m�Y
LC6T
R GY ^
�0.
..Gn �Y 0.
tT.
+
Lu. E.O
_ Y
4,^"`
V C Y
4 ✓
CL till
Y
L•. ♦ LG 6034
LYO.j.�
NG..�.
LLUtrr!
CV Y
LV V r
si
%a��V•O'�pM N✓pp ��
U6 �N 11 Cy c
tOM'�R.T
CL�+
9O Q0L
rYM
agt.re`
41
V✓L11
Y'
Lit A 010
uy
�L.4
4
R 2
gs G
sL u
o
y
o
� op au
�
O4.V a....
�'��
a$Ay,°
s`Yw.
g.s✓. ea
iE CO it
k
yQW
V9
�.aT.
??N >.
GO 4
N
Y Y C
Si�EV0
®■aUiiy✓L0.R�ua
C»yN
R N !
�
0
iWo
AI G YO UVA �•� 0 Y
Y C�� p
7 C
N
a a� C ^E
V J.0.
„
Z=_.
tt
E ,,
µYL
V
N✓u}
LO
�Cp.�CO
VL yb N
d
O..O..
Y C
��
N
ywQ
�. O Ot
pMyC
E4Lpn
O0npw. vVy O
0.F0r!
.0 ��
'w u. OOOY
LO�"CbC
•I K ��^
C."� ..
pp
0 AY
NNr
°L
0A1V4
�•QL c
✓1 at
L.cdw.xvocaa�u.�
Y
�.�
b
u ✓�
'U N�
n e Aa
A a
> °'u
G Y M
fic ti
„✓e Uta t0
L N L C b >✓ � V� L C
a'•"Y CA.P4Jn L02r
u Y..?
T 4 C >>y �
� °O.A}N
V
a
}.ai,
y°'V++
aO VL
r+ L CC L
tC.nwn+p�i
OyTb
fy
�G0N t0�
V�Y�
s�
FL 6Y P. V'
m
°o
w
c
M ~
2
o
W
u
0 0
K
O
+W'J ti
5 g
I
L O
r
a
3
so
I
O r
Y
a
1
i
� V •
V
F
G e A.
r
�
W
"R Z
�
Ll
�
U
](
F�
01N w ♦I
ro
M
■ N
�
e
V. ca�
✓�� f
AN -�
✓
Y
r
a
L �
g
✓
`M py
c` EE
Y 9
y
6
�
` U M V
Lv pC
�
Lit A 010
r
Y ♦C..
N } Y
NR.c
o
� op au
�
},�c o°
��°
L... ✓
a
me
i p.M
R
1r1 N, u
c �
Mi &
k
rs r A ✓ F
6
e>
ww
0
Au.-.
O
t
✓ C
Y
u
Y C
r M
w
E
El
rc Ldmo o c L ro d� v .a i
eu a uA acu u a do «a
E E To
nuya a °.vw W"to ryD E v d'q .Y. •ds °'•»n do .
d� Cn� Opu NTAN O.q C.T _� L CN
r L � ��
O. d . a L 4 G O •E P M y a 4 L `` S w
�y �� .n 4
•Z �° Su� ��Lp9.• °�iK 6Nwd r�a d� L US Sc vw°..
qo N' ,o .°, �A4 ya♦cuS u a.' •�" cq
0 6 ELn
� C 4 O p V u = L A (°( •� • W d L 2 E S N N A
•O A4dC duyNN3�rC .N DM£ °Ty9 30. d V6 =M ��
Coo oE. a C vY LOC'L. aF"ij'. i °Y: o •` C .L
••SE�p. NT °d .N-L TqG D N « ^O
`oQ YC Y. et 0T dY.D Y9 3� OU A � Cp NC
2 0 L
TA
♦ L.r y L C.AV NU»i �a.♦ .O,D rdd L
VIA bm ^ W p
C=.6 Y<
O Er • OA °W YO
9 j A d O y. 0i Of ,^ •� u1
Qav W yoi� YT °~ 0r V Spa• �N
sv urq
°YLa oi+ `v. ''ovD 'D.. -..n> C .dam °a
F. 4N n EE al a N L a O j Y 9 L O pyee
a ZYOG E6 O
ep 'O
Ir, �
C c
C C d D` N C L p �• . ' y A. y 9 W 'O ♦ 1 Y L= N d rr
A ^+`.d �.W BucC •�Y •+ 0 r 9 �maq • aM L ° «�".'r.'y
d 4a b y 4 C N D Y •-.
LW
FIE
C✓ Li� • '� �MO C �� V r V ° A ° yC d Y A y. C l C il
L N' 3 GG. iGL I L�
V A W � dw.C. M C N 6 y H K Y
•.N =N a °� r-Ld p aa•. ."ip�i:: _ cL � oc
L a �, y L v u N u.• -.-.
90 � L u•
• N� A T d a a n� w'D C i G p_ E C Z C µ y N d Y � 9. Y p T d N. •
�' Y y Y 0 ° D Y Y G. T A W p 0 9 G L •... T�° r
L CG�y °O D N �". =0•j r^'N.5 �N q9 NyC6d
r 6» A Y "Cl
L'CEE j Y C r Y Q a N
F 0.n +Yf.N a � gL O>aadr.N i• • <y EE 9pY+.Laal•lS L •' Cj_� � . W d4 NC�Q q �� fJ °Y M� • 3 q�Y
9 w a
+°
";IONS -S Ly
-
Y� Cr
9 i G L y O i o a V ... •°
O.0 p YN � {L 9L C.oV NT G5.'L'
C^ dTl odE •�C '_Yp ^»
60 dC da L� E Lp gdaTim OTCr 1E 7.r��.y.
• . C In~ �O AS 4W yC pd. rid V C.=A. YQ�. NLt�
p q vi G M.0 d
E cy
luo ^� v q'°�a r cWa °o c°o"'n°
y7 Y' E JLOI u .° in. ALDI�CI T T �. L�Yps
F
v. L4. Er °l o° � A a N. q� a, 0 °l A E W a i Li L •� ° A. i 4'
L <f � L
Eau RL �Na L�u,rO 0 d « °•°re •-v Gr T_CL °6 MW4N0Y° d °p'NEG
<AD,r L4 a M-t NOA Kr-»a Vt SY J1.vna..a .v Ol.C. •En rt1 LC6+l
f- Y}[NC HtiI A•L9Q
Scr-
v7
`!1
0
v
•n
O
d
.O OA O p 0 a u OOOO q�Y1 p� y'AO Cr qly C
.. •,ry d a OI N �p• �.G c ell,
W
Ad d O
� d
a t� d �� p. tb .c '... o E ° w A V•� c
n
4E.-.N WK CN- � ^r dq a N^ ALL G>•.0 •9 O
•Od � G uy d0 qq0 Uq °4b. 6 A aY
O �'• Ly dL ° % L A
d= � i EE O _. S l � b O. ° n V'rvi T C a^ N •C
'^ i O Y A.uN ° 'ANA • Ma
MdC d0. O3l L y. O dd O.��� WydN L ,�
C C u M d° dL d N q
• NQ dGro ^~a+J° L aro
dK •° nN� Nby N t a _�
D u ' t y ny C G d F µ
La G ....
004•o r.$A, r aac 'qda a4. �.a no
a :y i
@�YU 19 xeN
let
AV }.° pyd pL .C.Gq Op G N Yd Y.
b
°
O n
C d.
L O �•C 4 A d. q N N Y�
a 'O.
' ^.xGgL r .^
Up 6 >6G ^J u .ALL
Nro.N 4. \SIN \NO rN2 6NV��'O� >q.qN 6o <C A.- °. <V �OropN
i
M
• d L b q d d d G !f f
fi Li
4C
y
9M °Y
PT
p O n
•_ L .0 C 4 P
=w a
^ •
O 6
..GG ii a
O
G
d
CN'• h�qy
y 6
�.L M° C
GC
.- L
N
Y
°6 w
h. ..
•O
CC
`:Aa >V
MS4
A: 81x2
>
c u,x
M
i
axn
i.M-
b.c n
a
N ° v
r ti
ill
fur
a
OC QO
G6 {^� E L u
9
r�lC^x
C Z�
L d Y�
J S K*
G s
C^ L C
—
A°
qG> r,
9
n —ago RUC
C
O
� R
� . �
YI.•SC
o 6
°
�6nNu
d q.
.0 d.-. C d
rt r!
Nah6 a 3^-�^'
q -y G
'°° ►�
L y q n.
-
AE MZ
.� t
LM
dam+
w�
m Cy.
y'.S.r•O„
° db.
Sgrona=i.R
rb
L=
o
R W
7G
N
Ofq•^
Mau
bndpC .n
•-b� S's
.a +
EU
d a Y d d
y ronw
Y U N
`
R d O. Gl
4
dam.
.•• V•
L tOi
L° w
d O
A O b N
O
r�
Mu
bld
C�
Y
B
b p
b
E dr
°p ^py
c
U
C
�.
J . G NO V0
?
g 4
y E U p ng 4
6
4bN 1a`6. G.. •a5
�
=1 »•..q
GGP
LM:p N
WpnH Vlul°�.
b I�
e
N f•! d
yj
b
U
N
�• A ALA d ^O C a O uY T
y S = c E y A < S a O C Y W y
i Ly ny Ba, va nf•y O> c E4. L.V _ nN
G V•` d O 9: O ^Y E U V
�� tom. CUZ N +°+MG LL n =yo S gNYN ON
ZO dgoV-
^•
Y 4 V 3 .N 6Y y m
•t' N'L cG d�•S D .TL W' ?Lr yE L �C T EA
4C
L E
T✓t a
� d'o � v�m�o N ¢ " m G �
Ymn �^ Wq
^ h u a 53 t
cd N O q Nqd V • °d z;-
A w�i N Y�6
p 0 y L q u W i°. C 4 r O Y c g N S 1 •. C C. y 9 y 7
o o-
72 Z
L c
f.. c yEy
N
cLL� m •a m uM°'� .N- o,c Fa.� MLL
dyE 0 ° aci pu�iY LMA 4 60 U•� °° i dA4. y L._'N n} N L
6y c C
6 N N
q 0 °� OdQ Lpm L
V6 >a N J MOL C�•O'• NN6 2 E UV dO� Cy 1•y d.°C �v ba iMe. i . °Wr
f.' t M 'L L^ y ,G LCgODU LCndL u
I�AOA t�..6y 3LtLNn F•q.� to 7 F•tJ WL O�OO.LfLN 6•r �o M.O N N.. 6Ya
r •S
F
F OL. Cyy9 yw u�Y -NdY.O LO YiM '.� qu Ot
d q f�' a. 9° 6 O A • aJ d O
u D.
6wG� qU G q WpC SV N 6 CN ^. 6. C Y q NC
CiL tY.iY qd. NYC Y 9 V L �� .qG� 9 qC V 1. rU
nn
gnuf. y V yML ra'^ �p�N
ga
$ ^NdL mow` �r
qN� ALI Y.q °qa Y UM °• <'. �`i0 V. 0 E_�T�n --
19 q DI t y y U C ° W V
4 C Z O E
1� G q O N C y p^ it
`MOp O� hU yiG
"' Lq °"qo s arMG n °a
` 6LMA D 42 uM T -52 iJ ^
V 4^ y L ErT N T y 6
—.:52:4 L♦ UW _
V L y L V
E G U^ L S M M
^q as u n r n
.° �. v M N i o nY N e c
0
OM
q9 a W� u qqt L.UVE LnA _F yoTc A� .O n
V LrYU r L �`
C JS O. G .L •+ L Z ^ S C C • E N 9 0 N V U aN Q,
9— L
O 2 C q O AnN
T U c L
9r A d N L]C� N €C� tp4 �q0 NW M•L M.�
+EE y Y U q
M r C N qy y0 aq '. '6
`C Lq C^ C�'LL 3u 'u
da cap ad a y°� rP.� �' „L aqs c.°- u m° .+ i�r T.yep��j�j•r�$-}
• �- HN.0 •J .r.. ujN � _;+- JLO+G- S �qMC nc Q6C av N� a WL WHi 6YY V.
V 1
a
z
V
v
•n
Y
O.
aNU�aE
G N
M t L U t 4 n
Rbu G
N 't eA L
E pr
a �-LO acm°;yw
q6� �9Y uu
Md el
1 N L A L T
QY j +d
VE
40 � U OU 6Ab.
L d O
DNYH Nu...rLV, T
Rr �L
� V u
b A. p L d RCN p
m eO..e- and
RC.eGr ON CUIL�GR
r ^ ^e a�OCY�..1 V
u 0 Or A
p Y
�V J
;15 P., 1 a LG R �Qp.V �+
mA O� G r�1'�G 13 V Ym G .. papa Ozber�
Z t e
VN qr ' uq� N T WQ 0 H Ch -16-19 GNU �...L
j 4E
Ui
Y f q
��^pd p Aaa p E �� geri � yr+�Cfl `qmc
=L NO y0 LQG V ua -.ay°r eNL� BOO iA
�+e atZ• "" V m +" 6. "'. V G'r" yu
—7;:5
p. •.. Oq 4 L� OL, G �q � L � y p G i e2
^..� c
Y „A
ub tea. °y LC a oE nE yq. ` gid9µ Vti+yiq Nap�q
VW u yl Yrp 6V pL O 6" UN y. Au'p^ m\'rr. CO L ^y
CY LI.
0. .J •e 1t .r.r ip NYLV L[ �..
am wa Tc ayc °.q a°ia ro4`` a++ ..+tea .ex° "' >rmnc 'ou�Yu
•^"u �� �� 6V A.r Qy uy ^q `L ..GG- uP4tc •e � 6r GON
p Z yy� a n E
� D1 N � Q N m USrJ d..0. q aa,dnr Y
rLG.'.o ro °. pco'ov
yRt G p T N C p Y. u: N N y i a Ul a G L y 1j E= p N °0.pV v> G e N d. Y
NGO Nmd Le p _t NRI q R4 '...�L y Y.VCf✓7.n 4980 OQ s.."`L
O. a yUV
Wrei.0 .9 �0. tLJ ?c3
1—m-.
yy
11
•' L
ga
L p Y
YA C
C R
Yba
uG3 L
L� S
S L pry y N
Nar_ Y
w� C
r•. N Or e
e L
tJ 1
1 w
C � V
V A N S C
C
L O
O L m
AAy
EN~ V
m'�• �
�GryL A
C E
Eg u
.0
E c L G b
b= o
b ^
^m Yq Y •
• NE y+r. 4
�Y
d1.0 L
4� b
M ' L L
LCal+ Y
YO
Y A
AYU �_ A
AE O
Oq YO d
dp+C° N
Nyu
L L
L
N s• b
L b
b Cm �
�C A
AV O� t0 °
°gip Fi o
oy.
d
O O
OO W O
Oren ,
, N V9 .iN C
CM 6L6 4
yy d
W J
;15 P., 1 a LG R �Qp.V �+
mA O� G r�1'�G 13 V Ym G .. papa Ozber�
Z t e
VN qr ' uq� N T WQ 0 H Ch -16-19 GNU �...L
j 4E
Ui
Y f q
��^pd p Aaa p E �� geri � yr+�Cfl `qmc
=L NO y0 LQG V ua -.ay°r eNL� BOO iA
�+e atZ• "" V m +" 6. "'. V G'r" yu
—7;:5
p. •.. Oq 4 L� OL, G �q � L � y p G i e2
^..� c
Y „A
ub tea. °y LC a oE nE yq. ` gid9µ Vti+yiq Nap�q
VW u yl Yrp 6V pL O 6" UN y. Au'p^ m\'rr. CO L ^y
CY LI.
0. .J •e 1t .r.r ip NYLV L[ �..
am wa Tc ayc °.q a°ia ro4`` a++ ..+tea .ex° "' >rmnc 'ou�Yu
•^"u �� �� 6V A.r Qy uy ^q `L ..GG- uP4tc •e � 6r GON
p Z yy� a n E
� D1 N � Q N m USrJ d..0. q aa,dnr Y
rLG.'.o ro °. pco'ov
yRt G p T N C p Y. u: N N y i a Ul a G L y 1j E= p N °0.pV v> G e N d. Y
NGO Nmd Le p _t NRI q R4 '...�L y Y.VCf✓7.n 4980 OQ s.."`L
O. a yUV
Wrei.0 .9 �0. tLJ ?c3
1—m-.
yy
11
1—m-.
yy
11
Y`
o tl_ y
� a
a Y o o
u
Y` L OCt Y
y'n.
9
v N 'D
mE 9T
CI J
C
aw d2 ay
�d.0
b� NOL
YT
C C ya•
_ •t.
«
go-
tl
N T•. Ly
U
E 66 N
by N `�vf ^
L
2
t d a d
Z 11:5
2N a
tl� €o `rA
w
b60 mm
�
a ^
Z
79
T L OZ
d
6. T d C
da
�O
9I
dN 0 a La CC O T V
pC0 d
00.
J
N
.n
iY�q
OOtO
Cq EaN+
_
bn� d N� O V
N
t
A^
20 It
OC
rWGJ
N3
n�
L_GW
^mow
c
L� q
vq
N3
v a
9 LTN aYZ.r GN
oN'nact cs a _
U
Q
CU�{�=
L cu L
M
Np
•^
C
b 7dR0
a C
d
�L 7=2 ; G 00L
W
�
n
GN
6
A9LG
y
tl 9 ^ N
4
D
9Y. NO. L.".. L.N+t.LG �d
M ^'
L 9 N c L E L r � a• O G tr �+
v T
L. 3
cw
GE 5 b d
E = G O N
G
x 6 d O L A w
6 N
'
EE
aT Y A
d -
O`PO �W Y
Oppu
b G6 O
Ta EL LLn.. TAZV
E a N O
L
'9bud�
S'
C
u%t a
.•
Tm� Nua n.
^wn Ou
�
$AY E� ' ^duv.W ai �N
ONa N� Nr WLT '=Z 2u aGC
ug c
io =
7Etc N�
6.6NM NOM-
V--
I-ry 41} 6.0 WH NLLtt 6 UV
c V
Y`
o tl_ y
� a
a Y o o
u
Y` L OCt Y
y'n.
9
v N 'D
mE 9T
CI J
C
aw d2 ay
a•uG
ww
a,m
A�_ C
or �•• � °
rya
��•o
«
c
.ac
5
o as
c' co
I9.
aE1 -�a u.T
}" m
°i
t d a d
2'E
b
2N a
tl� €o `rA
w
b60 mm
�
a ^
a^
uo
'�a
tip m
'
a
oT
vu w•i
9'r. NT E. MY
u =G
yy
E_
0�... EO Y
is ^r u O
6A KO
OtNY�
Qc C9�
Gu N�
EP fi
_
t
t
s.
O
tl
N
o
CI J
C
L
O
N
L Oto�
5
i
na
Li u�i
co
� ,a ^-o
ti
NJ
�s
OQ
t
rWGJ
N3
tR �(
�=
x
�W
¢j
V t�
C
c
a C
d
v 6 u
w
C
W
�
c
cw
tl
N
o
C
L
O
N
L Oto�
•-
i
na
L
� ,a ^-o
C
c
a C
d
v 6 u
w
C
_
@ a'taitt
S
Q,
^
v
O
Z
41
U
a
.O
d
e
F '
Cq CM 4.
_ O
`L u°
on
Au�on
qua
iw °os. q 1
as o�
A C L r aq
x N to b r \
a O �. i ?P•Ui
a Q
cyy n
c.
A s
r .0 LK
A q o•C�
PL'
L n ^ N d
yd ^c yV W
col \ al
h
F
=vim
oto
'1V1 I= i W
y W
'1 �•y' N
4 V ^�
C M.N O
ONE
it d u
sN
�D
D6 •N
^ o
uo ca
pl
y Y
ad Y
N
'v
t
u �
ti y
G N
d
v Y
C
y i
qv �
ct CA
a L = 6
O y 01
O 6r
Oiy N
r
Z C 6«
4i+ QYS
O
Em
4
Ank
A
>
C y O G c Ca
V
L v nr'
u .any vV
O
L n6
V
x4 �.L - Q.� Ou d di
N
9wdi VL1
dr- UL.. C� rY p1V •p{n.
IIr� A
dd W�
• �A aa, 'd.
1144 aL
d� L
cum
qo EE
y d
c YEn -�e" rc
¢
t °A
r
n aN
.Y N x T C d idi Lai L O .•
dam•
L` a
.84
Add E
LC F�
my
N 17
N d.0
v
d
Cq CM 4.
_ O
`L u°
on
Au�on
qua
iw °os. q 1
as o�
A C L r aq
x N to b r \
a O �. i ?P•Ui
a Q
cyy n
c.
A s
r .0 LK
A q o•C�
PL'
L n ^ N d
yd ^c yV W
col \ al
h
F
=vim
oto
'1V1 I= i W
y W
'1 �•y' N
4 V ^�
C M.N O
ONE
it d u
sN
�D
D6 •N
^ o
uo ca
pl
y Y
ad Y
N
'v
t
u �
ti y
G N
d
v Y
C
y i
qv �
ct CA
a L = 6
O y 01
O 6r
Oiy N
r
Z C 6«
4i+ QYS
O
Em
4
Ank
�
3d
x0
M. �
nE
AS
^_O
L!•
dam•
L` a
L
o
D.1
my
u W
N d.0
v
L i
E
O
w
�y
A qC
=u
L
Oy^
AM D
a
n'
r_a
.a v
'v c• �i
L= ...
S
won
d SL
as
d
u °O.
3 uL.
-a 5
L
e
o A
doa
LL
6� d
Y
q
�CO.0
na0
dOd
'LO
AYE
Cp2
Gx
o
rdP�Y
�
a
ya.v
Al
O 4 N�
Cq CM 4.
_ O
`L u°
on
Au�on
qua
iw °os. q 1
as o�
A C L r aq
x N to b r \
a O �. i ?P•Ui
a Q
cyy n
c.
A s
r .0 LK
A q o•C�
PL'
L n ^ N d
yd ^c yV W
col \ al
h
F
=vim
oto
'1V1 I= i W
y W
'1 �•y' N
4 V ^�
C M.N O
ONE
it d u
sN
�D
D6 •N
^ o
uo ca
pl
y Y
ad Y
N
'v
t
u �
ti y
G N
d
v Y
C
y i
qv �
ct CA
a L = 6
O y 01
O 6r
Oiy N
r
Z C 6«
4i+ QYS
O
Em
4
Ank
LA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Z'�o GV�MO^,C9
i
J
O O
F Mi3 Z
U >
1977 _I
DATE:. August 24, 7.985
TO: Chairman and MEmber- of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO AND TIME EXTEASION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
`ERMIT 83 -08 -- LEWIS -- Development of a 377,665 square
foot shopping center including a drive -thru restaurant on
8.67 acres of 'land' in the General Commercial District
located at the southCist corner ff Foothill Boulevard and
Hellman Avenue - APN 208- 261 -25 26
I. BACKGROUND: The Master Plan was originally approved on October 26,
833 for 18-- months, and the applicant, LewisHomes, is requesting a
onE -year time extension. it the Planning Commission hearing of
April 10, 1985, the Commission expressed concern that this project
did not seem to provide the pedestrian and plaza amenities which
the City was now requiring.. The Commission directed the applicant
to modify the Master Pla... 'The purpose of tonight's hearing is to
take action cn the proposed modifications to the Master Plan and
time ex�:ension request.
II. ANALYSIS: Design Revir-w C„mmnittee reviewed the original Master
Plan an(; provided the following direction
i. Expand' the pedestrian area in front of the
bu-ldii%s, particularly the main tenant.
2. Eliminate the walkway in the center of the parking
lot in 'r'avor of strong pedestrians links between
all build,ngs.
3. Walkways mu.-,t be provided from b-Oldings to the
sidewalk on f'oothil'l Boulevard. Special landscape
or design features should be provided near the
northwest corner to provide a defined pedestrian
Entry way into the project,
4: Provide amenities such as benches and seating in
pedestrian areas.
5. Provide a main circulation aisle north /s)uth
through the center of the site with landscaping
ve-vsus parking on both sides. )
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MODIFICATION TO AND TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 83 -08
August 14, 1985
Page 2
r
U
6. Provide texturized pavement where walkways cross
the parking lot.
7. Add design features reminiscent of the old winery
theme.
Revised plans have been submitted that have addressed the above stated
concerns in the following manner:
1. An expanded pedestrian area has been provided to
the front and center of the main tenant building
by re- aligning the drive aisle northerly.
2. Secondary pedestrian focal points have been
created adjacent to sate A ite buildings.
3. Sidewalk connections have been provided tPom
Hellman and Helms Avenue.' to enhance pedestrian
access.
4. A main landscape drive with center median has been
provided at the primary focal point of the center,
i.e., the central plaza of the main tenant l
building. 1
5. Architecture has been revised reminiscent of the
early California Winery style. Amenities include
wood - trellis covered walkways, detached kiosks
with pedestrian seating areas, and decorative
towers 'provided -as a consistent design element
throughout the center.
6. Pedestrian pathways acruss
park '4
areas /circulation aisles have been highlighted by
the use of decorative pavement.
III. FACTS OR FINDINGS: This projects as revised, toge',her with the
onditions of Appr6val is consistent with the General !'!an and applicable
provisions of the Za,ling Ordinance, has addressed t:e concerns of and Yeas
been revised in accordance to the direction of the Planning Commission,
and will not dTcrimental to the public health or surrounding
properties.
IV. ENVIRONMENUL ASSESSMENT: A negative declaration. was issued for the
original Master P an on October 26, 1983. The proposed modifications do
not result in any significant envz ^onmental impacts, therefore, issuance
of a new npgztive declaration would be appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MODIFICATION TO AND TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 83 -08
August 14, 1985
Page 3
V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the
Daily Report t newspaper, the property posted, and noticee were sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the project s; -te.
VI. RECOAMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
all material input on this project. If after such consideration, the
Commission czn support the facts for findings and Conditions of Approval,
adoption of the ched Resolution would be appropriate.
Respec fully submi e
,
Soteman
Senior Planner
DC:BC:ko
i
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location /Land Use
Exhibit "B " Conceptual Master Plan for Shopping Center
(approved)
Exhibit "Cl, - Elevations for Shoppi.,j venter (approved)
Exhibit "O" - Conceptual Master Plan for Shopping Center
(revised)
Exhibit "E" - Elevations for Shopping Center (revised)
Exhibit "F" Rendered View of 'hopping Center (revised)
Exhibit "G" - Rendered View of Shopping Center (revised)
Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Ii
OP
11 * I
I Ul
NORTH
CITY Or, ITEM: 141,
RANCHO Ct rt-ANIONLGA TITLE-
PLANNING Dj'vSjoN EXHIBIT:
�ml
F
• -- .� �, ,�ootMll Bug7svaM
i i esAoo aQi'+ 8140 _ f.
oirooa'ui
asav+o n`w° 4ra ts�n .
CITE or.
ITFr�'k �
RANCHO LTCAIl�101T A T ,~
PLANNING DiV1SIC�N �
C -5
NORTH
gC WMAV IA4a{I
i
1,
i
ITI
1
,s
"
ri
r
......... i
RTH
mammon
�r► '
s pp—
.., z
CITY Of
RANCHO GUCAjvjo r yA TITLE
PLAIVI\ri \'G DIVISIQ-4 EXHIBIT= !4 � SCALE. -
u
Ic
1
I_ I FCOtk* PLC ",ard
mill I .• II11riJ�a:TZFf � . i � n AP'•Rr��'� �� /f--' 1
Site Plan
CITY Or ITEIM: -Z-U
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION EYHiisIT= "vie SCALE
i - C --7
.I
Site Plan
CITY Or ITEIM: -Z-U
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION EYHiisIT= "vie SCALE
i - C --7
r
trtt
L4mlwmN3tim
r �
;AM A=.
Site Plan
CITY Or ITEIM: -Z-U
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION EYHiisIT= "vie SCALE
i - C --7
pp� t
i
MY OF ITam. �p �3xt',7i3
T'L&NNINNV,. DZVISIQNT SCAM.
-�� `
'0701-02 o,8-14-85 P. C& Agenda Packet o Page-21,-of
R,
w ti
V-
A Pnojeet Fo
�BI{i1121t.+ 1 M %W{S ®�1# GO. 9156 N®. McwrAr. Avenue -16
70
.. 11A18�d, Ca�forn� 917'85
714- 985 -OM
i
Ty OF ITEM.- _ _ "s•d o1 � S �'OS
AH® CLTi�?OtiTGA TITLE =+- �t.e��%_,
PLANNiNr DIvociiN EXHIBIT`' �"
�;. -E SCALE=
S
View / F dMM Am. MeruCt a"
Hellman Am. Sh® Center
Hellman A. & Blvd.
Ranatxi Cuca=rW, Cal'iiomia
CITY OF ITEND F�-ob
RANCHO CUCAMOlrGA TITLE: �;. °- ,-- ----��
PLMNING DIVOON EXHIBIT: SCALE= ___�____.,�„
C- -1 c)
r
CITY, OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART IT - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DATE:i,^C
APPLICANT: L,�t� 1- iote+�sLiS!_��"G9Cse
5��
FILING Di,TE:_ t LCQ.. LOG NUMBER:
PROJECT:
PROJECT LOCATION:'
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets).
j
YES MAYBE
i
NO
1. Soils and Geolozy. Will the proposal have
significant results in
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
rC
b. Disruptions_ displacements, compactior or
burial of the soil?
c. ,Change in topography orIgzound surface
contour intervals? _
d. The destruction, covering or modification
Of
any unique geologic or physical features?
Ice,*
e• Any Potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons?
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
g• Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazads such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards?
3�
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or
E
use of any mineral resource?
C
2. Hydroloe�+. Will the proposal•.have Zignificant
results in:
Page 2
YES I".AYBE NG
a.
Changes in currents, or the course of direction
Of flowing streams, rivers,
or ephemeral stream
channels?
3�
b.
Changes in absc.iption rates, drainage patterns
or the
rate and amount of
runoff? surface water,
c.
Al °_erations to the course or flow of flood
wt.ters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface water in any
body
of water?
e:
Discharge into surface waters, or any
G�
alteration of surface water quality?
f.
Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
�'
g.
Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct
additions or with -
drawals, or through interference with
aquifer? an
Quality?
Quantity?
h.
The reduction in the amount of water other -
wise available for public
water supplies?
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
seiches?
3• Air Q� uality. Will the proposal have significant
results
in:
a.
Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
'or irkllrect
sources?
Stationary sources?
.�
b.
Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or
Interference with the attainment of applicable
a`,r quality standards?
r ��
C.
Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or temperature?
4. Biota
Flora. Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a.
Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of any species of plants?
fb.
.or
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
endangered species of plants?
C. introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants.into an area?
d. Reduction in the notntial for agricultural
production?
Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
Of any species of animals?
b. Reduction of 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. Pr illation. 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?
r
6. 5ocio— Economic Factors, Will the proposal have
significant results iat
a. Change in local or regionalsocio— economic
characteristics, including economic or*
commercial diversity, tau 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
proposal have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
Policies, or.adopted plans of any governmental
entities?
C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non- consumptive
recreational opportunities? C_,_ `S
'age 3
YES `L•&YBE No
i
Page 4
YES bAYBE NO
S. Transnortati.on. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Generation Of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. zffects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? 11
C- Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
d, Substantial impact 'upon existing transporta-
tion systems: 1�
e. Alterations to present patterns of circul -
tion or movement of people and /or g,oas? a
f.
Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water -borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic ?,
g.
Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? .-�
rte•
9. Cultural Resources. Vill the proposal have
significant results r:
VC
a.
A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,'
'i
paleontological, and /or historical resources?
f
10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal
have significant xesults in:
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Zell
b.
Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
Ae"
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
P pea •e to such
organisms?
e.
Increase in existing noise levels?
f.
Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
S.
..noise levels? .�.
The creation *of objectionable odors?
Amok
h.
An increase in light or glare?
i.
Page 5
YES MIYEE N0.
'-
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a.
The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
—4-
b.
The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
r
c.
A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential_ scenic corridors?�
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have
a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the followings
a.
Electric power?
'
b.
Natural or package3 gas?
1G�
C.
Communications systems?
d.
Water supply?
e.
Wastewater facilities?
f.
Flood control structurs•?
g.
Solid waste facilities?
h.
Fire protection?
L-
Police protection?
J.
Schools?
V�
k.
'Parks or other recreational facilities ?�.
1.
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
m.
Other governmental services?
13. EnerEy and Scarce Resources. Will the Proposal
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?
d.
An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy am available?
"
x c.- �s
Page 6
YES
MAYBE No
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
24. Mandatory of 5ivaificance.
a. Does thi project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or Vildllfa 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 disadvantage of long —term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive
Persod of time while long -
term impacts,, will eu4ve well into the future).
c. Does the project have Impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
r
means that the incremental effects of an
f�
Individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future
projects).
t.C�
d. Does the project have environmental effects
i
which will cause substantial adverse ef�ects
on human beings, either directly or iadirectly?
II. DISCUSSION OF M'TR023MENTh . EVALUATION affirmative
the
answers
. to
above questions plus a discussion of(i.e., ed
= prap4sed mitigation measures). '
r
f _
r
k
t
Pace 7
III. DETEPWINATION
On the basis of this initial eval— %cion:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
t�C on the environment, and ,a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPrUD.
(—� I find the proposed project MAY have 'a significant effect on the
envirnment, and an ENVIRO.NMEN, T I;D?ACT REPORT is required,
Date
Signaeure
Title
I
UM
E
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING MODIFICATION TO AND TIME EXTENSION Fr-R
CONC TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83 -08 FOR LEWIS DEVELOPM, T
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEA57 CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 0D
HELLMAN AVENUE IN THE 3ENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on' *_he 26th day of October, 1983, CUP 83 -08 has been
approved by the Planning; Commission; a•ld
WHEREAS, the applicant; Lewis Development, has requested a time
extension; and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of August, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to ,onsider the above- described
project.
^IOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the foll ,sing findings can be met:
1. That thq 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 not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements �n the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. That strict enforcement of the Conditions of
Approval regarding expirations would not be
consistent with the intent 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 August 14, 1985.
SECTION 3: That the modification to Conditional Use Permit No.
83 -08 is approved o� subject to the following conditions:
Planning
1. A time extension is granted for this project until
April 26, 1986.
C. — kc�
2. Development /Design Review approval shall be gran: -ed
by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of
building permits for any pad.
En ineering
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
approval of specific, buildings or another time
extension for the Master Plan, a drainage /flood
report shall be completed for the site, In
addition, a master grading plan incorporating the
required drainage /flood protection measures shall be
= completed and approved.
2. A deceleration lane shall be required with a "right
in - right out" drive approach of a minimum tciiget
length of 60 feet plus curve transitions to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14Th Lr1Y OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jack Lam, S,!zretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote -to -tit:
AYES^ COMMISSIONERS:
N0. COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
' C -ate
EN
D
490.e UYy wr•�y N=YO �q GAL
GO
b f N a
AM-
5-3:
`wr+ Gun °'NI
c4uqra
V AG V dPpP RNL �.��
e° =« urY- vpN+++oa >•� ^ye arc- �@
bZLAd
IS
B-op ml G G Cw d V O N G C A Y L�
ow
LG�Sd .G.yv ?✓.E Np �.
-ii R
LM Y.Ci u'N�w.0 LCYu >9C°'U ^iN
p� V w 4'OSNLR2�` �O.6a CYu qN�
Y
C
S
Y
O O
x o
u
0
W �
D
T
°
6
0
0
d
u
Y
gg g
- a
c pJp u- o
R, 4 J
Nor..
v d.+ of LOa
qt YO
y`q cia eLL
LV V 6�Y" Y
T a � � °u N
d 6
}�
I .- m
Y M M
-A.Y -O�
2L' gu
N�Y o^p o°
i V ---6 g,
TH
6 w M O
uu
t`3a YO I.G
1
LA�
N
M'y s?p
r
n°
°�a NOw4o °Eu
o
r
o.N.w Nu-,
26
O
LYO
O
T
CC
L
.'rL.4n YM.G. L
a c9
NY _ 2
N
Cpa
...a �
" C
o.
Gw =V01.L. A
I w
N t:2
O
J
4
�YN
n1p
cL�
`°
^^sn
`na°co�'��•6�
ua
C,
^
N i�
ARecw
-
Y
mow..-
ocoarw.
�•
-
~d.2
D 4 w
HO
4wN..R NO.YnL Y�
O
<Lf.
F tiI
•! MII.
'I
`PI �
N
�,.0 ° C
O Ot P
c C 2'.p
v
�y
. Yo
r A N N YOiu
pL b 9 �Aa
� M4q 0
E Q C Y. A• Q N
L q C
.
M
Y� V .2 IM 1-1
.~GG �
'pa -eV N� 1 Y+.r
q
ggwP... qN
-
YaM
t
COL
pL a U p6
2 fi' %L AZ O
d
LIl2CL
Y L Y E WN
'Zi..
U.
uL.
O
x.LQ
S. $L •- `G^'=6 vu
-� yaY
p
Zg Yp
�" GC. w`
cu
u,°'
b.G
gg
,yn�VV�.
c6 Q °.
i
r�dO
uV b LYV`
uc
w.
�w.4
e A 0Lx
A G
ns AU U.N
C ^aP6 L�y
TLYC yu a."Ya
I
°.dc =.`o
'L O1M qc
xy O
>�
4 L q
Lcv i>ua P N
N
-"
...a2'
�v .yi Y A tl6+ CC Oy
L F °y
A Sx� i1 r.
P dN.V
AO °,y
t 1 4 C
ua wG
•� 0yv A �" U° 2 pC
q O P'I'S2
- a fi c u O y CO
q
t1 L
NOM. L 1 1F
G' C
^.Fa •- > a U ° u
t° q >
3 2Y
�AN�
E C C.�
e,,, ma ���• -v�'i: .=a
.�roLYr
d 01
q
u.G..eu > >�p icb Y' rY: '" a..Ni =—.°�.
d. N qa1 uy 1.°..Y
4b �O V A.L w pp 4 G OCI
pCUCE `P O.c +YC�,yW F�V�
G� A g�Y
O Y`C2VIC 9.,CMs
<E »66
LY.� NL7tXAYY
pTv
°w'. YN�2' EL U O 7 �pG
P W.-r -i �c 4is-R f.2 �/1CR
V
nD 4
i` ^L
6v aGL ^L tg2 L °'�
Lv A Nwy C7
>CO OJ.l4N
Y yANFL ��yLyL
OO +`vAG LC
N V3..,.
L
G�FtO ��
O,L
U��u' dO,p..
`•L
✓�»
L 2C L
�E ^ ^O bjbC4
=G.-�.
Nd �p.O. Y. MdC U'...
►GEtbvtLiO
y
do »LL
Z.
L
'all Vd ° «�` Y
�.
N� ^NHS
.��..�O pe
aL.Y-�
p
.^ -.pxC
Y NAG C2
b
�tY°1 N..L C ^�hbu
.YD 'a^C VAC
CM,^M
o...
uZ ua�w =AC vLS
♦�2�iN u.u,,,,,,pppaaagg Av»
AO L.31 aw
va dY`3u� °O ^b
c�
us -Z « 0.
a W a
> Y x 6 � u b y L
W A s'6
� 4 t U
Q-- C d b
M
OI ..c.
G PYdi ° Y !.
v.-m2 �nV xw
.5Z qY ^CC_.>. 6pA
°w O c oww-O
bwA5.�00u uY
LIN:
V
gC�C`.GV OV
AL C
A
GSM
w
°v
N�F•°
u vaE
M �C . V C. ° C .ap
uGN q. °O A
ctl Yy N ^yz a
y .S 'rte
C5. t�EU v ^ A
V S
ONE
vF
L` Yy Mx O °L4 NSM
G10 SY Ly«LnuN
PYFIu
.6AM 4 C�i�t
��Y,
C'u' O• q bp»� EY9
cV vL yAS ~�-•~L
C^ NPO �Qi".yp
pi.OV
yu v
AO WoY.°
"'V '• cu +u
np
u V y °v
YY °au.°n u °u o.°.E
1
\
k � F
QL
1
M
G'OY
GO
vVG
wV
�D
y
O�Y
41
^l y. V}..i
NYaCC
LNVO
ZN
Y
ti0
Y�
S–
6r
pLwb1 >.-♦9w w�D.
ON QI YC L
i0..•.LE�
��OVO
o I
a
w,c°
^ s
n'O
Y yNV
u3n
q`o
oo 4
°you
ad
qv
g'.2
G
z
we
w •
tLa
`vo a «.�Y
4J
V
$%
^ $ A
up
♦+Y.Y
9
=`
w
>.-.
t
°.cs
V G ^ N u y s
vw
a
8 U O
S N U
N�-c
�
•p
c c
rnwcr
a�
wYx
a•y
tip'
.d °'
a.—
a�
c�
°eo:iNN ��e
N
a`•'. -.' c"
wv
goyy
vc
cii
oii
owQ
pn
�. bw a r��sG-
2t: u . °
c
rev
00
<-G
- o °aY as
M @s.
ov.�
S_
N`4
pu
�a oNgNO�Gr
O O.-M
G + aaw
a•V'O
V
H9a�iO
4 •'!
NaG
`Vn°.
MY
N
Y O
LaN
C
Sul
^4nP°
Nw�t.'�G�y.�V.N
„dw.y N
`Ge �v _ .
N++Y t <.
° }
G N V �♦
E V
M --
Oq
O
N
4'1 w
'go
y O
y
tdi _aG
at V fit.
Y O M L y O w a a
p C V yy
4rNw 2
MK
Pp`q
G.NZ na N.oa
q
a
O
W K.l
O�
L M
C.T;;
q.a.�r^. 7Zy
ba
C N YC G
pCR
6. r 6
w U
j'
N
♦1 q w O� � u
i Y L' � AC C
V. 6 �O
d •�
Olp�u
aa
U u H w Y
G
N
•ON r
E w L
C�
E
G y i
�' a
Y L N
N
^ O« L t= � o h Y G
•�..t - rw L O L O^
^PVC.
G � w ... G ^ V
Y N – 9 N
�� y
^G"tnwN
<N�
CN
3N0
Ir-NC
<N Y•�.�gTq�N6.0
C–q�g6 �Y.
iO40N
.UC
Y7
U
y
-Y.r
'wwa
O
F.
N
r .�.= -aao
ana
Y ^ova
K
G
–
V •.r h°
Ys
G
�
a
dY9
9
wG
a�
`y'gCN
•
N
.9 �M
p V 0
pq`'
V
�
'�
d
U
r
�«
�Y
l
yp —�pq
y qY � vCC—
�pT 'Yp
ps f!>t0
a� �yyy�`
KC�gi O•~.
q
r d
0
!
r–
_
w y GY�V • YYN O0 U
NrV
2YV^
9
wE
G ZQ Nuy
aL ..°..°.LO
=zzft w
4a♦
UZN
'"q
1
”
O
is
r =G QV� «�o V
v `�
No °i Y.�
GaYO c °u
.
.W Y .
V
aV.-.
r OC G–
–1l CLOq
rumor
UYwV L9.�w
tiu aPo'
Y9V
GV O.
G
ii qL
°
r
GMG
r
± nG
'O
°
u
YwC°
NY u
Yn
G E.5
vqE
a^c
°o
vQO
y
9
w 4 n
a
Q U T
O
6 i
t r
q IX
Qw yy•x�
�v �.Y
–J V
O�
No
OGY9
y 7 Y
L.M�`
r
^�.
`G
.On
Mv..
.Y O. �>♦ YYOp
a vN r
�.G V
l U �
". uG.N.M.
q~OC_44 w.
V
VLn
O.Y N�Ly
t♦"O �
.Oi
-~■ �.-.LO
4Oq 6h.6A
y.Y NG.yYY
W >6�N+°•p
y
' b
1 • �
••er \ \ \\
11� � 1 t'r N� � q�
�O .r
' •
N
1
M
YCS
Gu
Ei TI'
6q h.
.9..Yq
AV ap
d u
py. y
vu
B'.."
u L:O
v^I^
can
EocC
uc
.. �.. t'o�
_ � .
u�'r'
>u f
tE'4� p
tf In ti LOI
du
`m_L
O�b9n
bs .+acv
l�.tt
E bP
•q-
�ouo •
�d •
.�•'^
Ld
a_O
•°•`L
�"
LSO
ALL t•I
S
L�
t6NILC
9; q
w
n.H
Ey
m
No =b
1.f.
+bC
q
Ld
°
U
•O_N GpE
Or_4 LL
a
6j
SN�li.q-
qN Y c
'UY
i
AbY
AQ
•
N =.� W
H
e^nyY
C...r. cn
Lx6N p
b�
°fib
�
OC
LC
L Aq
bip�
°ut Y.�
t uNl
6a.
�U.Y
A^ UO
Lju'
� '
•• N m
u i
Yi.::.Li.
u u�
V
°,.L °
_� cY
�
6
� C T
m
y:ts.Y
�.
c
duc'o.A,.�°
uu
u
Ni
•
'U ; u
`� L
zoo
o.N
doq
y�x
o'I�oc
„
Ao o
u
ieu$•.
Oq
dy W
MS
2 q
LF
u
�EE
.d>
b.
cU6
E�AA
^u b.V
Jgpna ..
° ?�T d
Md
L7.
yV0
cn
i
8uY
N.d? 0•
'0
O'
CLUCY'
GAL W
Yq U
u >S
a=iq`
.DY Nam..
Oq Nbr°.
Ygw�T
EY.L
b06'fi€
2r
pyl�•�-.
N•a^s
a~iL
Lub
�.. �.A
i
y� V
Z�
CENY
�0
EL
>�•^j6 W
bO
NY 91
n L A°
y^.
u A
° LV m
nGw6
C^ q L
A W�� M
Y •y 0O
° aT.•. q 6
Vwc.
•r V N
n= d Y
c
O °. -.CUTS :
2.2- alb q
gipp. C
67
.^C�Cp
LOOL
U�d
nd0 _
Nu �
C
E
�N >Y��
Ou9N .�
u.Em
a•Yil' c
cc
^L^
I... AnVN
H66
2LU.NL
rH.6 O
O ftiWL
"aub
62 fi.N
s. coal
6'g1r0 N
061.'
6yd
m
S
P,
tcu�
s0
+iiU°i
bn
oAw.v
cN�Y
L
CV Z U..n.
'O
y
.rd
N%
-9 "o
6Cm
cL
vu
yq
•� Arc
> d
C.-
N =
A^
L
q=
a N
«qa
Ta`A
2 Lpn
a
w
-u
O� p'
6N UN
�: i
EM
vOii
—1
V
N
^ A L
Ey
N
LS' ^G
No =b
+bC
q
p ^Oa'
WO q d
oIn9E
°q`-:
' q
C
non
9 •
ON
4y
OQ C
tir�pp•
pyY
^
9C �
A
a c
PTO• -�
Chu'
4 •O N
Ni Y.w
.�..
l Y.
u
VIN +• S ��
q WZ.
Y 1 A u
Cv.CCH
m i E^
tcu�
s0
+iiU°i
'c.
AC
uC
yh�e
ab
.Ede
s
qoA
.i•o
y O
6 9aL
u
c
V
V q
aL+Y
O� p'
6N UN
�: i
EM
vOii
L
}Ci
qp
V
q.0
�.'
yDA
b.
UIO
+bC
q
+LN'aE'y._.
°q`-:
' q
C
non
9 •
ON
4y
OQ C
tir�pp•
pyY
•L.r
S A9 Yn
E.�
aYY
ni
EL.M
��ail.
u L b u
u i
N G
b N -6
g •' n.
GY u
Jda
N
-Yi n
Nu
y:ts.Y
�.
I°rt
Ni
YO
'U ; u
`� L
c6µ.t
N
q.L
Nqn
A�
Z:2 ^.YU.
N
MS
2 q
LF
u
y- nY
... vGY °
'•€
'p1� €.
EoGii
Yd
y lio._
Mr.,•i a.
O
C
Npa
� map.
L
A ^'
' N 8 0
L NOU A
w.C9
OL
Y
c O�
W1tW68
OYfJY
si
V
C-
,; I
1
e�
i
aoo
ro c c a�L
ooc
w n. LY
c
Noac '•,°.
.°•CVC
OtN N -9. E.
L �Y..
L.
� w
N Q
qat� G�
V
}L
Et
a. .
L e+
�• a
i
1
qs o
a
cro
q. ro
o
2w'yc'
u t o'
°ate
N.
�
�
1•
qaf A.n
N
No. qc.
L
� .�',
'^•-^
im
droa
�V
t o
0
u E�+
Z
qA
2LNQ'4
�YG
Gy
Cd W
L+O 4°nY
4
SAN
NNq �.o
L
°+'
I
�
:3 R
L L�
YNmcim
w ^qy A
a
aF
o
o
o
Goan .G Y°
8A°L W =_
m a
d
�
se •
YN+••
ot� ti.
NN �.E
` ��
q
YF� d
o h
d a.
o w
w`.
d r
4: YN =
Y
N
c
E�u.Eb v '
CCro y E �w
w��
d a0 b�
9ro
9' 5
W
C
NE. y 3u
q`^
Gv AY�yC
E W �i
B
Sj6
'
O• N L N C .+ O1 U N�
C9 0 O d c�
Y
�.
^N
yy •'•'
t
N
•VN
'
rog0d Uy0 YL.
0fa' 60y d
°•
rnro,+0
L
_
Nqq
t V�
„.V
L
ww A
�•U s
V�
��'
G ``O
O �i 'Tyo �
0
•"• Y O
A ^ ^Ilfy uEU
t�m'c'u awo Yoa
u
i
a
CEO. 4
L
a-•,�N
^ Ot
C
'c
A E L.
Y
Lc
u t C
U 0.:O W
q
o0 �� q0.
L c°•.+
`a
794
_
u
.•+
y
a
C
G
o
a m
c.u° nv n
^
J
c�L
C 0
� c
YUyt
d C
LCq
ro«
.N
kJ:
I'
j
G^
9 d
EE
ro-
Nqp
~
y6
u0•
b
1 q
!s T's
ySU
E
O Ly
n
�`
C
.^•. L O.
U Y
r-
L
II a g n
oro
ro.� C
U.
L L
YO•
UYE
yC'Uy
e� C
•yy A��.
l U
E q
fV.� ro
V C
q
6 0•
Y d' p
-to J
.2 U
yq+Y°
C
Z,
E
AO.
Ar"i
H
U
N
. y°
L
�n
ay
.•
yG=
Ewe'
b0
qe• OI
0L
N gt++jL; •
_12
Ew
N
C
qN
.roUVy.A
�q
rn N
NGN
C
as
Lp =
1 C
V
O. dE
E
UU
a N
N
.2
G qy
w ro
N 7
u
dG.=.N
n ^
E
`
+
Y g
°u °•
W6 `
ay.
.-.Y
�n
v^• °
sVEVV
. •
1+
NW
N
�?
t
p' OLO
,.
°°
V UA
0b Y
N. w•L
L.:
q0 Cd
a
y0
nd
a+.•..
�.^-
ro agnn�.
.. o q
EGE Mro
N0p0
$ as Lo
CpY
YN.•.YC
w—.
qu
Z
•m
3q
ou"'
yY U . G
quwos
q d
Y�
-
SLY
M c
•� �
d .�
O
O
C
O
010
4G
0 r
N
A�Y?•q
Eo 2wN
u
h V L N+
q
�
L:Yro>
R L C+
Qq.9G
a �Y.
ND OAA C•.
C It N U Y
0+E.-y
W q.[
V .i
p °L•�:
NtY G4
9 NN
W
x
0
„u P�
� D
aC4.•
of
.E.•
u
a
m
�
'
/y
'161Jt�
masse
y Q
a°�"
m—
'G
A
VOd.O°�
V
yEiJ
Y
o�
NS
l
vm
u
¢ v.
L
L V
m
N
tl C
P N
Q
.i V9
E
�
•
L
L
a�C
G kY
r
C
�
m
4
_
dL O
A
o
♦y~
G
wD
r
�A
u� 6)'
Q
XA
dt mV
dMy
6Y
L
N
d
Y 3 .b
p
♦
3
�l
Or C
�P
p L m
= 3 ^
• A d
m
�:�
.Y.. C'G CN
�
�.
�a
Z
as NON
N X
[lEq
y
LW
41
W
L d� A"d"
V
dIGY°
� tae
a °.LY
q q
Ob
.dC Q°
d
«
aV
V
Ly L�V
y
•�
.QED r
QQ�
°
Yiy=C
Y
3
GOB
A
N
4
r6
4
Vz
L d
c.c
ti. A
W
aeM
Uq'^ U{
Y.
V
��
G� Y
r. PLa
4
LN
Y�;�
atiL.Y
Y�
OG
AON
T4�PY
'°
_�
}°. fS,•Jj
Ny
�MUV -
QY°.
Q Y
.AG •')
b1�
LL�QM_
`O
NY
L
a.n �E
m�y,a
n9 Y°.''fl,•
trcf. -w
NV LFLl�R�
p
c
a�Q
'�api
i�
E`ap�
�Y�
G
y
yqL mr-
G¢mnY
�ArC
UEd�
Ao�4.
GC LP}
aCCd
µi
i •.
'sd^
ba
>i
'am
,'4
O°)nvr.
°yc
a
'•.oe
my
�'M.
I
m C
R
�+o
a
'
�.
n
ae
n°
_u
EE�`O1
^� °
EE
Ce.r
y C
m a
N
N
M
S
LA
NRW A.-
6RN1M.
�Or�Y
rO
0.v..r
�V
3+C.
W Ni�LLi
.'SQ
VR
� bQ
W
x
0
aL
m4-a
y
L
--
J
V�
�O
~je LdO
e
9N
w
'G
A
7n
p4
V
yEiJ
9
o�
NS
l
u
¢ v.
L
L V
m
N
tl C
P N
ab C
mF
v'u
2
Ye
Q
.i V9
E
�
•
L
L
a�C
G kY
r
C
�
m
4
dL O
A
♦y~
G
wD
r
�A
u� 6)'
Q
XA
d
C
G�
O:j
G��
m
SN
QL
8
fib,
d L
N�
"•CiFa~N
bib
9^.
EG
Nb
Yiy=C
Y
3
b
L d
c.c
ti. A
�av°i
Q C 1
o.mc
W X'
i ocerou
tJ A A NC
E
•it L
V ^'
W
x
0
4u
M
K�
C
Sn
--
J
V�
�O
FQ- rVr
NJ
7n
p4
V
yEiJ
p
o�
NS
l
u
¢ v.
L
L V
m
N
tl C
P N
ab C
mF
v'u
2
Ye
Q
.i V9
E
�
•
L
L
a�C
G kY
r
C
�
IL c -1),G
`I
n
4
j r
m` N
_. _ . -'Jjt YFA
4u
M
n
--
V
yEiJ
p
L
L V
m
N
tl C
P N
Q
.i V9
E
�
•
L
L
a�C
G kY
r
C
�
m
4
dL O
A
Q
u
N
C
°vim
`I
n
4
j r
m` N
_. _ . -'Jjt YFA
nd�
tic
r
�
c
a.
Y C•�+
�
L
O N
du
U
AV
o
Y
Ada
°^
A
H
Uo
4
c
9W..YLa1..
V x
C
Yx
� •
09
q
N
y d
^ O
aY
H
`
r A
t
da
O
V'O
ffd
d
901
W
4 OU
L¢ E
ol
N. O.O. N
G L
..•
4•
C� 60
i
c
d •°+
L
a
cu
L4 N
w4
N
a bT
ua
ad
i�
27
E Zaa+-
Ly1
�a
v
rc
o- W
COY
� vv
a
x
L
6
u
tl
A2N
03d
Wit+
�
xg
u• °u
hA.
v.
�A A
o.
J. Ed s�
�^
°
^
^ u
a
f
6 a
r.9ti
<^
�3
O� C1CN
4
6 6•� ��
{
4
1pq
G�.O
O
O�
Ld.� '
1T11`
"9
�
oy
1.0
a.
a�
cam^
�t O
A66y�
L2LL
w W U
^� L
`O
ua�
d^
`•tea
O N �
tl -u'
ti� y
QJ T-8
1' d tl
� us
a
.o
aL. a
�I
O
Y
Y
�
M
° �
-
M q
♦
O
'011.
d O i
C �•
A •+
O
o
Y
Y
x V
O
�
Y o
Uo
4
c
9W..YLa1..
V x
Yx
u
� •
a
q
N
{{ss
^ O
i
c
d •°+
L
a
w4
L tl
Op,
^S
x
i�
a
°6
Ly1
�a
v
rc
o- W
COY
� vv
a
{
4
1pq
G�.O
A:dE
O�
Ld.� '
1T11`
"9
�
oy
1.0
yj
tl
cam^
�t O
A66y�
L2LL
w W U
^� L
`O
ua�
d^
`•tea
O N �
tl -u'
ti� y
QJ T-8
1' d tl
� us
a
.o
aL. a
�I
O
Y
Y
ofp
Z
L
bM
b
u
L
6
Y
0
•-
N
u °O
o
Y
x V
O
�
c
9W..YLa1..
T
LIM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
4�o GucAn -rq�cq
2 f C1
Cr .f C
O C,1
~g z
U
August 14, 1985 1977
Chairman ape! Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coler•� ,, Senior Planner
John Meyer, Assistant Planner ,
VARIANCE 85 -05 - DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, CITY OF
LOS ANGELES - A request to reduce minimum lot depth and
rear yard setback for a lot created by the merger of the
front portion of three lots on. the north side of the 8300
block of La Colina, in the VL District - HPN 1061 - 091 -11,
1061 -201, 29, 30.
I. BACKGROUND: This item was originally heard at the July 10, 1985,
Planning Co�!?:,sion' meeting. It was then continued to the July 24,
1985, meeting, in order to conduct a neighborhood meeting. On July
17, 1985, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
requested, to amend their Variance, therefore, requiring this item
to be readvertised and hearing set for August 14, 1985.
II. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: 0" July 1', 1985, a Neighborhood Meeting was
conducted with nine of the surrounding property owners to discuss
three main issues: 1) the keeping, of horses or other large
animals, 2) front yard landscaping, and 3) architecture. The
consensus of the residents was: 1) horses should be kept t4_ ±htr
northwesterly corner of the lot, 2) that there should be no
reduction in front yard setback, and 3) future house to be
reviewed by Design Review Committee for compatibility.
III. ANALYSIS: Instead of creating two ',,,ew lots out of four original
lots, the Department of Water and Power now desires to take three
lots and merge them into one large lot (See Exhibit "B "). This new
lot now meets the minimum lot area of the VL District. However, a
Variance is -still necessary for the minimum lot depth and rear yard
setback. The depth of the lot is reduced 66 feet, from 150 feet to
87 feet. The rear yard setback is reduced 20 feet, from 30 feet to
10 feet.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Daily Report newspaper, public hearing notices were posted
on t e site, and property owners ware notified within a 300 foot
radius of the subject site.
i
f
ITEM D
�l< Il
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Variance 85 -05
August 14, 1985
Page r2
V. FACTS FOR FINDING: Before granting a Variance, the Planning
Commission shall make the fallowing findings that the circumstances
prescribed bc?ow.do apply:
A. That strict or literal interpretation an' I enforcement of
the specified regulation would resu` in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this Code.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved on to
the intended use of the property that. do 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.
D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege incons stent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
zone.
E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfaro, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is reronmended that the Planning Commission
cons ider all input and elements of this Variance. After such
consideration, if the Commission can support the Facts for
Findings, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate.
i
Resp fu submitted,
Ja ., am `
C munity Development Vel)artment
JL:JM:cv
Attachment: Exhibit -"All Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" Plot Plan
+ Exhibit "'C" Setback requirements
Exhibit "D" - Equestrian Setback
Letter requesti„�, mendment
Staff Report from July 10, 1985, Planning Commission
Meeting,
r
. r
SAN BERNARDI
0 CO.
n . NCH0 CUCAMONGA
CITY BDY.
/ SAN BERNARDINO.
COUNTY
/
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
/LOT % Of TRACT 7596-
Y>
R- 1 -20 -T
/
.1596
BP \zl�
�z
k
< >
32
zi
20
l
39
42
�` 201
�
I
•.
i
ti 33
a Z
z3 -
xl
43
0
L1
5232
Ld
38
Q
O
W
x`33
o
a
20
..
23
R-1
-20-T
Y. :Y 34
P 4
37
44
>
r
a
NORTH
CITY OF
ITEM:
RANTCHO CUCAMONGA
TITLE: - yi ci m 1-r�( M A-P
<;
PLA.NNING DIVISICXN
EXHIBIT: _®_ SCALE: -
r
u�
y
�
4
444 'L
'2ikl
W
tXSiZ
t`.
l�
r
O
v,
4 I
,
N�
M
i � o
;t
E-
- Proposed Setback Requirement
Standard VL Setback Requirements
NORTH
CITY OF ITEN4.
?
RANCHO CJCATMONTGA TITLE: 8 ?-:1 REPUIP& MW
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: C SCALD:
,l 1
90' Equestrian Setback
RCI�j"ZjY OF r T e moiNG Ho
PLAMING DiVLsm.
ITEM:
TITLE-
E,YHII3[T: SCALE:
NORTH
Lm
Department of Water and Fbwe r the Cit r ®f L®sAngelles
TOM BRADLEY Commission
Mayor JACK W. LEENEY. Piemien,
WALTER A. ZELMAN,. LYre President PAUL H, LANF. Gmerol.Plo wee and ChFef&_& rr
RICK J. CARUSO NORMAN* E. NICHOL%, +,*raw General lfanerrr - Paw"
ANGEL M, ECIIEVARRLA DUANE L. GEOROESON. A.Aranr General Vn ager- Water
CAROL WHEELER NORMAN J. POWERS.Clderfinanrial Grasse
JUDITH K, DAVISOS..Serrrrarr
July 17, 1985
DWP Files P -32992
and P- 63206
Variance No. 85 -05
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
9320 Base Line, Suite C
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
Gentlemen:
In reference to Variance No. 85 -05, we hereby ask that our original
request be amended. We now desire to merge the South 1/2 of Lots 29, 30, and
31, Tract 7596 into one lot. The new lot (see eA�losed site map) will consist
of 26,466 square feet: T ergeI lots will not include any portion of the
Department's 450- foot -wide transmission line right of way located to the north
of the subject properties.
The original request involved the progjsed exchange of the privately
owned Korth 1/2 of Lot 28 with the Department's South 7'2 of Lot 29, Tract 7:596
and subsequent merger of subject lots into one lot consisting of 17,242 sgrAre
feet. Mr. Malton Youngblood, owner of Lot 28, advised this Department that he
no longer wished to proceed with the proposed exchange and subsequent merger of
lots afvir being informed that the proposed newly created lot would not meet
the minimum 20,000 square foot area required to allow the keeping of horses
(Section 17.08.030E2).
Our amended request to approve the merger of the southern halves of
three lots into one lot (86,21± feet deep) will create a lot that exceeds the
Very Low District's minimum averrod lot size of 22,500 square feet. The new
lot will contain 26,466 square feet. A lot depth variance and front and rear
setback variance will be ra quire - -d:to legalize the proposed lot.
Your approval of the variances requested would enable the Department
of Water and Power to offer for sale at public auction, a legal, buildable lot
crpable of being independently developed.
If you have any questions or if further information is required,
please contact Mrs. June Iwamoto at (213) 481 - 59315.
Very truly yours,
L E MOUSAFIR V
JI:yb Chief Real Estate Office "
' "- closure
- tiINorthHopeSlreeLLosAngeles, California0l Uailingaddre ss:Box111,LwAngelesBO(` 1
Telephone: ( 213) 481 .4211.Cabteaddress :Dese4POIA —7
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
— CITY OF RANCHO CUCIIONGA
STAFF REPORT
July 10, 1985
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, City Planner
John R. Meyer, Astiistant Planner
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 Low District - APN 1061- 191 -10 and 11, and APN
1051 - 201 -29 and 39.
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 block of La Colina
D. Parcel Size: Approximately 1.8 acres (4 lots).
E. Existing Zoning: Very Low
F. Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential and Vacant
G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning:
North - Very Low, Vacant
Sr,uth - Very Low, Single Family Residential
East - Very Low, Single Family Residential
West - Very Low, Single Family Residential
H. General Plan Designations:
roject Site - very y Low
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 side. Lots 30, 29 and 11 are vacant. Lot 10 has
a single family dwelling.
a�
11
PUMING COMMISSICrITAFF REPORT
Variance 85-05,-7 Dk,. ,.. of Water & Power, City of L f
July 10, 1985
Page 2
11. ANALYSIS•
A. General: The Department of Water and Power of the City of Los
Angeles, desirzs 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 they propose to swap the northern
half of one lot with the southern half of the adjacent lot,
thus creating two lots with wide frontages along La Colina. Of
the 4 lots, one lot currently has a dwelling unit, and it's
owner, Malton Youngblood, is in agreement with the proposal.
B. Lot Size and Setbi:::ks: The reapportioned lots would not meet
the Very Low District's minimum average lot size of 22,500.
The two lots would measure 17,845 and 17,245 square feet, a
reduction of 5,100 sq. ft. The new lot dimensions would not
allow the existing house (Parcel B) to meet the VL District
setback requirements. Further, the setback requirement greatly
restricts the placement of a house on Parcel A that is
compatible in size to others in the neighborhood. eioalysis of
this proposal %as determined th,.t the following setback
reductions will permit a' building area suitable to tt� existing
neighborhood (See Exhikit "C ").
REQUIRE'_% PROPOSED
SETBACK RC L
Front Yard 421 * 37* No chan e
Side Yard 101/15' No change- 15'/3' ?carport)
Rear Yard 30' 15' 14'
From face of curb
Curren -L._; the rear half of these lots falls under the DWP's
easement. This restricts the allowed use of the rear yard t>
agricultural uses that do not interfere with the uninterrupted
use of the Department of Water and Power. The exchange of land
would allow full use of the balance of land.
II. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The size of lots created from the
reapportionment of I and does not meet the required lot sizes of the
base district. This and the configuration of the new lots will not
permit conformity with required setbacks. Therefore, the following
findings can be made:
A. 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 this Code.
PLANNING COMMISSI * 7AFF REPORT
Variance 85 -05 - dl ,, of Water & Power, City of L.(
duly 10, 1985
Page 2
II. ANALYSIS:
A. General: The Department cf Watet- and Power of the City of Los
Angles, 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 they propose to swap the norther-
half of one lot with the southern half of the adjacent lot,
thus creating two lots with wide frontages along La Colina. Of
the 4 lots, one lot currently has a dwelling unit, and it's
owner, Malton Youngblood, is in agreement with the proposal.
B. Lot Size and Setbacks: The reapportioned lots could not meet
the Very Low District's minimum average lot :.ize of 22,500.
The two lots would measure 17,845 and 17,245 square feet, a
reduction of 5,104 sq. ft. The new lot dimensions w.,ld not
allow the existing house (Parcel B) to meet the VL district
setback requirements. Further, the setback requirement greatly
restricts the placement 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 setba;:k
reductions will permit a building area suitable co the existing
j neighborhood ;See Exhibit "C ").
REQUIRED PROPOSED
SETBACK PARCEL A PARCEL
Front Yard 421 * 37* No change
' Side Yard 01J15' No change 251J31 (carport)
'roar Yard 30' 15' 14'
A * From face of curb
- Currently, the rear half of these lots falls under the DWP's
k easement. This restricts the allowed use of the rear yard to
agricultural uses that do not interfere with the uninterrupted
use of the Department of Water and Power. The exchange of land
would allow full use of the balance of land.
II. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The size of lots created from the
reapportionment of land does not meet the required lot sizes of the
base district. This and the configuration of the new lots will not
permit conformity with required sWbacks. Therefore, the following
findings can be made:
A. 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 this Code.
a
PLANNING COMMISSIC CTAFF REPORT
Variance 85 -05 of Water & Power, r
July 10, 1985 , City of L �.
Page 3
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the prooerty involved, or to
the intended use of the property that do- not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C- That strict or literai interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
Privileges enjoyed by the miners of other properties in
the same zone.
0• That the granting of the Variance will not const1t,' �. a
grant of special privilege inconsistent
w
limitations on other properties classified in the same
zone.
E. That the granting of the Variance �vill not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or maternally
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
IV, CORRESPONDENCE.
hearing in The Dahi Rep has bean advertised as a p,:hlic
posted on the site and sent, to all blic hearing notices R_; -.a
300 foot radius of the subject site. property owners within a
V. RE COMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Tannin s
Oommission c
onsnder
Variance, al'i input and element s s of tin If after such consideration the Con of can
s"pport the Facts for Finding, adoption of the attached
Resolution would be appropriate.
Re ctfu bmitted. "
MGe
RG:JM :cv
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Ma p
Exhibit °B" - Plot Plan
Exhibit °C" - Setback Requirements
Letter of Intent
Resolution of Approval
11
T t-.
D-
e
r
I g -200,0 d
4,00 �
GQ�'t�A
�R
vs a
!63.36' 38 •!
I
4
A
PP�G�L j
NORTH
CIT V- OF
RANCHO CUC4"IONGA MU,
PLANNING. DIVLSIM EXH1BM SCALE-
i
"27
c.
f
2�1a
Standard VL Setback Requirements
Proposed Setback Requirements
CITY OF iTFrbl
RANCFJO CLT(AMONGA TITLE-
PLANNING DIVISIGN EXHIBIT-- .r _SCAL.E- !B— r
iJ -I 3
to
.G)
Proposed Setback Requirements
CITY OF iTFrbl
RANCFJO CLT(AMONGA TITLE-
PLANNING DIVISIGN EXHIBIT-- .r _SCAL.E- !B— r
iJ -I 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMO;iGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 85 -05 TO REDUCE LOT DEPTH AND REAR
YARD SETBACK LOCATED, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 8300 BLOCK
IN THE VERY LOW DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on ;tia 6th day of J4ge, 1985, an application was filed and
accepted on the above - described project; and
" WHEREAS, on the 14th 'day of August, 1985, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of .f:he
California Government Code.' -
SECTION 1 The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comnission 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 thera are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
3. 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 district.
4. That the granting of the Variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified
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.
SECTION 2: Variance 85 -05 is hereby approved subject to
the following RU— iitions:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
Variance No. 85 -05
Page #2
1. The minimum lot depth shall be reduced from 150 f.:et
to 87 feet.
2. The minimum rear yard setback be reduced from 30
feet to 10 feet.
3. The applicadt shall submit to thy', City Attorney,
within "30 days, a. deed restv.JWvn that restricts,
the keeping of horses and other large animals to
that area of the lot defined in Condition No. 4.-
4. In the event that horses or other large animals -are
kept on this lot, said animals shall not be kept
within 90 feet of the public right -of -way for La
Colina for Via Seren .
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
•Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jack tam, Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of t,13 City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resi-lution was. duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the PNanning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
'�fI
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
1977
DATE: August 14, 198$
TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -05 - DANNA - A review of
outstanding issues regarding the operation of a recreation
vehicle storage yard on 2..4 acres of land ii the Low
Residential District, generally located on the south side
of Base Line,, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN 1077 - 051 -40.
I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 84-05 on -June 13, 1984, for an existing recreational
vehicle storage yard, located at 10191 Base Line. The attached
Conditions of Approval required street improvements and
landscaping. The purpose of this report is to update the Planning
Commission of the status of the completion of these improvements.
II.- ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval, the applicant
as entered into an agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga
for the widening of Base Line in front of the RV storage yard.
The City has begun the bid process which will take approximately
45 to 60 days before construction can begin, The City's goal is
to complete the widening of Base Line Road before the winter rainy
season.
The landscaping improvements required by the Conditions of
Approval were delayed pending completion of the Base Line
reconstruction. As a practical matter, i7 the landscaping
improvements had been installed prior to the work en Base tine,
substantial damage to the landscaping and irrigation system would
have resulted. Per the attached letter from the applicant's
attorney, it is the applicant's intent to comply with the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission pertaining to the
landscaping. The applicant will proceed as soon as the street
widening project 'i: completed. The Planning Divis to is currently
plan checking the 'landscaping irrigation drawings submitted, by the
applicant.
PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84 -05
- DANNA
August 14,
1985
Page A2
III.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff
recommends that the landscaping
and
irrigation improvements, be completed within a yeas ;'able
time
_
frame upon completion of
the Base Line widening project.
The
Planning Comnnssion may
desire to modify the Conditions
of
Approval to "establish, a
specific time period to complete
the
landscaping and irrigation
impro:vementsr
,
Resp
tfully s mitted,
Da
Senior
Planner
j
DC:cv
l
1
Attachments: Letter from Applicant's atZzrne
Y
f
Resolution No. 84 -47
f
Exhibit "A" - Sitt
Plan
f
44
yyI
1
ic
Be. -.ils & Ritchie
- TTORNEYS. AT LAW
JAMES BANKS, JR,
THOMAS B. RITCHIE
99 "C STREET, SUITE 100
POST OFFICE 90X 278
UPLAND, CC.,IFORNIA 91785
(714) 981 -0931
July 16, 1985 _ ". ` 74
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Rancho Cucamonga .1UL 1985
9320 Baseline Road, Suite C rlri P;fi
Post Office Box 807 TIS.- 9113111,211121SUA516
Cucamonga, California 91730 1
RE: Planning file C`xP 84 -05, Engineering file 800 -84 -01
Attention: Dan Coleman
Gentlemen and Ladies:
It was with some degree of surprise that I received a phone
call from Rick Gomez and a second call from Dan Coleman each
of which was concerned with Leona Danna's fulfillment of the
conditions of the Conditional Use i��_a,(it granted by the
Planning Commission. I was surprised because on a relatively
continuous basis since the Conditional Use Permit was
allowed, I have been in contact with the Engineering
Department concerneg the property.
As you now know, the Engineering Department is planning a
major street widening project in front of the Danna property.
I have been negotiating with the Engineering Department, of
late more particularly with Blane Frandsen, concerning Mrs.
Danna's participation in that project. Because much of what
will be accomplished during that construction project.is
either overlapping or very near the improvements required by
the Conditional Use Permit, I made the assumption- -
apparently with inadequate justification -- that the Planning
Department would not require Mrs. Danna to install
substantial improvemeiz -, which were likely to be removed or
possibly damaged during the Engineering Department's road
widening construction project. In fact, if Mrs. Danna had
made the required improvements; many of them would have
already been destroyed by the contractors installing gas,
water and other pipes across the front of her property within
the past six or eight months.
It is Mrs. Danna's intent to comply with tha rnnaii- —
)1
Planning Department /CucamoAga
Page two
L
July 16, 1935
draw plans. She will roceed as so on as _the street widening
project is completed .
S ncerely
ames ea
JBJ /cdh
cc: Leona Danna
l f
1 .
RESOLU;'ION N0. 84 -47 :
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIOi
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. •84 -05 - DANNA - FOR
A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF BASE LINE, EAST OF HERMOSA IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 1st day of May, 1984, a complete application was
'filed by Leona Danna for review of the above described project; and
-WHEREAS, an the 13th day of June, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project_,
follows; NOW THERCFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
'SECTION 1: That the following findings can be:mets
' That the proposed use is in accord with the General
i. Plan, the objaCtives of the Development Code,, s :d
the purposes of the district in which the sift ks
located.
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safev,; 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 i project lot adverse m4 on the environment and-Mat a Negative ecarationisssuedtonJune13 ,198.
SECTION 3: That Conditional L' Permit No. 84 -05 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
V/ 1. A continuous screen consisting of a combination of
dense landscaping, herming or wail designed as, hart
of an overall landscape concept'sn� ill be proV'ided
along Base Line Road from the Edison Substation to
the existing single family residences and extend
approximately 80 feet to the south along the east
side of the recreational vehicle lot.
E - S
KesolUrlon lio. 254 -4ir.
Page 2 1 C
f
2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be
provided prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. Landscape improvements shall occur on or before
installation of off -site work (i.e. curb, gutter,
and sidewalk) along Base Line Road.
4. Recreational vehicles of six (6) feet or more shall
be set back 45 feet from the ultimate fence line.
►� 5. All vehicle >torage and parking areas shall be
surfaced with slag, crushed aggregate, asphaltic
concrete, or concrete.
1/6. Standard condition M -4 shall be api0icable pending
City Council resolution regarding the requirement o
a median island on Base Line Avenue.
✓7. If the operation of the recreational vehicle storage
;. yard causes adverse effects upon adjacent
properties, the Conditional Use Permit shall be
brought. before the 'Pltinning Commission for their
consideration and possible termination of such use.
Expansion of the recreational vehicle storage yard
beyond 109 vehicles shall require the approval of a
modified Conditional Use Permit.
✓ 9. A dense. landscaped buffer shall be planted adjacent
to the-southerly property line.
✓10. The improvements required by Standard Condition M -3
shall be built as a part of City reconstruction of
Base Line and the applicant shall execute an
agreement with the City to pay for the improvements
over a period of time and under conditions
established by the City Council.
G.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 1984
PLANNING CO�SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
E -- 6
Solution. No. 84 -47
Page 3
J
I, - Rick Gomez, Deputy* Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 13th day oti June, 1984, by the fellowing vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
r
2
i `�
aaivc�ossa v%a .ctama
,y Bull ast
AISUOU
Y
c
Y
Y
4
0
s
NVId 3dVOSCINVI.
Su�u�x3 9
;a
L-iALA
n
U
F�1
Li
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 14, 1485
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Nancy feng, Assistant Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL U:jE PERMIT 84 -28
- HUMPHREY TRUCKING A request to operate a trucking
firm, outdoor storage and retail of building materials
such as rock, sand and decorative rock, end a caretaker
quarters in an existing building on ? acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subare.. 8) located at u604
Pecan Avenue, south of Arrow High y - APN 229- 141 -8, 229-
151 -24 and 26
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of a P -e plan, elevations and
issuance of a Negative Dc;la+ation.
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North Outdoor storage yard, vacant; General Industrial
District Subarea e. Low /Medium Residential District,
Sou,,. Single family homes, industrial, vacant; General
Industrial District Subarea 8.
East - Single family homes, industrial, vacant; General
Industrial District Subarea 8.
West - Industrial ;General Industrial District Subarea 8.
C. General Plan Designatians:
Project Size - General Industrial.
North - General Industrial, Low /Medium ResidEntial (4 -8
du /ac).
South - General Industrial.
East General Industrial.
West - General Industrial.
D. Site Characteristics: The site consists of 3 parcels totaling
8 acres. Since Etiwanda Creek abuts the west property
boundary, the site is designated Flood Zone A. A single family
home converted to an office and caretaker quarters is located
at the smallest parcel that fronts on Pecan Avenue (see Exhibit `
11811). T)e rest of the site is vacant with no on -site
improvements but is surrounded on three sides by chain link.
fence.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84 -28
August 14, 1985
age 2
E. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The truc:ki.lg service, the outdoor
storage and retailing of raw building naterials and a caretaker
quarters within the General Industrial District, Subarea 8 of
the industrial Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit
to be approved by the Planning Commission.
II. ANALYSIS:
A. General: The proposed use at this time is a small trucking
firm with six trucks and two skiploaders for the operation.
Also, the applicant is proposing to expand his business to
include outdoor storage and retail J raw building materials
such as rocks, decorative rocks and sand,
S. Design Review Committee: Design Review Committee has reviewed
the pro ect awn Teas recommended approval provided that the l
fol3owing improvements be conditioned on the project: j
1. The pruposed masonry wall along Pecan Avenue t
should be extended to the existing office building
and s,iould be of stucco material.
2. A block wall should be installed to screen the
easterly property boundary that is adjacent to
Valencia Avenue.
3. All security gates should be of decorative view-
obstructing metal material.
4. The office/caretaker quarters should be upgraded'
to reflect a business use through modifying the
roof by adding mansard to screen the roof
equipment and enhancing the architectural
appearance.
5. The existing driveway for the converted single
family building should be removed.
The applicant has agreed to the improvements and has revised the
development package accordingly. however, }he appli.Cant hdS
requested for flexibility in the time limit to complete >certain
improvements. The reason being that his business is a small
operation and therefore does not have the necessary budget to do all
of the required improvements at one time. The Gommittrs has reviewed
his request and has recommmided that the required block wall along
the easterly boundary should be Completed within a two -year period.
r Staff recommends that landscaping and the block wall along PecanAh
r
Avenue be completed within & months.
Im
r
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84 -28
August 14, 3485
Page 3
C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been
completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Par. II of the
Environmental Check List and found that the only signficant impact is
the potential of exposing people and property to water - related hazard
such as flooding from Etiwanda Creek. However, such environmental
impact is insignificant in this case because the proposed use is a
trucking firm with outdoor storage of building materials, and does'
not involve the construction or new buildings. Any future
development, expansion and substant-,"al remodeling of the existing
building would require a Flood Hazard Repor+ and flood protection
mitiya'.,ion measures. A copy of Part II o{ the Environmental Check
List •s attached for yogic review and consideration.
III. FACTS FOR FINDIdGS: This project is consistent with the Industrial Area
Specific Plan and General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to
adjc^ent prnpertie3 or cause significant envirortnental. impacts. In
addition, the proposed site aid building designs, together with the
recommended conditions, are in compliance with the Industrial Area
Specific Plan and City Standards.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advert;sed as a public hearing in the
Daily RePurt new3paper, the property posted, and notices were sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider
all material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs
with the findings, approval of Condition Use Permit 84 -28 through the
adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions and issuance a
Negative Declara' n would be in order.
es ctful y s-unnbmit -d,;
Dan o e n
Sani r anner
DC :NF:ko
Attachments: Letter from applicant explaining the proposed use
Exhibit "A" - Location Map - Industrial Specific Plan
Exhibit 118" - Assessor's o
s P arce
I Map
k - Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization hap
< Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G" - Elevations
Exhibit "H" - Floor
Initial Study Part II and Addendum
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
v
C
CA►LE HUMPHREY TRUCKING, INC.
8604 Pecan Ave. - Fontana, CA 92335
(714) 899 -1761 • (818) 338 -2013 (818) 96o -3895
September 7, 1994
RF.PUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I am requesting a Conditional. Use Permit for trucki:hg Company
for parking of trucks and other equitment. i have E truck 9 "'trailers
and two skip loaders which would b° Parke? here. In the Near future
I want to put in affuel tank for the _°torage of diesel fuel. I also
want to start a building material yard which would require bins to
store sand. gravel & eecorative rock. I m aware of the fact that
the am. mrist be enclosed ud.th fences.
tdy RnPloyees consist of 5 truck drivers and 2 office workers.
My Eusa ness hours would be from 5 AEI to 5 PI,
DALE HU PHR Y. P1 SID
I -
i
f
.c
NORTH
PLANNING DIVISiON EXHIBIT. SCALE
F G
7T •� - -s M$ `� a ������ _ 11
-zu
ow
4 ' 4. ' F•, �gnu
Ske, q yam,,....• E dst. �.� �S.:y'f� -'4 =u
r -� '� � � -:� h 1111.....= ..ar._.. _�•�.�i, _ �! -
x
Ufilimfion j-,aap
NORM _
clr1N oF I��I: `OJP (q --
PLANNING DWIS�S ON EXHIBIT: —
- G..---_ SCALE=
i4 , ►� p +
•, 'lam _ / •� �= - l � � � i
LL
Mb
ON
of
now
` �', e' ' ..• R., � � � '.. 1, ova •i•}�•�}'J � ?�
Vii, ...vrl = � .�. � � •' •.,'L - `` � i S + - _
�- • lam' Swl.v �. f 9 w: .' _ rw*nur I • 7
Detailed Plain
MRTH
CRTs OF rnTEM.,
RANUAO CUCAMONTGA TtTLE:
i'I.ANNM TJIViSiON EXHIBIT -____z SCALE- ±!°'`
i
Gj /•w.
q
N
M.q
��
CITY or,
RANCHO CUCAMO�TGA
PLANNING DIVOON'
ITEM:
TrrLE:eNC ,
EXHIBIT:--F,-SCALE:
�' 9
sooJon C
E
�rrr. :uaetctenae+waaaera.
-
ava.mir. art!
Iry owsy,dama
awwvv
�.
CITY or,
RANCHO CUCAMO�TGA
PLANNING DIVOON'
ITEM:
TrrLE:eNC ,
EXHIBIT:--F,-SCALE:
�' 9
% ,yam_ t,_ •jw y,. .., �. .. �__ :. �� `w�i71t�1iliiEl _ __..
N
�" ''"sag tttt��t� c} •'i '. r`.
. a • 1 1 1.L d'! :f. • Y L:,. •g
NORM
Crr OF F
PLANUTIO CLVAMONIGA TITLE= � 0
PLANNING DIVXSIaN FxHiBrr,
SCAM� ,
g
1,
afFicE'
�,
ti' 3••
a�F�CC-
� ' f2FF'lCE
0
1,
NQit1'��t
CITY OF X
RANCHO U MG-X�f TITLE
t9
P4ANP3IIVG '�IViSiOiV EXHIB
11
`f1
afFicE'
�,
ti' 3••
a�F�CC-
� ' f2FF'lCE
NQit1'��t
CITY OF X
RANCHO U MG-X�f TITLE
t9
P4ANP3IIVG '�IViSiOiV EXHIB
11
`f1
t�
'l
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA?fONGA
PART II - INITIAL 5MDY
r
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DATE:— _ S
'
APPLICANT: (, � 't .._
tU a
p
FILING DATE: 7-+T LOG N'UMER., )
iYIEPt•Elt A3 Cw+"���
. 3 at3_�. t
PROJECT :.� lNlb -+
S,F�.ftrree ,4�,r a
PRdd�� ss .Ah wear-.
SECT LLOOCtAA i
I. ENVIRON1' ENTAL ne CTs
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets).
7" S MAYBE
1. Soils and Geolozv. Will the proposal have
No
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground cond3;cions or in changes in
geologic relatiorshtlx.?
�-
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil's
s
C. .Change in topograpny or ground surface
.contour intervals?
�T
d. The destruction, covering or modifies non r
of any unique
geologic or physical fPa ures? �.
e. Any Potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons?
f. Change:; in erosion siltation, or deposition?
g. Exposure o.f people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud -
slides, ground Z-atlsra, or'similar hazards?
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or
use of any mineral resource?
2. ILO_10fiy> Will the proposal'have significant
results in:
t�r�t i
' E7^ Page 2
in: s gni icant re;,ults
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? �\`.\
YES `L4Y$E `O
a.
Changes in currents, or the cour ,, of direction
Of flowing, streams
rivers, or ephemeral stream
ch nnels?
b.
Changes: in :absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the
rate and amount of st�face 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 grourdNater characteristics?
g.
Change in •:aie quantity of gioundwaters,
t °ither through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through irterference with an
aquifer?
Cuali y?
��
Quant °,Cy?
h.
The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise availzble for public water supplies?
I.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards
such as flooding or seiches?
3. _Air Quali _i,:, Will the proposal have significant
results
in:
a.
Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
f
or indirect sources?
Stationary sources?
_f+
b.
'Deterioration of ambient � r qual:it andior
interference with the a..tsinment of aplicable
atr duality standards?
c.
Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air moveuent, moisture
or temperature?
VVV
L. Biota
Flom, Wi11 the prOnosal have ,i 'f'
in: s gni icant re;,ults
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? �\`.\
Cpage
3
YES ?r4YSE NO
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species or
planks into an area?
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production ?'
Fauna. Will tZ;e proposal'bave significant resealts
In:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distributicti, or numbers
of any species of animals?
b. Reduction of the numbers of a,iy unique, rare
_
or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of ners or disruv `,4ve species of
-
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or
movement of animals?
A. ildl fe habi or removal of existi -� f: n or
wildlife habitat?
5. povu_ la� t _ion- Will the proposal hove significart
_ �d
results in:
a. Will the ri-)nosal alter the location, distx;•-
bution, deisity. diversity, or growth rate f
9:he. huma ,
O'
5, -ua Ition of an area?
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
6. Socio- Economic c Facto _rs. Will the proposal have
significant
_
results in;
a. 'Change iu local or regional socio- economic
characteristics, including ecr)nomic or'
commercial diversity, tax rats =_, and property
'values?
b. Will, project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries, i.a., buyers,
tax
payers or project users?
7. Land Use and Fla-mine Considerations. Will the
pruposal have significant results in?
-
s. A subita.,.tial -alteration of the presect or
i
plan, ed land use of an area?
�s P
b. A conflict with any designations, objective,
Policies, or adapted Plans of any governmental
entities?
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
:t
existing consumptirtt.or non- consumptive
recreational opportunities?
Page G
YES
:!AY3E No
8- 2ransoortation, Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a- teneration of substantial additional vehiZular
movement?
b. Effects on existing streets, ,ir damand for
new street construction?
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
aen:.`nd
for new parking?
l-
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion
systems?
e. Alterations.to present patterns of circula-
tiou or wovment of people and /or goods?
f. Alterations to or effects on present arA
potential stater - borne, rail, mass transit or
air traff,c?
8• Increases in traffic Lazards to motor vehicies,
bicyclists
or pedestrians:
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
pal.intological, and /or h <storiczl resources?
10• Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal Lave significant results in:
a. ar ? of any hfalth hazard or potential heal.tt
haz
r czard?
b. Exposure of people to potertial health hazes; -ds?
-
C. A risk of c .'Iasi_ n ax r� -lease of bazar c as
substances the even accident'
Z' of an accident :
T d. An increase In the tuj aer of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposure of people to suc}
organisms?
e. Increase in existing -noise levels?
f. Exposure of people to potentially
noise levels?
The
Q. creatan of objectionable odors?
h. An increase ill light or glare;?
-
•
C
Page' 5
11. Aestheti.s. Will the proposal have significart
YES !Lk-y5E NO
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista view?
or
h. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
_
site?
c. A cve`lict with the objective of designated
_
or potential sceni ^. corridors!
12. Utilities ar.d Public Services. Will the proposal
have
p
a significant need for new systems, or
altera, ions to the following:
a. Electric power?
b. Nat= -I or packaged gas?
c. C�,=Lnications systems?
d, Water supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Ylood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
h. Fire protection?
i. Police protection ?`
J, Schools?
'
k. *Parks or other recteational facilities?,
_
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
�*
M. Other governmental services?
13. Fnerey and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
S�
have significant results ins
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?
b. Substantial Increaze in der.,and upon existing
sources of energy?
c. An,increase in the demand for development of
new sources
of energy? - -
d. An int_ease or. perpetuation of the consumption
of non- renewable foios of energy, when feasible
r
renewable sources of r.nergy are available?
,
>
Page 6
YES
No
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
;
-
14. Mandat:ory Findings of 5ic�4" cance.
a. Doee' the project hive the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat cf fish z4r wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining level.;, 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 tf
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project :rave the potential to achieve
short -tern, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental go < (q short --term impact on the
environment is one which occur :s in a relatively
brief, definitive Dcriod 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
Oc
means that thr* increm�_"'tal effects of an
individual proj1ctti. are considerable when viewed
in connection 4ith the effects of pas: projects,
and profitable future projects).
d. Does the project have envirormental effects
which will cause substantial`sdverse effects
on h +m~an beings, either directly or indirectly? .�
j
II. DISCUSSION OF MWIRO'NETTAL EVALU,.1?'IO;T (i.e., of affirmative
answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of Fropgsed mitigation measures).
Page 7
4
III. 9ETE.CJINATIO,
P
On the basis of this initial evaluatt,)n:
L find rae proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on She envizonmerty and a NEGATIVE DECL:,RATION will be prepared.
_ I find that although the rP osed
r i effect on the environment there will, not beuad significant neffect
t
+--� in this :ase because the mitigation measures described on an
attached she^.t have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION JILL BE PREPARED.
;f
I find the proposed project WN have a- significant effect on the `
envirnment, and ar. ENVIRO?i?SENT ZIPACT REPORT s required.
Date
S a 'u. /
Title
c
c
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY, PART II
FOR CUP 84 -28
2, HYDROLOGY: The development of this site may expose people or property to
water related hazards such -.s flooding/--ice the site is
within Flood Zone "A". However, such t— ironmental impact is
insignificant in :}!i;, case because proposed use is a trucking
firm with outdoor storege of building materials and does not
involve the construction: of new buillings. Any future
development, expansion or substantial reiinodeling of the
pxist;ing building would .require a Flood Hazard Report and
flood protection mitigat�jon measures.
AWL
1.
i
1. All block wa is shall tae of stucco materraI
2. Any security gates shall be of decor ?trve view-
obstructing metal material. Detail ,;,Tans shall be
submitted for City Planner reviz- -w and dpproval _prior
to issuance of any permits.
3. The office/caretaker quar&ers shall be upgraded to a
business use through modifying the roof by adding
mansaed to screen the -oof equipment and enhancing
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -28 FOR A TRUCKING
SERVICE, RETAIL AND OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS
AND A CARETAK811 QUARTERS LOC.AXED AT 8604 PECAN AVENU ,
SOUTH OF ARROW HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of March, 1985, a complete application was
filed by
Dale Humphrey Trucking for review of the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of August, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord witty 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 not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
Injurious to properties or improvements in the
v.cinity.
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 August 14, 1985.
SECTION 3: That Coneitional Use Permit No, 84 -28 is approved
subject
to the o owing ccnditions:
Planning Division:
1
1. All block wa is shall tae of stucco materraI
2. Any security gates shall be of decor ?trve view-
obstructing metal material. Detail ,;,Tans shall be
submitted for City Planner reviz- -w and dpproval _prior
to issuance of any permits.
3. The office/caretaker quar&ers shall be upgraded to a
business use through modifying the roof by adding
mansaed to screen the -oof equipment and enhancing
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
CUP 84 -28
August 14, 1085
Page 2
the architectural appearance. Detail plans shall be
submitted for Design Review - Committee review and
approval prior to issuance of any permit and shall
be completed within a six (6) month period.
4. The block wall landscaping and security gates along
Pecan Avenue shall be completed within a six (6)
month period.
S. The block wall and the security gate along the
easterly property boundary across from Valencia
Avenue shall be completed within a two - year period
from the approval date.
6. The existing driveway for the converted residence
shall be removed.
7. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for compliance with the
Conditions of Approval two years from the approval
date.
Engineering Division
1. A Lot Line Adjustment to cumbine the .1 existing
parcels i -iZo 1 shall be completed within six (6)
months from the approval date.
2. A Drainage Easement for Etiwanda Creek shall be
provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
within six (6) months from the approval date.
3. -If the cost of the remodeling of the e::istirg
building exceeds 50% of the value of the building at '
present, a flood Hazard Report and Mood protection
L 1
measures will be required.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jack Lam, Secretary
jj
1 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
CUP 84 -28
August 14, 1985
Page
I Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution "was duly and
regularly introduced, -passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning C:.:mnission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985 by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS:
OcL�wYr_LN d
i N u.
G^ N O L d T U 4
L9 QL q�rQ v0.
O � ♦ y Y
..- odoxTp vdy
C d
rt w OO�V
^ a•:G U'10 u m+c•
on
oEu'v °Nn`� YY
Y
~cv4dTEC�yy
y E
O� u C.y yW i d g q N
242,;"--u nq
^gg O Uc
^ d
L d� �^
w ° 4
�V'Oww.'c • �L �
O
0 ^Yw 0.vSV�i R ;�
bI
S
S
W
° O
F ~
++ a
V C
o
S H
aN� «Y
QEu E rY O O a
WE
NLf°.Ip 4V�6Y V V N,cy O9
9°'°di n'N' oN� 6t w9 a oIL E `'C
ocbD DA.� E _u °Y y n
du � u� .. t L`w
TEE�c SE, i=« �Y O V�; A yYN Yt O. 1°' n
G Y O L O CJ �id g c P n 0 > q 0..
Yd Y„.n ods..o�
4u OY� c A °q �j0 SLYT. a E'er
A � � a q o
q id Uiw. ^n G`T yt OT C O � YD•.dII N V
TN 54
•CF d ^V Ar ." qd ^OLU.
^ L
.0 qia °
dD� n° dwa LO �Ow•IOVp
NYLY
�..J.dL.p��b YY
Y�Gr
d .[} °. u R Z`4!
P F OG.aN CYO wm yl -'J
m
O d G
M
d u
N & J
a1 y
.9 -S-1 CY LO L
!I
d LN :�uu °NO
Z
c y
L Fi
a w� B N2° V ?W.2
=u coYO "Nc
may°
w
OYN 4.YLOy�TY.L
J
SO
_
a6.p
a
uN Nuoy... 2. qtr
I
A
S
a}L
2
°
Y b ^ V L 4^
�d,
V
06.
dui:r
c A
n ae`o u.r y,a�s
s
YNs
r
12
qV U04 �a n.NY.
o
c
rnca
o
„Y,
e u.
nc' YYY�urNiYd.0
-cl
O
wL '^O MT E dam'
!!71
b� 7eNm NL Yom.
a1 y
D
Z
Q�
.Q
i.
•T•°•'r c °cq ea a u
a+ pip^'
=VY "
E[c"a
�A�° Ji
Cy u W S p Y G.
N ^YOdc�.
d u p
.ONEC YN`..i% pmq yvV •�Y.
`�N cp�• Gp OU Aa N=
o
AG NL �Z�6! O
NouL �puN 3 Mcn RE Nx+ui
b Yl q gg M, .y1C�1.
~�uC q
b y ui.�.E
c -zo.
yCdL O9 YI 2 V u N
LLC v.q OI ELbq q.Liq ~�y11
C y
y p
vyL
Y O L'4 C
NZ;gi 59 Y�EE VM �M O
n G U
L d G O L Ny. L C uN
^Y u L ai » e
K E.L+aO KNY u� VO! �. vTii3 FN du
H b, N
1 ( 1
Yc acaNi w °�YQ .cam
� q G yY q A +•O L A^
.OG ¢N MA NO -A
E •' «+Z R' u0i
U O N
o0
N t . o�.9
. u
A � d
b x ^b p d E n
Va0 ^VV 0.CxW LG-'Y
Na
�u E��bb.YN• wSO Z �nWy ^ ^
.ML.L w �O.T.cw
L
jc n + Y N
,eb y'Y 4N V LY b�
N °/ pY�a ow E be am'
y—gNi" t6 �.bG..
C
W.0 Cy j= dtdl .O'O^ ^hNAY1 OC
g C V p
G90.CN C'Y VNaOr� �N qC�6 60
ne > eC�nE cs >�`x c ba
b^ .Q
RZ
t.6 Ww.-S. GG CL.Nipi.p NLQ
...� N
=b�hadi
YLOO
OO. I..1CP
a-.�
'>
r bC DU A.0 U ^V
Y_V_ay -. A
Os u..L..A
c$�
66 r
O
O U %
L O
L C V
Q b
L
T C d
L q L
N A c
b N
p
a M
_
S Em U
>
Y E V Y O =
Lp
Lh'
n u
c S L
U
N
c
VmCT
-qm
Y
L..p
uL
b U
, x.p i V . E
� O.Eyp �C'�'uo
gp 4
"y E.O
db o
�v'OiNUu
_
CA
3
VU
•Y
L
_
L L C
N`�.AO
N'V r
N
E
c
Aa9 U
.tV >d N`
=6
j.
a
'o
.V
V
n
.�
V..^r
.'jO+p
^2OL'.y..
S-
D
c �yL w� 4 T
.2
e
�Ny�tb�
.d-i E.,1Vtp
O O�
:F
L..,c„
O. C O
9
SS N L
rb L ~
Y�
4 d Y
A U U
0. Y � d. ^ p R>
V c u Z Otcy�b
U' C D L�
y C.
p..
.Oaa�.,
�nWbd
cAd
LT
`_
N q
Lp ^ei
M`
y}
T q
»C
G
J oc�
V0.60
9r c G
NZ^'�,^
U
dq
O.Oyu
�,W
d
ZY
Gc 0.^ew c NO
up `
d� E
...o
yp ^Lwaci
N
ud,co2„^
NYLp
bb
N^"
^ ^VGb
yR..:-a/q
_
b�n� 0 u
Fes...
��NE
•
*~y
b
EJMC
=.iw9 aL+y.1CC.
,uo
.ON MAW.
+.d}d
b
..NN v
d
V,O
u�
y�9
bq.
EVb
CG
... b
b0 cob Vim.- ^6�EEV
k`Y. V
V 8' 0
n y0
G.^-.0
iEOMO.
A,
01
PA 4Y
Y"6�
-
W
L O1��u OiG .cn�O
40.
i .Np
Z4; ir
QA 6Ld
Mi
I.n'
C
h`t NCA
OUE
K ^rn
LY'q
N9a-
V TVj 6VNCL
QV .O.IrbL.SlAM 01.E
LLV..I ?YN
FL:Y. FOCA
tlOY OE>
�CGN L
A t q
N
n
CA
., 1
cams °fo a o� p1u o ^oo «oaf �' °.°+ cr and L�
t6 Od .qC mG aC Gd nYdi ° °.Oy M C V d�
. N�nC �N u VURf ac9 P�tn 0d • G LYC Eb �iL
rn� ^� n• oM Lw' d d�A'� E P'L''o
?! O L b T
OLbq q q.
INV
L G N
1 dN °. ai^,... a c
A
Gb ^nnV nA . .yy MO O T ^N ^ °Mw.
Cu �Nd
4-3 d t d °� _ �' q N C1 d R y Em
GOQ M.N LO4f VL Of �� N6 O
"i. yOti� qn r •.Z O Y .Rif lLU LT ^ b Na rf
i0 6 N n L d N pub N u q G
°1qy d Nt p G C
•�•GC„G rn I do No. uo. 01 uT miaY'f ca nM Rq b ^�d
--o
L O 6jq _
�Ca�+ L CO LLruC'r Y «.C6j g NE .' NpGCd
u R�w=
E Y� v 4R f d Yd L bO d 4dN 9> O 9 S L=�'
�� 10 if � N On bCNd L Cam. 4E W.L
qV ;d ��� W Od4 ,, A. GMaf dd Cq N ^CT G qv YY ^if
„ I S c . dL u dmadNUa o�a.+i. dsq� uc 9'. -6ou
r bd-y N G d i n nr R
ME
o
�ur d H r'�}w.i. min' no.°.arn c�OL^dEEa N °u >a.c ^9 ...fngf„"
N�NGiN Cx� E d 91.4eb—Ig Rro ^ n LU O
• -LCUU� ^.c Y 1* .1-0-2 N 1
S O /� •GNY ^ qq N. 6.q.•`OG C SO pN
LC° °Obi F yR a.O 1 ' UUGR aR .Cp
Y c d R6OT
o"'Ry c� a °>do ^Lq«
N e c w e M '' �'N^ n m i,. a
�M•• 'tea °ter° is YC°ac r °o�yn
q .- E w N S L .i e d .. n�
tqp Nv°f4 R ilvC N d��M
_4N� u. _ 6u 4^ 99 UL's -0C N4O C dr L. S
L« C u >_
"9-Oa _ oa N N p
,U
914 d q y 0 a 4 q O . 9: w b
u b
°' a
= N
pu0 Lj�o a' Lp ° �a q9 bL ^��4 uNirbOfc
a q� O Nq N° w UZG +°..d KO kC aAO.dG
n g p N
a
_L°
N u G N N N L T^ S ,^ C L E N _° d 6 d M> Q N
d?L qN N 2TN d .OY GY°.° NR Ly -0N q9n L
<� Uy L O TLary
Euu w ~-O d j °°G�: ^Npq Ly9•o.gE
. n° O N G _ wLL GLOa.. aV.q pc Ci
Y 0 9 a q. � V-, q d f.°. C Y w G .� E EE
TaN '.0 • 'bt�p No a ' �q O. d.EY
�10i. R O . l�'cy °'Xo Vu d _ •'O
.b nLY NbN
u ,G ECG G y 9�b -k u �q ^COL
-I A O L
b G Ol.
^ �yb' C O 59 L M 2 dL
Yu E-0 ^ b .' � ny O V L L d •". t. O M E N D' p. d ad,
69N fnN 4U 69 1-0� +Qpp p� b'G nR W66M NM4
b
: }z v a.-
tl�� dnl
ar7gN° X. u aN.
�L ucy yv
<Y=
^> y IY Ob N`NEGV µL.< J Vg1^tl LF yn1A �t=A.Y OI by.
O InL U >� gNa3Q ., V O'< p�UO �NL �� gNyT C •uT
Ec o
Rp 4SS1 bA. y C« GR L %yN r
CO.F
• '' u K' ° 'o L.O.r G L VNi I� u g ° A u ... O • % ..
»zN. UyF. k S dB
•� N V C; 9 c S' 0. TLC
iOT 40q pV CVU
moo.„ ��� r�O FL°`oa y..t 7Lliao co I.- ac `.
yyy �zy NN. co
. c o
U ~O = tl A d O Y W J.6 OuOuN r 01
S+O-
^.b0. ^.O^ R�MCO u 1..1. yqy pC YN U. 4QFaM n L
Kp�n�ow L.
�OYC4
y4 '.. NUbV VL LL °yN `�R'Vq bN^d L oy '
dt n4 ENLrO Lam. n�yy n uTy DIOugd N u m
~'Sao '"xntl Y`OV °mw _N �N°
° - � x tivun. _fit.. ,c nowt °
F�4r Ly r �t°JW4 6�Oat�N PL. <n�1 -O N- N RVa
CI N
• 1
lb°[ N .yam tlM tl L A
ppII F O YC L It1,
�.C�b @q 9.°• CNwCC 'MOIL d. 9 }L 2 Vib I
b.ii. 4 Y tl CN' u
v n= n tl`r db y
. Y u L d. y L a• 0
u •q�'PL y 1' �d�1 y
'20.
uA �� NY ' pp ^G L •fl
.Q C = ��7 YLA u +.0 -b..C. �> LYW 9 Yo F`�'•
T.Y�N C �y'O O L >6C ° aG6. _tJ r0
.ft L O '• '� up
`� a <� Q d . .Yb dG yYa'ti
v'c •N+:t GU I
pp t.d EE g
d C ; L G~ A N » T O ytj N N H 3 L u w pt
�.C..d^ uV � O 094 G jQ.g1 yN-U UO f nMY a O`
~ x N N
RayR dw. .p L vYAY aA by `' R J
di 401 4a gg D. 4J1 �l
,E O at �.+ N N ma
�nu,e
w 7t O O —r '..
�J�< v Boars 4u m �q.'
d
w e
'c�1 •tl • Lbi.+ u °ttl o °tlr ocav c yc = �L ° u ''•� - u vaT°¢
i,
ctcn dv d 4 w •� L 901.... n n.•'�I � c L � N t .°-�.�
_ \ 1=N.V UM N i1 Jt. 6 rIROr a °.c - 6dm GY � 1�1°. ��5 aYwy
01N Wm� lye O �. O V •I. >q'^ U
Ec b Y h4 O�
Ri b
NEO y OY. 9. r � � 4L Y.O YTC
O.° r'�r UNA E aE 40�
M � °yam L' S u OL v�y_ NLa
qa S cF C° O 6 OOO O O Y
i.qE awgwy 4M'c ^.� �" m c4 N..°. wg
L� ✓NLi� O L �y L ` Y gpV6 O>
X1"7 LH Va M�„�R. 69 F I b LYVL r'�M
4
r
o.•s.e NNiv�e F�b e� : b4. :. ,mac°, u � qco ab etu,�
NBC ON...U6N 7z yPC EN MM r Yp V L ."�� Jg.
6„LN Ot'°f..1N� Y� yY� av a.0 ° 6 NMM
Rw dLL. r' 4q rd r °p yA cqw
wti j
y CC
Rc <w NNYp LY�Y ''pTa Oy 4E 6 ZO AdAS 0.Oi
<oyu`o a.Fe H v u =u y�`.c
D Y S A) GOwW OV°. rN UO. K'9 X-1 G.L Y O. S "Cl-
.1 LOLS� O
' 2 C N PfI • N b
• 04 c.c -RV a o co Roe4 '^
L u R P V. u. L C �! _ N M. v4— Y�
E� V G e L C ■c
S Y �_ A N A L OL.
m-' FF CYO L L VR q.. q RdO Li VV � ��C
vL b� N Yi�yb CR�C••L 3�q`l
39--
mun° y YO.w. Y' 4� E wA�° cL
�U Y=
^L � >..uqR 6y: � � w � YNN SR ONE lO.V eLiLL
M ^� V .Q1V a � Y L N 4. -4Owf Ngay � �OLOA
♦" Cy Y1. a. .+c L wl1 � f.. 4y O� 4 =.r.M
V? wi0 �Li�Y f �11q 6! •.p 4 a'�pu Rw�yc.
NrV.,Hn
aYU L Oa. ww Xr L «.
°ar
+.0 • +. C VY NN q RO A NVbNw rCARa 00
�N trf < N Irl < of b
ui
1
0701 -`02 o 8 -14 -85 P,G, Agenda Packet Page ,3 of 4 - - ___w__
>£O V so
OS O �a0 airo OILd A .J 4ii {s FY r
N Mqa s c u E L�a
4NO� � °' mtn� ra bye 4 cd Nyu >� •= � m
»yam as
' A ro N V N a d� C 4� n 6 N
(3. FdYby q q day LK.M0.Y d Ny YaV Ur G pi C
K'O
cw °n� y�v ei�m nX ,a u•%:
>.r^ ny a°oc qya�
U..;Zrz Lubipas
q y"" C CqC D• yC V saY z--
G::. 4rL` adiq �L q0 GY LQ 4N ~t0
�K .per N1pN O.���L EL p1Y }
G ^O' .ati�u„C ti•W qt O3 T8r EL nL �A30 �4 dq 9� ^ _a
qg, V L M pr � OI d C
n
�NULU N� r LY dd L� w°.NL � Ey qd Q.>>. aAs xO �q d r
n
N. ki5 N12 QO.r6 1A6 y ulV 0.d dw W.i tz Liu xA
Y
z
0
2
c�
S.+
VW
4 O
w Ixw u
N J
o a
nQ
H3
4�
dC
m
1=.l
F
W
w.
Y
N
M.,
4 N
O
N L 6 Hy
G Y 3
V F Y: dpY
8
W V � OEr
t »
C C 0.V
Y a s
rt � a 4 RqN
i4or
Ot G C
� 4 u E hNu
m
N Q N
t
i
Ll
it 7
72 r
rac= sN c
U G
G V N6 w°.Y r
G i.LL A
A.Y ?
? dya N
L C 4 � p
pl Q
ECE
NCO d
M G C p d
d Y C
C 6 F q
CY°e
d
n E
E« C
C O �O w
GC Gf C
E E
wM G
E v o
w'u �o a
au p
4
w 2
NrN
L'O Vas w
2 i
i Y X �
T.v> 4M `J U
U� E
E alN y. tea,
z
0
2
c�
S.+
VW
4 O
w Ixw u
N J
o a
nQ
H3
4�
dC
m
1=.l
F
W
w.
Y
N
M.,
4 N
O
N L 6 Hy
G Y 3
V F Y: dpY
8
W V � OEr
t »
C C 0.V
Y a s
rt � a 4 RqN
i4or
Ot G C
� 4 u E hNu
m
N Q N
t
i
Ll
M.,
4 N
O
N L 6 Hy
G Y 3
V F Y: dpY
8
W V � OEr
t »
C C 0.V
Y a s
rt � a 4 RqN
i4or
Ot G C
� 4 u E hNu
m
N Q N
t
i
Ll
Ll
02. 1 I-cl
• u..V O2
A d
q� U V u
O �
!.. D
DU
_ N
�xLL
y U
°O
O
V >O
L
«d
My
r
u a E
LY
n d
>
ua YM Y.E
L
tC
L u a Y
N Uu CA
�U
t
nN
c�:'N
d G c
�d
E
A
C L
wG
LW
Did
L
u
CY
Oy .
C�
d x
YcL
6
A°
A
L>
DV
yJC
Y
uY
° z �-' T
� °'CA.. •NO.
raA. w
.ACA 'a
V a..
qe
d
u�
2H
VE.
O.`u
d
E
Z
n .c+94. C�
» D :i N
4.� N
V. 6 C 4.
D
F••�
a�tia
d
O
u
O
YD
GA cT
p
«
u d
Auton
w
(
dy N
A«
i
-O
LAn
N.
Ta=i
c m
qN
^N Aq
ND
oa r
o
AaAx
x" YU
si
a
of —
�
w
ST
uoe
m
-.5 Ey
'
Ca
x
°L
ads
N>
G
a
YZ
T ca
i
.AF�n
oa q
E°G
W
dj T
i
v � Y.o
cV
ee
o
c
A
ox
d
nq d
CO
L. dA A
Oy�
�
.•••�
IZ; I
_T yY
OU EG _C
Y
F-3 6
i.
t
k I
F
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 14, 1985
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission'
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 85 -05 - PLAZA BUILDERS - A request to reduce the
required 2Z,5,00 square foot minimum lot size to a 20,000
for a proposed 57 lot single family sub - division in the
Very Low Residential District (1 -2 du /ac), located at the
west side of Sapphire, south of Jennet Street, APN 1043 -
121 -3, 1062 - 161 -1, 1062- 011 -3 (Related File: TT 10349)
I. BACKGROUND: On July 3, 1985, the City Council reviewed and
approved the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and referred
the proposed Variance, as a Condition for approving this tentative
tract, to the Planning Commission for review pursuant to Section
17.04.040 of the Development Code. A copy of the Ad Hor fommittee
recommendations and the City Council action has been a� ihed for
your review (see Table 1).
Plaza Builders, the developer for Tentative Tract 10349, has
indicated that they intend to withdraw from this project.- The
legal property owner, Mr. Mike Kelbert, has indicated that he may
proceed with this project as a custom lot subdivision. The above
changes have created un rtaint ty as to its status and the
requirements for a. Variance. Hence, t e C'ty Council, was unable
to act on the approval —of this project at its regular meeting of
August 7, 1935, continued it to the August 21, 1985 meeting. An Ad
Hoc .Committee meeting has been scheduled for Monday, August 12,
1985 where both the developer and the. property owner will
officially state their positions regarding this project.
II. RECOMMENDATION: An oral' report will be presented by Staff as to
the outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting
Z ctfo eman
Senior Planner
OC:NF :ko
Attachments: Table I
July 3 1985 Cif C ' R
f y ounce 1
eport
Minutes of May 9, 1985' Ad Hoc Meeting
Exhibit "A" - Redesign TT 10349
ITEM G �','.
y 61 isW Y •O y E c r c j, Q a �a V
p' i=1°nv ma mmN a o^ w LL
- 1
t'O uri W N '•" � 9 Y
^d v
3 Ysly p
OrlSY N Id
�.cr d a a nun 'P
dat+pv y••
r O 2
H ? . Hc cW . 3 L N C
_
�fs U 061q v1d ad O. 4 >
L dYY LY 40 W.0 O. •G C G
fAiy �1]'i��'D 16d CGA L S y�1Z yl p
N. Gr Ldp iY�Oy r
N W W ro p~ C L 01 N-i-. N a+. N u C 'L.9 'D in
01. +� C ylLVt CL -
Y
P. n 1 r Gr Evro i O G:. Q N o. d d
ONd00 Q',�NV V'd EN.
GU > V g61•p C.ir 4. JU.0 d t 41
f^+SFOL7 OL Z
•�•� R L O 01{- N N. r C 2 .0 L L.
1
.0 N VO-
pLl E
ENn D t
t0., L
L
C..
m o C
Y�Y N
NtdalrN C
C
L 6
=Y p
p. Y
YN+ L
6J 0
040 Y
Yd. =
p y.
• •LS � L
L L a
L.roY O
O G V Y• a
a,R 6. �
� d
d
LL
C s
6/
.O M L
L A
s
N
A
C f
T V
W N
O O i
WRd C
•1
Y T
L f
f+
`
6t0 +
O.00 D L
L~ �IG6 r
r d
d C
E H
.C.S O
F �,C Q H
H !
!•. >
C
uA _
_tom v
vy �
. '
'ooi Em .• u
G•"•9 L
�• •
•d I
I
W V
YYu_ E G
•6 7 O
Lv E
E L
L N i
i
V .� O .
.10+ •
A G O
O
- C, r
YLJL.Z L
r °
" >Y p
p
¢ Y
L�V d
dL j
j. "
L.dO i6i d
dO O u P
P U o
of .
.G� t
t.
O C
d R W Y p
p L 0
01 G
G d N
N
Q �
C Y
O N d ro t
%`i7 0
t
S Y
YN4•L .
L.r
0 7
7L T
T
C' d
dCOLV 3
.� L
L69 a
a0 S
c y
b d
d n)dmU i
O d
NE L
'd try N
N
y b
baa�7rs C
Cw m a- 2
2'o n
LY '
tyr 9
9'l '
'
dC.CN d
d
> C
N
C! n O
O Y
Y N
(�,'3
U _M'00 W oCC
•
L O >• Of C V OL
Y.- G L•r
p
O
O
°LO�oaL+3 d.
m v�
N
¢
cww...uYCaw
�Ar DAN
WOfWW
p{AUm
N4- ONCC
Q•V. C 41
N9 �S W
N aEU W
OL CO
O• }•a ya Yg,
m7 LY d~•�
N�.A AW
ssmO
^ WY LV O0Y
OtOL W 7f tt
LO�Yr
Y LY W E
.LN Nr
Y. O W
�V A••-L WO
OC.• -•mY.Y 1
O W N V W•• D
'd N FOs
Y
NCr-io
N.W > dL O
N C'O O OIa-
O n> W Li.i C
A W
..
Au• f
Wy...
A O O) V
twv Aw
J-1 C RY
A O H
S V NL
E+ II• W i ld .b L
N C nL Y
C N P Y W N
N V y pl W w W
qN NWLN
?.
Y l�.Om
'OA
Y •••WW
WAWrL Sr
9 W N LM C
p
4] W RI L 1+
>L
t Or . Y
L• mY D'•1•f7 A!
Y Y P Wy
LAYSS Si:f 4••
NW
N�.,O
W+• ice•
O C m Ltl W.O
•
Y.•• LH A Y
w W 01vt d
Q
C >vmiNi0
d+Cj
ro C W EtI .mmA
ADO Jd
d
'W"
L�LQO ♦u O
Ri'WAO
p
C3=
WWRd
L L
d
WEkA.L
E w
d
Liti.WO- .W•~w•w
WA C r
iW+ •rA ^
H
•i1�.J/.
Y iW mN L L 9 Y P
+
L
4d£
GW : C
t 0
C O C
L Cm
1 1
A IIA
W .,
Y
Uto L W L IT
C
Fd : 'NNm r
A , L L O RU 7 .�•_.,•_.
L '
,
r OS•4 N v
A:t]
L. G' Q
L OARN
.
wn- W9 nd.
.
4Y N W ' nL.
9
W
L[f AC
O W C C
W r V PLO -
W N 01 CN
W q A
S C 6 O L
ry C Y CCC
-W
�N
WYCfyAf
yAAP P.�f
WEWW•r
Y9 �dY
WOO .Y 00:i�
MO••. IJW•r�0.. N
Wor•noOWND
YY��>AV..L Ch.
yf.
i+ >w-Zy 0
W Arr
-Z
O W-3: 9
W C
µ A d �. - m N.
m
Y A O G all
P+ +LOW W all
�W
WdN ?C
WEB
E
EOGblt >d-
fi
>LYJ]w•wr
WoN••+oa ¢.
d
A
FundL nW -C
6E GL: Ri, n••r
ce�
-. W
U L,-. l E
o NY o W+�.-
V N 69. �
a Y o
UW Ai' L r A W L m
++
n
o A uv W vM•r•
V 3 U+!� L N•^ V
W
O O
WON W W V
r�Ow CCC
m e� r•� -
OR 6fTaY1
W W V LEG 7
g�11
4
OAOY•O W
W r O =ml Y
�
J tp.1
!•� N > 71•• L
.C'U
F� 3 tSN F•• L
F N Y .C• a0i U 240.2
tt?CYY
F•' N � N i0+.•• U •O.
•
•.
L c
..
WO. ..
1
�1s+•+Si iO+
�L
CYO rnr �01�W
4C
-
L'f3.'O
WYrY
O:f i W
'. N L
O
W
Rwi 3 WA
L Wa >r
a C W L
GY
rYq
q
QN'1
Wa
O VL C
W
S E m
•'O•A
rIT mt1 Y
-
W 9Ytfi
O W
c A •E •.
�
N A S O'
Q C Y L
P A
• Y L
C R/1 •' U W N A.
, A W r L •� C
O L
M O
L N L O
S7 L Y
r
J
P1'O.
"O U
dY W 3
'O
:ftw
N C 0
Of
y
►TrW d
a1
W W
W9
v
L CA L. ..
W N
n.0 O•ri
y
> om
riG
W M A
L
OIC
O�J N At a+O
Ow Ar-i+r R
z�
OIA
OO Wr W
L L Er- G
j.
O
-R
�
6w O A
n
dN
NWiN
nN
W�
tY'O
Y
N
9Y�V
N p.O.N
Q9 N -
7NdOOA
W' nOr•O A•.
6L10LC%
�
�.
ifOa
O O
P•�.•••
N�
NO Or O C
OOrw CFO
Oa m
2 -
D
d 3L
LY
"nT1 W S
d A
•QO W. 0 6 i+ N.
N W
d L O A
y.
G1
O W> •f+
i W
ii
> w 2 •
W O
O > O
L N Cl O .
8
> Y
? C. W w
�.
J
W• -
V .WC- W
Q Y y
4
O V
4 W 00
V R m L
9¢
V
dl
axAar
0 2
:
�{
t Swm
;�f� VVV F- Q �t'f
Srr-
�.• ac a
r• N [ty 4/ .
F w O
1i° V
. Mo 3 X
A O. N
h M
�
f
qr
•
t
s>ao
>d
iEw
v
e
r
;61
ifw
T A
-
A
L
fair
L�
w E N
a
Y�Vf N
b(}
y N
V A
O L N
7
Ot L N C
WW
W
Cwt
0016
V'
Cr'O.A '.
• Ofd
V
BYO
6V AN
`Y1.U'
C L
T
U•N wy
S�
Orb3
A6Y
p CC
L � •
Sl
� w
[�
•.0
.i+
aOO�
N.
gt�
N %A
6t _
NmOf
.Y N
W U L
y ^W
O' L
W O
O!?
4
V•
C
as OI.•E-
C �E C
O OK••�
• my
Cr A
W
C•�
Aw
. ^�y
W_q•••'
^
NBC
C
'
&, 1.
W>,>
Ww0
O Q
'AOf L
C •O
Az
OS C
L b. M.
LYw
W
OY
O u.N N
4.A W _
C. E N
d N O
oL. of
OL. �Hin
y;
(�,'3
W �-'A
0241
�_
7Va
r=
a
9
b
E�rY•y�a+
b L O QI C r
PYAC O q
N
V
a
- 78-
y. =Y
UY--W N
-
Y
1 LOO
U
N NO - E=V
O T Y 6 itAi 4�
O O-54 1G
L L
•d6Ol�am -
LA A
V O
ss
sn •.`aO+V ioVa1O+
q
q �.` Ci V •rte O
G V 9 U:r
L g E N A Tr w�•
40 OO Yr r
d
A d C O
di
VOT
YrW O rw U
Q
V b-= O=
d
CAT O s-V 31
ti_
OaL
y+t
Yv V
�2
Y
i>
Y Y
m r-0 o V>o
.y W�f3
N�OOY rio NYOY+V.. •�_•.
y�
4i
O a A C A
�„}
a.V -
Yf y'
m.C:
v1i3 POy
L \LyO9V
WN
O
A L R YNsd
S
Y -OWWN
O
Y OC a+ O- Z ,VO
Of 6/e v.
Ol 4 z
a!N Cwz a+-sN -
.O
.o.- .a.�wzvNi^
.
C
VC6Y1a
L .Y1 r 9 E •M1 C O'r O
22
d
O
Rr
O r r Y V P
y
Qg7L0 PIU a
C 4 O1 G N iA
=O
rJV
Q•
N
R7
V
U
O �.L.Y
`_t Q1 V•C Q1 G.
1L -Ea3i
.
' R
P'•Y {7C+•Y Ci A�+m--
M T
.-i
N
i
•
v rn s. >
,
? Ti W.q aO •^ ..
y
A
C
L
L
b
uY-601 d,M
h N
gyp,
•O'
4l
O
O
C.,V �a7•..y YY �.. _ ...
•N.
4
1p
tat; 02
cc
'
V•rE.iVU CY
O
O
ki
F
iO Y C» p
!_
tom- q
^
•1Y.
O
W d G1'
' W
a
qY �iU is
! N
O
a b
L O1rC•• L�
Y
•�
U r
Y
b d A
a
N-0
V
A
d
•
Q
O
C
OS�
Or
Lv
jO•,.y yYY
YLt�sTU
.�
t• UQ.
-
�
CN
NEEY
O.nYV..0 -.1q+
� S!W-
y
�
O.N
XT
f0�L+
O1vYiq OLq
4V
trr
;yY.•
NN.
C TGZNW
La
«
dJ1L.�NV
O�
0.
4tQ
OaG
901 •
L .0 C N AW .
Yl
>IIi
T.O
Cod
EE' L L
y
E1a+y
W Z:u .�•.
W �-'A
r1
u
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:.
SUBJECT:
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCLONGA
STAFF REPORT
July 3, 1985
Mayor and,Members of the City Council
Rick Gomez, City Planner
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner
APPEAL BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY- OWNERS ON THOROUGHBRED
STREET OF THE PLANNING COMMISSTONIS DECISION APPOVING
TENTATIVE TRACT 10349 PLA'.A BUILDERS
BACKGROUND: On May 1,- 1985 the City Council reviewed the appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract 10349 and continued
this item to July 3, -1985. An Ad Hoc Committee was established by the
City Council at the May 1st meeting so that the developer could work
with V 's Committee to resolve issues of circulation and neighborhood
compatibility, On May 9, 1985, the A!' Hoc Committee established
criteria for the developer to redesign Tentative Tract 1034' On
June 13, 1985, staff had met with the developer to review their progress
in addressing the criteria. On June 25, 1985, the Ad Hoc Committee
reviewed the redesign of Tentative Tract 10349 based on those
established criteria and made the following recommendations as shown in
the attached table. '
The redesigned elevations and the circulation system for Tentative Tract
10349, based on the established criteria, were generally acceptable to
the Ad Hoc Committee. Listed below are three issues that require the
City Council's determination tonight:
1. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended a higher pitched roof (6/12 or
7/12) for the one story elevation. The Ad Hoc Committee felt
that a higher pitch roof for- the one - story elevation provided
better compatibility with the existing Thoroughbred homes.
Exhibit "A" shows the different roof pitches from low, medium
to high.
2. The developer's proposal of offering a $2,000 front yard
landscaping allowance for the homeowner to install the plant
material within a fixed period of time versus the Ad Hoc
Committee's recommendation of providing such landscaping
services to the homeowners by the developer. The developer
stated that providing such landscape services could create
potential liability for the builder and may also lead to
"cookie cutter" front yard landscaping design. The Ad Hoc
Committee felt that providing such services is an amenity for
Alm
the perspective home buyer who could work with the builder's
selected landscape contractor in designing the front yard
landscaping and providing continuity throughout the project.
3. The developer requested that City Council consider an increase
of number of Tuts to 57 versus the proposed 53. The original
tract map that had expired _was approved fcr 58 lots. The
developer resubmitted . a - tentative tract map of 53 lots where 5
rats, were eliminated in order to comply with the required
minimum average lot size of 22,500 square feet. Therefore, the
increase of four lots. to a total of 57 lots would decrease the
-required 22,500 square foot minimum average lot size. Should
the City Council concur with this increase in the total number
of, lots to 57 lots, a variance would be required. The City
Courcil would have to refer the variance matter to the Planning
Commission -for their review and approval as a tentative tract
condition of approval.
RECOMMENDATION:* If the City Council 'corcuR.� with recommendations of the
Ad Hoc Committee, staff recommends, with the consent of the applicant,
the item be continued to a.jointly agreeable date to allow the developer
to make the necessary cor'rections:for the City C6uncil's review and
approval.
Res ctfu l Witted,
/Rck ex
y 'la er
NF:jr
Attachments: Table I
Exhibit "A" _ Low, Medium, High pitch Roof
Minutes of May 9, 1985 Ad Hdc Committee
Alm
i
t
MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION AD }HOC COMMITTFE MEETING
FOR TRACT 10349 %.
The meeting of the Planning Commission ad hoc committee was held on May
9, 1985 at the Neighborhood Center. The purpose of this meeting is to
establish criteria and specific recommendations for design review
F- consideration on the redesign of Tentative Tract 10349. The following
E,
summarizes these criteria and recommendations:
f`. Architecture.
1. Provide an architectural theme that is compatible to the
Thoroughbred Street homes - Tract 9x40. This theme
should be designed towards the Country /English or
k Country /French style through the following details:
t A. Roof materials should be of wood shake (fire
retardant per City standards) or flat concrete tiles
in earthtones. Red Spanish file is not compatible.
B. High pitch roof and mansard should be provided.
r
C. Multi -pane windows.
D. Brick and fieldstone veneers should be provided on
front elevations.
E. Chimney design should include brick or fieldst,nne
veneer.
2. Floor plans should be designed to have a wider elevation
and include side -on entry garages.
3. Provide an equal distribution of various size of floor
plans ranging from a minimum of 2,400 sq. ft. to 3,000
plus sq. ft.
On -Site Improvements.`
1. Provide concrete driveways, - curb and gutters.
2. Provide front yard landscaping that includes 80% sod,
automatic irrigation system, 20% ground cover, and 25 5-
gallon minimum size trees and shrubs.
3. Provide side yard (return) decorative masonry block walls
or brick and fieldstone veneers.
•
fi
i
Minutes of .planninf �mmission
Ad Hoc 198 tttee Mk, ng - TT 14x49
Page 2
y,
CK -Site Improvements^
1. .Provide north /south equestrian trails (see Alternate 1).
2. Provide sidewalk .on one side of the street per City
standards.
3. Continue the same street trees on Thoroughbred Street
(liquid amber trees).
4.. ,.After reviewing the two alternate circulation systems
regarding traffic flow and drainage, the Planning
Commission ad hoc committee recommended Alternate G as
having the equitable flow of traffic (see attached).
i ,��. i I �. !11 +•'�L ='.'. � � .vrs -- lift
ro
Ti
n z �L,
w �> '�is I i_sl ' ti+ I '�t1'•1 ,i 1 r'—, :i ` -- lO
i ci •�``• a T i I ii7t i l !wr•�. .1-_
fl
. ` t:
~ —• � �• .f � —t; ,'1• •tic �, I {��7 r� "•�' � .I `--
f - E t � � ], .t, i � �`. � i�. •� R It' l it � +D�1 � �-c-•" C•` 1-
- � 1 'Il� `:� •' � p: 1 ^L � ; `� L.L `i": 11 � • �j 1' � ,�y�\
I C,% \,
Kin
r l 1. �v���r•"_.♦ mil}\. � ,, � •'Z \` � y '� , . ; � r� � �v 1y ='i 1
. �\ • ,;{j "�w1 1 1�a "�u\-. Si�14 �I.' 1'�.�' ,� �jD, .,I - �.
INt'�� i `fi ��n� o ra�1"S►I . •'q Li, _ ',r " t ry
roll, ,
TA
Ic
1 ^ 7
—C\ `
Im
Ic
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 85 -06 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED
AVERAGE MINIMUM LOT SiZE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10349
LOCATED AT THE WIEST SIDE OF SAPPHIRE STREET, SOUTH OF
JENNET STREET IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 1st day of August, 1985, an application was filed and
accepted on the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of August, 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 flings:
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 or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
3. That strict — literal interpretation and
enforcement of th4 specified regulation would
deprive the appl of privileges enjoyed by the
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
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.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant
impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration has
been issued in conjunction with Tentative Tract 14349 on May 22,
1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
Variance flo. 85 -06
Page #2
APPROVED AND_ADOPTEO THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMM15$ION OF THE CITY Or RANCHO CUCA ".ONGA
BY:
Dennis E. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST,
Jack laam, Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Pl iining Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, * the following vote -to -wit:
AYES COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMIS:YQhERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
M,
21
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA
STAFF REPORT
CLJran'r
*° 0.
a .1
0 0
FI z
U' >
19777
DATE: August 14, 1985
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -09 - BRETHERN IN CHRIST CHURCH
Mod1 ,cat' ion: to approveF— Raster —l"ap to a ow two
temporary trailers for classrooms dur,ag construction of a
Permanent education facility.
I. BACKGROUND_ At the meeting of June 12, 1985, the Planning
Commission granted Design Review approval of new elevations for a
2,800 square foot educational facility. The classroom building was
originally approved by the Planning Commision Oa September 14, .
1983. The applicant is requesting approval of two temporary
trailers during construction of the permanent education facility in
order to begin student enrollment in September. The applicant
intends to remove the trailers upon occupancy of the permanent
educational facility.
II. ANALYSIS.
A. The Development Code permits temporary trailers in conjunction
With religious uses for a specified interim period subject to
and approval of Conditional Use Permit by the The applic n srequestforappr vlof
the trailers constitutes a modification of the previously
approved CUP 83 -09. The request is consistent with City policy
to permit trailers only on a temporary basis pending completion
of permanent facilities. P"hibit 116,1 shows the roposed
trailer locations in relation to the approved Master Plan. The
elementaryr intended
school Of100 students f omckin ergardenrth uv3;A
grade. The existing church structure will continue to be used
for a preschool for a maximum of gs children. Parking
standards require approximately -So stalls for the preschool and
elementary activities, including necessary staff. Presently 74
stalls are provided on site for church related activities.
B. Design Review Commitee: The Design Review Committee reviewed
�e Peropose7c't-ra er esigns and recommends approval.
ITEM H
_a
PLANNING COMMISSION,STAFF REPORT
CUP $3 -09
August 14, 1985
Page 2 I
C. E:iViRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Planning Commission issued a
,;. Negative Dec.laration fo-^ Conditicmal Use Permit 83 -09 on
September 12, 19 -13. No further act in is required.
III. FACTS OR FINDINGS: The proposed use together with the Conditions
of Approval is in accord with the General Plan with the purpose of
the zone in which the vsed'is proposed. Further, the trailers will
not be detrimental to the public heath, safety or general.welfare.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This 'item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Dare, Reiport newspaper, the property posted and notices ware
s'^nt to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.
1
RECOMMENDATIOM: If the Planning Commission can support the facts
far findings, then adoption of the attached resolution of approval
will be in order.
Ret;i tted
DaSenir Planner
DC :kn
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location
Exhibit "8" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" Elevations
Resolution of Approval 83 -112
Proposed Resolution of Approval 83 -112C
t� 'cal
! 'mom - 7
S TE' HGWY, 30 !
o-
,I � r 2 .s s.c .ac • -A
.i o 1• @ ct
336 AC i92
If
UrA
u cup
. . . . . . 'J28..T� \ •� 6 r 1-111. (�LLrLLt-c.- IJ' L.•+ -� I .
0'
e O s ..
to
il U
v
e, ¢ y O'
1► ..d .+�' ®.. ter. .n 'Id� ...a r. es v s._ +
j NURTP. II
CITY O1{ 1TLM:l
di
RANCHO C -f� ��T�it�i 'TITLE=
PLANNINU DIVlM -.,,, G \I.11131T: SCA_LE
K -21)
PHASE IV
PHASE If
7--
0
A,
-4
C
m
-olAAfkN!4kY-1-VA2k,1- 0-joil,
>
2 TO:Lar fwvms
r-
IV li* 43-2
m
��A
P
epocof
4 C4-A-lswzow6
1w. IV - -C;04 aoir.
cc 33
FT.— > <
:27m:; m
;E
>
m
ca x
in
M
0
O OFFICES! NURSERY 7
co
EXISTING PARKING
7-
CITY OF,
AM
R�`.'NCHO CU*CAN10INGA TITLE - , ji�
1A P4W
TG DIV A
PLANNIN ISION
IT.
t.
- •-� 4u \.
_ •_ {,HST i.. j �X �.. V.1 t" G 'f f � '
,
E
I
NORTH
TTTi G
EX-HI IT-. SCALE= °°'
Z
effects upon adjacent proper }ies, the Conditional
Use Permit shall be brougr,w, before the Planning j
Commission for their consideration and possible
termination of such uses. i
:d: H
1�
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -112 ,
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITION; USE PERMIT NO. 83 -09 FOR ALTA LOMA
BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHUaCH LOCATED AT 9974 19TH STRE "T IN
THE R -1 -8500 ZONE
filed by
WHEREAS, on the 8th day of July, 1983, a compete application was
Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church for
project;
review of the above - described
and
Planning
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of September, 1083. the "Rancho Cucamonga
Commission held a public hearing to consider the - above- described
r., project.
follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: "
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the Seneral
Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; and
2. That the proposed uses 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; an.i -
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 14, 1983.
SECTION 3: That Condi,;ional Use Permit No. 83 -09 is approved
subject to the following conditions!
PLANNING DIVISION
1. All laws and regulations o; the State of California
relating to licensing of elementary school
facilities shall be complied with prior to opening
the
of school.
2- If the operation of this school causes adverse `
effects upon adjacent proper }ies, the Conditional
Use Permit shall be brougr,w, before the Planning j
Commission for their consideration and possible
termination of such uses. i
:d: H
xe_rniutlon No.
Page
3.
Operation -of the school °fiall not commence until
such time as all Uniform Po lding—Code and Title 19
of the State fire Marshall's Regulations have been
complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the
Foothill Fire Protection District and the Building
and Safety Division to show compliance.
4.
Expansion of the preschool /gradeschool beyond 200
students will require the approval of _a modified
conditional use permit.
5.
Precise design and site plan review will be required
for all proposed future phases.
6.
The existing .annex building shall be removed pi,ior
to issuance of occupancy permits, `nd final approval
of the main sanctuary (Phase 3 )',
"s,
Conditional Use Permit approval is granted for a
period of eighteen (18) months. Approval shall
expire, unless- extended by the Planning Commission,
if building permits are not issued within eighteen
(18) months from the date of approval.
8.
The site shall be developed in accordance with the
r
approved site plans on file in the 'Planning Division
and the conditions contained herein.
9.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and
irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall
be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of
building permits, prior to final map approval in the
case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use
has commenced, whichever comes first,
10.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
with all sections of the Zoning- Ordinatice, all other
applicable City Ordinances, nd applicable community
plans or specific plans ,itt effect at the time of
Building Permit issuance,.
11.
Prior to any use of the. project sit:; or business
activity being commenced 'thereon, all conditions of
approval contained herein shall be completed to the
satisfaction.of the City planner.
Page 3L7on NO.
Page.
r
12. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners,
shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from
view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties
J
s
and t pt
P P
accordance with the Uniform 'Building Code, City
Grading Standards and accepted qrading practices.
The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved conceptual grading
plan.
91
t
S re_ s as required by the Planning and Building
pivisions. Details shall be included in building
,flans.
13.
A'11 ground mounted utility appurtenants such as
trinsforiners shall be located out of public view of
the main building area and adequately screened
through the use or combination of ccncrete or
masonry walls,'berming, and landscaping.
14.
Emergency access shall be provided. maintenance free
and clear, a minimum of 20 feet wide at all times
during construction in accordance with Foothill Fire
District requirements,
15.
Prior to issuance of 'Building Permits • for
combustible construction, evidence shall, be-
submitted. to the Foothill Fire District than
temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of required fire
protection systems.
16.
The applicant shall compl''with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code., Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code,'' National Electric Code; and
all other applicab'ie codes, ordinances and
regulations in effect at the time of issuance of
relative permits.
17.
"rior to issuance of building permit for a new
Commercial or industrial development or _addition to
an exsiting development, the applicant shall pay
development fees at th established rate. Such fees
may include, but not be limited to: Systems
Ir
Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit aid Plan
Checking Fees.
16.
Grading of the subject property shall be in
accordance with the Uniform 'Building Code, City
Grading Standards and accepted qrading practices.
The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved conceptual grading
plan.
91
t
J
- Resolution No. `
Page 4
ENGINEERING DIVISION "
19. The westerly drive approach shall be completed to
current city standards.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH 'DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1983.
PLAN NG OMMISSION OF THE CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dennis. L.. St ut;'Chai an
ATTEST;r -
Secretaf of the annmmission
9
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, McNIEL, JUAREZ, REMPEL STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
1
L -
;i
RESOLUTION N0. 83 -112C
A RESOLUTION of THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-
09 TO ALLOW TWO TEMPORARY CLASSROOM TRAILERS FOR ALTA
LOMA BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH LOCATED AT 9974 19TH
STREET IN THE R -1 -8500 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the Sth day of July, 1983, a complete application was
filed by Alta Loma. Brethren in Christ Church for review of the above - described
project; and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of September, 19,93, the Ranch Cucamonga
Planning Commission approved a Permanent educational fa,,ility; and
WHEREAS, on the 29th day of July, 1985, .the applicant requested a
modification to their approval to allow two temporary trailers during
construction of the permanent education facility.
follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planni`4 Commission resolved as
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and
the purpt-,ges of the district in which the use is proposed; and
2. That,;the proposed use, together with t" conditions applicable
ther6to, will not be Jetrimentai tie tti� public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to propert1.s or
improvements in the vicinity; and
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicalbe
provisions of the Development Code.
SECTION 2: That this project wiil not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declarat- -was issued on September 14, 1983.
SECTION 3: That the modift ,. "',,Conditional Use--;x;4 ft No.
83 -09 is approved subject to the following,. ;ions:
1. That all original Conditions of Approval contained in Resolution
83 -112 shall be complied with.
2. That the temporary trailers shall be removed within 30 -days of
final occupancy of the permanent building.
3. The applicant shall obtain ail required permits from the
F Building & Safety Division including, but not limited to,
foundation permits.
IA- 1\
E
P
t.
f
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -112C
Page 2
4. Operation of the school and use of the trailers shall not
commence until such time as all Unifaim. Building Code and State
Fire Marshall Regulations have been complied with. Plans shall
be submitted to the Foothill Fire District for plan check prior
to installation of the trailers.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jack Lam, Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission cir the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day.of August, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS•
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
r;
t�yi
EI
�.1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
e a.
1977
DATE: August 14, 1985
,0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 11549 - LEWIS - A request
to modify the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract
11549 to delete the requirement for Development /Design
Review approval prior to recordation of the final trap, for
a residential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots
in the Very Low 'Residential District (1 -2 duiac) within
the Etiwanda Specific Plan located on the southwest corner
of East & Summit Avenues
I. BACKGROUND: 'On May 6, 1981, City Council Resolution 81 -64 was
passed approving Tentative Tract 11549. A Condition of Approval
required that Develpment /Design Review approval be obtained before
each phase of the map could be recorded. Design Review approval
for the westerly 23 lots adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue was obtained
on May 9, 1984 per Resolution No. 81 -17A and the first phase of the
map was recorded as Tract 11549 -1. To avoid expiration, the
applicant is requesting that Design Review approval be required
prior to issuance of building permits rather than prior to
recordation.
II. ANALYSIS: On May 20, 1985, the tentative map was extended to
September 16, 1985. Per State law, this is the final extension
that may be granted. The recordation of the final map must be
approved by the City Council meeting of September 4th, otherwise
the map will expire.
Per the Conditions of Approval, the map may not record prior to
Development /Design Review approval. Lewi!� Homes has submitted for
Development /Design Review. However, the item is not scheduled
until the Design Review Agenda of September 5th, and the earliest
it could be scheduled for Planning Commission is September 25th.
This is well past the expiration date per the available scheduling
time frame. This map will expire unless an amendment to the
original Conditions of Approval is adopted allowing the map to
record prior to final Development /Design Review consideration.
III. FACTS FOR FINDING: This amendment is consistent with the intent of
the original subdivision approval. The project, as amended,.�,,11
ITEM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Tentative Tract 11549
August 14, 1985
Page 2
not be detrimental to adjacent properties or uses or cause
significant environmental impacts.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Dai v Report newspaper, notices were sent to all property
�> owners within 300 feet of the project site, and the property
posted.
V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider all material and input regarding this project. If the
Commission concurs w' h t;ie findings and Conditions of Approval,
motion of the at ch d resolution would be in order.
f
uaw�otrrcmm� r �-
Senior Planner V
OC:BC:ko
Attachmerts_: Exhibit "A" - Tentative Tract 11549
Letter from Lewis Homes, Dated July 22, 1955
Resolution No. 81 -64
ResolW'.ion No. 81 -17A
Proposed Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Q.
�w
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11549
'
IN fe LOU rr OF {wNCiY CYtwMOkaw.C" it a 0/ .�� N {NNwNOfkO.{twT{ OF C.90 A { Ks -
O 'UNIT or s{ we n
} U
�f
i �... `1L
—7—
I . , i � - r�...r -�. ' L[fty'2. »��. ....� �r ..��s •�w:j, '�•i ;rr�_cC ,I� ....
L...+ .z.�. �1• ... w.7 T!. ~. .a « . .. `�
_ r r t ai..;...�._...• ... -cr.
t bylf - ... -i�J •f „ 1 lbw i • �.� mm-
3 - i . , ✓ aC• a`!a W.
•~ � ~ + i` _ _ •/'<t _ ' a! fit'' � ;�uil[�
I
KI
NORTH
CITY Or ITEM
RANCHO CUC1'- MOTH 7`A TITLE. �
PL AMINE DIV✓LSIOLN EXHIBIT :_ SCALE:
IL
' Z 3
I
Manning Commission
Tentative tracts 11549, 12549 -2
: July 22, 19854
^age Two =
We therefore respectfully r:quest the deletion of these conditions, together' `
with any similar conditions which-�,may have teen imposed with the granting of any of
the many other approvals that this project has from time to time received,
so that we may proceed with the recordation of the maps for these tracts as
! custom lot subdivisions "-,this appearing to be the only way that we can
record the maps before they expire.
We do understa,id and agree that recordation of these maps as custom lot sub-
divisions will effectively . preclude their development With tract homes and
that their development as tract homes will become subject to the completion
of the design review process.
We understand that this request must be brought to the Plaini%, Commission
as a public hearing item, and that it has been so scheduied for the meeting of
August 14. you told me you will review with the City Attorney my question
whether the City Council must also concur in thi's action, 'inasmuch as the
condition was originally imposed under City Council resolution 81 -64., I will
look forward to hearing from you on this question.
Thank you very much for your assistance. If you have any questions, or if
further information of any sort is required, please contact me.
Cordially,'
LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA
J h . Melcher, A.I.A.
Project Development
JRM /mb
11 \,
LEWIS HOMES
1116 Norh Mountain Avenue/ P.O. Box 670 / Upland &hfomk 91785/714 985.0971
HAND DELIVERED
July 22, 1985
e
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Base Line Road
Rancho CucamongL, CA 917'30
Attention: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Subject: TENTATIVE TRACTS 11549, 11549 -2
Dear Dan:
As you know from our telephone conversation earlier today, we are presently
preparing the d2stgn review documents for the captioned tracts, and will
submit them to you later this week. You t3ld me that the earliest Design
Review Committee meeting for which these can be scheduled is September 5
and that the follow -up Planning Commission date would be September 25.
On May 20, 1985 these tentative maps were extended to September 16, 1985.
This extension is the final one that may be granted to these particular
tracts. In order to avoid expiration of the existing approvals, tae final.
maps must be approvod by the City Council at its meeting of September 4 -- in
other words, even before the Design Review Committee has acted. However,
conditions of approval on these tracts currently preclude this possibility,
as follows:
1. On May 6, 1981 City Council resolution 81 -64 (conditional approval, tc nta-
tive tract map no. 11549) was adopted with Planning Division standard
condition E.9 which reads "This subdivision was not submitted as a total
development package and is required to reapply for a point rating relative
to the design section, of the growth management ordinance prior to final
approval and recordation of the map if the subdivision is going to be
developed as tract homes."
2. On May 9, 1984 Planning Commission resolution 81 -17A (approval of design
review for tract 11549 -1) was adopted with Conditien 6, Section 3 reading
The rems`74 -2 phases of tentative tract 11549 were not submitted as a
total development package and require reapplication for development /design
review approval prior to final approval and recordation of the map."
4�Ir a �q
`fog.
MWE
aim <��\
30.
.
YEAR
-
- - RESOLUTION NO. 81 -64.
A RESOUMOY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
• OF RANCHO CUCANONCA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11549,
i/
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11549, hereinafter n•_ro
submitted by Lewis Homes, 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 residential subdivision
of 5' acres located on the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenues
Into 90 lots, came before the City Council on appeal of Manning Commission
.approval of said Tentative Hap; and
-
W',REAS, the City Council s¢: aside the Planning Commission
approval at its meeting of April 1, 1981 -_nd
WHEREAS, the applicant has revised the Tentative Map as requested.
-
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
does hereby resalve as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent wi'.h 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 development
.proposed; -
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
u:
substantial eavirotmmental damage and avoidable injury to
•
twins and wildlife or their habitat*.
• (e:) Thetentstive tract is not likely to causeserious* public
-
helath problems;-
:-
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not-conflict: with
any easement acquired by the public at large, now of
xecord,:or access throuth or use of the property within
_
the prnposed subdivision.
'
(s) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and the Negative Declaration issued. Is upheld
by the Planning Commission. -
••
SECTION 2.' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Tentative Tract Map
No. 11549,
a copy of which is attachea hereto, is hereby approved subject
to all of the folicwingconditions and the
attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
L The Garcia House shall be preserved by relocation to
.another site at the expense of the developer. The developer
shall
work with the Director of Community Services and -
the
-
City Histroic Commission to .find an apo -- "-,:a
location. - -
.•
tom` -
-
1
fIf
I
iIL
c
tesolution No. 81 -6H
lag. 2
2. A detailed plan indicating which trees are needed to be
removed and where new windrows shall be planted, shall.be-
submitted to and approved by ^he City Planner prior to
final approval of map. The develo "_r shall be responsible
for planting new windrows where deemed appropriate by the
City Planner.
3. The Palm trees near the Garcia Rouse shall be relocated y
to the .Etiwanda:Avenue frontage by the developer. This p y
shall be shown on the detailed tree plan. f
4. Corbined- driveways shall be required for lots with vehicular
acetss to Summit and East Avenues.
5- Me tap shall pe revised in s0stancial compliance with
Exhibit "C" and revised Exhibit "D".
6- FrGnt yard setbacks along Summit and East Aveeuea shall
be no 1•ss than 40' -.
r 7. Front yard setbacks. on interior cul-de -sac streets shall.
average 35'.
8.. Side yard setbacks on Corner lots 'Shall be no less than
15', and all other cutbacks shall meet the requirements
of the R -1 -20 Zone.
9. Phasing of the sube.%visio,, shall provide for xonstruction
nd
to occur from Etiwaa Avenue toward East Avenue toallow
for the ultimate ietermination of East A•eenue. Streec
width and improvements through the Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
10. All Street Names shall reflect a Historical perspective.
• 11. Prior tq ;recordation of,the Final Tract trap theappliesnt e:
shall e[�l mit and rece.'•ve approval. of a sane change to R-
1 -20 Irg!Yhe Planning Commission.
12. Street trees along Etiwanda, Summit and East Avenues
shall be of specimen size. A variety of 1-gallon eucalyptus
trees,. 15' o.c. 'shall be planted along the interior
., streets of the subdivision. Appropriate tree wells . to
protect such trees shall also be installed by the Developer. j
13. A temporary cul- da-sac shall be constructed within proposed
street R.O.H. at the north bound
e
_
cry of the tract.
t
14. All cur- de -aaes shall be 50 -foot right:of -way, with 36-
foot Pavement, containing concrete
t
rolled curbs, but no
sidewalks. The major east -vest "S" street shall be 60-
foot right-of-wa y, 36-foot pavement and have a standard
. curb and sidewalk (the eidewalk to use brushed colored
concrete), north side having a concrete rolled curb
and Ito sidewalk.
4.Z.
- ENGINEERING DTViSIDN
_I5. Ultimata Width of East Avenue shall ba determined by
Etiwanda Specific Plan and required
-
c
right- of -wa`i per the
specific plan shall be dedicate4 to the City.
Q__
s�
r
r,
',9
r
,
1 Resolution }o. 81 -6: I
Page 3 J
16. Shallibe damaged rock curb and gutter on Etiwanda Avenue'
Shall be r"ited with similar
type materials to the
:satisfaction of N.: City Engineer..
17. Width of storm c
•and sn easements s
requirements hall b.-� per Oityseandards
18. Street Improvements shall be required contiguous '
parcels which are "not to those
..
a Dario" _•, ,
.. : - ! On tentative map.,
19• The Stub end
street shall have a temporary
bulb as per City standard. cul-de -sac
-.
BUILDIhIN
20. Surety shall be pasted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing.
• completion of all On -Mite drainage facilities neces
for dewatering
sary
all parcels, to the saeisfaeticn o fe the
- building and Safety Division..
21. Appropriate easements,
water that aSa 'COndufor safe disposal of drainage
,nted unto or
over adiacent -parcels,
are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of
the Building and Safety Division...
22. On -site drainage improvementu,necessa
"
or protecting the subdivided properties are to be ring
prior to issuance o be
of building installed
upon any parcel that r g permits for. construct ion
ba suhdeet to, or contributes
to„ drainage flows
end
• relative to which a build n' leaving or within a parcel
g Permit is requested,
25. Final grading
plans for each parcel are to be submitted
to the Building and Safety Division
for approval prior to
Issuance of building permits, (This may be on an incremental
cr Composite. bast&.)
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of N.Y. 1981. �.
Ate: Frost, MSkels, P alosbo, 8r1d 8 . Schlosser
NOES; Hans
I
APSENT• .None
*i-114—echlosser,
ATTEST: 1II& D-
Mayor
• ,
Lauren M. Nasserman, City— C— l'`�
A
m I
o-
ev o
b
ouo o6a
u
d°
or
A P
p w
S
J C A 4 d R
L. O� O.y � •. �
O� G
C= v n
ClOG4
ar
W
�.. � dv�
SL O 1 O
Cr
..°.�
C
_� •�
N,-
GrrV
•'may
I�ai
VWw Y�l1
4CN
Y.�Ny° Yy O.
P
V. C3 �
�� d'
GO' _
na6Ge
V
4L6.0
:5IpT Ew
C%D OY C_y�
•P
=V°.�
«CC
v
° — 4 p �^
O «..@- =
b. '.r rL
CY
4u.
.�.
°
Uri.
YLOOH
6 •nL •
Oy dO. d
«D
ud
[ CqO
LO. �•�.•
~.•Cat.CUC
�S.�r
4
C.r N.C°
rE
CL A.d L u
T.O rrACOiN
Lt' O
4° °y y
Cd
•9t G CO
9A �r
U.
oy
��
s
I�L.�er
N •
O
P. CN
i
L4 C4 UO L4 W
_ 2OV4 Yf
A
C•Y G3L
O ° G.
_
NC
Yw0
N
A
44
•
A �
O
C
OA•!C Lr •..
ry
a• df� 4 w
d
L
A
aO
C
•r.`dSN-2 A
Cry
d O
• «
yQQ0
tYt��n 9 C
L VLgU� UU
Gy L
U � V >D C.0
� G V
®N
EY �q uS
` «.L
O vr. O
O�5`O
t• p_
I
G
YO
IC
4.V;Y
NSq
V 1 LOW ° "w
= 6S V�
O w
9S
NY ~Y
Oar
OCii�c
L v0
Lw
Or.
Pr (d y
� hO CrO
O d�Cd
�,�pLp
6� O u>
�wP
V C�
L Pc
S
.01
wL da'. y�
1'N
�PF(
'
p~t`1
`9
A
••O..°
Writ O
Y
D
LS
darwrffyG qY
d TLC p•
9POy
�
q�
SO b ^r�
«. O.OLLV GB's
lN�GY
V..CS•O^N90OO��
nuo4
Y ^VV •
_
�s.
o
vu
E
A
r
O•
W
s
Y C.✓r
4Yl
p
9` 2
q
eC Y�TUY
y C�� p=
C G.gOG L iw�
Y O C O O 9
G L
C T tiZ
t OV
e y
73 S
b
.1 z
N
`6•rL.
L«N
G tUi
l,1
• .>>
.4
G=
y
a0`60
C O'yu
v��.� yolTf�
> U O g G
Y._ySU
O
i
u�
G VqO.
a
�Or Y
e
Ac-oiCqu
WV ua
c
v_ 1
U �w LNAx.
T�`Otin�tlo=r
i
`tud�,w �
7OU0-t
tL4:4�L�.0 . n c o
M e qol
' OG . . .
p--« .-.,g
r c
oiCvGPum
cn .O:A L
.0`. 9dL . o G
iq
•
a
L L N
• ON
u
N^
u T -
}r� p^ g a T
= M L V t^
A
N
CO
S..C+
1 �q
_
M,O CS�� [ L
9w NNA
L+•�i �4 A44
4009..1LL Vii.
L >
r1 .. j•
� t
A
m I
RESOLUTIOR NO. 81 -?7A
,J
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA +CONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11549 -1 LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF ETIWANOA AVENUE IM THE VERY LOW DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 13th day /lof April, 1984, a complete i +vplication was
filed by Lewis Homes for review o;' the above- described project, and
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of May, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
•__ v_,u _
Commission held a r- „eetiog to consider the` above- described project.
follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
SECTION 1: That the following can be met:
1. That the proposed project is consistent with the
objectiveg of the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific
III Plan;
2. That the proposed use is in accord with the
objectives of the 'Etiwanda Specific Plan and the
purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
3. lbat 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;ot be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or w�eifare, or materially
injurious to properties ,or improvements in the
.vicinity.
SECTION 3: That Design Review for Tract 11549 -I. is approved subject
to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions
1. Front yard landscaping is required where houses face
Etiwanda Avenue pursuant to to Etiwanda Specific
Plan. A detailed landscale and irrigation plan
shall be coordinated with the trail plan and
submitted to the Planning Division for approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
z
Resolution No.
Page 2
BY
2. Local feeder trails and community trails, including
Etiwanda Avenue, shall be provided in accordance
with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and city
- '.Adards. A detailed equestrian trail plan
indicating widths, maxinum slopes, fencing and weed
control, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Planning Division prior to approval and
recordation of the final tract map.
3. Street trees, a minimum of 15- gallon size, shall be
required at an average of every 15 feet of local
street frontage in accordance with the Etiwanda
Specific Plan. A detailed landscape and irrigation
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Streetscape landscaping on Etiwanda Avenue shall be
required in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific
Plan. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
approval prior to issuance of building permits..
5. Driveways shall not exceed 16 in width through
public parkway frontages per Etiwanda Specific Plan
requirements.
6. The re- wining phases of Tentative Tract 11549 were
not submitted as a total development package and
require reapplication for Development /Design review
approval prior to final approval and recordation of
the nap.
7. • All Engineering Division conditions of approval for
Tentative Tract 11549 pertaining to-Phase I shall
apply, in particular with regards to street
improvements, drainage, utilities and flood control.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS sth DAY OF MAY, 1984.
TNt COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Ai TEST
I -1'-t
12
RESOLUTION NOo
Ask
A RESOLUTION OF THE :PLANNING COMMISSIO N THE E CI Y T OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CPLIFORNIA, AMENDING•THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11549
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11549 hereinafter "Map" submitted by
Lewis Homes of California, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real
property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, I
State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 52 acres
located on the southwest corner of Summit & East Avenues into 90 lots,
regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on
May 6, 19.81; and
ii WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has recommended
approval of an amendement to the Conditions of Approval of the Map subject to
all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports;
ii and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered' the
Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considers ether evidence
presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: Tire Planning Commission makes the following findings in
regard to Tentative Tract No. 11549 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 General Plan, Development Code,
..and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitab fore the type or
development proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to causE-
substantial environmental damage and avoidable
! injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The tentative tract is not 'likely to cause serious
public health, problems;
f- (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.
sa
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
August 14, 198s
Page 2
SECTION 2: The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No..
11549, a copy of which is attached hereto, are hereby amended as follows:
1. Conditions "E -911 of the Standard Conditions of Resolution 81-6,tE
and "Section 3 -611 of Resolution 81-17A requiring
Bevel opment {Design Review approval prior to recordation of the
map shall be deleted.
2.. A new Condition of Approval shall be added as fq;7ows• Any
future plans for tract development shall require an application
for Development /Design Review approval prior to issuance of
buiWing permits.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
(tennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jack Lama Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was 'duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the.Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: •COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
7
p f
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
By;
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
• ��Kf�f J'TT � •
ear _J
August 14;, 1985
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Howard L. Fields, Assistant Tanner
CONDITIONAL ;USE PERMT 85 -11 - SHEPHERD` OF THE HILLS
CHURCH - -To a l� ow construction of a ,458 square foot
addition to the existing church on 2.1 acres of land in
the Low Residential District (2 -4 cu /ac), located at the
northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Avenue - APN
201- 821 -050.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of the site plan,elevations.
B. Purpose: To construct a 1,458 square foot addition for
educational use.
C. Location: Northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Avenue
D. Parcel Size: 2.1 acres
E. Existing Zoning: Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
F. Existing Land Use: Churrh'sanctuary
G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North - Vacant, Low Residential
South - Vacant, Low Residential
East - Existing SFR, L-aw Residential
West - Vacant, Low Residential
H. General Plan Designations
Project Site - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
North - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
South - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
East r- Low Residential 2 -4 du /ac)
West - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
ITEM J
Pir
• ��Kf�f J'TT � •
ear _J
August 14;, 1985
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Howard L. Fields, Assistant Tanner
CONDITIONAL ;USE PERMT 85 -11 - SHEPHERD` OF THE HILLS
CHURCH - -To a l� ow construction of a ,458 square foot
addition to the existing church on 2.1 acres of land in
the Low Residential District (2 -4 cu /ac), located at the
northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Avenue - APN
201- 821 -050.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of the site plan,elevations.
B. Purpose: To construct a 1,458 square foot addition for
educational use.
C. Location: Northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Avenue
D. Parcel Size: 2.1 acres
E. Existing Zoning: Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
F. Existing Land Use: Churrh'sanctuary
G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North - Vacant, Low Residential
South - Vacant, Low Residential
East - Existing SFR, L-aw Residential
West - Vacant, Low Residential
H. General Plan Designations
Project Site - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
North - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
South - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
East r- Low Residential 2 -4 du /ac)
West - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
ITEM J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Conditional Use Permit 85-11
August 14, 1985
Page #2
I. Site Characteristics:_ The existing Shepherd of the Hill's
church occupies the project site, which is fully developed with
all on -site and off -site improvements in place.
II. ANALYSIS -
A. General: The project proposal is a 1,458 square foot addition
to the existing church. The .existing site plar� provvies for 80
parking spaces, although only 43 spaces are required o service
the existing church. Parking for the addition will be
accommodated within the existing church parking area (Exhibit
"B "). The new addition it slated for educational purposes.
B. Design Review Committee: Design Review Committee recommended
approval subject to the new educational addition being designed
to integrate architecturally with the existing church structure
(Exhibit "C "). In addition, the Committe±, recommended that the
landscaping be enhanced and properly ',aaintained. These
recommen&a ons have been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval, whit% are listed °a the attached Resolution.
C. Environmental Review: Environmental review is not required for
additions and enlargements which are 10,000 square feet in size
or less.. The project described above meets this criteria.
III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposal is conditionally permitted and
designed in., accordance with the Low Residential district
regulaVans. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
Development Code. The project will not be detrimental 'to adjacent
properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In
addition, the proposed use azid site plan, together with the
recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.and City standards.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were gent to property
owners within feet of the subject property. p y
V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission
conduct a public hearing to receive all public input on this
matter. If after such consideration the Commission can support the
r Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the
attached Resolution is recommended.
f
i�f .
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF F PORT
Conditional Use Permit 85 -11
August 14, 1985
Page #3
Respectf bmitted,
Dan olemaa
Seni r Planner
DC:HF:cv
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - 'Location Map -
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Elevation
Resolution of Approval
r-f-I N YA-
1.tLTCAiN/10,NTGA
er;ue-
ff fly
IT a - I - P 9'.5 -
z &
TITLI:;
NORTH
I
Ex
12
E
It s
Q
fill
1
F'�{ : t
#f L = 'tc.l
s �
" 1• Via. ' z: '..�i -1:
F11NEJ —Eme:
L f
E z✓
'�
4
44.
IIq r—
'Et
1
kL
1
F'�{ : t
#f L = 'tc.l
s �
" 1• Via. ' z: '..�i -1:
F11NEJ —Eme:
1
Cjn qi. _ • Y - .
t' !
uld Cal S�m
OL- ff ^�, b Cu+cJotucxH t}
I I 1 I I I �'+WaaU YrtoL i� {f Ii i:i
Jas•
r
4
IIq r—
'Et
1
1
Cjn qi. _ • Y - .
t' !
uld Cal S�m
OL- ff ^�, b Cu+cJotucxH t}
I I 1 I I I �'+WaaU YrtoL i� {f Ii i:i
Jas•
r
4
�t.
,.r
Al
xG-vt s
JA
h I[
h
il�t
e
RESOLUTION NO.
A ° ESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
fePPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85 -11 FOR SHEPHERD
OF THE HILLS CHURCH LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
HAVEN AVENUE A.ND BANYAN AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1985, a complete application was
filed by Steve Falk_ & Associates for review of the above - described ;project;
and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of August, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public !fearing to consider the above- descr; bed
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamcaga Manning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and
the Er poses of the district in which the site is
r" 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
! applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
SECTION 2: That the existing Shepherd of the Hills Church was
issued a Negative Declaration on July 9, 1980, and that this proposed addition
is categorized exempt from C.E.Q,A. (Section 15301.e).
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85 -11 is approved
subject tote c owing conditions:
1. Provide landscaping adjacent to south Arid west
elevations of proposed buildings.
2. Submit revised landscape plan, subject to City
Plann vls review and approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
I
i
J_7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
CUP 85 -11
Page #2
3. Provide landscaping within median planter on Haven
Avenue.
4. ouilding materials and' color shall match exi --ting
building.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis E. out, airman
ATTEST:
Jack Lam, Secretary
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commissfti 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 aregular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote- to -wit:-
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
J
— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 14, 1985
TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner
BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY: INTERIM POLICIES -
Commission review of interim policies to be applied to
development projects along Foothill Boulevard prior to
adoption of Foothill Boulevard Plan.
I. BACKGROUND: This report is provided as a follow -up from the August
workshop. A revised draft of the Interim+ Policies is
provided for Commission revizi. No formal action is requested at
this time, but a hearing must be conducted to receive public
input. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development
Committee will review the Interim Policies next Wednesday (Aug,!st
21st). Planning Commission action could socur at the August 28,
1985 meeting in the form of a recommendation to the City Council
for adoption of an Ordinance containing the Interim Policies.
Completion of the Foothill Boulevard Pian will take between 12 to
18 months, depending on the scope of the study and the level of
detail desired. In the interim period, however, projects gill
continue to be submitted for City review, including projects with
no unresolvable problems. bevelopment of some projects may be
consistent with the City's long -term goal fot Foothill Boulevard,
and their approval desirable prior to the completion of the
Foothill Boulevard Plan. In order to deal objectively with the
issues and guide the decision making process in the interim period,.
policies need to be adoptEl.
II. GOAL STATEMENT: An overall and general goal statement is provided
for discussion purposes as a prelude to the interim policies.
Since it serves as a glide for development of the interim policies,
Commission consensus will be required. In spite of the complexity
of issues, it should be kept as simple and as tangible as possible.
•III. INTERIM POLICIES The Interim Policies have been broken down into
fine categories: General Requirements, Land Use Amendments, Master,
Plan Development, New Development, and Non - Conforming.
Lots /Structures. To guide the decision making 'process, "the
policies must be written in a manner allowing clear interpretation
of the intent. This is particularly true, given the twelve to
eighteen month time frame of the Foothill Study and the number of
k
ITEM K
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Foothill Blvd, Corridor Study: Interim Policies
August 14, 1985
Page 2
applications, which are pending and /or likely to be submitted. The
following is an outline of each section.
A. General Requirement: The policies begin with the General
Requirements which cover three topics, preliminary reviews,
time limits, and compatibility. The preliminary review
requirement was requested by the Plannning Commission and
covers all new projects. The policy could be limited in scope
if desirable for only certain projects, like multi- family
residential and mini - warehouses. Policy A -2 establishes a one-
year initial approval limit to allow re- assessment of projects
soon after completion of the Foothill Study. Extensions up to
the normal 4 -year total could still be granted if the findings
,. can be met. Regarding compatibility, Policy A.3 reinforces
land use and design solutions currently in practice. This
policy is under the General Requirements section since it
applies across the board to land use, master planning, and new
development.
B. Land Use Amendments: As written, Policy 8.1 "discourages"
General Plan Land Use Amendments. Two G.P.A.s, however, have
been submitted and will be reviewed on September 25, 1985, so
findings are provided if the Commission is in favor of a
particular project. Two other options would be to not allow
submittal of any amendments (i.e. moratorium), or rely on the
current procedure, in which case the Commission most likely
will review a greater number of application during preparation
of the study. Regarding Development District Amendments,
Policy 8.2 allows adjustments of boundaries within the
guidelines of the General Plan Land Use Map. This provision is
intended to be a useful tool during the Master Plan process by
allowing flexibility. Another area not covered, but which the
'Commission may wish to review is restrictions on certain land
i
uses in the General. Commerical and Office Districts. The use
matrix for the Development Code is attached for your review.
The intent would be to discourage low intensity uses, such as
mini- warehouses, contractor's yards, second hand stores, etc.
C. Master Plan Development: The Master Plan requiremew.,
contained in the interim policies are similar to those approved
for Haven Avenue. The emphasis is on problem solving,
particularly in regard to strip commercial which is typlified
by fragmented develoment on a lot by -lot basis, inconsistent in
_ design and improvements, and parking along the street scape.
In addition, master planning is necessary to achieve overall
City benefit and increase the efficiency of site planning with
combined-circulation and access period.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Foothill Blvd. Corridor Study; Interim Policies
August 14, 1985
Page 3
D. New Development: Architecture and site planning is discussed
in the section concerning new development. Basic design
philosophies are discussed including; building design features,
architecture, pedestrian orientation, combined access, public
transit and streetscape design and landscaping The final
Foothill Corridor Study will be more specific in terms of
design detail and dealing with special issues such as
architectural style and streetscape design. At this point, the
intent of the Interim Policies is to promote consistent high
quality design.
E. Non - Conforming Lots /Structures: Considering the Planning
Commission stressed urban design as a major issue, the adopted
Foothill Plan must provide a strategy to deal with .existing
non- confcrming lots and structures. At this point, it is
difficult to establish meaningful criteria. However, three
interim' policies are provided which would restrict new
development on non - conforming parcels unless it is part of an
overall Master Plan and lots are consolidated to meet minimum
lot size and dimension requirements of the Development Code.
In practice, this would be difficult to accomplish prior to
completion of the Foothill Plana Many of the small lots along
Foothill 31vd. are only 7500 square feet (501 x 1501), whereas
commercial and office property must be a minimum of 40,000
square feet (1751 x 2001 minimum dimensions).
In addition, the Development Code ailows reduced building and
landscape setbacks on non- conforming lots which Policy E.2
' would override. Regarding re- design of existing buildings,
Policy E.3 requires landscaping along the street frontage.
Since major expenditures to a building could substantially
extend its existence, the intent of the policy is to provide
some consistency with current standards.
IV. 5E . DA TI N: As me,'►tioned, the purpose of this meeting is to
r c ve publ'c comments and additional Commission input. The
olicie w• then be re- worked and other topics covered as
P (spectfu ecess then
action could occur at the August 28th meeting.
�• R sub tted
Otto Kroutil
Senior Plan er
OK:CJ:ko
jkw3
„t
e _
FOOTHILL CORRIDOR INTERIM PQlICUS
IHTRC JCTION
The following Goal Statement and Interim Policies are provided to guide the
decision making process during preparation of the Foothill Boufevard Corridor
Study. The policies address basic land use and urban design issues unique to
the Foothill Corridor, and are intended to be applied in conjunction with the
Development Code, whichever is more restrictive.
The boundaries of the Study Area include c ^mmercia►, offic -, and residential
properties along Foothill Boulevard, raiiging from the west city limit at Grove
Avenue to Deer Creek Channel, and from the Devore Freeway to the east city
limit at East Avenue (Exhibits A -1, AA2).
GOAL STNTEMENT
Goals define community aspirations and intentions. The following Goal for
Foothill Boulevard attempts to boil down a complex set of issues dealing with
land use, urban design, traffic and circulation, and economic viability into a
k
comprehensive, understandable and achievable statement.
is
E'
Establish a high quality, attractive, and unifying design image
reflective of Community heritage, and provide a viable setting
for a balanced mixture of residential and commercial activities
with safe and efficient traffiz circulation and access.
Based on this goal, the following Interim Policies are provided to address
development related issues during preparation of the Foothill Corridor Study.
INTERIM POLICIES
A. General Requirements:
Preliminary Review A.1
Prior to processing Deve'uopment /Design
Review applications within. the study
area the Plaeninq Commission shall
..
conduct a Preliminary Review to;
determine consistency with the Interim'
Goal and Policies contained herein. The
intent is to provide direction to the
applicant and staff early in floe review
process and avoid undue time delays or
expenditures.
A.2
Submittal requirements - for a
Preliminary Review shall include a Site
Utilization Map and Conceptual Site
Plan, and a description of the proposed
use. Additional information may be
requested as deemed necessary by the
city Planner.
r
Time Limits /Extensions A.3
Approval of development proposals shall
lapse one (1) year from the date of
approval. The intent is to allow early
t
re- evaluation of projects not yet
'with
constructed for consistency the
adopted foothill Corridor Study or
other then current City standards.
AVL
A.4 Time extensions for any development
proposa1'within the study area subject
to a lapse of approval n~ y be granted,
in twelve (12) m&-a increWOnts and not
to exceed a to «al of four (4) years
from th-- original date of approval,
subject to the following findings:
a. The proposed land use, project
design, and conditions of approval
compi,y witty all applicable
provisions of the Foothill Corridor
Interim Policies;
„ b. The project is consistent with the
then current policies, standards,
and requirements of the Planning
(emission and Development Code;
c. The granting of sale time extension
will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious too
properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
B. Land Use Amendments:
The icn:ent of the following policies is to provide a viable setting for a
balanced mixture of residential, commercfal, office, and other activities of
community wide significaiu a compatible with surrounding land uses.
it, Alft
M1
`ti
AWW
d. Current economic:, marketing, and
inventory conditions have made it
unreasonable to develop the project
prior to this time.
Compatibility:
A.5 All land use and development proposals
shall be compatible with ultimate uses
on surrounding properties, particularly
residential uses, aa4"' mitigate
potential conflicts to the extent
practical. Mitigation measures may
typically include, but are not limited
to, Master Planning, transition of
building height, architectural form and
density, landscape teFfers, sound
attenuation, reduction of wind
turbulence, visual Harriers and /or
grading conditions to disrupt line-of-
sight concerns, and alternative
�.
circulation and ac, ^,ess.
B. Land Use Amendments:
The icn:ent of the following policies is to provide a viable setting for a
balanced mixture of residential, commercfal, office, and other activities of
community wide significaiu a compatible with surrounding land uses.
it, Alft
M1
`ti
General Plan
DevelPopment Districts
B.1 Applications for General Plan !and Use
zAmendments ar4 - discouraged. Prior to
approval of any such amendment,
however, the Planning Commission shall
make the following findings:
a. The proposed amendment is clearly
consistent with the intent and
purpose of the interim policies for
the Foothill Boulevard corridor.
b. The proposed land use is compatible l
with ultimate uses on surrounding
property.
c. The proposed land use will not
create significant traffic or
ci,zulation impacts.
d. The proposed land us-., will not be
detrimental to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
B.2 pevelopment District Arneildments
b0plaries may be considered if
consistent with the General Plan Land
;i Element and Interim Policies, and
AL
where necessary to achieve more logical }r.
and efficient land use and site
planning patterns. The intent is to
allow flexibility during the Master
Planning process and provide a tool to
achieve the objectives of the Interim
Policies.
C. Master Planned Developments
The purpose of this section is to provide for integrated development at the
earliest possible time in the review process.. Master planning of defined
areas will avoid development of single parcels of land in a manner which
prevents or precludes future development of adjacent parcels in the best way
feasible. The specific intent is to recognize 'and solve problems before they
occur and take advantage of opportunities while they xIst:
Aak
City Benefit Master Planning in conjunction with
development proposals is required to
achieve overall City bend' w by ,
coordinating land use and site planning
to enhance opportunities for quality
C'velopment consistent with the
standards for Foothill Boulevard, de-
emphasi : a "strip- commercial" by
creating organized groups of structures
i
and uses, and provide for efficient
f�utilization of land.
s,C%
Boundaries
Content
E�.
r
C.Z A conceptual Master Plan shall be
required for Planning Commission review
ir conjunction with development
proposals wherever necessary to assure''
Integrated development, enhance
harmonious and orderly development,
mitigate site constraints on adjoining
property and maximize land potential.
The area of Master i1ans shall not be
confined by individual lot lines, but
determiner► b" planning,
boundaries and site conditions as
req, ,i3red by the City Planner.
C.3 At a minimum, Master Flans shall
indicate concepC al building locations
and orientation, overrll circulation,
,,points of ingress and -;,•ess, parking
lot layouts, train.. �t steps, landscaped
areas, and pedes -rian nodes, and
circulation. In addition, the City
Planner may require ocher information
as deemed necessary to assure
consistency with the intent of these
policies.
1 o
Transit stops. Amenities shall be,
provided such.,as plazas, shaded seating
alco:ks, expanded walkways with surface
\\ treatment, texturized pa;nent across
tL
J�a-
D. New Development:
The- intent of the
following policies' is to establis €i a high quality,
-
attractive and unifying
design image which promotes a sense of identity and
reflects community her-itacge
a id provide for safe and efficient traffic flow
and optimum vehicular
and pedestrian access within the corridor,
Architecture
0.2; ^- `Try architecture of new _construction
l_
shall reflect the heritage of Rancho
Cucamonga and relte to nearby
structures of community significance.
Design elements may. include, bUt are
not limited to, river rock /fieldstone
wails, exposed beamwork, vine arbors,
i overed walkways, or arcades;
curvilinear gables, and paste colors.
Pedestrian Orientation
°D.2 Site planning, including building
e
orientation and parking lot
configuration, shall enhance pe ,1s.trian
conneccions on- and off -site. A
continuous pedestrian system is
required in all new projects with
co;,aections `between - buildings, parking
areas, s, sect adjacent sidewaU -s and ,,
Transit stops. Amenities shall be,
provided such.,as plazas, shaded seating
alco:ks, expanded walkways with surface
\\ treatment, texturized pa;nent across
tL
J�a-
drive aisles, raised planters, trash
receptacles, and drinking fountains.
I, addition, outdoor eating areas are
encouraged.
i
U-^bined Access D.3 Through the master planning process
driveways onto Foothill Boulevard shall
be coordinated for consistency with
existing City access policies (i.e.,
300' driveway sepa ation) to the extent
practical, regardless of parcel width.
Public Transit 0.4 Public transit facilities shall ',e
considered within all muster "
Amok
Convenient pedestrian access r )e
provided from designated -transit
facilities, such as bus stops.
Str --tsca;.e: Design D.5 Ctreetsc4pe design elemeo" within all
,new prv3ects 3:x:11 be coordinated for
consistency along Foothill Boulevard
including intensified iandscaping with
spewing, size trees, berming, and
meandering sidew lks. in addition,
k
ctri!et furriturz and alluvial rockscape
n +; signs are encouraged.
Lartdscaping D.6
Laadscaping be designed to create
Ar
visual interest and ;variety to the
„
streetscape, enhance building
sti
architecture, buffer views +►f
automobiles, screen utilities and
service areas, -and distlnnuish
-'
pedestrian spaces from ve' Acular•Areas.
E. Nan - Conforming Lots /Structures
The purpose. ;- this section is to
al ".ow continuance of existing uses, / and
u
structures under current- -,';'.Witions, ' and, promote consistency of desig%i a6
technical standards throughout the
study 'area at the time of; development,
conversion, or redesign.
Master Planning E.1 =_„
New development and /or conversion of
ekistirig "residential builuings to a new
use is ` permitted on non- conforming
lots, provided sue!* )evelopment is. an
integral; part of A Master . Planner
development consistent with these
policies art; Development Code
.;
standards. The bout.daries of such a
c
Master Plan shall be determined by the
ri,ity,Planner per policy C.2 above,, and
should provide for consolidation, ,of
substandard parcels. ,
r
,
Landscaping E.2 Regardless of parcel depth,' all new
p
dEVelo meat shad provide a inin;musr, 45'
building setback , and average
streetscape Iandscaping (measured from
the ultimata curb face, location) on
Foothill Boulevard.
E.3 atreetscape landscaping and irrigation
shall be required to the extent'
practical in conjunction with
substantial reconstruction, renovation
or exterior remodeling of existing
structures Tong Foothill Boulevard
involving the issuance of a building
Aft
permit. SP
13
E
Clrl i OF- ter.- -- . •• .. J 11 li
ITErbt.
RANCHO CUCMILU GA TITLE:
PLANNING DIVISION ExHI61T ��, SCALE
NORTH
Miller Ave.
a
�o
to
4
�fL
��•' 77`7
r\nR'FH
CITY OF, ITEM:
RAN -CHO CUCAMONGA TITxj :
'LANNINU DIVISIaN Exmm -T- sc. LS
. ,t
Section 17.10.030
i
C. General Commercial District,, (GC):, This. district is intended for general,
commercial activities and services of a more intensive nature. These uses Would
he located ly
C?
primeg along major transportation routes and would include major
shopping facilitit= major service- priented uses, major financial �.nd corporate
headquar'em which are designed to serve the City or the region as. A whole.
Section 17.10.080 Use, Regulations
4
Uses listed in Table 1T.10.030 shall be allowable in one o_ more of the commei_lal
i districts: as indicated in the columns "_ beneath each. commercial district. Where indicated,
with the letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use in that district. Where indicated
with the _letter "C , the use shall be: a condetional use subject to the Conditional. Use
Permit process. In the event there is difficulty in categorizing a given use in one of the
districts, the procedure outtiii;:d in Section 17.Q2.04a shall be followed3.
Ttik;LE 1 10.080 S GULATTCI FOR CQKMRCUI /OFFICE DISTRICTS
USE OP xc GC
V A. Offices and Related Uses
1. Administrative and executive offices. P p p
i
i
2. Artist and photographic studios, not P p P
including; the sale of equipment or
supplies..
3. Clerical L-id profassioral offices. P P p
4. Financial serw'ces and institutions. P P p
5. Medical,; dental and el &ter: health P P P
services (non- am'inel related) including
laboratories- and clinics; only the sale of
article el4arly incidental to the sorviees
provided shall be permitted
6. 'Prescription.. ph&rmacies, (also when P P P
located, within a building containing the
offices of 5 of more medical practitioners)
T. Public :3uildings (library, city and county P
buildings. special di~ °wicts ,; past
office). ,
8. Publie utilitysecvree offices. F P P
9.. Public safety facility (police, fire, C i D C
cmbulanee and paramedics).,
Section V .030
.USB
OP
KC
GC
10.
Related commercial uses (blueprinting,
P
P
P ~
stationary, quick copy, etc.) when
incidental to an office building or
complex.
B. General Commercial Uses
1.
Antique shops
-
P
P
Z.
Adult business (see special -requirements
-
-
C
.
per Section 17.10.030)
3.
Animal Care Facility (animal hospital,
veterinarian, commercial kennel,
grooming).
(a) Excluding exterior kennel, pens, or
C
P
P
runs.
(b) Including exterior kennel, pens, or
-
-
C
runs.
4.
apparel stores.
-
P
P
5,
Art, music and photographic studios and
C
P
P
supply stores.
6.
Appliance stores and repair.
-
C
P
7.
Arcad ?s (see special requirements per
-
C
C
Section 17.10.030 F.)
S.
Athletic and Health Club, gyms and
P
10
P'
weight .reducing clinics.
3.
Aut) motive services (including
motorcycles, boats, trailer and camper)
(a; : sales
C.
-
C
(b) rentals
-
-
C
(c) repairs (major engine :work, muffler.
-
-
G
shops, painting, body work and
-.
upholstery)
(d) Coin -op washirt
C
C
C
.
(e) Automatic washing
C
C
C
Section 17.10.030
USE
CP
NC
GC
(f) Service or gasoline dispensing
C
C
P
stations (including minor repL-r
such as tune -ups, brakes, batteries,
tires, mufflers)
(g) Parts and supplies
-
P
P
10.
Bakeries (retail only).
-
P
P
11.
Barber and beauty shops.
- P
P
P
12.
Bicycle shops.
P
P
P
P
P
13.
Blueprint and photocopy services
14.
Boat and camper sales and serVeas.
-
-
C
15.
Book, gift and stationary stores (other
C
P
P
than adult related material).
1.6.
Candy stores and- contectionaries.
-
P
P
J
17.
Cater`ivig Establishments.
-
P
18.
Cleaning and press4ng establishments.
C
P
P
1?.
Carpenter shop or cabinet shop.
-
-
P
20.
Cocktail lounge (bar, 1wmge, tavern)
k
including related entertainment.
'
(a) Operated independent • of a
C
-
C
yrestaurant
`
(b) A.cee_sory to a restaurant
C
C
C
21.
Commet+ is? recreation facilities.
(a) indoor uses such as bowling,
C
C
P
therters, billards,
(b) Outdoor ?LSes such as golf, tennis,
C
Z
C
basketball, baseball, trampolines,
etc.
22.
Contractor yards (screening of outdoor
-
C
storages requi.•id).
r:
Section 17.10.030
USE
OP
HC
GC
24.
Department stores.
p
25.
Drive -in businesses, including theaters.
-
C
C
(other than fast food restaurants)
26.
Drug stores and 'tarmacie. -.
_
P
P
27.
Equipment rental yards.
_
_
C
28.
Fast -food restaurants.
C
C
P
29.
Feed /Tack sto-s
_
C
p
30.
Florist shops.
P
P
P
31.
Food stores and supermarkets.
-
P
P
32.
Furniture stores, repair and upholstery.
-
P
P
33.
General retail stores.
-
p
P
34.
Hardware stores.
-
P
p
35.
Home improvement centers.
(a) Material stored and sold within
-
P
P
P,nclosed buildings
(b) Outdoor storage of material such as
-
C
Iumb;ar & building materiels
36.
Hotels and Motels.
C
_
P
37.
Ice Machines ,outdoor).
a
IC
C
38.
Janitoral services and supplies.
C
P
p
39.
Jewelry stores.
P
P
40.
Laundry- self - service.
P
P
41.
Liquor stores.
-
P
p
,
42.
Kiosks for key shops, film drops, etc. in
-
C
C
parking lots.
43.
Locksmith shop -
_
P
P
44.
Mini- storage for public use (no outdoor
_
_
C
storage).
Section 17.10.03E
^�
USE
(3P
NO
GC
€`
45.
Mortuaries and cemeteries.
C
C
C
46.
Motorcycle sales and service.
-
C
47.
Newspaper and magazine stares, printing
-
C
P
and publishing.
48.
Nurseries and garden supply stores;
-
P
P
provi fzd, in the NC district, all
equ! ment, zupplies and material are kept
within an eaclosed area..
F
49.
Office and business machine stares.
C
P
P
50.
Parking facilities (commercial) where fees
C
-
P
•
are charged.
51.
Political or philanthropic headquarters.
C
C
P
52.
Pet shop.
P
P
53.
Plumbing shop and supplies.
-
-
P
54.
Photocopy
P
P
P
`
55.
Printing shops.
-
P
56.
Restaurants (other than fast food).
l
(a) With entertainment and /or serving
C
C
P
of alcoholic beverages
(b) Incidantal serving of beer and wine
P
P
P
j
but withzU a cocktail lounge, bar,
entertainment or dancing
1
57.
Recreational Vi chicle Storage Yard.
C
C
C
}
58.
Shoe stores, sales a.•+' repair.
P
P
59.
Second -hand stores and pewn shops.
-
-
P
60.
Shopping Center subject to provisions in
-
C
C
Section 17.10.030 -F.5.
61.
Spiritualist readings or astrology
-
-
P
forecasting.
62.
Sporting goods stores.
-
P
p
63.
Stamp and coin shops.
-
P
P
-102-
r -
-- -
-
RGUGH DRAFT
FOOTHILL CORRIDOR INTERIM POLICIES
INTRODUCTION
The following Goal Statement 4L%d Interim Policies are provided to guide the
decision making proces, durin�� prepar�.tion of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor
Study. The paticies address basic land use and urban design, issues unique to
the Foothill Corridor, and are - intanded to be applied in conjunction with the
Development ,�Ae,
The boundaries of the Study Area include commercial, office, and residential
properties along Foothill Boulevardl, ranging from the west city limit at Grove
Avenue to Deer Creek Channel, aH From the Devorn Freeway to the east city
limit at East Avenue.
GOAL STATEMENT
Goals define community aspiratio, °r} and intentions. The following foal for
FOLzhill Boulevard atte9pts to boil down a complex set of-issues dealing with
land use, urban design, traffic and circulation, and economic viability into a
comprehensive, understandable and achievable statement.
Establish a high quality, unifying, and attractive design image
reflect,ve of community heritage, ane',?rovide a viable setting
for a balanced mixture of residential and commercial activities
with safe and efficient traffic circulation and access.
Based on this goal, the following Interim Pclicics are provided to address
development related issues during preparation of the Foothill Corridor Study,
e
r^•
DATL:
T0:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT.
CITY OF RANCHO WCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 14, 1985
Chairman and Merr.,;)ers of the Planning Commission
an Cu'ieman, Senior- Panner
Bruce Cook, Associate Plannar
REVIEW OF THE REVISED LANDSCAPE TREATMENT FOR THE BASE
LINE PARKWAY AND MEDIAN
I. ABSTRACT-- The Commission is to review alteri.ative design proposals
for the landscaping treatments of the parkway, redian and theme
park for Base Line Road within Terra Vista from Haven to
Rochester. The Commisslan's direction is needed as to which of the
Proposed design treatments is the most appropriate.
II. BACKGFOUND Base Line Road is classified as a ;Special BoulEiard"
F�yihe general Plan and is designated for special design treatments
such as a landscapad median island, expanded setbacks, and
meandering - idewalks. The Terra Vista Planned Community text
identifies various intersections along Base Line as "entrance
gateay5" into Terra Vista and these are to r,2ceive even further
design attention as prominent entry statements used to identify and
give a unique character to thr: Planned Czmr:unity,
II1. AVAT PSIS: The landscape treatment for the perimeta:• of Terra. Vista
T' n crucial design element that establishes a character for the
Planned Community. Several problems are associated with the
current landscaping treatment including the following:
. -I. Existing parkways lack rounding associated with
Special Boulevards. „
2. Sidewalks have been constructee with a sync-etric,
serpentine meander that i is created an
"engineering" appearance.
LanJscuk ng treatments at street entrances into
Terra Vista are minimal and do not create . entry
statement commensurate With the quality image
apsired for the Planned Co,anLi;rlty.
Lewis. .Homes has enlisted the aid of R&3dolph Hlu,ik and Associates,
Landscape Architects, to redesign landscaping( sidewalk "�reatnent for Base
Line Road.
ITEM L
0701 -02 o 8- 1.4 -85 PAC. Agenda Packet 0 Page�4 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
BASE LINE PARKWAY AND MEDIAN'
August 14, 1485
Page Z
Fr'
A. {Median Island: A median island planting concept has been proposed
That turf and groundcover with shrubs combined with
textured hardscape (see Exhibits 113" & "K "). Aesthetics `must he
balanced with maintenance costs. Plternative design concepts have
also been included that emphasize water conservation by eliminating
turf in favor of groundcover only combined with textured hardscape
(see Exhibit "J ").
B. Parkway: The parkways are proposed with long, gently meandering
sidewalks with a planting scheme consisting of turf between curb and
walk and groundcover and shrubs between walk and project walls or
fences (see Exhibits "B -E "). The parkway will be bermed wherever
Possible for visual relief.
C. Entrance Gateawa s: The use of entranc-a gateways are proposed at
intersections on a h-ierachical classification of "Theme Park" (Base
Line /Haven), "Secondary" (Base Line /Spruce) and "Minor" (Base
Line /Valencia). The secondary and minor entrance gateways use a
combination of landscaping, fencing and signage to ,nnounce entry
into the Planned Community (see Exhibit "F" ).
'I
D. Theme Park: The Theme Park has been proposed as a dominant focal
point an' entry statement into Terra Vista. A Prima elemfnt of t
park is the banded pattern of annual flowers (see Exf,*Vb t "rig,). Th,
dramatic effect requires replanting four times a yp ar. since this
area would be maintained, by the City, some concern has been expressed
by Public Works Division about the increases maintenance
requirements. Lewis has proposed the use of annuals an a temporary
basis only. In a few years, with the Community established, their
thought is to then remove the annuals and replace them with a
flowering type o, perreniai. To help defray the short term costs,
—Lewis is proposing to subsidize the difference between the standard
assessment fee and the amount necessary to cover tF.e costs of the
increased maintenance.
E. Drysign Review Committee: The design Review Committee has reviewed
the proposed design and recommended approval in consideration of the
following:
1. The proposed median landscaping concept using both
turf and groundcover with shrubs in combination
with the textured hardscape is preferred over
alternatives.
2. Use of annuals in the Theme Park would be
appropriate.
3. Project ).,`is and /or fences fronting on Base Line
in future projects should be staggered to achieve
a variable setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,
BASE LINE PARKWAY AND MEDIAYi
August 14, 1985
Page 3
4. Cul -de -sacs should be open to p�4vide sidewalk
connections. Fencing oii either side of the cul-
de -sac should be wrought iron.
5. Concern was expressed regarding the at -grade j
crossing of the Beer Creek Regional Trail across
Base One and design alternatives should be
considered.
V. RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission feels the design is appropriate, then
approval by minute action would be in order.
espect lly submitt ,
oleman
senior Planner
lk
----�
OC•BC•ko
Attachments: Exhibit "All - Existing & Proposed Treatment
Exhibit "B Haven /Milliken Intersections
Exhibit "C" - Deer Creek Crossing
Exhibit "D" — Spruce /Valencia Intersections
Exhibit "E" - Northside Parkway - 'Gross Section
- Exhibit "F" - Community L,ateway5
Exhibit "G'I Multi- Family Interface
Exhibit "H" - Theme Park - Plan View
Exhibit "I0 - Theme Park - Streetscape
Exhibit "J" - Media.n Landscaping Alternatives
1111 C" Exhibi1111 - ,Median /Cul -De -Sac tanu:caping
Letter from Randolph Hlubik, Dated July 2, 1985
-�
nnnna�flnnnrincrnnnan�onnaannn�nnnnnannnnnn�?nr�nnnnnnnac�nnn
BASELINE ROAD PROPOSED PARKWAYSAAEIDIANS.
r
NURT H,
C'?" y OF {�
RAINCHO CUC.MONG.A ' TITLE- ..........
PLANNING DINISI0IV
EYHTBIT: '� " SCALD a
etnQ ►'
p '
D C
❑
o❑ :� L
❑❑
13 r
o
.. Ile, i s
m a ❑ p
Q❑ 'r D
o I�
Q
❑
o ►
o�
❑
Q
❑ L
tl ;rp
C i
JJ ':� '.
4 �~ :I �.
CITY Or ITFA I: T3As
RANCHO CUCAMOI'GA TITLE: v�
P� ANNA\ - DIVISIaN EXHISIT:
--"
ja�-_ SCALE:_...:
ML
s,
o
0
EZI
❑ � n
J-
' I.
QM
El
13
❑13
tj
pccq; 'I
n Q Q. v
P
Boo a `
Ir-
s Qpp. .
Q ED
I _
M 33
❑ Y n I
1q;
CITY Or, IT>M: RAl 1 H® C T( MO GA _
TITI,1;:
PLANNItiTG &Y
DIVI5Ip�t: '
HIBtT -�SCr1LE-----------�
I
0
IV
0
❑
❑ 1
a
a
o .•
o
❑ {
o
in
o=
o_
C t
a
In
al
0
f '
t
{ i
Ij •. I I51
I,
,I
a
3
Lj
,�y f
CITY Or
T lTE,11�
RANCHO CUC NIOiN(3A TITLES
PLANNING DIVISION S CAL E
C -
=
i
a
,f
Lj
,�y f
CITY Or
T lTE,11�
RANCHO CUC NIOiN(3A TITLES
PLANNING DIVISION S CAL E
C -
=
t
r _
SECTIGV
11, Y
EXHIBIT -_ '' SCALE-
--'2>
••SECONDARY COMMII�ll1Y
GA iEWAY
MINOR comwi t y
ENTRY
CITY ar, ITEM. RANCHO �
4� /�TC[ i r
1ViQ1Gf�. TITLE
PLANNING DIVISI(aX * EXHIBrr --!.L: SCAU:
I
i
%Qp! N
t�I - family ,,.
inter-f _ ce
CI'T'Y OF I s
T TE�kl: �/�s�S_rtit�
RANCHO CLT C A TMO \G ATITi L c-- a�-_FPL1NNI \G DIVISION 3?HI3[T =j.��. �+- �c-1 -�
�
SCALE. ----------_�
a
r_ � r
RAW.+\ . • ��
BWs Lhs Road
NORTH
CITY OF,
RANCHO 1TEm:
PLANNING DIVI5IQ�I TITLE=
i
r
♦.N -
Owns ° O a �v ter, $
` CITY Ali '
RANCHO CUCA.MI OL GA , TITLE: -_ a ��
r�� Pay �c ,;ST2c -c
PLANNING DIVI5IO�I --- ---'�- e�
SCALE:- -
PARKWAY AT CLL DE SAc;
uINEDiA
CA
FORTH
CITY w. .
OT
ITEM. U
a� M�wa IPA�,�a
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Mmv� ,, .Va.SaL
PLANNING DIVISION E�cl 1tt31T: " <„ .
�
�
EM
��
^
�
~^ `
Ju 1y Z, 1985
. .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City - of Rancho . ^ .
' ' '
RE; BAs[ Lla[ ROAD - PARKWAY/MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
. ^
ENVIRONMENTAL /. PLANNING ' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE '
Gentlemen:
'
�
The have
in-respons�,, to a request by Lewis Homes io strengthen thq-streetscape
staterrent along Base Line Road. These plans* addi-ess Ahe problems seen in
completed portions of Base Line Road, while providing a sitreetscape of the
quality Lewis Homes feels is befitting the Terra Vista Community and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Design
yn Vhjectives: '
l. Maintain design standards of the Terra Vista Cormunity
-^ ..~"e," concept of oo/v simplicity and reduce busyness �of .
existfog
u^ Provide.unifying detail and community identity.
.^ Improve . `.
designs
"=."ev^nce and construction cost effent1ueneos of existing
Through the design following �luwioV cuncepts have been developed nd
.""vryvr^te d into the streetscape planning: "
l. Long radius meandering sidewalks (600' radii)-
- These walks will reduce the busyness and unrythmic wandering found
in existing parkway walks.
2. Simplified planting scheme:
- This consists of using turf between curb and walk and d
shrubs between walk and project wzlim or fences. "lo udS'»un cover and
spacing has been incre6we4 to "read" bette u , t o�z�on~ tree
become consistent v�t� the Terra Vista Community tmo��c, and
ommuoYty Plan.
^ `
Wmok
MISSION ..
INN ROTUNNDA, SUITE 205 . `
~=^" MAIN m/mEE/ ,�m�*�/u��u^ur��x�'*���p�
.~~ , _ ` (7/4) 7ZIl-1930
' DEfIGN REVIEW BOARD
Re. Base Line Road July 2. 1985
s Page 2
3. iricreased interest in streetscape:
- Achieved through subtle grade manipulation of walks and berms, variation
in parkway width, opening and accenting cul -de -sacs and entries.
4. Graduated planting buffer:.
Primary functional role of planting; as a screen or buffer of gradually
increasing height and density from curb to'wall. This softens the 'alley'
effect common to reverse f antage situations.
5. Simplification of installation and maintenance:
- Achieved by reducing overall-design complexity, eliminating mow curbs,
separating planting types.
6. Increased community identity:
- Community entries accented with unified theme in planting and wall detailing.
Generally these designs have aeen favorably received by City Staff. .However,
one item which has been a topic of discussion is the maintenance requirements
of the proposed designs. Maintenance personnel would like to see turf eliminated'
and the increased use of textured hardscape in both parkways and medians to
reduce the total landscaped area (to reduce maintenance costs and conserve seater):
These are good points to'cor -ider; however, they may be inappropriate or
unnecessary if applied in th.s situation, as noted below:
1. Turf water requirements can b;: minimized by selection of drought tolerant
varieties.
2. Turf maintenance requirements have been significantly reduced from existing
designs.
3. Primary function of planted parkway area is as a buffer of 'green relief'
between street and housing - increasing hardscape reduces this vital
buffer zone.
4. Maintenance of irrigation and utilities :orated within median and parkway
areas becomes significantly more difficult and costly with an increase in
hardscape area because 'access to buried items is restrictive.
5. Use of hardscape in parkway areas would detract from the simple flowing
lines of the proposed design, and retu:•n to the overly 'busy' ap;)earance
of the existing parkway.
.We believe that these are compelling reasons for the principal design concepts
set forth in the exhibits which are now before you for consideration. Never-
theless, mindful of the concerns expressed by staff, we have included a series
of alternate concepts for development of the median (Drawing L -4). These
illustrate• hardscape percentages ranging up to 65% of the total median area
(the principal concept is 20% hardscape), and crfer a series of options as to
plant materials. We respectfully request your particular attention to this aspect
of the proposal, and the expression of your preferred approach.
CO AM 11
e
Sco t n, ASLA
r KA l� 486
Ran Niuuik, ASLA
RL #1512
MISSION INN ROTUNDA. SUITE 205
3616 MAIN STREET, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORN14%
`, 1714) i'81 -1930
0
E.
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Z0 G� MO�09
{
O O
`vI 1 >> 1
1977
DATE: August 14, 1985
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner
BY: Rubin Yu, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Property Acquisition for an Elementary School Site in
Terra Vista
I. ABSTRACT: This report provides general information about a
proposed elementary school site in the Terra Vista Planning
Community. The Commission will be asked to make recommendations to
the Central School District.
II. BACKGROUND: On July 25, 1985, the Central School District informed
the City of its intent to acquire an elementary school site in
Terra Vista (Lot 2, Parcel Map 8842). State law (Education Code
Section 39004) require; School Districts to notify the City
Planning Commission before acquiring property for a new school
site. The City does not Kave jurisdiction over approval or denial
of the site selection. However, the City Planning Commission is
authorized to submit recommendations to the School District for
their consideration Such recommendations must be made within
thirty (30) days. ' wing receipt of the v ±y's recommendation,
the final decision acquisitica is made by the governing
board of the School b,,
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site consists of approximately 10
acres located near the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway and
Spruce Avenue in Terra Vista Planned Community (see Exhibit A).
The property is designated as an elementary school site by the
Terra Vista Planned Community Text.
The school site is one of the two parcels of Tentative Parcel Map
8842 which was approved in January 1985 (see Exhibit B). The other
parcel (5 .res) of the map (west of the school site) is designated
as a neighborhood park, which is scheduled for development within
the next `-w months.
The site slopes approximately, 3% from north to south. There are
existing vineyards on the site. With the exception of the park
site to the west which has already been graded for development, the
site it surrounded by the existing vineyards and proposed
residential development of varying density.
i
ITEpi l
PLANNING COMMISSION SSAFc REPORT
Property Acquisitor for Elementary Senool
August 14, 1485
Page 2
IV. ISS%S /ANALYSIS: The proposed school site appears to be adequate
in z=�a and c¢ntrally located in -rES se vice area. ThE site
tsgether with the adjacent park serve &= the focus point of the
neighborhood. The proposed joint use of park and 5 pool facilities
throughout the Terra 'Vista P1annd Community appears to be a sound
concept am economical in land use. Futhermore, the school site
will a' accessible to the students and local residents through
a trail sys,,n separated from automobile traffic.
Although the Schriol District is plan — ig to acqu re the subject
site, the actual acquisition may take peace a few years from now
pending ,vailability of funding.., The School District has indicated
that it %s very likely the District will build and take occupancy
of the school buildings before the property is acquired, possibl4
through a lease with the proper14.y owner (Lewis Homes). The
District plans to place temporary school facilities on the property
immediately east of the proposed school site and they may be in
operation as early as September, 1986. These temporary facilities
will be removed from the property subsequent to the permanent
school facilities are constructed on the proposed school site.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Corrmission review the
proposal and direct Staff to forward appropriate comments to the
Central School District. Should the District proceed with the
acquisition ano /or placement of temporary buildings, the Commission
should request that the City be given the opportunity to review and
comment on thng site plans, architectural design and off -site
imp o assure compatibility with surrounding development
an, impraavem ,ir standards..
1
044, Krouti
Senior Plann r i
OK:RY:ka //
ADM�N(STRAT(QN
Frank A. Cosca, Ir. EdD.
Ce n t r a l c h o l District District Superintendent
(� . Thomas W. Grintendent, tasinessSen•ices arnella,Td.D.
9457 Foothill Blvd, /Rancho Cucamonga, California 91130 J (714) 989 -8541 Assistant Supe
July 23, 1985
v
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner ;��� '•.
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Sox 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Cr 91701
IF
LJ
a
3
The Central school D3 strict wishes to a10 fy rise Planning Commission that it
puns to operate and acquire a new school in Terra Vista on Lot 2, Parcel
Map 8842.
As you know, un&, -> za. Coda 39004 we are required to notify you of our intent.
I have included a,copy of the Xd. Code. We would appreciate the commission's .
investigation and subsequent report within the prescribed period as required
by Code
It wtuld also he heirful to us if you could, at the same time, provide a
negative declaration for the site.
If you have any questions, please Zon't hesitate -!�o call me at 989 -8541.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,/• .
Prank A. Cosca, Jr.
Superit_teAdent
alp
cc; Gaylaird Christopher
Xay Matlock
BOARD OP TRus-rEES
Richard. C. Alexander Ruth A. Musser pebble Baker
Prrsktent = clerk Member
i
lack McKelvey Hegryl' Stoy
Member Member.
T
� {r
v
�o
Y L.
o m
n�
• yy
~O
OEM
E •
ti'J
✓�'
I
CD
d
z
r
Cl)
in
CD
m
�o
Y L.
o m
n�
• yy
~O
OEM
E •
ti'J
ti
Af t
!•l.I
TENTATIVE � SHEET 1 OF 1 .SHEET
PA C L MAP N O. 8842
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO- CUCAi1 ONGA. CALIFORNIA
tc[xc a suw(v[sial oY A roRZ1oR or Im 7. As. tYO„I op TAPCr tn. Tlea, ip zxL
ctnor tAxUq. cucuaox:A, couxrT or sfp.[[uA[Dlpo, srfzc Dr r:Atml�tu. As. Tu.
ItAr R[lAgw IM'ta1R at or DAef. I• "•` L) AHD t11• yR TYL TrtlS:i Or sxc m •YS,z
PLLObLP OraflD [9aRT. AND SPAT PoxT1DY Or aLCTIa1 1. 'mV.vSDIt ! SDtRD. y".::r '
T xtiT, SAx [[[YMOIxO M[DIDIAN, u SMaa Ox CO[Algpf.A rPY(T LLN TVx >SxT.'v
Y[piVl[IOx. AT ILA ittD P[lAww 1M fOC4 t Or Ml3, tAL[ 1. LY Tx[. Or7t[c OT'MC
tT >YR[[ ttrrnm[x or saxa LcuxtL.
2 LOTS SEPTE.IRER. 1484 15.0 ACRES
.J j`Il)
i
'
TRACT
� ---- --
snlss otvcgpert ta. r^bv,�LAi "�— •---,.
'1St DD. DOtN7AlY AYtYift - K!
O. t0i t10
rtR)xLr 1T311 ![S -BtTI �� { •w•'�• p�tlVL[
ftrtomoGl !n J ����'+'�+: � ,�yptrlTM'! we �Grw• rte.
ltv[r Rata Or GL[mRxIA 1.O'r "p' � � ta'1tLe'
.i3t f0 DDiMfIM AYLxIR
uit+D.wwcws°ue.t:A ln/f � .,.•v'?YZdY � / �'/a1t1 a T b x
r11]p /Ttll flf•al11 � pct, � [/t� /`�,vy
r
4s R W P mu"A O LV nC.
StS W. IG1aiA1M
avert ass S
YrLLxO. G. r1
rnoxcl aIIn !—
a -i!N
vrfuzr•[atrfxltst
xDr[t.
—•. i. YA stscvcuk
3. rRrS[L7 iO11INL•tY.tta1PIJ ItRw NOtuNITT. N �T YNTt Y.TU GIST.
t ]. II}D 1tS[t VfrANt. U[SL�pC VIMCTSw. l611 tAY t[wARDIh POAD
]. "ll TYACr 191f[AlN3� � 0 Ot051 AC[LS. tAKItO N[40t1W. q..
t, TSIa TR u anjL S�j`�Mat[[IILD IGrf.. (7111 !11•]1!1
ma zAAtT mRrxs_t
s, rat TucL cax:A:RS��L.r. or xcY Dm[ut[o
dtr[LeR GtImItltR GI o.
7. ttOISPolal.l CiCNVRG COID7[T YAt[t. OtMILT, !10 YSaT PoYPn. atR[LT
t. 19Ri0YFf rf0t ALAiu tY1[O fliDYx IM 1171t a1R tpM-ib. 4.
{T117 fll•1]U
SOVISLrY ULImRY/4 :n[SOM m.
/aI iDHP t[mb AVwPV6
P[kA'x wfpRxO. ]itt ItAtlla U.
1tly tf t•171a
- gUt[taa•p' N. t. COM[R Qt M1TpT 1.Tfi3rbORf�
6a0Yftt AT TwY D.Y. fpRNtR Or 111h rtp3i it[trL.iRR m.
k AMD RAT'tx AYlats,
t{iV. 1110. [1t iY7 p[S} 'O•. tLRC[T
�- OtfffiOl 'f. •
i.
WCiT•!TY Nam ..
Vi11 Vi' tY { "11 \l.•11V VVViZ1�1V1'1VA �OGUc:nnlp�C9
STAFF REPORT �G }
`o - o
E Z
U >
1977 1
DATE: Mgt ,t 14 1985
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission'
FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
OLD CUCAMONGA RAILROAD DEPOT
I. BACKGROUND: Per the attached letter, Welding; Industrial & Tool
upp Ms desires to lease and improve the old Dante Fe railroad
depot located on the northeast corner of 8th Stf..et and Archibald
Avenue (Exhibit "A'!a. The depot is located between the railroad
tracks and 8th Street. The City cf Rancho Cucamonga's Development
Districts Map south_rly boundary is the railroad' tracks and the
Industrial Specific Plan northerly boundary is 8th Street at this
location. Therefore, - ;',gaff has placed this item on the agenda for
the Plannng Commission's direction with regard to the appropriate
zoning for this property.
II. ANALYSIS: The depot sits on the existing railroad awf which is
approximately 50 feet deep by 1,000 feet wide. A separate frontage
parcel (also owned by Sante Fe Railroad) lies between 8th Street
and the depot parcel. Additional right -of -way dedication need&
for 8th Street would reduce the.frontage parcel depth by 10 to 16
feet, which could result in a parcel as shailow as 34 feet. The
art deco Cucamonga train station was at one time considered for
possible designation as a Historic Landmark; however, it did not
receive that status.
Three alternatives_ are available to the Planning Commission:
1. Annex the property into the Industrial Area Specific Plan, or
2. Annex the property into the Development Districts Map; or
3. Create new zoning designation for railroad right -of -way.
It is S,'aff's intention to present a report on these alternatives
at the Apgust 14, 198E Planning Commission agenda.
ITEM N
h I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Old Cucamonga Railroad Depot
August 14, 1985
Page 2
i
Res a full submit ,
Dan Coleman
Senior Planner
DC:ns
Attachments: Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Zoning Map
Exhibit "C" - Subarea 4 Map
Exhibit "D" Photographs
l�
WELDING INDUSTRIAL RIAL TOOL SUPPLIES
9032 AR HIBALD AVE.
CUCAMONGA, CALIF. 9173
(714) 989.118
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 31, 190
9320 Baseline Rd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr John F, Meyer
It is the wish of 14ELDING INDUt -f AL AND TOOL SUPPLIES to lease and IM-
PROVY1 the Old Santa Fe RailRoad Depot located on the north east corner
of 8th. St. and Archibald Ave.
We Ivill be engaged in selling welding supplies and industrial tools at
this location.
t
We are presently located at 9032 Archibald in Rancho Cucamonga and it
is our desire to stay in the city of Cucamonga.
ink
It is of the utmost importance that we find out the status of the Santa
Fe Depot, P1E,se advise
Thankyou In Advance
S&,,? 12, ��'-- -�
Bud Miistead
President
C CEIV71)
I rt o ?fS,CHO
JUL 31119125
fill c-a
2526'2
29 29
.311321333N
'M'i06
I
34 40
41 48143
',45464�48
3536 .38
Ns
w 3,
3V
4e
16
3
V
26 6127 9
291
j31
..j
32133
Ns
w 3,
3V
4e
'R MAIN
M.
le,
sl� 4Ao
4.10 'g
24123122;211201191
*=WOOD"
%
g-
00
ul
17
.1 S. 4
Por.LW4
14
13P ;Z V-i)
12 k13)
-!u
STREET
'ORTH
CITY OF
TGA
RANCHO CUCA TITLE:
PLANNING DIVISION r-y-HIMIT.—A scALE.–
't
t
} .
AL
II
LI
J \
J n ' 4
Rai
j / f
f
N URTH
CITY OF 1TENI:
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE=
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIIIIT. SCALE-
Ri -s
FIG. IV -4
6, MAHOE -Q 4
CIRCULATION
120' R.O.W.
100' R.O.W..
818' or less R.O.MT,
RAIL SERVICE
—1--1 1 1-1- Existing
-i--i--1-t-i . Proposed
TRAILS /ROUTES
0000
Pedestrian
0000
Bicycle
Regional
Multi-Use -Us
ulthUse
Special Streetscape/
.cam,
Landscaping
Power Line /
Utility Easement
Access Points
hf�—% ar �
0 400' 800, 1600,
Note: Parcel lines and lot configurations
are shown as approximation only.
e
oe5 r eeeVItwow
S- (61 -IF5-
CITY OF
RANG -10 CLTCANIO \'GA
PLAIVNNG DIVISION
ITEM:
TITLE:-
EXHIBM _ SCALE:.
r_�
NORTH
F-6-96-
CITY OF
RAN -CHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIMSION
1T�vI:
TITLE:
GYHIBIT _SCALE r
NORTH
Em
7