Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/10/23 - Agenda Packet07Q .-�Q2 0 1 - -85 P.C. Agenda Packet o Page-1,-,of 4 _�.��. , •17fWe f �f (aa CD C—) = 7z a c+ r I -0 3 v . cr pr CD V r* a 5 L � 8= -ED N C) W O Cp 1 CJl in to N O O i CITY OF RANCHO CL;C1`•IO_ *NGA PLANNING COm�IISSIO�T AGENDA WEDNESDAY October 23, 1985 7:00 P.M. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 93x1 BASE TJNE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 0 L Pledge of Allegiance H. Roll Call Commissioner Barker Excused Commissioner Rempel x Commissioner Chitiea xx Comer" sioner Stout x ,immissioner .'VicNiel xx arrived 7:15 P.M.) Novembe 4th work- Announcements shop cancelled. TV. Approval of Minutes APPROVED AS AMENDED August 28, 1985 3 -0 -2 APPROVED 3 -0 -2 Ir September 25, 1985 V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned ii individuals may voice their _,pinion of the related project. Pliase wait to be recognized by the Cozairman and address the Commission i, by stating your name and address. All such opinions shalt be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. A. CONTINUED TO A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT DECEMBER 11 3 -0 -2 12991 - SHELBOURNE - A total residential subdivision and per applicant's design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in request) the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of FF k Lemon Avenue, 500+ feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 252 -21, 22. (Continued from October 9tb meeting.) B. APPROVED 4 -_0_ -1 B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT a Lan plan to incorporate REVIEW 85 -27 - CONTINENTAL CARE -The development seating area. • Design feature f psychiatric hospital acility consisting of 75,865 square feet in entryway to be addressed. on 6.1 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 7) Conditions to reflect DRC District located on the southeast eornp- of White Oak and comments at second meeting. Elm Avenue - APN 208 - 351 -15. w. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9481 - GOLDEN WEST EQUITY - The consolidation of 27.282 acres of land into 2 parcels within the General Industrial Area (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 70 Street - APN 209- 1.71 -7, 20, 36 and 49 through 56. 0. COt4TINUED TO 11 -13 -85 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT to allow ,ippl i cant REVIEW 85 -33 - BARMAKIAN - The development of 72 -unit opportunity 'Qo address apartments on 177 acres of land in the Medium High open space concerns, Residential District (14 -24 du /ac) located at the Borth side and end of Lomita Court - APN 202 - 151 -34. E. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDUNANCE AMENDMENT - with amendments to Ordinance. Proposed amendments to Chapters 17.08 and 19.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal. Code pertaining to the preservations of trees on private property. VI. New Business F. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 F. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORL INEYARDS SOUTH- A conceptual development plan for S�-i Victoria Vineyards Village, a 11.7.4 acre portion of the Victoria Planned Commimity, located on the north side of Base Line Road, between Milliken and Rochestf r, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks - APN 227 - 081-6. VII. Director's Reports G. Commission upheld G. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-09 - A -1 SHELL - A staff's conditions request for relief from landscape and irrigation improvements of approval. in conjunction with the construction of a 450 square foot 4-0-1 storage room on an existing gas /service station located on the north side of Foothill, west of K.lusman - APN 208 - 151 -19. H. Approved 5 -foot wall H. CONDr£'IONA.L USE PERMIT 84 -27 - BARMAKIAN - A height on channel side. review of wrill design along Cucamonga Creek Channel for an Proposed wall material to approved multi- tenant industrial park located at the be reviewed by DRC. southwest corner of Arow and Vineyard. VIII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. UL Adjournment 11:30 p.m. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set on 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. V w O CANI CITY OF <� RANCHO CUCAMONGA 40 yf - RL�.'ii�1G CC)II�tiITSSi01 U� AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY October 23, 1985 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK Cf.?MMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance H. Roll Call Commissioner-Barker_ Commissioner Remp'el - Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout Commissioner- McNiel III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes August 28, 1985 September 25, 1985 V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating you- name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individur 1 for each protect. ENVIRONMENTAI, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHEL30URNE - A total residential subdivision and design review or 49 single fami,� lots on 8:9 r res of land in k the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 500+ feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 252 -21, 22. (Continued from October 9th meeting.) �...o� x 0 p. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS < �SNiENT AND DEVLLOPMENT ' REVIEW 85 -27 - CONTINENTAL CARE -The development of 's psychiatric hospital facility consisting of 75,865 square feet on 6.1 acres a- ' land in the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 7) District located on the southeast corner of White Oak and Vim. Avenue - APN 208 - 351 -15. i i ... G. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -09 - A -1 SHELL - A request for relief from landscape and irrigation improvements- in conjunction With the construction of a 450 square foot storage room on an existing gas /service station located on the north side of Foothill, west of Klusman - APN 208 - 151 -19. v H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -27. - BARMAKIA9 - A review of wall design along Cucamorig Cret�k Channel for an approved multi- tenant industrial park heated at the southwest corner of Arow and Vineyard. VIII. Public Comments �. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda ` I%. A4 ;ournment Aa f The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that i� time$ they shalt be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I ( �A C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9481 - GOLDEN WEST EQUITY - The consolidation of 27.282 acres of land into 2 parcels within the General Industrial Area (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 7th Street - APN 209 - 171-7, 20, 36 and 49 through 56. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -33 - BARMAKIAN - The development of 72 -unit apartments on 3.77 acres of land in the Medi-n High Residential District (14 -24 du /ac) located at the north side and end of Lomita Court - APN 202 - 151 -34. f? E. �Q TREE PRESERVATION fIRDINANCE AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to Chapters 17.08 and 19.08 of the Rancho = Cucamonga Municipal Code - pertaining to the _ preservation of trees on private prooe.ty. VL New Business F. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINi;Y L,*ZDS SOUTIi- A conceptual development plan for South Vic toria Vineyards Village, a 117.4 acre portion of the Victoria Plannej Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, between Milliken and Rochester, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks - APN 227- 081 -6. VU. Directcr's Reports G. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -09 - A -1 SHELL - A request for relief from landscape and irrigation improvements- in conjunction With the construction of a 450 square foot storage room on an existing gas /service station located on the north side of Foothill, west of Klusman - APN 208 - 151 -19. v H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -27. - BARMAKIA9 - A review of wall design along Cucamorig Cret�k Channel for an approved multi- tenant industrial park heated at the southwest corner of Arow and Vineyard. VIII. Public Comments �. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda ` I%. A4 ;ournment Aa f The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that i� time$ they shalt be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I C.. ir P.^ 1 ' J • 's . VICINITY' IV-Ai ! AMtl NIV Iw tFNMlIrCNl4 •rNMOAt: CITY OF RAYfC1i0 CIICAMONGA t• rlQ CITY OF RANCHO CUC\NIO_ \� O PLANNTI a0 CONIN, J[IssIoN, AGENDA WEDNESDAY October 23, 1985 7.00 P.M. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA i \ L Pledge of Allegiance IL Boll Call Commissionerliarker Commissiener Rempel_ - Commissioner Chitirza: Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel - III. Anru ilneements P.V.. .Approval of Miautes f� August 28, 1985 September 25, 1985 V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual foi each project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHELBOURNE�- A total residential subdivision and design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 500+ feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 252 -21, 22. (Continued from October 9th meeting.) r E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -27 - CONTINENTAL CARE -The development of a psychiatric hospital facility consisting of 75,865 square feet on 6.1 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 7) District located on the southeast corner of White Oak and Elm Avenue - APN 208 - 551 -15. h C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9481 - GOLDEN WEST EQUITY - The consolidation of 27.282 acres o landinto 2 parcels within the General Industrial Area (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 7th Street - APN 249 - 171 -7, 20, 36 and 49 through 56. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -33 - BARMAKIAN - The development of 72 -unit apartments on 3.77 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14 -24 du /ac) located at the north side and end of Lomita Court - AP N 202 - 151 -34. E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to Chapters 17.08 and 19.08 of the Rancho— Cucamonga Municipal Code- pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property. VL New Business F. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOL VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH- A conceptual development plan. for South Victoria Vineyards Village, a 117.4 acre portiun of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, between Milliken and Rochester, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks - APN 227 - 081 -6. VII. Director's Reports G. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -09 - A -1 SHELL - A request for relief from landscape and irrigation improvements in conjunction with the construction of a 450 sq� tre foot storage room on an existing gas /service station Iocat?d ran the north side of Foothill, west of Klusman - APN 208- 151 -19. H. CONDITIONAL USE PER'd1T 84 -27 - BARMAKIAN - A review of wall design along Cucamonga Creek Channel for an approved multi- tenant industrial park located at the southwest corner of Arow and Vineyard. VIII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear an this agenda. M Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations . that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I'll ' i VICINITY' MAP ORt-0 t .WYQNT' JCITY OF RANCHO CUCAlMO' a!'{ Inland Counties Hea ►th Systems Agency �® SERVING INYO, MONO, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES. October 22, 1985 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEPT 85 -27 CONTINENTAL CARE Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission c/o Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga OCR. � 9340 Base Line Road, Unit B .� Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Commission members: In11nd. Counties Health Systems Agency has been designated oy the U.S. Department of Health and Humai Services and the State of California as the regional health planning organization for San Bernardino, Riverside, Inyo and Mono Counties. Until May 29, 1985, IC /HSA performed local reviews of health care projects which required Certificates of Need from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. For many reasons, IC /HSA's Governing Body acted to suspend local review. The Agency, however, has continued to develop long - range health systems plans which identify resource requirements for various health care services at specific geographic levels. The multiservice campus originally proposed by Continental Care, Inc. included a 130 -bed skilled nursing facility for the mentally disordered and a 40 -bed acute psychiatric hospital. While no formal review of the application has been conducted, staff: has several comments with respect to need. In the 1982 Addendum to the 1979 -85 Health Systems Plan, a shortage of 75 skilled nursing facility beds for the mentally disordered was projected for 1985. The recently- completed 1985 -90 Health Systems Plan projects a shortage of 137 SNF -MD beds by 1990. While many projects for general skilled nursing facilities have been proposed and approved, no developer has been willing to address the long - standing shortage of long -term care resources for the mentally disordered. Therefore, the project proposed by Continental Care, Inc. is viewed by staff as one which addresses a major, unmet need. 1600 CHICAGO AVE., SUITE R•1 • RIVERSIDE, C-6,92507 • (714) 825.7510 Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 5950 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92517 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission October 22, 1985 Page Two The situation with respect to the acute psychiatric hospital need is not as self- evident. The 1965 -90 Health Systems Plan indicates a projected shortage of four(4) acute psychiatric beds in 1990 for San Bernardino County. The office of Statewide Health Planning and Development in Sacramento will have the opportunity to examine the applicant's proposal from the perspective of numerous other criteria in addition to the justification of an identififd need that exceeds that stated in the local plan. In summary, the multiservice campus proposal allows for phased development of a broader spectrum of services for the mentally ill than has previously been proposed. The skilled nursing facility for the mentally disordered addresses a long - established need. If you or your staff have any questions or concerns about this information, please call me at (714) 825 -7510. Sincerely, Eric G. Beacham Executive Director EGB:ch consprt contcare G Ex L e KEYSTROKES UNLIMITED 9373 Archibald Ave. 6� L dY�Al. Suite 203 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 9R0 -7663 A� October 18, 1985 Dear Business Pereon: The Personal Computer revolution is with us and here to stay. Making choices for :.ardware, software and accessories can be risky and expensive. Also, just as important as the system, is the planning for future needs. We believe in the TOTAL SOLUTION approach to solving business problems because with so many different manufacturers and publishero of hardware and software in the PC marketplace, relying on a single source or s *;.re carrying limited product lines just doesn't satisfy the needs of the purcaser who requires a total solution to their business needs. We at Keystrokes Unlimited offer several unique services. First, we offer substantial discounts (usually 10% to 508 off - manufacturers' suggested retail prices) on ALL hardware, r <`tware and accessories. Second, we offer pre -sale consulting, training and installation support. Third, we offer complete after -sale service and support designed for your particular needs including a Technical Sup1ort HELP LINE for all your hardware and software questions and problems. Fourth, we are at the forefront of today's technology providing advanced solutions such as MULTI - USER/BULTI- TASKING IBM and ELECTRONIC VOICE -MAIL SYS'"WS. And finally, you pay for ONLY ..:hose services you need- -not someone else's standard packages. For a FREE initial consultation as well as complete information on our services, call or write us today. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, KEYSTROKES UNLIMITED TE Charles A. Phillips Vice - President P. S. For those of you who already own a personal computer or word processing system, call us regarding upgrading your current system and super discounts on software and accessories. We also carry ribbons for over 300 different printers. TELEX: 754225 • TWX: 9109474847 • MCI MAIL: 226 -3566 i -�_ KEYSTROKES UNLIMITED HARDWARE SOFTWARE • PERSONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS • ACCOUNTING • PRINTERS • WORD PROCESSING • DISK DRIVES • rATA BASE MANAGLMENT • MODEMS • GRAPHICS • MONITORS - • COMMUNICATIONS � • ADAPTOR CARDS A Q SPREAD SHEETS • MULTI-FUNCTION BOARDS 10 -50% • UTILITIES • EDUCATIONAL ACCFSSORIES � IL SUPPORT • CABLES BET • PRE -SALE CONSULTATIONS • FLOPPY DISKS PRIMES • INSTALLATION & HOOKUP • POWER CONDITIONERS • DIAGNOSTIC TESTING • SWITCHING DEVICES • ON SITE i RAiNING • STORAGE CASES CUSTOM PROGRAMMING AVAILABLE • RIBBONS FOR OVER 300 PRINTERS • POST-SALE HELP LINE I PCIXT SPECIAL 1 360K FLOPPY DISK DRIVE 256K MEMORY 1 10M6 HARD DISK Including monochromelprinter adapter and super hires green monitor. MULTI -USER IBM NOW AVAILABLEH Turn i computer into 4! Work on several ,jobs simultaneously. Get large computer capability from our unique MULTI•USERIMULTI•TASKING IBM systems. Complete systems from S4895 Multi-user upgrade from $1599 COMPAQ IBM PUAT APPLE 11c Portable We are AT specialists. APPLE 11c 2 floppy Disk Drives CALL 256K Memory, for configuration and MacINT®SH Printer Port special pricing. SYSTEMS FROM SYSTEMS AVAILABLE. 620"""'95 � 83495 1 Teleph-one.w (714) 980-7663 KEYSTROKES NL,IMITED 9375 Archib Suite 203 � 4a Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 9$07663 YOUR ONE-STOP COMPUTER HEADQUARTERS COMPUTER SYSTEMS PRINTERS MONITORS _ TERMINALS IBM Sanyo Qkidata H -P Princeton Ssmcung Kimtron ADDS Compaq Wyse Citizen Canon Amdek Panasonic Wyse IBM Apple Corona NEC Anadex Quadram IBM Qume Hazeltine Televldeo ISC Diablo Brother Magnavox Texan DEC NEC Eagle IBM Dataprodects NAP Tatung Altos Sliver -Reed Juki BMC Sanyo Toshiba Legend NEC bornson Qume Panasonic Quimax Epson Star Apple INTERFACEiPROCESSOR BOARDS Persyst Paradise AST Quadram Sigma STS Video 7 Practical Periphera Orange Micro Texan Advanced Logic Tecmar Hercules Titan Cardco Videx Batteries Inoluded IBM Maynard Apple Microsci Apricorn Microtek Microsoft Orchid PAPER Laser Cut Blue Bar Standard Rolodex Green Bar Labels PRINTER RIBBONS Nylon Multi- Strike Single-Strike Thermal Carr FOR OVER 300 PRINTERS ice.; SURGE SUPPRESSORS & POWER DEVICES Curtis Kensington Compugard Production Technologies Disewasher Networx EPD MODEMS Hayes Microcom Novation Prometheus Archor Rixon Bizcomp Tetel-earning Volksmodem Ven -Tel Racal -Vadlc Watson OVER 11,.000 SOFTWARE TITLES AVAILABLE AT t• t OFF DISKITAPE DRIVES Corvus Seagate Panasonic Ampex Tulin Novell Rddime CMI Irwin Microsci Tandon Tecmar Shugart TEAC Everex IBM Apple DISKS Fuji 3M Syncom Vert�tlm PmolslonlDysan Memorex Maxwell Generic Sentinel Opus Telephone: (714) 980 -7663 ACCESSORIES Covers Printer Stands Monitor Stands MalMenance Products Disk Cases MICELLANEOUS Joysticks Keyboards Mouse Voice Synthesizers Plotters Switching Devices CITY OF•RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 28, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m, The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel (arrived 7 :25 p.m.), Dennis Stout ABSENT: N;4E STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Jim Markman, City Attorney; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, fommun;ty Development lirector, announced that the September 9th Planning Commission workshop had been cancelled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Chitiea requested an amendment to page 6, next to the last line, of the June 12, 1985 minutes to change development make to development made. Motion, Moved by Barker, ;eccnded by McNiel, ca?ried to approve the minutes of the June 12, 1985 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -02 - ISHII - -The development of a one- -atory church of 4,740 square feet and an associated small storage building of 216 square feet, on 3.88 acres of land 'an the Very Low Residential District located on the northwest corner of Haven and Hillside - APN 201- 101 -022. ( Continued from July 24, 1985 meeting. Related file: PM 9064) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9064 - CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS - A division of 4.24 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Lost Residential District (less than 2 du /ac) located on the northwest corner of Haven and Hillside - APN 201- 101 -027. (Continued from July 24, 1985 meeting. Related file: C11P 85 -02) Chairman Stout advised that the applican*� for the ahoec items had requested a continuance to the September 11, 1985 Planning Commission agenda. He then opened the public hearing. There were no comn,90ts. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 85 -02 and Parcel Map 9064 to the September 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOU, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: heMPEL - carried C. VARIANCE 85 -04 - MARIETTA A request to reduce the sideyard setback of 20 feet to 10 feet and a back of 42 feet from the curb along Arrow Route - APN 208 - 811 -58. Chairman Stout advised that the aj-p..cant for this item requested 1tiat it be withdrawn from consideration. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -06 - LINCOLN - The development of 624 apartment units 66 --27.6 net acres of land in the "MH" District (14 -24 du /ac), located on the north side of Arrow Route, 350 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN 208 - 341 -16 & 17. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker stated that a concern during design review was the wind tunnel affect which could be created by prevailing winds through the buildings. He asked if this issue had been addressed.. Mr. Cook stated that the applicant might be able to respond to that concern. Y' Hl:,,,n'tag Commission Minutes -2- August 28, 1985 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ted Siebert, projerIz architect, stated that an attempt had been made to mitigate this concern by opening up the corridor-- between the buildings and that all buildings had been reoriented around activity areas. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Siebert to address the noise mitigation issue. Mr. Siebert replied . ratios and balconies had been reoriented away from Arrow Route '%u mitigate tiie noise problem associated with traffic. A model of the projet was displayed for the Commission's reviE•. Chairman Stout referrQd to the stucco finish proposed for use on the building exterior and asked how this finish related to high tech architecture. Mr. Seibert explained that the stucco would be machine aoplied, which would give a smooth finish and a high tech appearanc;:. He also provided an example of machine applied stucco. 7:25 9,1 - Commissioner Rempel arrived. Chairm. ito %.: asked the applicant to address the compatibility issue between the of� and residential portions of the master plan. Mr Seiu..'c presented a rendering of the site plan and explained that compatibility would be addressed through landscaping and berming. Chairman Stout suggested that when the landscaping comes back for review at the time of building permits, view corridors should be provided through the office site into the apartment complex. He explained tha: the intent would be to open up the views of the office parcel to give it tNe appearance of being deeper. Commissioner McNiel asked for discussion regarding the connecting road between the commercial site and the apartments. The apr.'Icant's traffic engineer stated that from his point of view the connecting road would work very effectively for traffic east bound, but not for traffic west bound. He advised that the traffic report prepared for the project recommended that the connector road not be constructed in the beginning, but deferred until a problem actually arises. Chairman Stout asked if there wouldn't be a lot of damage to landscaping if the street were retrofitted at a later date. The applicant's traffic engineer responded that it would be landscaped as a part of the project and then the Commission could bring the project back for review if later determined that the street would be needed. Paul Rougeau stated that he concurred with the recommendation of the traffic report because conflicts could exist bet;•:een the entering and e.titing traffic. Further, if the Commission wished to retain the easement for the street, he would recommend that the grading be done with mieimal landscaping Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 28, 1985 installed, as suggested by Chairman Stout. However, he envision that in the future the apartment residents would come in and complain about the street, but if it were put in the beginning it would be accepted. Further, that the conflicts that would occur at the entrance would be more of a problem under full traffic conditions than in the interim because once the office project is completed people exiting the offices would block entrance for those apartment dwellers coming horse at night. He advised that the southerly connection between the two projects is not needed because of the median in Haven. He restated that his recommendation would be to construct the driveway in the beginning. Commissioner Rempel staffed that the easement should be there, but the driveway installed when the commercial complex is constructed. He advised that the street should be placed on the plans so that apartme it residents would know that eventually the street would be installed. Commissioner Chitiea asked what the solution to the traffic situation would be with regard to that piece of property if a site plan other than an office use were submitted. Mr. Rougeau replied that thu connect *;an to back parcel would be necessary regardless of any other use. Commissioner Chitiea stated that using reflective glass might.. enhance the project because of the disraction of different window treatments which might be installed by t,? residents. She additionally was concerned with the overall architecture of the project. Mr. Siebert stated that since these units are apartments, the window treatments would be provided for the individual units. He additionally displayed the project model at the podium and discussed the architectural aspects of the project with the Corrumissioners. Mr. Seibert referred to Design Review condition 4 regarding the canvas screens required for shading of trash enclosures and requested that ti;e use of a tefioi:- coated nylon over a metal frame be allowed. He additionally referred to Engineering Condition 8 regarding access easement at the southwest corner of the residential parcel. Mr. Seibert advised that he did not think it desirable to share access since the property was being developed as a trucking operation. He also requested that an opaque material be used as a substitutic, on the second story balcony enclosures. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding thn access easement and stated that Center Street is halfway between Haven and Turner and the logical location for traffic signal. Further, Haven was going to be a 6 -lane street with a number of high denisty residential projects; therefore, left turns need to be done at a traffic signal when possible. Commissioner Rempel stated that the access could be offset at that point. Further, Center street would be a deadend going south, therefore could not see point of it being given this much value.. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 28, 1985 Mr. Rougeau stated that the access could be offset. He advised that the purpose of the shared access was to provide an additional access for this project so that drfvers would not have to make a left-turn onto Arrow from the main driveway. Commissioner McNiel stated that given the number of residents who have been before the Commission in opposition to a street going in after a project is built, he would have to agree that it would make more sense to require the access up front as opposed to an easement. Commissioners Barker stated that they did not feel the easel- _ ' .essary. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would be in favor of leaving the requirement in the conditions to allow the option of constructing the access in the future. The consensus of the Commission (Chitiea, McNiel, Stout) was to retain condition 8 requiring a shared access easement. Chairman Stout stated that with regard to Design Review condition 3, he would recommend that the exterior finish be approved by the City Planner. Further, that some language should be added to the Resolution to clarify the intent that the stucco finish address the high tech appearance, and that the Zity Planner should be aware that Spainish lace stucco was unacceptable. Commissioner Barker advised that a 4x4 sheet in finshed form would have to be provided to the City Planner. Commissioner Rempel suggested that "machine" be omitted from the condition because it is only a method of applying, and that "dash coated stucco" be substituted. The Chairman asked for discussion of the trash enclosure s05titution. It was the consensus to allow teflon coated nylon over metal frame for use on trash enclosures. Chairman Stout stated that the landscape plan should include special treatment to address and accent the vif.., corridors between the office and residential sites. Further, that a landscaping easement should be obtained on the office portion with the full 15 -foot area to be landscaped. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Engineering conditions deferred the installation of sidewalks; however, one criteria the Commission has developed . is regarding pedestrian access. Therefore, the sidewalks should be required as part of the street improvements. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the connecting road. He advised that it should be installed now to insure, the street going in and everyone knowing about it. Commissioner McNiel disagreed and stated that the City has no idea when the strip along Haven will develop. He stated that it should be landscaped now and set aside as an easement. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 28, 1985 Commissioner Rempel stated that if it is instailed now, it Is going to be used during construction cf the office project. Therefore, would be in favor of requiring an easement. - Commissioner Chitiea agreed that an easement be required. Paul Rougeau advised that condition lI should be reworded to reguire an easement. Chairman Stout suggested that language be submitted by City attorney. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer asked if the requirement for installation of the sidewalk along Civic Center Drive to Haven also applied to the sidewalk on Arrow. Commissioner Rempel replied that it also applied to the sidewalk on Arrow. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to riodify condition 3 to read "dash coated stucco finish on building be submitted and approved by City Planner ", condition it reworded to indicate easement shall be required in accordance with submimtted master plan to provide mutual access to this property ani the adjacent office professional parcel, the landscaping plan shall include special treatment to address and accent the view corridors between the office and residential sites and a landscaping easement is to be obtained on the office site with the full 15 -foot area to be landscaped; rondition 4 modified to allow the use of terlon coated nylon metal in accordance with submittal by applicant, and Engineering condition 1 modified to delete the last sentence regarding sidewalks. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Commissioner Chitiea objected to the architecture and stated that although the revised site pl.m provided all the amenties, it lost some of the creative aspects of original submittal, and thought more variation should have been provided. 8:20 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:35 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Planning Commission: Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 28, 1985 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13062 - LINCOLN - A total residential development of units on 8.6 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 du /ac) located on the north side of 19th Street, between _•chibald Avenue and Amethyst Street - APN 202 - 101 -22. (Related File: DR 85 -21) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -21 - LINCOLN - A total residential development of 120 units on 8. 6 acres of land in the Medium. Residential District (8 -14 du /ac) located on the north side of 19th Street, between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Street - APN 202- 101 -22. (Related File: IT 13062) Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked staff to go over the northern so °�d barrier abutting the right of way. He asked if staff was recommending i, in lieu of or in addition to a sound attenuation wall and additional trees. Ms. Fong stated that the sound barrier was recommended in addition to the sound attenuation wall and aJ ^itional trees. She explained that the noise study indicated that a noise ridrrier should be provided assuming that the freeway is going to be built. Further, that the developer is requesting approval to install an open fence to preserve open views and existing windrows. She advised that Caltrans' position is that it iF the City's responsibility to require a sound barrier. Furthermore, ors advantage in requiring the sound barrier now is that the trees will be matured when freeway is built. Chairman Stout asked if the trees were located in an area which would require removal when the freeway goes in. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, stated that a substantial portion of the trees would be within the right -of -way. Further, that the ultimate solution developed should be developed at this time as opposed to some point in the future because it will then be the City's responsibility. Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised that he has yet to see Caltrans provide any type of sound attenuation barrier unless at someone elses expense. Commissioner Rempel stated that the freeway may not be at ground break; therefore, at this prillnt it would be more worthwhile to save the trees. Commissioner McPlel asked what Caltrans' grade projection for the freeway is at this location. Paul Rougeau' Traffic Engineer, advised that local district designers are looking at a depressed grade line for the freeway and it would most likely be below grade. Further, that a very low sound attenuation wall would probably be adequate. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Richard Dickason, applicant, gave overview of project. Planning Commission Minutes -7 August 28, 1985 Mr. Foreman, Wolff /Lang /Christti,..er gave overview of project architecture. Commissioner Chitiea asked the applicant for clarification of the location of the second floor balconies. Mr. Foreman advised that balconies only exist on the 1600 series units. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a 5 -foot wall would be necessary if Caltrans lowers freeway. Mr. Rougeau replied that a study would be necessary to determine how high the wall would have to be to attenuate the sound. He advised that even if the freeway were lowered, the noise line would have a direct impact since the two story models are very close to the top of slope. Liz Quell, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission in favor of the project. There were no further comments, therefore the hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he liked the proposal given by tha developer and preferred to find alternatives to preserve trees now than to make a decision to remove them and later have Caltrans change its mind. Commissioner Rempel agreed and stated that coroition,- to share the cost of landscaping could be placed at the time the freeway is construc; Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that when it comes time for negotiations, Caitrans' position will be that the City passed up the opportunity to require a developer to install proper sound attenuation. Therefore, an interest bearing trust fund could be considered for the future construction of a sound wall, to help defray the cost. Jim Markman, .City Attorney, stated that the trust fund would be the deposit of a sum of money required to erect a wall when the freeway is constructed. He advised that this sum would have to be agreeable to both the City and the developer, and also contain a time line for return of the sum in the event that the wall does not have to be constructed. He suggested that condition 3 be amended to state that an agreement would be entered into to require a deposit of funds adequate to presently erect sound barrier to satisfaction of engineering and legal staff. He advised that this agreement should be made prior to the issuance of building permits. He additionally suggested that condition 6 regarding the sound gall be deleted. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed especially since the City's doesn't know hov, the freeway will be constructed at this point. Chairmn Stout referred to the proposal by developer to use opaque material on seconds floor balconies on north side. He suggested that the condition requiring the solid wall be deleted and replaced with language which would require a sound attenuation wall on the second floor balconies on the north side. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Design Review 85 -21 and Tentative Tract 13062. With amendments to Design Review condition 3 to require a sum of money io be deposited in a trust fund for possible future construction o` a wall along the northern property boundary adjacent to the freeway, condition 4 to reflect the balconies on the second floor build ^rugs on the north to have 6 foot high sound attenuation walls; and deletion of condition 6. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried G. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY: INTERIM POLICIES - Commission review of Interim Policies to be applied to development projects along Foothill Boulevard prior to adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Plan. (Continued from August 14, 1985 meeting.) Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reeiewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel asked for caarification of curvilinear gables on D.1, Architecture. Mr. Kroutil replisd that curvilinear gables relate to parapet walls. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 28, 1985 Commissioner Rempel stated that curvilenar parapets would be more appropriate language. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, James Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the time limits established for extensions and suggested that 18 months be considered versus the 12 months proposed. He further stated that should the City contract with a consultant to study Foothill Boulevard, the Chamber of Commerce Committee would be willing to work with them. He advised that the consultant should look at master planning the boulevard and should also address the consolidation or condemnation of smaller parcels along Foothill. Gary Mitchell, 133 Spring, Claremont, California, stated that the existing parcelization on the north and south sides of Foothill needs to be locked at and concurred with the master plan approach. There were no further comments, there ore the public hearing was closed.. Chairman Stout asked for discussio? of the Chamber's suggestion to change the time limits for extensions to 18 mo.itns. It was the consensus of the Commission to modify the section to reflect an 18- month time limit for extensions. Chairman Stout stated that the other suggestions by Chamber are good_ones, but deal more with direction when the final process begins. Further, that a sign am,rt,aation program for all billboards also needs to be addressed in the final process. Commissioner Rempel stated that t4is study is not new to the Commission and has been a topic of discussion since incorporation. Further, that the sizes and depths of parcels have been concern all along. The fallowing amendments were proposed to the Use Regulations Table: General Commercial Uses: Exterior kennels, pens, or runs in conjunction with animal care facilities not permitted. Repairs as -ry use conditionally permitted in conjunction with sales under automi rvices. Repairs (major engine work, muffler shops, painting, bony we + upholstery) not permitted. Carpenter shop or cabinet shops, conditionally permitted. Contractor yards (screening of outdoor storage required) not permitted. Equipment rental yards, not permitted. Ice machines (outdoor) not permitted. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 28, 1985 Reference to cemetar.ies in conjunction with mortuaries deleted. Recreational vehicle storage yard, not permitted. Second -hand stores and pawn shops, conditionally permitted. Spiritualistic readings or astrology forecasting, conditionally permitted. Taxidermists, conditionally permitted in neighborhood commercial. Tire sales and services, not permitted. Truck and trailer rental, sales and services, not permitted. Mution: Moved by Tempel, seconded by Barker„ carried to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study Interim Policies to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NW - carried H. TENTATIVE TRACT 12642 K & B - A residential subdivision of 470 lots on 11.5 acres of land, which is part of Caryn Planned Community, located between the extension of Banyan Avenue and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN 225- 141 -08, 12 -19, 21 -28. The Commission will review proposed modifications to the previously approved single family project, including dwelling unit sizes, and elevations. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Clyde Lane, representing Kaufman and Broad, stated concurrence with the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked how many 900 square foot dwellings were being proposed for construction. Mr. Lane replied approximately 35 homes. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, advised that the mix is approximatey equal for all models with the exception of the smallest which is to be limited to no more than 28, and t ",e remaining averages between 32 -34 homes per model. Commissioner Chitiea asked what tyoe of roofing was proposed for the smallest units. Mr. Lane replied that composition shingle would be used on all models. Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 28, 1985 Chairman Stout asked how many of the original proposal were to have had tile roofs. Mr. Lane replied that all units under the original proposal were to ba constructed with tile roofs. Chairman Stout asked the reason for downgrading the roofing material. Mr. Lane replied that composition shingles was not consider a down gride and were proposed to control the cost of units. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he was not overjoyed with this request to go from tile to composition roofing and to decrease the dwelling sizes in a community which has repeatedly said that it is not interested in small units. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned now as before that very small homes come off as looking very cheap. Further, that if the applicant desired to reduce the size of the smaller home, they needed to upgrade the units not downgrade them. Additionally, that throughout the City front yard landscaping is being required on the small lots. Commissioner McNiel stated that when this project first came before the City it was presented as an element with a lot of amenties and would be a project of which the City could be proud. He stated that he was upset and angry because these are major changes and changes which are a downgrading of the product. Chairman Stout stated that the elevations are unacceptable with c)mpositions shingles; if the tile roofs were placed back on them he would consider talking about adequate distribution in the number of houses. Further, he was extremely disappointed and considered the roofing change to be a significant downgrading of the product and considered it unfair to other developers in City who are putting tile roofs on their projects because of the quality that the City demands. Chairman Stout asked for a consensus on the roofing material. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the units be constructed with the roofs. Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding the housing distribution. Commissioner Chitiea ,tated that she way disappointed that the applicant previously stated they had no intention of developing on the low end of the range, they merely wanted flc-xibility for future, and is now before the Commission asking for 63 units reduced in size and a declining product. She stated that more needs to be done than simply putting tile roofs back on if the sizes of the smaller units are reduced. She advised that she would prefer to see the number of smaller units reduced from 28 to 20 nd not market quite as many. Commissioner Barker asked for clarification of the options available to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -12— August 28, 1985 Otto Kroutil advised that the development agreement, to an extent, controls the Commission's action. He stated that the text does permit small units; however, there are controls the Commission can exercise regarding product mix. and the quality of the planned community as a package, but these are also dependent on the willingness of the developer. He advised that the request could not be denied based on the square footages alone, but the square footages could be used for comparison purposes to determine if this project is substantially in compliance with what was submitted in January. Commissioner Barker stated that this project was not in compliance with the previous submittal. Commissioner Rempel stated that the original proposal was made cognizant of the fact that the City's Development Code requires 900 square foot dwellings, even though the Development Agreement allows 750 square feet. Further, that the applicant made the original proposal and should stay with it. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated that the Commission reviewed a project with proposed elevations 2md site of housing, but it was not clear if distribution was determined at the =t time. He advised that the Commission could adhere to its original approval of roof or any other significant change to elevations. He additionally advised that even th:�139h there are some reduced sizes and some larger sizes, distribution was not originally agreed to; therefore, the applicant could theoretically come in and build one Ikause at each of the higher sizes and the rest at 754 square feet unless the spread had been conditioned. Commissioner Barker stated that it should be acted that this project is located on a piece of property which was originally outside the City Limits and the Commission was not given much control in its development. Mr. Markman agreed that the Develc,!ment Agreement states that Rancho Cucamonga could not add conditions that were covered in the original agreement which were more onerous than what was approved by the County. He advised that the City ca.; -itrol the elevations through the design review process; therefore, the Commission could retain the requirement for tile roofs. He suggested a revision establishing an agreed upon spread which would lock i.1 more specific conditions on the huildout of the project. Chairman Stout proposed a distribution of smaller sizes be limited to 10 percent or 24 houses each, with the remainder distribtued among the top 5 sizes. Frank Scardina, Kaufman and Broad, requested the Commission grant a two week continuance in order for them to respond to these concerns. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to continue the revisions to Tentative Tract 12642, K & B, to the September 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 28, 1985 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried 10:25 p.m. - Plaw,ing Commission Recessed 10 :40 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present OLD BUSINESS I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -52 - COLWELL Alternative design for the east elevation of Der Weinerschnitzel located at the southeast cor,ler = Foothill and Helms. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Eva Sloan, representing the applicant, referred to tandition 2 requiring that the exterior materials be reviewed and approve-. She advised that approval had been obtained and and no changes were being proposed. Additionally, with respect to condition 3 requiring a landscape plan, she advised that the same plant material was being used. Mr. Fields stated that staff wanted to insure that the materials used were those which had been approved, and also that th,,re would be coordination between the applicant and the landscaping architect if a stamped approved landscape plan were provided with revisions. Chairman Stout suggested that condition 2 could be modified to state existing materials as approves; by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Stout asked what effort was made to obtain easement from adjacent property owner. Ms. Sloan advised that the applicant was unable to locate the owner of the adjacent property. Chairman Stout stated that the Commission turned down a use once before on this parcel hecause it was too small and it is also too small for this use. However, the Commission decided that because of the parking lot on adjacent use, there was no harm in approving the project. Further, that a good faith effort had been made by the applicant this far, but if the request had come before the Commission now he would not have approved it because the parcel is too small and the amenities which are normally required cai}not be installed because there is not enough room. Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 28, 1985 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolut'on approving the revised elevations for Development Review 84 -52, with in amendment to condition 2 that all materials are to be as approveu by the Ci °:y Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by tEe- following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried J. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -47 - PICKEN - A request to raise the building pad 2 J2 feet in elevation from the approved grading plan for a commercial building of 8,040 square feet located on the sou'.h s'de of Foothill Boulevard, east of Vineyard - APN 208 - 241 -30. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Bernie Lavowitz, representing applicant, concurred with the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that the original conditions required special landscaping treatment to the back. He asked for the applicant's interpretation of dense landcaping. Mr. Lavowitz, stated that the trees would be staggered in such a manner to block off the building. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, to adopt the Resolution approving the grading change for Development Review 84 -47, Picken. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES': COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried K. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -46 - FLAHERTY - A request to modify the conditions of approval for a proposed restaurant in the Commercial District kSubarea 7) and the Haven Avenue Ovelay District of the Indust ^ial Specific "ian located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 208- 622 -28. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Planning Commission Mimaes -15- August 28, 1985 Dave Flaherty, applicant, presented a rendering depicting the requested modification. lie advised that he desired a separate identity from the adjacent K -Mart prr;ect and felt the brick would enhance the exterior of the proposed restaurant. He was concerned that the restaurant would blend into the K -Mart project with use of split face block. Tom Davis, project architect, state that he was under the impression that the approved roof color was green. Chairman Stout stated that the original roof approval was bronze. However, the applicant requested a change to the green or brown ish /burgandy color and the brown tone was approved. Commissioner Chitiea asked what was now being proposed. Mr. Davis replied that the use of the brownish /red brick and green roof was the requested change. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the K -Mart project does not necessarily respresent the highest quality of building for Haven Avenue, although it may reflect the highest quality of K -Mart. Further, that the applicant had a valid poit.t that the u,:� of split face block might blend the restaurant in with the background. Commissioner McNiel stated that there might be buildings that blend in with surrounding projects and are unsuccessful; however, some provide excellent service have good businesses. He stated that Vie building should remain as now designed with bronze roof and the split face block. He advised that other alternatives could be used for visual attraction such as lighting and signage. Commissioner Rempei stated that the brick veneer would not detract from the building, but felt that it would enhance it. Further, that he would agree that the K -mart project was not something he would like to see cop4ed. Chairman Stout stated the original submittal for this project was entirely unacceptable and the applicant submitted a second project which was hir,hly acceptable, but then withdrew that submittal. A third project was submitted which was accepted as a compromise as something which could be lived with and now the applicant is requesting a compromise again. He further stated that he would not recommend any changes to the previous approval. Commissiner Barker stated that a lot of time had been spent by the Design Revie U-imittee and Commission on this project and would agree that the original approval should remain. The consensus of the Commission w ?; that the original approval of the reddish /brown or bronze roof color should remain. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, that the original approval of split -face bin -'. and reddish /brawn or bronze roof be upheld. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 28, 1985 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA ABSENT: COMi`.ISSIONERS: NONE - carried Commissioners Chitiaa and Rempel stated that the use of red brick veneer could enhance the project. L. MODIFICATION TO ARCHITECTURE FOR TRACT 12319 - LEWIS - A request for new elevation/floor ans to include -car garage plus bonus room and 3 -car garage for both the 5000 & 6000 series homes within an existing residential tract subdivision of 274 single family homes on 51 acres of lard within the Terra Vi3ta Planned Community (Medium Residential category, 4 -14 du /ac) located at the southwest corner of Base Line and Spruce - APN .077- 091 -02. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Stan Bell, representing Lewis Homes, concurred with the staff recommendati, Chairman Stout suggested that a condition be added to reflect that all roo..ng material is to be concrete tile. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to approve architectural modifications to Tract 12319, with condition that all roofing material is to be concrete tile. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REAPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS M. INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS /SCOPE OF WORK Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner advised that the intent of this report was to alert the Commission that the revisions will be coming before them in the future and that no action would be necessary at this time. Chairman Stout stated that the Commission has been going through industrial area putting together architectural policies and suggested that architectural concepts be included in the revisions. Additionally, the issue of metal buildings should be looked at because there are � , areas where they still permitted. He advised that he would like some discussion when the plan comes back as to if they should be completely banned. Planniag Commission Mirutes -17- August 28, 1985 M Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the impact of the 15 freeway leading to the regional mall is something that should be looked at along with the property in that area. Chairman Stout stated that signs and architectural treatment to buildings facing the freeway should also be addr-,ssed. N. REVIEW OF THE REVISED LANDSCAPE TREATMENT FOR THE PARKWAYS AND KEDIANS ON BOTH HAVEN AVENUE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if it would be necessary to include the agreement that the sidewalks would gently meander, or if it is just understood. Mr. Cook replied that the letter from Lewis Homes indicates that the walk would meander with 600 foot radii. Stan Bell, Lewis Homes, stated that the grades are not as steep as those originally proposed in that there are no 2:1 slopes, which would allow the sidewalks to gently meander. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would not like to see uniform breaks and that variations in offsets should be provided. Jim -3rton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that 600 -foot radii does not give much curve to the sidewalk. Commissioner Barker stated that the intent is to have the sidewalk flow but not jar; however, sp- ocificially how many feet had not been established. Mr. Bell explained that the applicant would like to have the opportunity to use both of the proposals submitted since the proposal with the sidewalk adjacent to the wall cannot be used where there is a high grade difference. It was the consensus of the Commission that both proposals could be utilized by the zpplicant as long as variation was provided. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the Commission be provided with photographs of what median designs are currently being used in the City and what is being used in other areas. He preferred to delay the decision on the Haven median until further study is done. Commissioner McNiel agreed and stated that he would like more information before making a decision on the medians. Chairman Stout stated that the Commission should look at the Base Line median to see if that approach is acceptable for use in other areas. He suggested that any median proposals be deferred until further information is provided. The consensus of the Commission was to defer decision on the Haven Avenue median until the completion of further study. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 28, 1985 0. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENTS - Planning Commission preliminary review of six 6 General Plar, Land Use Amendments and related District Amendments to determine "he completeness of the environmental assessments, or requirements for additional environmental information concc going each of the following applications: GPA 85 -046 & DDA 85 -07 - Porlsa - south side of Foothill, between Vineyard and Baker; GPA 85 -04C - Vel Mack - southwest corner of Foothill and Turner; GPA 85 -04D - Hawkins - south side of Feron, between Archibald and Turner GPA 85 -04E - Adams - south side of Base Line, west of Topaz GPA 85 -04F & ISPA 85 -03 - Rochester Avenue Associates - southeast corner of Arrow and Rochester GPA 85 -04 G - Gerold - Northwest corner of 19th and Archibald Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report, and advised that the purpose of these items being placed on the Commission's agenda at tKis time is to get the Commission's concurrence on environmental issues as to whether additional information is necessary or if the information provided is adequate. General Plan Amendment 85 -04B - Porlsa• Development District Amendment 85 -07 - orlsa Chairman Stout was concerned that the traffic study would be conducted with a certain type of project in mind and then if something happened to that project, the City may be left with a General Plan amendment and Development District change with a traffic study which won't support a different type of project. Mr. Kroutil stated that a development agreement in conjunction with approval of the project was discussed with the applicant. He explained that the traffic study should look at the issue of access relative tL traffic generation ratios allowed under the office /professional district, which is higher than medium density. Further that it should address the worse case scenario. Chairman Stout stated that it should look at both because if it turns out under worse case scenario it won't work, but it might work under the housing use, the City could fall back on a development agreement. Commissioner McNiel was concerned with senior citizen, motorists entering traffic on Foothill Boulevard. Mike Simpson, representing the applicant, agreed to to supply a traffic study on both uses. Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 28, 1985 The Commission's consensus was to accept staff's recommendation that a brief traffic, analysis be completed to _determine the potential impb.ts which may result from an office project, versus senior or multi- famiiy residential development on the site. The fault study and noise analysis is to be accomplished at the project review level, prior to finalizing the CUP and design review process. General Plan Amendment 85 -04C - MelMack Chairman Stout asked if the issue of single family residential compatibility would be addressed in the environmental study. Mr. Kroutil stated that if other environmental impacts exist, the Commission might want to include compatibility in the environmental assesstment; however, compatibility would probably not be addressed on its owa Chairman Stout asked if alternative uses could be addressed. Mr. Kroutil replied that a section on alternative uses would be a valid tool to use. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that the Commission is discussing what additional information is necc -'sary prior to public hearing and should not be taken as opposition to or sut,jrt of a project. It was the consensus of Commission to require additional environmental analysis in the areas of land use, hydrology, and transportation. General Plan Amendment 85 -04D - Hawkins: The consensus by the Commission was that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Gencril Plan Amendment 84 -03 A is adequate in evaluating the impacts for this application. General Plan Amendment 85 -04E - Daly Construction: Chairman Stout requested that staff look at the city limit line on east side of the channel which is in the city of Upland. Mr. Kroutil advised that staff could provide a brief analysis at the time the project comes before the Commission as a pub ?ic hearing. The consensus by the Commission was to roquire additional information relative to traffic impacts. General Plan Amendment 85 -04F /Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 85 -03 - nucucstcr nssYc-iazes: The consensus by the Commission was that no additional environmental information is necessary. Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 28, 1985 General Plan Amendment 85 -04G - Gerold: The consensus by the Commission was that no additional environmental information is necessary. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS P. VICTORIA PARKLANE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that he liked the alternative trail alignment because it made a lot more sense than having it on the parkway. Further, the grade at that point is a lot shallower and it lines up well with the northern connection. Commissioner Chitiea concurred and stated that the ultimate alignment was much preferred and much safer. It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the alternate trail design. Chairman Stout stated that if the Lyon Company is obligated to put in the trail connection from the park down to the bridge, they should be able to provide an equivalent amount of money to provide the alternate connection. Further, that if that amount was just enough to put in the improvements, some sort of fu,_ding mechanism would be necessary until dedication is obtained. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the trail connection should either be tied to the railroad access or when the property to the east develops, whichever comes first. Jack Lam, Community Development Dire-tor, reiterated the Commission's comments that the alignment was much superior to the previous one and William Lyon Company is responsible for equivalent of what they would have put in the other trail. Additionally, that some method would be developed so that when the property develops at some future date the trail could be put in. William Bailey, William Lyon Company, was concerned with this concept. He stated that he had researched and in all hearings and reports it it clearly evident that there was a concerted effort to eliminate that trail. Further, that none of the approval documents sndicate that the Lyon Company is responsible for cost of the trail at twat point. He advised that he would be willing to pay for this alternate trail, but wanted to be relieved of responsibility of the southern connecting trail. Chairman Stout stated that Mr. Bailey had a point with regard to economics. Further, that Lyon Company did agree to install the additional connection up to Etwanda, which was not required, and if they were going to install the leg from Victoria Parkway to that corner, this would definitely benefit the community. He additionally stated that the alternate trail alignment should be designated on plan. Plann ng Commission Minutes -21- August 28, 1985 K Commissioner Rempel agree-; and stated that the trail connection at Daycreek is more than adequate to the railroad tracks. Commissioner Barker stated that the alternate trail connection should be designated on the Etiwanda Plana Further, that with the installation of the alternate trail by the Lyon Company, it would be fair to accept Mr. Bailey's proposal. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and further stated that when the alternate trail connection was discussed by the Trails Committee, they were unaware that the Lyon Company was also installing the southern trail connection. Chairman Sto�rt ad; sed that the Etiwanda Specific Plan should be amended to not only -include this trail connection, but also the one north of Highland.. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the Lyon Company intended to develop the lots adjacent to the trail on Etiwanda as horse property. Mr. Bailey replied that those lots were half -acre lots and would be developed as horse property. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to accept the northern trail connection in lieu of the connection to the southern trail. Additionally, staff was directed to prepare an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan which would depict the alternate trail connection. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to ad;; ^urn 12:40 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 28, 1985 x CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 25, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout caiie! the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Ling: Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pl -Rdge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS; PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel (arrived 7 :10 p.m.), Dennis Stout ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Andy Arczynsky, Assistant City Attorney; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that a status report on the slope planting for the Caryn project would be added to this agenda. Mr. Lam also requested that the Commission select an alternative date for the October workshop, due to P. conflict with some of the Commissioner's schedules. October 14, 1985 was selected as the alternative date, at 6 :00 p.m., Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. He advised that the topic for this workshop would be announced at the Planning Commission's October 9th meeting. . IN APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Stout requested an amendment to page 10 of the July 10;.1385 Planning ._ Commission meeting to reflect that the school districts prefer to have screening which does not lend itself to Irafitti. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the July 10, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes as amended. Commissioners Barker and Chitiea abstained from voting because they were not in attendance at that meeting. Commissioner Chitiea requested the following additions to the August 14, 1985 Minutes: page 7, 7th paragraph to include the statement "Commissioner C'Iitiea considered the feasibility of substituting a landscape barrier in lieu of a block wall; and to page 14, 3rd paragraph, to include the stat --ent "Commissioner Chitiea asked Mr. Garnella of Central School District if an architectural firm had been selected and whether the design would be similar to any other school in the district ". Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to approve the August 14, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -38 - FOREM - Review of outdoor /indoor employee luncheon area. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11997 - LANDCO - A custom lot subdivision of 19 lots on 9.75 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the southeast corner of Hillside Road and Beryl Street - APN 1061 - 621 -01. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 - EJL - A proposed custom lot subdivision of 2. 7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ac) into ten (10) lots located on the north side of Finch Avenue, wes of Haven Avenue and south of Highland Avenue - APN 202- 191 -1.5. Chairman Stout requested the removal of item "B" for discussion. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded 5. 3arker, to adapt items A and C of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOJT 140ES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL - carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 25, 1985 B. Time Extension for Tentative Tract 11997 - Landco Chairman Stout stated he voted against this project in the beginning because the lots fronting on Beryl create an unsafe situation; therefore, would not be in favor of an extension. Commissioner Barker agreed and further stated that across the street is a park which added to his concern with the design of this project. Commissioner McNiel agreed that there is a traffic problem, but was concerned that a tremendous amount of wall is being constructed along Beryl and was more opposed to walling -in the street than having the lots front on Beryl. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the lot sizes were smaller than the standard and felt a redesign of the project would be appropriate. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to deny the time extension for Tentative Tract 11997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Rempel arrived 7 :10 p.m. Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission:. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9409 - DAON CORPORATION - A single parcel of 2.99 acres of land submitted for condominiw: purposes in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located on Arrwe Route between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN 208- 622 -05. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -37 - DAON CORPORATION - Phase II development of light industrial condominiums located on t e north side of Arrow Route between Utica and Red Oak on 2.99 acres in an Industrial Park (Subarea 7). Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the Parcel Map staff report. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Development Review staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 25, 1985 Jack Corrigan, applicant, concurred with the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9409 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, FTOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Nela-live Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 85 -3;. Motion carried by the following vote: AYER: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried F. VARIANCE 85 -07 - SLABACK - A reduction to the sideyard setback for the placement of a relocated single family dwelling (move -on) on 7500 square feat of land located on the north side of Humboldt Avenue between Turner and Center Avenues (10212 Humboldt Avenue) - APN 209- 11 -27. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Slaback concurred with the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by 'Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 85 -07. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 25, 1985 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9318 - MARTIN - MARIETTA CORP. - A division of 8.59 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park Area (Subarea 6) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 7th Street - APN 209 - 251 -12. Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that because this project is located on Haven Avenue, staff ti:ought it appropriate to offer an additional condition for the Cormission's consideration which would require Special Boulevard landscaping in conjunction with the Haven Avenue sidewalk construction. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gary Sanderson, representing the applicant, was concerned with the condition which required sidewalks on the north side of 7th Street. He advised that in a meeting With the City Engineer, it had been determined that the sidewalks would not be necessary. He advised that the problem with sidewalk construction is that the existing fence would have to be removed. He asked for clarification of staff's proposed additional landscaping condit»n. Chairman Stout explained that the concern was that the existing landscaping would be damaged witii the construction of the sidewalk on Haven Avenue. he added that what would be required is additional treatment such as grass and trees to Lhe right -of -way area to make it consistent with what is on the other side of the street. He asked for staff's comments with regard to the applicant's concern regarding the sidewalk o,; 7th Street. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the Industrial Specific Plan requires sidewalks on one side of the street and t'iat currently no sidewalk exists on the south side of 7th Street. Mr. Sanderson advised that Mr. Hubbs sent him a letter vhich outlined this discussion. He indicated that he did not have the lettr,r with him at this time. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Sanderson to provide him with a copy of the letter for the record. Bill Kirkland, adjacent property owner, was concerned with the center line and alignment of Acacia with respect to his property. He objected that he was being required to dedicate more property towards the construction of Acacia Street than the applicant for this project. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that at this point, before the median island is constructed, it is not known where the centerline for Acacia will be located. He additionally advised that a MWD easement also exists on Mr. Kirkland's property. Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 25, 1985 There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that there are some streets in the industrial area which really do not need sidewalks and did not think the sidewalk was necessary on 7th Street at this time. Commissioner Barker stated Viat he did not have enough information on this issue to make a decision tr require the sidewalk. He suggested that staff develop a means to flag this property to make sure that it is taken care of when a specific project is submitted. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if there are no existing sidewalks on the south side of the street, they should be required for the north side. Chairman Stout stated that eventually the property would be valuable enough that they would wan; to redevelop the Master Builders site, at which time these improvements could be installed. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that there should be some sort of assurance that the sidewalks are installed in the future, when they become necessary. Chairman Stout advised that the meandering sidewalk at:d required landscaping on Haven should be done. Further, that the sidewalk on 7th should be indicated on the master plan. Then if it was later determined that the sidewalk on 7th Street was not necessary, the ma -ter plan could be modified. Commissioner Rempel addressed the issue of Acacia Street and stated it needs to be realized that the City does not know whether or not this street is necessary until the overpass is constructed. He further stated that some consistency needs to be established for street dedications, and did not feel it was fair to require two - thirds dedication from ore property owner and one - third from another. He suggested that until such time as it is determined that the street is really needed, a lien agreement or offer of dedication from the Master Builders property should be taken for one -half of the street right - of -way. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, asked Mr. Hanson if the condition was deferred until further building or if it was the basis of an irrevocable offer of dedication. Mr. Hanson replied that the condition was based on three circumstances; further building, further subdivision_, and the third one would be construction of the property immediately to the north. If that property were developed, staff thought the street would have to go in at that point to provide access. Therefore, staff could see the street being constructed sooner than completion of the overpass. Planning Commission Minutes �6- September 25, 1985 Mr. Lam advised that the Commission would not be foreclosing the .ation if they asked the property owner on the south to provide an irrevocable offer of dedicati ,-^ for half of the street. Further, that if and when the property to the north is developed the opportunity would still be there to take a look at what dedication issue might be necessary for that property. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8318, with amendments to require landscaping and meandering sidewalk on Haven Avenue consistLtit with the east side of Haven Avenue, an irrevocable offer of dedication for one -half of Acacia Street, and sidewalk construction on 7th Street dt erred until time of development. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ,arried Chairman Stout announced that the following items and item "Q" were related. Therefore, item "Q" would be heard out of regular order, concurrently with the following amendment request: H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN A'?, NnMENT 85 -04B - PORLSA - A request to amend the General Plan LTr Use r `rom Medium Residential (4- 14 du /ac) to Office (in conjunction with he development of a senior citizen congregate living and care facility) on 4.85 acres of land located on the south side of Fouthili Blvd, west side of Cucamonga Creek, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 208- 211 -20 & 21. I. ENV IONMENTAL m_:zSSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 85 -07 - PORLSA - A request to amend tiie Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 du /ac) to Office /Professional (in conjunction with the development of a senior citizen congregate living and care facility) on 4.85 acres of land, located on the iouth side of Foothill Boulevard, west side of Cucamonga Creek, west of Vineyard Avenue „ APN 208 - 211 -20, 21. Q. PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR CUP 85 -25 - PORLSA - A consistency determination between the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and the proposed 112 unit senior congregate living facility together with a 50 bed care facility and other services providid such as meals, transportation and housekeeping, located at the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Cucamonga Creek and west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207- 211 -20 and 21. Related File GPA 85 -04B} DDA 85 -07. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report relative to the General Plan and Development District Amendment. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report relative to preliminary review for CUP 85 -25. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 25, 1985 Commissioner McN ?el asked staff if information was available from Caltrans regarding a signal at Baker and Foothill. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, replied that at this time a signal has not been scheduled for installation at this location; however, if a project was approved for Baker and Foothill it would be nece; ;sary for Caltrans to place that signal on its priority list. Commissioner Rempal asked if staff had information from Caltrans regarding the median island on Foothill. Mr. Rougeau replied that the concept of a median haF been approved by Caltrans, but that further study ie underway to determine where the median breaks should be located. '.liairman Stout opened the public hearing. Rirk Andrews, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Kenneth Grimes gave an overview of the architecture. Chairman Stout advised that V e Planning Commission had recently completed a study of Foothill Boulevard and forwarded Interim Policies to the City Council for its approval. He asked the applicant if they had reviewed these policies with respect to architecture. Mr. Grimes replied that he hrd obtained a copy %f the Interim Policies; however, the criteria had not been utilized as Lhe project design was completed 4 -5 months ago. "hairiran Stout referred to the Interim Palicies section which rec- -fires applicants to make a statement of how a proposed project's architecture can conform with the desired theme for Foothill Boulevard. tie asked if this would be realistic for this type of project. Mr. Grimes replied that he would like to have more specific information on the goals of this requirement and hoped that this would be possible during review of the CUP. T4;are were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that one of the primary considerations for senior citizen projects is the pruXimity to services that senior citizens need, however, there are no services within safe walking distance to this project. Commissioner McNiel disagreed and stated that van service is not an uncommon method of transportation for senior project. He felt it was not a bad location because it is buffered by surros;nding developi:ent. Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 25, 1986 Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the senior citizens would not be able to walk to support services and parks,.but would have to'drive or rely on van service. She stated that it is not to say that it may not be appropriate in the future, but the project at this time is premature. Chairman Stout stated that eventually the support services may be provided with' "n walking distance of this project and agreed that the location is premature for this type of use at this time. Further: that it later may be possible to resolve the technical issues and advised that an egress in addition to foothill Boulevard was necessary. Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the driveway location on foothill, and stated that another driveway should not be lrcated on Foothill until the median island is constructed. He further stated that other issues associated with the project .ould be mitigated, but the traffic issue far outweighs all others. Chairman Stout stated ':hat based on these comments, it seemed the consensus of the Cormission would be to deny this request. He asked the City Attorney to clarify the appropriate action. Andrew Arczynsky, Assistant City Attorney, advised that since a Resolutim of Denial had not been submitted for Commission consideration, the appropriate action would be to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending denial and place it or the consent calendar of the next agenda. Further, that it would then be at the applicant's discretion if he wanted to withdraw his Conditional Use Permit application. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution, recommending denial of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -04B, Porlsa. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending denial of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 85 -07, Porlsa. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 25, 1985 8.;20 Planning Commission Recessed 8:30 - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL E-AN AMENDMENT 85 -04C - MEL MACK - A request to amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan from Medium Density Residential (4 -14 du /ac) to Medium High Density Residential (14 -24 du /ac) for 18 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Turner Avenue - APM 208 - 321 -24. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Paul Edwards, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Edwards stated that a mobile home park had been approved for th ?s site in 1969. Chairman Stout asked if an approval in 1969 would still be effective. Andrew Arcyznsky, Assistant City Attorney, advised that logic would dictate that the approval is no longer in effect, however without seeing the actual approvals from County he could only guess that any approval would have expired. Mr. Magel, Rancho Cucamonga resident, was concerned with the project's impact on traffic and drainage. He also stated that a flooding problem exists on Turner, and was concerned that more water would be generated as a result of this project. Russell Jay, representing the applicant, advised that this applicant is a long -term investor and maintains and operates a high quality project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with the transition of density. She pointed out that in the past the City has always been consistent that the transition of density between single family low density and high density projects. Further, that increasing the density on this site does not provide tiat tran itisn; therefore, would not be in favor of this request. Commissioner McNiel stated that the density was too high and would agree that this request should be denied based on the inconsistency with past decisions to provide for density transition. Commissioner Barker stated that he didn't see a need for an increase in density on this site. He was concerned with traffic impacts generated by increasing the density by 90 additional units, and compatibility with the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 25, 1985 Commissioner Rempel stated that he was not concerned with the density, and was sorry the applicant decieed not to.develop a mobilehome park. He. advised that - one thing that is need,.d in the City is more mobile hone parks to provide competition for the few which currently exist. Further, the amount of transition is there to allow the higher density. Chairman Stout stated in the last few months there has been a lot of discussion about multiple family housing in the City and that the General Plan has been religously been defended in its attempt to make a balanced type of housing available throughout the City. He advised that he could see no reason to increase the density if that balance established by the General Plan is correct. Further, that if a piece of ground could be found which was properly zoned for it, this project would be an asset to the City. He additionally stated that because of sensitivity of transition areas to south this project could be structured to provide high density to the north and lower density to the south, which would be very close to the density range which exists on that property now and have the same or similar type of project. Commissioner Rempel stated that this &:endment would not increase the overall density of the City. Further, that the General Plan advises that high density projects should be placed along major thoroughfares; however, the density has been considerably reduced north of Base Line. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending denial to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -04 C, Mel Mack. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NUDE - carried Commissioner Rempel stated that he thought the amendment request would not increase the overall density for the area. K. ENVIRONMENTA!. ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -040 - HAWKINS - A request to amend the Land Use Map of the Genera. Plan from Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Medium Density Residential (4 -14 du /ac) for 13.55 acres of land located on the south side of Feron Blvd. between Archibald and Turner - APN 209- 055 -02, 03, & 14. Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Tracy Tibballs, Covington and Crowe Attorneys, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 25, 1985 Nacho Gracia 10364 Humboldt, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the amendment. He stated that when the amendment was previously requested for -this site, the residents were in favor of a density change to low- medium density from 4 -8 dwelling units to the acre, but with development at the low end of the range. Ramon Rodriquez, 10316 25th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the amendment. He was concerned that the increased population as a result of the project would increase the crime rate. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that his concerns were the same as before- there is no place else in the City where placing 14 dwellings units to the ac-e in the middle of a low density designation would be allowed. Further, that it was the general consensus that the current density for this site is inappropriate; however, this proposal is too high and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the community advised that a more appropriate range would be in the 4 -8 dwelling unit per acre, but they were still talking about single family detached housing. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had the same concerns with this proposal that he had with the original proposal a couple of months ago. Further, that this piece of property needs a development agreement and should not be developed with a single use, but needs some type of mixed uses. Commissioner Chitiea stated that there is no new information to support the need for an increase to this high of a density on this site. She advised that she would have considered an amendment in the low - medium range with a development agreement. Commissioner McNiel stated that the residents of the North Town have contributed greatly to improving that area. He was concerned that the project would be a detriment to the community. He stated that an increase in density to this level across the stree'; from a school site is inappropriate. Commissioner Stout stated that the 2 -4 density range currently on this site is probably not viable and that a density of 4 -8 would be more appropriate with the development of single family detached homes. Further, that the location of this property in the middle of single family residential does not provide for a density transition. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending denial of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85- 40 D, Hawkins, to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 25, 1985 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -04E - DALY CONSTRUCTION - A request to amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan from Low Medium Density Residential (4 -8 du /ac) to Medium Density Residential (4 -14 du /ac) for 5.3 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road west of Topaz - APN 202 - 025 -1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, & 14. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Dave Vaughn, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Dan Richards, representing the applicant, concurred with the finaings� of the staff report and urged adoption of the Resolution. Myron Lay, 7191 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the amendment and was concerned that the surrounding area was being developed with too many high density projects. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that he had no problem with the density due to the isolation of this piece of property, but was concerned with traffic impacts. Commissioner Chitiea stated that due to the isolation of this property and its location adjacent to the project in Upland which has 12 units per acre, she felt the proposed a�iendment would be acceptable if traffic issues could be mitigated along with density transition on the site at the time of project submittal. Commissioner Rempel concurred that this request would be appropriate and felt that the development of this project would eliminate some of the drainage problems. Commission Barker stated that it wasn't very often he could be convinced to increase density in the City; however, this site is unique in that it is isolated as fa: as Rancho Cucamonga is concerned and is buffered from single family housing to the south and east. Further, that this amendment would be an advantage to the community because the 600 feet of frontage could provide a landscape entry which the developer and homeowners will pay for and maintain. He stated that if the developer was willing to take an 600 feet of landscape frontage and be conditioned to restrict density at 12 units to the acre, he would vote in favor. Chairman Stout concurred and stated that this proposal ' "its the criteria in that transition of density is no problem, the adjacent property in Upland is similarly zoned, there are a number of protective areas around it such as the flood control area, and ;he lower density to the south faces south away from Base Line. Further, that he was not in favor of increasing the density, but this makes good land use _sense especially sense the adjacent project in Upland is developed with 12 units to the acre. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 25, 1985 i i Mution: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -04E, Daly Construction to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried 9:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 10:00 p.m. - Planning - ommission Reconv,.ned Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL _PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -04F - ROCHESTER AVENUE ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial on 32.17 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Rochester Avenue - APN 229 -1 ?1- 19, 23, 24, 25, & 26. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -03 - ROCHESTER AVENUE ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Industrial Specific Plan from Minimum Impact /Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) to General Industrial (Subarea 13) on 47.6 acres of land, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Rochester Avenue - APN 229- 121 -01, 14, 19, 21- 28 and APN 229- 271 -44. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Larry Nelson, rerresenting the applicant, gave an overview of the proposed amendment and site plan. Jeff Schlosser, Schlosser Forge Company, objected to the change based on its affect an his property. He stated that during the General Plan hearings, it was a concern that existing heavy industrial businesses be protected. He advised that his company is a heavy industrial user which generates noise, vibration and emits humidity, which he thought might be objectionable to a general industria'r user. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 25, 1985 Gary Mitchell, 133 Spring, Claremont, advised that he was a member of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee and that the concern of the Committee was not with the type'of uses but with the view 61 motorist on Devore Freeway. Further, that the concern was with the upgrading in terms of aesthetics and design characteristics of both existing and new projects. Mr. Nelson stated that the impacts caused by Sc�losser Forge would be the same as impacts on heavy industrial uses. Further, LL- eneral industrial would be Z. more appropriate category for this location cue to its proximity to tip. freeway because it is much easier to landscape that type of use as opposed to heavy industrial. There were no further comments, therefcre the public hearing was closed. Commissions Barker stated that he understood the concern that Mr. Schlosser had regardi,:g the incompatibility of the two uses; however, if a heavy industrial user was located on this site, it would be very difficult to adequately screen it from the freeway. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the Commission decides to make this land use change, it should be noted that this type of usq is adjacent to it and a commitment needs to be made to insure Schlosser Forge the full use and expansion of its site. Chairman; Stout stated that no matter what is developed on that site it has to consistent with the existing development across the street. He advised that the City commited to the forge many years ago, but that there was no question that the City has made another commitment towards quality and upgrading its image wherever possible. Further, that the corridor along the freeway is one of the business community's most important assets and this general industrial use could provide an aesthetic barrier to the heavy industrial uses on the other side of Rochester. Commissioner McNiel stated that he understood Mr. ScPilosser's concern and agreed that some sort of commitment should be made to insure that heavy industrial uses are allowed to continue operation. Commissioner Chitiea stated that this design is what the City is looking for to upgrade this area which is a window to the City. Further, she agreed that a commitment should be made to protect existing heavy manufacturing uses and with this protection she did not think that the forge should be concerned with being forced out of the area. Chairman Stout asked how the Industrial Specific Plan could be amended to avoid future conflicts which may arise between existing heavy industrial uses and firms locating in the surrounding area designated for General Industrial development. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, replied that a section could be added under Special Considerations ir. Subareas 8 and 13 of the Industrial Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -15 September 25, 1985 Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -04F,, Rochester Avenue Associates.. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 85 -03, Rochester Avenue Associates. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Additionally, staff was directed to prepare an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan Subareas 8 and 13 for the Commission's consideration at the seconu meeting in October. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -04G - GEROLD - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) on 3.67 acres of land located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - Portion of APN 202- 1091 -21. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gary Mitchell, 133 Spring, Claremont, gavE an overview of the project. Joe Hanna, 6715 Jadeite, Rancho C4camonga, supported the change from office to residential. He advised that the area residents would like to work with the applicant, similar to what was done with the Lincoln Properties project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that he assumed the same position on this amendment that he had on other office amendments in the past in that he rds concerned that the time would come when office sites would be needed and they will have all been amended to residential. He additionally supported keeping the entire site designated for office. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 25, 1985 Commissioner Chitiea agreed in the long term offi ^e sites will be needed above 19th Street, therefore felt the designation of otfic. needed to be retained on this site for future use. Further., that the entire site should be consolidated into one land use. Commissioner Barker agreed that the entire site should be combined into one use and that he could not see an a, vantage to the community in changing the density and felt that an office designation might be more appropriate in the long term. Chairman Stout stated that he did not have an objection tc residential at this loc,.,tion and was of the opinion that the office designation was originally mi'piaced. Further, that at attempt has been made to keep the northern area of the city residential, and by putting offices at that location basically detracts from the character. He agreed that the site should be combined into one land use. Commissioner Rempel agreed that the ite should be residential and combined into one land use. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution recrmmending denial to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 85 -04G, Gerold. Motion carried by the following vota: AYF3; COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Commissioners Re° ^el anti Stout felt the amendment request was appropriate. P. AND ur mmnl.nu k�u,;,_nuixum — i111 cunw1ui11C1m w muully Lim F-kma11Ua opc-111 it. rlall, Figure 5-T8 °Community Trails", by extending the equestrian trail along Etiwanda f,venue southerly to Highland Avenue, and the establishment of an equestrian trail connection to the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way south of Victoria Avenue, along the east perimeter of the Victoria Planned Community. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Cook advised that Figure V -19 should also be amended and presented exhibits to the Commission. Chairman btout advised that a letter had been received from Mr. Clark indicating -that he is the landowr whn owns land affected by the amendment and ttiat he objected to the amendment. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no cc iments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commiss ► Minutes -17- September 25, 1985 .e Commissioner Chitiea stated that the trail connection to the south is important and that the amendment was appropriate. Chairman Stout stated that Victoria does not have many equestrian areas at all and that Etiwanda has a rather extensive equestrian overlay district north of Highland. Further, that this trail would be a direct link between that area on the western edge down to railroad tracks. Motion: i•,oved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to adopt tae Resolut4on recommending approval to 't "c City Council of Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 85 -01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, carried unanimously, to continue past the adjournment time for discussion of the following item. NEW BUSINESS R. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 85 -35 - MALMQUIST - A consistency determination betweE'l the Foothill Corridor Inte-im Po ides and a proposed 4 -unit apartment addition to an existing apartment complex located at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and San Bernardino Road - APN 208 - 141 -41. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Leonard Malmquist, 424 10th Street, Claremont, California, stated that the intent was to upgrade the existing apartment units in conjunr' on with the construction of four additional units. Chairman Stout advised that the City is in the process of studying the entire Foothill corrdor and hopefully will develop a plan which will make a major impact on that area. He asked what the applicant proposed as the timing of this project. Mr. Malmquist. advised that he wanted to move as rapidly as ,possible p- ',narily because of-financiai considerations. Commissioner Rempel stated that San Bernardino Road is one of the areas to be address °a in the Foothill Corridor Study; therefore, would be concerned with allowing this projec` to proceed prior to completion of the Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -18- Septt�qber 25, 1985 Commissioner. Barker agreed and further stated that the City needs solid guidelines and piecemeal work should not be done in the interim. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and added that it was nice to hear an applicant wants to upgrade older buildings and landscaping; however, felt a decision should be reserved until completion, of the plan. Chairman Stout stated that the block from Hellman to Archibald on the forth side of Foothill is one of the areas with the most signficiant problems that need to be worked out; therefore, Mould be in favor of deferring a decision on this project until those problems are solved. Mot -on: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel that this project be continued until completion of the establishment of the final policies for Foothill Boulevard. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seco',ided by u-- '3iel, unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time for consideration of the following item: S. PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -07 - BARMAKIAN - A consistency determination between the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and a propoaed 88 unit apartment complex, located at the south side of San Bernardino Road, 700± feet east of Hellman Avenue - APN 208 - 141 -35, 38. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Pete Pitassi, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and advised that the applicant had been working with surrounding property owners to resolve issues of concern. Nelda Lovgren, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in support of the project. Caroline Tucker, 7899 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga, urged the Commission to defer the decision on this project until the completion of the Foothill Plan. She was concerned wi;:h the transition of density and did not feel the project was compatible with the existing area. Commissioner Chitiea stated that architecture is otie of the many problems associated with the project and would not feel comfortable in making a decision prior to completion cf the Study. Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 25, 1985 Commissioner McNiel stated that access is another major problem associated with the project and advised that:.placing the main access on 2nd Street might be considered. He agreed that no decision could be made on this project until the study is completed. Commissioner Barker stated that there were so many problems, it was difficult to know where to begin. Further, tie questioned if a decision could be made before the issue of the consolidation of the smaller lots along Foothill could be resolved. Chairman Stout stated that this area is probably the biggest problem block of the built up area on Foothill. Further,, i.hat it doesn't ma'te sense to allow that density to be oriented towards San Bernardino Road. He advised that there is a solution to hake the traffic circulation work, but the City is going to have t. get invoi;ed in order to get it to work. He further stated that he felt very strongly that the problem s on Foothill were going to have to be solved before making a decision on this project.. Commissioner Rempel stated that tie iE;ue of small parcels along Foothill is the crux of the situation, primarily in the area from Hellman to Turner. He agreed that if the City wants to be proud of Foothill Boulevard, it has to look aL the total area and not on a piecemeal bas s. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to cn�Ainue the project until completion of the Foothill Plan. Motion carried by t_ following vote: AYES: COMMIS; )NERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, 3ARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Baik:r, un -in mously carried, to continue past the adjournment time for discussio:, of the €allc4ing item: COUNCIL REFERRALS STATUS REPORT ON SLOPE PLANTING - CARYN PROJECT Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, advised that Flcrian Martinez, Landscape Architect for the Caryn "ompany, had not provided staff with photographs of proposed landscape material to be used on the slopes with the Caryn project, as require! by the 7ianning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 25, 1985 ppi I.t 1 r P =- - PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Rempei stated that the Barmakian Company has the required notice sign for its project on San Bernardino Road; however, the sign states that apartments are coming, not that they are proposed, and additionally, that the sign is oversized. He asked staff to check to see if this sign meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that staff would look into the situation. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rer,pel, seconded by Barke,, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:20 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -21- SerLember 25, 1985 0 l El I CITY OF RANCHO CiTCAMONGA MEMORANDUM GVC�A�OM�9 <1 s n U- 0 O U� �9 DATE: October 23, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, A1CP, Comiunity Development Director BY: ldancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHELBOU "9E A total residential siluivis on and design review t37 single family lots on 8,9 acres of 'and in the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 506 ± feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -21, 22. (Continued from October 9th meeting.) At its October 5, 1985 meeting, the Planning, Commission continued the Public Hearing for this project to this regular meeting as requested by the Applicant. The developer aceirj is requesting for a continuation of time so that he could work with Staff in resolving those identified issues. Attached for your review is a copy of the letter of request from the applicant. Staf recc mnends that this item be continued for 50 days to the December 11, 19d5 regular meeting JL:NF:das Attachment: Applicant's letter of request ITEM + 1 00'17' Fv-(Svav-�# 1,,/,2— Poo 1 Shelburne Development Corporation E660 AL-e.. Im Boulevard Fii —Wde, r',eli t— 92506 (774) 7B0 -3636 sx�.�,B�RrrE won MacLean. 11 com..wer /;-;Z, r LJ CITY 0" RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 23, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner • N'40 % SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -27 - CONTINENTAL CARE The development of a psychiatric hospital facility consisting of 75,865 square feet on 6.1 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7j located on the southeast corner of White Oak and Elm Avenue - APN 208 - 351 -15. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a Precise Plan, elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: To cs:nstruct a psychiatric hospital facility. C. Surroundinq Land Use and Zinin Korth - Vacant, industrial Park (Subarea 7) Industrial Specific Plan. South - Vacant, Industrial Park (Subarea 7) Industrial Specific Plan. East - Vacant, Industrial Park (Subarea 7) Industrial Specific Plan. West - Vacant, Industrial Park (SubareL 7) Industrial Specific Plan. 0. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park. 'North - Industrial Park. - South - Industrial Park. East - Industrial Park. West - Industrial Park. E. Site Characteri ,3tics: The site is located within the master - planned Rancho Cucamong Business Park. Presently, the project site is vacant with few scattered weeds and indigenous grasses. The site sTopes from north to south at approximately 3% grade. The surrounding parcels are vacant with streets and utilities currently in place. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL- ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -27 C -tober 23, 1985 Page 2 E II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The project proponents envision developing a psychiatric hospital facility consisting of 3 structures; a 130 -bed skilled nursing facility for the mentally disordered; a two -story combination kitchen /laundry, 5- office out - patient clinic; and a 40 -bed psychiatric board and care facility, with recreational amenities including a swimming pool and tennis court (see Exhibit "C "). The project site will be a "lock - down" facility surrounded by a 6' high security wall with 2 access gates. 'This proposal is regionally oriented and will serve a 4 county -wide area (Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Inyo Counties). The project proposal is a permitted use and meets the physical site development requirements of Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the proposed development and recommended minor changes to enhance the elevations, screening of roof mounted equipment, and line -of sight study. The Committee suggested window arches be recessed, rather than applied trim. Also decorative treatment to the rear wall that is consistent with the entire perimeter Ask wall design. The applicant responded by making changes to the roof structure (hip roof) to screen mechanical equipment within the attic space (see Exhibit "E, F, & G"). The -•lindows were revised to address the Committee's concern of more relief and shadow patterns in the elevations (see Exhibit "I "). The line - of sight study has not been submitted at the date of this report. The project was re- scheduled as a consent calendar item. During the Committee's 2nd review, comments were made regarding lack of architectural details in the drawings of the revised e eva ions, en ry ga a and view- obstructing gate details, details in the perimeter wall design, lighting fixtures didn't v relate to the architecture, lack of texturized paving treatment, roof mass VS. building scale, lack of spe,.ialized landscape treatment at entries and corners of the project site as depicted in the separate rendering. The Committee decided to refer the design elevations to the full Planning Commission for review and have the applicant clarify these areas of comment. C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed and approved the proposed development subject to: fire prevention measurec to be incorporate9 within the building design and provisions for secondary emergency access. The Water District expressed concern ever the types of medicine and chemicals that will be put into the sewer system, and has required the applicant to submit a detailed list of all zhemicals and medicine used and proof of acceptable means of solid and liquid waste disposal. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -27 � October 23, 1985 Page 3 l D. Environmental Assessrrint: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the aopli_,ant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found `hat the site will generate substantial amounts of l.aht grei, than similar uses, due to the security nature of the project. :taff recommends that the lighting plan be evaluated by the City Planner, prior to any issuance of building permits for adequate mitigation of light adversely affecting adjacent properties. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must determine if the project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan and whether the project will be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Further, it is not determined whether the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommenda,d conditions, are in substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This 'item has been advertised in The Dai?y Report newspaper as a public nearing. The property was posted and notices advertising the public hearing were sent to all property owners within 30G feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received for or against the project proposal. V. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support the Facts for Findings, then approval of DR 85 -27 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. If the Commission should determine otherwise, then specific findings should be stated for preparation of the Resolution of Denial. Respectfully su itted, Jack Lam, AI Community De7elopment Director JL:HF:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Lands,:aping Plan Exhibit "E" - Building "Al' Elevation & Floor Plan Exhibit "F" - Building "B" Elevation & Floor Plan. Exhibit "G" - Building "C" Elevation & Floor Plan Exhibit "H" - Gate House & Fence Elevations Exhibit "I" - Exterior Finishes Exhibit "J" - Lighting Plan Exhibit "K" - Conceptual Grading Plan Initial Study, Part 1I Resolution of Approval I a l a '-- - -n r �S e: Fe 3� 3 r y C —x��a:�'opY338 :8233 If s „aa aaa as f e= Yr� i c H e ! ids O d I`:I6 roo •voNOwNOna okoNd;� a3LN30 ,v�io3w g IVNOM38 3AOa� 3�JNVtlO fillI fa l l i c ge F a ee @ Pf f ff f c f a c ci F IL z D H N N W J u s� n b J 0 21 QW 14, tY o f � 'V0'V6NOWV0f1OOH0NVtl H3M30'IVOIO3W f V1 N 1VNO1918 3AOUD 3ONVUO Z 3rvmy W A a r 0 1 � b b •� k3 g `9� , t' s I < Qz Z U LLI O d Z 0 LIJ 6�-1 LL (� U U W< = W co z $ o < °k i` el I 's•1 o ; weN O 3 2 N • � £ fax L anv rr3 � z� fit, 1'• u r;> C3 — t� � 88 SN C3 — t� _. SHVoIVJISW NOO& NO'm¥OM aONV4 83IN30 , Gn isS3ld »n, SONVHO } § , | §� p. Al Al § LU 0 # § 2 d § k } 0 } ( k a � § §) k \ ~| lu 77� ml ■ ! � I = � � I. � LA .�� �J 0 'VO'VQNOKVOnO OH^NVM lM N30IVOMW IVNORJ3H 3AOJO 3ONVHO p A ,' �M z MIN30 IVOIG -IVN0103bf SAOUS SONYWO M5, 21 LIU- f Mo 7 t; i o uj I., o 5 1E All a! ci 0 a 2 0.1 - --------------- 41 CL ga M5, 21 LIU- f Mo 7 t; i o uj I., o 5 1E All Ll u �,' _eg k�4Cy w� S E O N W M 3HH it/1PLt�LL�1 3 NO'VDNOWVan OHONYU G' ; UH1N3OIvblaaw WNLC!*3U SAOUJ 3JNNU0 '; I N LU R. f a�ti C S L- O � a ! sl a i 0701 -02 o 10-23-85 P c. Agenda Packet o Page .2 of 4' a.. �..m. —.tea. �.. r R- M 3litl� "Ei/.LPf3Nllf�lOJ 'vO'v�JNOWVOno oHoNva mitao 'tvotaw TMOWM 3A089 3JNWHO l , cm 1II! A O C A a C y O H a c w Gt h ♦� V V e y ♦ W 6 T i O e ° m cm ;JNl:dtivu I . v 00 '. VO 'VONOvivono cHoNvu waltao lvola3w IVNOr-)38 BA080 SONYHO w z 0 JU — LU /.f w LL. .4 ui U) M 0 o \ �\ VO LU V) w LU ( rl Its. �$ \ \f\ 2 a 0 0 z w z m �7_) Ivl ' lvi `12'! "J4 TO 'VON"OnO 'HWONVI 8SM33 1voicavi I IVN0103bl BAMM SONV80 ' . R LU N Lu 0 z LU :j L, EL ri z S4 e IV% '4 1 kA EI m O W "= Lu Ir 0 w x LU j 2 a 0 0 z w z m �7_) Ivl ' lvi `12'! "J4 TO 'VON"OnO 'HWONVI 8SM33 1voicavi I IVN0103bl BAMM SONV80 ' . R LU N Lu 0 z LU :j L, EL ri z S4 e IV% '4 1 kA EI m El- lu Om BUVO lvmamum I i VOVDNOViVOn3 OHONVU 83.LN30 IVOWN IVNOi93H RAOUD SONYHO mmmv K13 Yr '. Ku �� ��/ /� %0 s� �/� • .' —tar E � 1 ,. � 8 k 5 •4 k •4 z z. k z z. i1: 8j J !§I Q � � y �� \• � /.� y \ � , q At §!� :| ! I/ ) % T � � - . / 2 x ' � �x §, � � � - |� � •. ! fill ! IN , \ ■!I \/h k \ . � � 3 In CITY OF RANCHO CUcA`iGNG3 PART II - INITIAL STUDY EN'VIRO`XENT3L CHECKLIST DAT:_ %�CGas� /Y. /9x-5- APPLICANT:_ �Otf17%l/�it��Gi /LE� �btcG `JlR� -- FILING DATE: �� J9�.5 - LOG NUMBER: Z)e PROJECT: �S�9T /C O/✓ a r PROJECT LOCATION: -5Ze- O2-0 Gt%4,,�'Te eoe I. EN11IR=.kENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geoloz . Will the proposal have significant results in, a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? / b. Disruptions, displacements., compaction or burial of the soil? c. .Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geolcbic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? / Y f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrolocy- Will the proposal have significant results in: . Page 2 YES `LAYSE No a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? ' / b. Chstges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundaaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with aquifer? an Quality? Quantity? O t/ h. The reduction in the amount of water otrer- 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 indirect sources? Stationary sources? —. b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or ✓ Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? / C. Alteration of local or regional climatic d 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? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered / species of plants? ?age 3 YES �LaYBE `i0 AM C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area. d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Y 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 uniyue, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction cf 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? / �( 3.. '10221at10n. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the T.ocation, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ✓ b. Will the proposal affect existin�g,.h ,, si �o , =rate. a. Aemand. fa � vr. dditio al . i,? ... �. SOctom- TL9n=ir ?ac'`•'D��S. VM the 1=oposzl- fie -_ Sionirir- t.2e9IIlt$ Change : in- .laral z= =ag „n a , _ — stir , j-cluding �p-ouomir = commercial diversity, sax rat'l- and 7rop=ty values? a q=ft;abl Mmoug F=ject beneiiri,ries, I.P-. buyers, tax payers dr. project users? T. Land Use and ?annine Considerations. Will the -G proposal have significant results in? a. A subs tan tial_ alteration of the prase i' AAk r-Mn13iztvith may rnzs. zb3�23vas, - TOU-cles,-or adopted plans of any governments e=tTities;2 a.. �a Pasi On shy nr gty- sf &•v Dr Page 4 M_ YES. :!AY3E NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant. - results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or 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? V/ f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? / t/ 8- - ZT=reases in traffic Hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? -MO. Health. fafety, -and Naisance- T1att=S,..lam e - =b' "proposal have significant results in Mraa _-'CM -Of ,any .fealth. •bzgr3..nrTnranr;a'i 3iea3rh -31-.: -- Mxp --re z£ rpenplz-I= -gatential heai*h hazards? C. A Sisk of explosion. or - Xelease _Df. i�azardnus .Snbstances_jaShe..eKffit.=f_an ae•cjdent2 d. An-increase.3n- the -number of Individuals -s or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? / e. Increase in existing noise levels? v f. ;" snre of people: -to -:poteat ia11y zd— -.=mime. levals? g. The creation of objectionabla:.adors ? i - �+ M_ Page 5 1 YES 'LkYBE NO 11. aesthetics. Will tb' proposal have significant results in': a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view ? / b. The crertion 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 z significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? J b. Natural or packaged gas? / C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? ' f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? ._ h. Fire protection? i i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev 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 are.available? _ Page y YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial derletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory FindiaR of Sisoificance. ' a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co=unity, 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 period of time while long- term imp, "cts will endure well into the future). ✓ c- Daes t;le project have impacts whicF. are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connecticn with the effects of past projects_ and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? y II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIO`I (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). zo.Gs . !: -j, 101W43`&%reG 949� r.v ,o�,y .fJAc 62.v0i rwf G✓iCG 86 lCWAi, ace, .i d _FiC'L�y of rrraoE+2rin�as o�fif5tb8Y ,Cyf+t/Et'i9fivf ,9.LtD�Tion/,wcr Jrl21�- sacn✓dr, r ACG .osP�C7s �i/Z�Sy s/.aS.E w.tG �E u 2 fW,-- v,�.seTs c/ df 7.f�E �.TY Er✓js.vEEaG G= i��rrrcivGs GC.S� �N H�crH� CR2E qr .�/:rFi �dRr . /Ole �e7 ultee WA 7,, .�re9s rs,,t S c,L' �%�iairJ $I�1oCtg.� GGSFS [iK,!:. 70 �ii�,E' �dfei� f ✓�s?E r7� �/�, Page 7 III. DETER.KINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signi£; ,ant effect 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 PREPA.RED. ❑I find the proposed project KAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and, an ES1V'IRO.1..%E%T I:1PaCT REPORT is required. Date Sign ure Tic le RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVEujiMENT REVIEW NO. 85 -27 LOCATED ON THE '1UTHEAST CORNER OF WHITE OAK AND ELM AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 7) DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 7th day of r:1gust, 1985, a complete application was filed by Doug Mays /Continental Care for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of October, 1985, the Rancno Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the.General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan, and �:. 7i1at the" p, os�d 3sa; together with -the ' =ditions applicable thereto,• w9ll - °7ot be detrimental tv..atae (public. health, safety, or welfare, .•ar rwter9ai7 injurinns -jai -properties .:or improvements in .-tfm :vicinity. SECTION 2• 'That This project will not -cream adverse impacts -on-the -environment and that .a Negative - Declaration is issued.on.Dctober 23, 19B5 SECT IOt13: . -fhat 7}evelupmeat "Review. No. '!$B-'27 -:is apprnved mob — -to .tile iaTiowing conditions and attached Standard Conditions: Planning 1. Applicant shall submit written clearance to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits from Lucamonaa.La,ntyMater- Ristrict. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DR 85 -27 October 23, 1985 Page 2 2. Applicant shall. submit proof of insurance for the proposed use to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Applicant shall submit state issued "Certificate of Need" to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Provide decorative treatment to rear perimeter wall consistent with entire wall design. 5. Applicant shall provide details of decorative wrought -iron gate (front entry) and view- obstructing gates to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Applicant shall submit lighting plan to the City showing details of type, specification, and beam sp iad. 7. Applicant, shall provide 24" box trees .along project - Trontage. 8. Applicant to provide texturized paving treatment to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9. Applicant shall submit a material sample board to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3D. JWiMnt 'shall :submit ,.architectural . giavation of the gate- fiouse and fence,-elevitirm to ttm City Planner for apprDval pr1=- to issuance af:ju13ding 4 ermits. �ntinearina 1. A tiati-ce of Intent to join the 7proposed Median Island Landscape .District shall be filed vrith the City �Wfor. to recoridation of --the -map mr,%building penait-issuance xhich. ever occurs -first.. 2. No building permits shall be issued until a parcel map has been recorded. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985. . -2 aunsuc;: SSIDN -OF 3ME._CITY OF IMCHO LUCAMONGA _. 8Y: .DQnnis L. Stout,.Ghairman �•a.5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DR.85 -27 October 23, 1985 Page 3 ATTEST: Jack lam, 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 introduce(', passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucan,)nga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October, 1985, by the following v6te -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: M Ic I. �- Nci���•r iN .n�lD .� ^A CO. �n9•r YQ�� —o A � Erg nudi�o a e 2 p n� Feu a`dic ie c "cJ� ��c S Et6 i-1 v •h ME'^gp�ErcUT� D9O _ O`�q °'ON''•yE ya =�•4i— 1�qq� CY�uO a+ y�A YNY yQ��i do ... q Y =c O c � 3 2 dpy Y�E��gN q i� =uti u ^n� � �qy Sim a dr E.E<uY� d Y r L'V GLOCniZ LK'O " Vp. VMH yin �°-.o . U 9 qr d ��o EEa`o >dM °opo us ^i 79-.2 vMv q •-°mac C— U y" et! m' d d u _. tz- c 4 A T .. qp.D. •.' a ii cc a •- L bd - Ou o n n O Da °f a �.•- •^ L N L _ qE o ou u u u E _ 0 ... �O••�CO6 �V4 E.q•� e° .E FN a+ir ".i FN NOC vE dE d 4 °G.d -6. aN O a u F a .. y F .+ r e -w Z;. .'.'. y �y n` Y L O y �.0 M V L ^n•- a..G.'� q '•°i ���.c \ \ \ \ \d ugiOFNLA =� 1r -OPaM ¢((w 4M�dr i aDgm OL F•�nl 6t�l N , m M W x a � O IS O m i o u h .a .M aax ALAI ry a^. T�e Lw.•w..0 °Na °a .- t a F L'� g s ni Y u N r =%E q— e T• L 6 q , 4) x ark o � M d '°• A p q[ a '3 '� s� EE b • ddp A G m C O`C d E`yy diari. 11 LIJ ay,LCG 1• =YZ2�., �. w c .' � � n F. Y�r•v x a •+d1 ��_'o n � = >a — o==ff ri _ r.M ia� `a.•r u' Yi oraq... o. 7� u tia =T D�aL iD L1; �q �z EiO NT _ t .•r ..ar. �. YEa 'D- r w..uK '�'r'•+.� '.4.. : �i." w.vC ,�'.�• _ ram. —. � - _ .Y�s•.i c °�. ..ate `" -�a•n� �L ,.. a,r °£ °'"° —.c�ua n: a =�' .xe °. >"u :: w D,i tmo u � p... o•x ,N 'u '6•ccN'� .yV..s C�y+E �pr�i �+ ^ V�Y �S� '•' i,L.Up.Oy ND C� .f{.) -"•Sa a^i 9•oD .M •.. � '. to t -pFi� vSR -.. �uq�' b Y.Q z w•�.i '�? 1 i .'e'r2_.yC E�SMa.a � +"=tv `� .i¢��v. o. °'•-a Y— °o$ yvr f: a� w9.cci oN°` c�•...°cu c..i •o �Y oQN-} aE>Y.Oyp aGgVO V v =a�q yY itCN� to YN _�YOf �� ^'y9 Ca a� �aG YBC Nb qN �' uc� a MM1 �y q 61 w� 4r «`ac p> � E�.'•.v NYn �j +C• d� �.0 «p CE l N6'`CYC ^6E La-Z • -0�Af ~i L bS D �. ° R � z. w c.+0 v E_e9 '-'D, =r•U u e�f mW `YT4rLD N - w+�0.�'y�" L'.+ mi,. ye ,p.p -Z•�,A "L D 1 'D'Oa.��.1 �E La i•^ t K Y a w N 4• f..t '] 4•-. Y • - •+� a�.o si ju r+aaa a «atic.� >o Ain ' , -co, y Y^ O p N •UCaO u Nq E w`{.`/ A4 E Y uq _ C`� ^ N __gap7N�O..p• u N by O q Nola L aQ' ' F O -` u pU N a n+ 2-4 J Q .e` D « n >o a �+N� u•i i Api .t+a° p « oeL °� °�o�� Qi a o c n +« oo p.�- yt...aa «EE =6V Y` � =Ee • r «oU YA•ud^ o- cu= � i5 lo-2 °o °' ''° v •" '° ANC N.°~e a, q ° « ^a �vY a E Y a° n vo °Y �?oi°ma�.•` u y D O °' ct^'. d 6 C uL� qzN r? iaN�q€ ooi Q.yU C^ Y` • F TpTO mS b 4YO. F6` YMN N CFA �pnY Y LOEJ ^C pp « Ya i' 'p Y G S WC Q YgpL'n ^ ¢O Y 6 EYeL€ 2m4 I ••.VVV t •� N�•O'•vT•�=LM01Y� i m� 4. MM4r� t _ \it t Y � NdL i ay,LCG 1• =YZ2�., �. w c .' � � n F. Y�r•v x a •+d1 ��_'o n � = >a — o==ff ri _ r.M ia� `a.•r u' Yi oraq... o. 7� u tia =T D�aL iD L1; �q �z EiO NT _ t .•r ..ar. �. YEa 'D- r w..uK '�'r'•+.� '.4.. : �i." w.vC ,�'.�• _ ram. —. � - _ .Y�s•.i c °�. ..ate `" -�a•n� �L ,.. a,r °£ °'"° —.c�ua n: a =�' .xe °. >"u :: w D,i tmo u � p... o•x ,N 'u '6•ccN'� .yV..s C�y+E �pr�i �+ ^ V�Y �S� '•' i,L.Up.Oy ND C� .f{.) -"•Sa a^i 9•oD .M •.. � '. to t -pFi� vSR -.. �uq�' b Y.Q z w•�.i '�? 1 i .'e'r2_.yC E�SMa.a � +"=tv `� .i¢��v. o. °'•-a Y— °o$ yvr f: a� w9.cci oN°` c�•...°cu c..i •o �Y oQN-} aE>Y.Oyp aGgVO V v =a�q yY itCN� to YN _�YOf �� ^'y9 Ca a� �aG YBC Nb qN �' uc� a MM1 �y q 61 w� 4r «`ac p> � E�.'•.v NYn �j +C• d� �.0 «p CE l N6'`CYC ^6E La-Z • -0�Af ~i L bS D �. ° R � z. w c.+0 v E_e9 '-'D, =r•U u e�f mW `YT4rLD N - w+�0.�'y�" L'.+ mi,. ye ,p.p -Z•�,A "L D 1 'D'Oa.��.1 �E La i•^ t K Y a w N 4• f..t '] 4•-. Y • - •+� a�.o si ju r+aaa a «atic.� >o Ain ' , -co, t �' a`omo co oa Li= '^`no otP P a-.nd0 d ��YUa C v O p E oY N L v u'L• v > a�- z ` L Z d= n n N s -E. cuN �� o X Tti Eny� cV ViE u _uU E�Ya L y d j N d C u N t �y •� Yq LOt gcYLN 9� ~'OQ Et N 'dn Oa < —Ne T— O 7�E�d + a d g T 6N 3C o. L L EE Ord C vl and `1O NP .-• -:2 o °u Tc �� ac L dc- ca —L—� .dI. Z. E C ; 2a O« VL° Y y 4 E 9 C LK N° O Vu => • q «pO N� LWdu q�M d �.i dt Ord 69 NN Ydy rnL '— PIE- -1 79 � q .. x cv' _'" zz.c .za - x r a au <n ron eyo, s%a qoo 4 ¢ w AZ br W6 C «N «4 b E E j\ N �N 0 Z 41 U Cl •n S- S- 0- E r� y n ti d a O t u d 90 _ NLL m c E ... O E u T FF E g t d 9a� C ME dam. a ^L o0 C a° .. u bo �y SQt E G 4f� O d H •V ... CM b b L Lam_ W u�d O`V `C1p�p u tr t�6w .w.^.. N „dE• O c —57% °:3 M um uCO_ ,=wpE Ey `w y ou ^�Y� CO•° -cud Oqu Tb u j bhp L�aS uE.e t 9.5 V W L 6 6 a 6 r O N y y a G N ' ctm. „ YY. >o�QOy. owN �4 —x uaa -Mt- 7;- A� >n �bw'C. NL avOa. �n yQ�d i "am. e a e m w Y$ o• ..nom °' •o.p �" �s`" y+•v 3 _' _ - ov A «x rod ix ^s v r zs �°.� v x wy' ro r E •�'�"�� �t ^� 1 F" ^� ^• O0 vY �fn �E >Y�y -Eu L��^ O. Nb7 6 a�q .d N y'•O 6aun A u wN N °dM N N - .a.YwL yVay v CEO d rn6 F C Y p =TW ...c you q L qz =c m N O•^dq> fie' YN y °oE w Yg:.pT 'o am. Yc id x20 O a CL 6�0 rid Pp r ^ NSaq aLw E m� VO NNE Ya.N u. q = n. d _ aPs Aga$`. D TT q � TYO..C. +-� � `"• y�rL.' A.. My ."'9S A s y •O�xa � c< u > m. � a� y �Y� w a C yvAo 8•CI L Y r a^ .� y y -yelp YW N cj .Ji =t .F yt e+c•..t4� O NON EEO EL -3..t L1MY ..mow• •...�i ...,.° ° ��. s N ^ O Y T 9 i LL E c.O E c e y 4 E L T 09 L Eu aut NEu w y �E qoe iO O. rni dK add y� u} c yyN L a L _ uL q d•. ' ~ q EE L FNF uCu Z. 3 v w d T d^ o gun =y•°- � o. �S .. me -4 T �. q yet xu � °� qN Ni t1LEb du y`N `u0 n6uK LOo O�.^ F 1=-66 =�•rN6 ^ y n ti d a O t u d 90 _ NLL m c E ... O E u T FF E g t d 9a� C ME dam. a ^L o0 C a° .. u bo �y SQt E G 4f� O d H •V ... CM b b L Lam_ W u�d O`V `C1p�p u tr t�6w .w.^.. N „dE• O c —57% °:3 M um uCO_ ,=wpE Ey `w y ou ^�Y� CO•° -cud Oqu Tb u j bhp L�aS uE.e t 9.5 V W L 6 6 a 6 r O N y y a G N ' ctm. „ YY. >o�QOy. owN �4 —x uaa -Mt- 7;- A� >n �bw'C. NL avOa. �n yQ�d i "am. e a e m w Y$ o• ..nom °' •o.p �" �s`" y+•v 3 _' _ - ov A «x rod ix ^s v r zs �°.� v x wy' ro r E •�'�"�� �t ^� 1 F" ^� ^• O0 vY �fn �E >Y�y -Eu L��^ O. Nb7 6 a�q .d N y'•O 6aun A u wN N °dM N N - .a.YwL yVay v CEO d rn6 F C Y p =TW ...c you q L qz =c m N O•^dq> fie' YN y °oE w Yg:.pT 'o am. Yc id x20 O a CL 6�0 rid Pp r ^ NSaq aLw E m� VO NNE Ya.N u. q = n. d _ aPs Aga$`. D TT q � TYO..C. +-� � `"• y�rL.' A.. My ."'9S A s y •O�xa � c< u > m. � a� y �Y� w a C yvAo 8•CI L Y r a^ .� y y -yelp YW N cj .Ji =t .F yt e+c•..t4� O NON EEO EL -3..t L1MY ..mow• •...�i ...,.° ° ��. s N FN` vl ll H V Q) n 0 S- 0- r O o l O n N u a c u a Y N L y -o rn a$° o Ca+ Lr E LCI LL. � n N U LV �• J i � o E O� udr� S Su cV Lq uEOa u � N pLO dT0 ^d uT _ C y G C Sn a �a<W N CQ uoa a Y. q6E ••'w ut y= •oc � ^OS' a rnv NOS d qNr O n0� .� f• dtU•SL yd L Cv a 00 E N d D O pY a m Y qou c" M `0 y Ecpcia eL mac Yc.Y� mA0 ^° TdL Yet^ E'Y. _ a H TCS v NCUd•ca y a> NEO•,e a�� nWr ��°tq.mua • E•S^rS WF .0 y0. L E�a�Sn AnN N S^ Ld L yS u �aU NM o CL•^ a PC ^-.°�C 6 O_ •_ ; Nm V E cTT ^S^`Eylc Ed t qc^ ^c A p YS n LLm.Op 60 UO OSU p ? AT�u At Ca C O^ O a oo�u ..M u°4o C aO.r GY 6 Yu V s� ZZ o Is _ T« q g d u 9 c i° E V v Cu .. �. C C O o Itt yptSOiNI E >4c0. O.� 7y mpZo' p aC L a°di qn n L O m 'y 2 u �UCCS rn q^ NW F° m t =q m uo YY o m S '�,CI.y' 'O u a t .t'S p u •pY E ,a . . m tea. Tz � m z P « %Iaa 1° b �J� Ell r IV0' -. b*` y au..o0 w -D yd N. �L _ f•V y t - L' Y i ..tea., qII. ...9 o m S oa�.�0. .►�.Y .� •°fir T-r v a _ N NJ wo as E' ey 6� U Adu LD. L 3 A '� T1O V"e nEq +Y- yl E °' c: d Aar <N� QL.Y� �- •n u'U oc T e 2N q� dm ,O,N NT C �Y �V V9 V16W QC�� NO�� NO 6`... QV 4 W.•NV Tn 4 W -'I y au..o0 w -D yd N. �L _ f•V y t - L' Y i ..tea., qII. ...9 o m S oa�.�0. .►�.Y .� •°fir T-r � b ea -i L'. N NJ wo as E' ey 6� T^ O ` a c d y p E Y = �o sA as E °' c: $O. KUm .JYY Aar <N� QL.Y� a a aN v ' 6 uW ao N NJ 04 NINyl H= as .e W VOg 6 t 0 -*W.- v n T 4 d b 1 °E N � ntW O S w 'BEEY Y E L EY OL E nLC o a i c sb� 6 v 1 p� u T C C —° lo +Moa N E y ° �° C z-2 q ou o Z. - u - W v y a A o0 .y.�. 1 ZIL U. ° ZZ q o u KG Ab at c � °c E o Stu i W y > y _ 9 Eu k2 c dL .-L W -0 G TEEI ° t 0. N " c a 9 c 9.° y o a oiC I _ —° lo +Moa N E y a o �° C z-2 q .� wo b ZIL U. ° o :o E o i W y > r 2. W -0 G TEEI W V C a c oiC b o<+ Co l° SY qov yy. yU ° c ILZ c b2 Ell 1 R lu DATE: TO: FROM: BY SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT October 23, 1985 Planning Commission Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer off° cVCAMOA,, z t � a O t VC6 s U > 1977 _... ------ ..- .....,_ . - -. r.n " rnr 7"dOl - OULUC J IY. WCI UJUI IT PROPERTIES'- The consolidation of 27.282 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General industrial Area (Subarea No. 3) located at the novttv�xst Corner of Hellman Avenue and Seventh Street APN 209- 171- 7,20,36, and 49 thru 56 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of parcel map B. Purpose: to consolidate 11 parcels into 2 parcels creating legal parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or financing. C. Location: northeast corner of Seventh Street and Hellman Avenue D. Parcel Size: Parcel I 8.936 acres Parcel 2 - 18.326 acres Total 27.282 acres E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea No. 3) - F. Existing Land Use: Parcel No. 1 contains two industrial buildings Parcel No. 2 is vacant. G. Surrounding Land Use: North - A.T. & S.F. Railroad Tracks; Existing Single Family South - Existing Single Family Industrial East - Vacant and Existing Industrial Builing West - Vacant H. Surroundina General Plan and Development Code Desi na�=,- North - General Industrial Subarea No. 3 South - Low (2 -4 Ou /ac) Development District East - General Industrial (Subarea No. 3) West - General Industrial (Subarea No. 3) I. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from north to south approximately A./7, and mostly consists of small trees and grasses. There is a. metal building and a wood frame building located on Parcel No. 1. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT En,ironmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9481 October 23, 1985 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to consolidate 11 parcels into 2 parcels. No development plans for the parcels are proposed at present. Staff feels that the specific street systems shown in the Industrial Specific plan should not be required at this time. The consolidation will create larger lots eliminatisig the need for the street system as shown. In addition, a circulation plan to fit the needs of the site can better be determine,! whee development of the parcels takes place. A�; such time, the prL�lect will be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. A condition for the removal of the structures on Parcel 1 prior to recordation ,)f the final map has been included in the recommended conditions o ^' approval as G -1. This condition also allows the owner to submit an atureement and bond prior to recordation of the map to guarantee the removal of the structures within one year. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part 1 of the Initial Study as completed,by the applicant. Stat-° has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental - hecklist, -a has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and fieid investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision, IV. CORRESPONDZN E: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to sur ounding property owners and placed in the Daily ?eport Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9481. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. P- spectfuily submitted, BRH:BL de ' Attachments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Stud_v . _ c -z E lu CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION �..� PROJECT Parcel Man 9481 '(jjLE: VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT; "A„ nvvv Ala Commundy Center III �I 1 f TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.9481 ' 9OR 2HOOSM" Olt =K O=" FUM3E3 2a m I= w U im C=.wma . Nu 7 • o1 tax URKU 0INO. c= "nu nu —�" 5ETlMOCR 17e6 .r . w,. �. 84OL. r • .mli. M.Y. ••••— ..R _b[OnY •YO.O.if.f Y(M1 f .Yl ndi. o-.Tw.l►..b.YS. ��s. ) n. aMYt .Y . M W .4 nK.�i.'.RdyYraaYT1YY WINTY MAP j�J ~... W.�i......� .W.•�....WW ..ten. .. .y �! 61NELR 9.Am,m1S=QTMW. 1T..9 nW1TW OM.0,.1 9.124 Y J —' tea. ��'°• -. KtLMAVIK. Tre a ecrov T.m aac cY Sewavfr/ 67" r�GdA.Y• d5.f.1.GC.(�tGl Riiy. E /oM7/ smcr JL of \ fX /ST /NG 6etie L ivawR /AG• y�te /•,v» �— HOT I A 11 x P � Fa;F.L• 7 1 !p�Y. L` n 1 a I I I ` � NO1•S/'yN i �. NU �J•N 44? 07• I 14 2 7 : -d PA >i r- d_" MAP 7QEp 3 1 4 v j�J J. Y RiLK .I ��• � �! 61NELR 9.Am,m1S=QTMW. 1T..9 nW1TW OM.0,.1 9.124 Y J —' tea. ��'°• -. \ yt�x1� cts2 (ner) � I `• •�latie %Ync.rfe.r.rr }}' \ 0 � • Y — pdR.fLCt191O• ` �_ 9mu - TiP. svo. ?3 14 t' t•i °i>d w .Wa �= �CX15T/NG RI. /aNT/AL� L WY ws W N YsYil. iJn �. L WWi W.O.Q. WW L O.RWaWi WWatWSmr V•WW .. Wis•uY�.Wp e- :.7241 Y31a !92/,t�-Ti maxylpm . GOLD= um i .2190 iaaa •G' ORAUO. CA 1 El El �! 61NELR 9.Am,m1S=QTMW. 1T..9 nW1TW OM.0,.1 9.124 . 9am.+acusr.rA.oi • JN tQi -Iii ENVIRQl�. DENTAL RE VIEW A►r. V � o`' i�N'^k` ' o APPLICATION , v` � �> - 19 INITIAL L STUDY _ PAR'S I GENERAL For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department whore the project application is made. Planning Division staff will Upon receipt of this application, the prepare Part TI of the Initial Study and make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one .3f three determinations: (1) The project will have na significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, (2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map No. 9481 Applicant's Name, Address, ieleFlhane: uBoidenMWestaEquit.v Properties, ' 2990 East 114" Street,SUite 104, Ontario,cA 91764 (714) 940 -2644 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this .- roject: Miit Madole % Madole & Associates, Inc. 1820 East 16th Street Santa An CA 92701 1714) 835 -2548 Location of Project: Northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and = Seventh Street Assessor's Parcel No-: 209-171-07 209-- 171 - 20,209- 171 -36 & 209 - 171 -37 List other permits necessary from local, regional and the agency issuing such permits: state and federal agencies None C" ILI ` t1 r PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or prcposed project: The purpose ot- this Parcel Map is to'create legal parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or financing. — Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: The site ross acreage is a pproxiamtely 30,314 acres 'Ph ere are two e�istinu buildings on the sire, one building contains approximately s F4 the other building contains a s•r., a% future building size is unknown pproximately Describe the environmental settino of the project sit,: including information his torical soil staoility, plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, storical hi o; scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use ((tt ch ne ssary sheets):The site ha; a gentle natural slope from norw o sou at approximateiv i i% she site is mostly vacant and undeveloped, with stable soil and scattered medium to small trees. No %and animals were observed on the site. The site has no historical background of record and no exceptional scenic value. The site iF within subarea 3 on the general p_an. The general plan designation for the site is general industrial and the site is bounded on the north, east and west by eneral industrial use. The site is bounded on the south y existing residential -The existing buildings on the site are -one story metal and wood frame construction and there use is general industrial., „ Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumul;,tive actions, which although. individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact , No ■ � � W111 THIS PROJECT: 1. C��as��ti���in�����7'' -- = Z. Create vibrati" on or glare? substantial change in existing noise of produce 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal --' X g services (Police, fire , vater ^ sewage, etc.)? 4 . =�� the existing Zoning or General Xu ' m~ Remove any existing trees? How --' ~--- n, Create the need for use or disposal Of potemtia\/v --- -z� hazardous ~.`".."= such as toxic suh � flammablec or explosives? � «'c*s" Explanation of any -- � above (attac\ additional sheets if necess--- / Not a zi �� ury/: ----' 1 �-- 7. � will generate---- — sewage and =unu waste materials this Project lica � . g. Estimate the number of auto and �� trips . . . m. Estimate the amount of .' project, �o cubic grading (cutting — and . ./ n ' this 10. If the involves the construction == '»nn on the next page. — ~' '"='"�^n*/ units, ^ . ~.^^~^^"^^"n: I .. . present ~~ ~^ the - --- - -- info initial mvu/vac` to ' — ' ^~''' am and ` n presented ~^ and that — for this to the "' ^nvv/ »e/`ef^ l firther understand that additional »ivision , evaluation can be made by the Planning be submitted before an au=vu^te information may be required to � Date Signatu . Title . - _��� . RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided. to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid the school district in assessing their ability to accommodate the proposed residential development. Developers are required to secure letters from the school district for accommodating the increased number of students prior to issuance of building permits. Name Of Developer and Tentative Tract No,,: Golden West Equity Properties,. 2990 East "G" Street, Suite 104, Qntarfio, CA 91764, Parcel Sap 9481 peCl lc Location Of Project: Northeast corner of Hellman Avenue & Seventh Stree PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family unit-s: NONE 2. Number Of multiple —'- family units: NONE 3. Date proposed to begin const: uction: Not Applicable 4. Earliest date of — occupancy: Not Applicable Model# and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range Not .Not - ARRlicaiile Fti licab1e RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9481 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9481) LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEVENTH STREET AND HELLMAN AVENUE. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9481 submitted by Goldin West Equity Properties and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the northeast corner of Seventh Street and Hellman Avenue being a division of a portion of the W 1/2 of Lot 7, Section 15, T.I.S.R. 7W; a portion of NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 15; and parcels 1 through 8 of Parcel Map 6724. and WHEREAS, on September 18, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1955, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMM" RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following finding's have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public _ health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That 0is project will not cr, to significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on October 23, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9481 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �,. 8Y: 5. Dennis L. Stout, Chairman F �_g E ATTEST: Jack Lam, 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 Field on the 23rd day of October, 1985 by the following vote -to -wit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS; NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: northeast corner of Hellman TENTATIVE= MRCEL MAP NO: 9481 Avenue and Seventh Strr-.t DATE FILED: September 18, 2985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the W 1,"2 NUMBER OF LOTS: Two of Set 7, Section 15 T.I.S.R 7W: GROSS ACREAGE: 27.282 2 Parcels 1 thru 8 of Pardel Map 6724 _ ASSESSOR PARCEL NO:209 -171- 7,20,36 and 49 thru 56 DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Golden West Equity Same Module .& Associates Properties 2990 E. - -G -- St., Ste.104 1820 East 16th Street _Ontario, CA 91764 Santa Ana, CA 92701 _ Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City _f Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights =of -way on the following streets: 23 additional feet on 8th Street _ 11 =additional feet on Hellman additional feet on X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided.by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. X 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer' requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to thF; City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. Street Imorove.'nents Pursuant to the City of Raach Cucamonga Municipa: Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an �greP;;ent and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior tv recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. I. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees anj street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimun, of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. X 3. Construct the fclioeing missing improvements: Prior to building hermit issuance for eaL;i parcel for improvements contigue-s to the parcel. Curb & A.C. Sde- Orive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Li hts Overla Island* Other 8th X X X v X X Hellman X X ** X X 7th X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter * *See Special Conditions G -3 X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement: plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to -issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, relocation of any power poles or other existing for the utilities as necessary, g public 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting he property shall be undergrounded. g X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. -2- AWA X 9- Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company* and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. X 10. Landscape and ir- igation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit_ X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. C- Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to building issuance permit for improvements contiguous to the parcel. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary 1,'or dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for and /or prior to issuance of building permit for D. Draina4e and Flood Contral 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the-final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- E- Grading X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. Y 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualifies- engineer licensed by the State of California to perform su;:h work prior to issuarxa of building permit. 3. A geolojical report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) ,approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior t6 street constructon. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval . from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. -4- X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same (',es not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building are permits requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Perms will not be issued unless said certification is received fil writing. 8. Local and Master Plonned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slapes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to build'rg permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessmen" under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. _ X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division. tie notes and bench marks referenced, 6. pecial Conditions X 1. Existing structures located on Parcel 1 shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map or an agreement and bond guaranteeing removal of the structures within one -year shall be posted with the City prior to recordation of the final map. X 2. Notice of Intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape District shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation of the final map. X 3. Hellman Avenue shall be designed as a major water carrying street requiring a combination of special curb heights, commercial type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood protection walls and /or landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property lines. X 4. Heilman Avenue is located in a Zone A flood hazard area. A flood report shall be submitted by the developer and approved by the City Engineer prior to the development of Parcel No. 1. CITY OF RANCH�,CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER e5_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r`CA'%r STAFF REPORT E'I�f Z DATE: October 23, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJFf,T: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -33 - BARMAKIAN - The development of 72 -unit apartments on 3.77 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14- 24 du /ac) located at the north side and erd of Lomita Court - APN 202 - 151 -34. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, and ' issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Density_ 17.25 dwelling units per acre. C. Existing Land Use: Vacant D. Surroundinq Land -Use and Zoning: North - Railroad tracks, non - conforming industrial use, Alta Loma School; Medium High Residential District (14 -24 du /ac), General Commercial, Medium Residential District (8 -14 du /ac). South - Senior apartments under construction, vacant, shopping center; High Residential District with Senior Housing Overlay District, Neighborhood Commercial District. East - Hoyt Lum'0.-, vacant, Office /Professional District. West - Existing Eater tanks, single family homes, vacant; Medium High Residential District, General Commercial. E. General Plan Desi nations: Project Site - Medium High Density Residential (14 -24 du /ac). North - Medium High Density Residential (14 -24 du /ac), Medium Density Residential (8 -14 du /ac), General Commercial. South - High Density Residential (24 -30 du /ac), Neighborhood Commercial. East - Office Professional. West - Medium High Density Residential (14 -24 du /ac), General Commercial. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSIVN STAFF REPORT Development Review 85 -33 - Barmakian October 23, 1985 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and relatively level. Vegetation consists of mainly weeds. Full street improvement is underway for Lomita Court. G. Applicable Regulations: The Development Code permits multiple ami y we ingl s in the Medium High Residential District at 17.5 dwelling units per acre under the basic Development Standards. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: This proposed project is a complete redesign of the market rate portion of the previously approved Planned Development 83 -01 by Calmark, as shown in Exhibits "C and "G" This project arranges the hits into two -story buildings of 8 -plex configuration. The unit sizes proposed rangy from 649 sq. ft. for one - bedroom unit (28 units) to 942 sq, ;c. for two - bedroom units (48 units) The proposed elevations are of contemporary architectural style that consists of thick butt asphalt shingles and stucco walls, with a variety of roof heights and architectural details. Main access to the project will be provided on Lomita Court. The site plan maintains the minimom 0 foot separation from the Heritage Park buildings (the senior housing unit) and a fire access lane at the southerly end of Lomita Court to eliminate through traffic in order to comply with the canditions of approval for Planned Development 83 -01. The developer also agreed to provide pedestrian access along the westerly project boundary to the southwest corner of the Heritage Park for providing connections to the neighborh.ad shopping center to the south. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project for conformance with the Absolute Policies and general design guidelines of the multiple family ..and development. The Committee was concerned with the amount of usable and functional open space providz, for this project. They felt that more land could be provide] for open space by clustering the units into 12 -plex or 16 -plex- The previously approved project consisted of 12 -plex buildings (72 units) that resulted in substantially more usable open space as can be seen by comparison of Exhibits "C" and "D ". The proposed project provides 1,089 sq. ft, of common open space per unit (see Exhibit "I "). � -2 PLANNING COMPASSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85 -33 - Barmakian October 23, 1985 Page 3 The Design Review Committee was concerned with both the amount of open space and the quality of that space in terms of usability and recreation amenities provided for the residents. The project will include a swimming pool, spa, and tot lot. The open space plan was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and recommended fnr approval provided that the emergency access lane to the south be Instructed to function as a large open lawn area. The Design 'laview Committee also made the following recommendations: 1. Building stucco color should be off- wriite (not pure white). 2. Similar garage doors in groups of eight to break up the monotony and landscaping between the garage doors should be provided. 3. The chimney design for tivilding C should be "boxed -out" with stucco material. 4. Roof material should be of tile instead of the proposed asphalt shingles. C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed ttu the applicant. The developer has expanded the Initial Study to include an Environmental Assessment of rail noise. The study concluded that there would not be any adverse impact of noise exceeding General Plan standards. Also, staff has completed Part II of the environmental checklist and has determined that there is no significant impact of the r environment as a result of this project; therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: 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, building design, and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in comyliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code '- and City standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report jas a public hearing, and notices were sent to all property owners within 30u feet of the project site. 2 /?' 3 PLANNING COM)- JSSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85 -33 - Barmakian October 23, 1085 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider all material and input regarding this project. A Resolution of Approval with conditions has been prepared for your review. Should the Planning Commission concur with the findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Development Review 85 -33 through the adoption of the Aectful lution and conditions of approval would be in order. :Res tted, ..v.., C ommunity Development Director JL:NF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 'B - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Planned Development 83 -01 Approved Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Planne' ^evelopment 83 -01 Approved Elevatio,:e Exhibit "H" - Elevatlooas and Floor Plan; Exhibit "I" - Comparison of Percentage: of Open Space Initial Study, Part II and Addendum Resolution of Approval with Conditions Ell P`7 ;.�5 iii. r"� • "1 v` . yr�� •I°b S 1 !vd f �• 7. w; " I f 3 ...f'� +'.. x..11.''. � �: '� -'L J"e `�t� r y t � .. ...' �r ►Y ,wI .+ v! it � A r r� � t ■ A'n r y' �� • s JrtJ }fit � �t c /'f.%' t•.r may! •�: . �-. I'll, % LOWS, C(MAIT .►Tin T►N.5 (I try- '�in� �• -/ -v -� �• L-j IS, A C, c 01 61- F, III pill -om COMMENCIAL 'AA?-ic 6—' (A7C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNM DINrUN I!IIIIII SUNRISE GENERAL OCCUPANCY APARTMENTS !;Sip A4Aa-,3 2:0. 7 .1 - /W. HERITAGE PARK ELDERLY APARTMENTS et d -1ae— A--:247- NORTH ITSM--M8 _3 3 Tm:--eRq? -bl ARM EXHIBIT- SCALF,- NORTH CrFY OFF IT EIM. RANCHO CUCAMONGA .TlTu.* PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCAM arm'. loa NORTH CrFY OFF IT EIM. RANCHO CUCAMONGA .TlTu.* PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCAM 11 �C =°I i H 'i ; CITY OF : RANCHO CUC"ONGA PLAN"' .NG DIVI CkN rw w y •Xti ;n r'.. -� NORTH ITEM. i .• TITLE= <. EXHIBIT- at SCALE-. ,i A a -- — c 4Y mr 0 A n c c n im A c CITY OF - RANTCHO CLTC"ONTGA PLANNING DIVISION UM IT46 V.s 4 Aa c .--;PJl!l*A---. NORTH ITEM: - TITLE: -M-,ol 21LA-m0mv EXHIBIT --nl�f SCALE: CITY OF - RANTCHO CLTC"ONTGA PLANNING DIVISION UM IT46 V.s 4 Aa c .--;PJl!l*A---. NORTH ITEM: - TITLE: -M-,ol 21LA-m0mv EXHIBIT --nl�f SCALE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANND DIVISION I I lw�m- M P, AR-mm., NORTH ITEM., 70 0oE3 3 • TITLE: r,-lFlVA-0rMA1-5 EXHIBIT. Y-JAGALE: -o, .�• �'' "1'01° - - �.� •���K�x,,' ;f • ttxr r .S�r ' I •A�n .�J y7 "Mmul r Uu [. NORTH JCILi1VCHO CU<..+tLM01\GA 'I'I'I'IIr: A 9 -t AJ , PLANNING DIVIRION EXHIBIT» u 1121 SCALF• ,� m yrs tj lu lwl'r� NORTH OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA UrLE: PLANNING DrVNON EXHIBIT: 2 ° ' SCALE. - --ft, Y. a LA APARTMENT PROJECT OPEN SPACE COMPARISON P`'DJect Density Unit % Common Opcn Space No. Applicant (des /ac) Arrangement Open Space per Unit OR 85 -06 Lincoln 22.63 Up t^ 24 -plex 40.9 788.80 OR 84 -22 Bentsen 20.60 12 plex 39.4 856.38 DR 83 -21 Stampley 20.00 8116 plex 54.0 1056.10 OR j.5 -33 Barmakian 17.25 8 plex 43.7 1089.26 DR 84 -12 Davis 11.8 8/12 Alex 57.0 2077.43 NORM . `CITY OF 1T .� �'�TCI-IO CL.T�.Al'v�CONGA ' TITLE: M A PLANNM VISIOiot EXHIBIT - _ SCALE. '' CITY OF TUVICHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY MIRO`IENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:_ 9/r'Ar APPLICANT: RAQ�iA/FL� /kAJ co FILING DATE: 7_3/4�_ LOG NIMMER: &3 fiCc��' dfs roM r -- �s PROJECT: 9� rrPa,ar 5��,5 PROJECT LOCATION: �O�J,PT I- MrIRO %- %MNTAL FACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES M.4TBE NO 1. Soils and Gee Will the proposal have significant results results in: fa. Unstable ground conditior-s or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements,. compaction or burial i of the soil ? / l" C. ,Change in topography or ground surface 4 /v contour intervals? ✓ d. The destruction, covering or modirication Of any unique geologic or Physical features? e. Any Potential increase in wind or Water Y erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 9. E%posure of people or property to geologic hazards r such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- -_ slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. i increase in the rate of extraction andh r >e of any mineral resource? 2. b droloQV. Will the proposal have significant results in: /j Page 2 I or the rate and amount of surface water�tterns, runoff? t• Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? i d. Change in the amoune of surface water in any body Of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or an_v alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? _.__ ✓ g• Chang! in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction i., ehe amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i 3. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? /r 3. Air gRality, Will the proposal have significant ` results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from uobile or indirect sources ? /• Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or ir-irference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alterat1on of local or regional climatic conditions, aff:cting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. W'll the proposal have significant results �I in. a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number % of any species of plants? V/ _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any u ;que or endangered species of plants? /� +�r/a; e ` f YES :LaYBE 1\0 a. C Changes in cuarents, or the course of direction. Of flowing streaus, r rivers, or ep channels? m hemeral strea b. C Changes in absorption rates' drainage Page 3 YES %MYBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? V 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. Redur-inn of the numbe -s of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species ;x animals into an s: °ea, or result in a barr::er to the migration °r movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of er.s`ing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have ::gnificant results in: a. :ill the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, tensity, diversity, er growth rate of the human populati n of an area? _ b. Will the proposal affect existing housirg, or / create a demand for addir_ -al housing? ✓ b. Socio- Economic Factors. _Jill the - oposal have significant results in: a. Change iu local or z;'onal sociu- economic characteristics, incluoing economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project us >rs? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the —. 1 Proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A :inflict with any designat+ons, ribjectives, policies., cc adopted plans o any governmental entities? C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of f existing consumptive- or non - consumptive J recreational opportunities? 7 I Page 4 M YES :lAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: Ask a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ! b. Eifects o;, existing Streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects fon existing parking facilities, or demand % ,or new parking? � V d. Substantial impact upcn existing transporta- tion tion _ systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tior - vJ ar movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water- horne, rail, mass transit or air traffi.- 6• Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? % 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposat have significant results in: y \ a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? 10. Health. Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the ' proposal have signiricant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? t, b. Exposure of people to patereial health hazards? % f C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous r- i substances in the event of an accident? r -� d.. An increase in the cumber of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic jorganisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? / e. Increase in existing noise levels? £. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous I noise levels? �J%tG'InwaltW� 9. The creation of objectionable odors? r �� h. An increase in light or glare? __ _ Page 5 YES 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? .b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? / c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal 'cave a significant need— for nc,w systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? ✓ c. Communications systems? v/ d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? Am f. Flood control structures? e/ g. Solid vas,�c facilities? / h. Fire protection? v/ i. Police protection: J. Schools? k. Perks or other recreational `a.a l ities? %✓ 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including .cads and flood control facilities? M. Othec governmental services? ✓ 13. Eneret and Scarce Reso�,rces. W;11 the proposal have s significant results ir.: a. Use of s " "—itial cb excessive fu<1 or energy? V b. Substanti: -wand upon existing / sources of e, n V t`• ` c. An increase in the gem, development of new sources of energy? d+ An increase or perpetuat'on of the consumption ' of non- renewablt forms of anergy, when feasible renewable sources of energ, are available? f E L Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e- Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable pr scarce natural- resource? ���✓✓✓��� 14. Mandatory Findines of SiQni� fire. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish car wildlife population to drop belssw self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or a -imal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a r,re or endangeved 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, t✓/ to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental gials? (A short -term impact on the Pn',ronment is one �jhich occurs in a relatively brx •i, definitive Period of title chile long - term impacts will endure well into the future). v Y c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual, project are considerable when viewed in .:onnection with the effects of past projects, -and probable future projects). � d. Does the project have environmental effects .rh.tch will cau;;e substantial adverse effects oxl human beings, either directly / or indirectly? 1/ II. CISCUSSION (F sA`VIRO`i'LrNTAL EVALUATION (i.z,,, of affirmative the answers to Above questions plus a discussion of p' Dosed mitigation measures). J d Esge 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed. project COULD NOT have a significa effect C11 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAiATION will be prepareu. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant L J effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effrlcLt 1+ in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attacLad sheet have been added to the project. A NEGSTI1'E DECLARALION WILL BE PR- rPARED. I find the proposed project *L4Y e a signi° can ffect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRO.. %IPaC REPO i e d, Date ignature Wine o Title D-23 AW017LIM fD f i -AAL s -rid P 85/409 (® [ID N BRICKEEN & ASSOCIATES � C�DNSIIRNG ACOU- STICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS - August 26, 1985 MR. PETE PITASSI TiaE BAR14MIAN COMPANY 101 Archicenter 93.75 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 SUBJECT: INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF RAIL NOISE IMPACT ON THE LOMITA COURT APARTMENTS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCILMONGA.' Bear Mr. Pitassi: This study was prepared at yL:•ir request in response to a requirement for such a study by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as part of a feasibility analysis for the project. Calculations were carried out to determine if the project can comply with the City of Cucamonga's standard of 65 CNEL in the exterior and 45 CNEL in the interior areas. The purpose of this initial assessment is to cite the conditions and probable impacts. Previous contacts with ti,e Southern Pacific Railroad, who operates this line, indicate that schedule train movements consist of one switching freight train west bound at approximately 9:30 A.M. and a later return east bound on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. No passenger trains utilize this track. There are no nighttime operations. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite • Santa Ana, California92701 ® Phone(714)835 -0249 i e7 El This track is not a main freight line and-no through freights are scheduled along this track. One switching freight train, of. approximately ten cars, utilizes this track servicing industi es along the track. The maximum speed of operation at this loce,tion i )O miles per hour. Rails are bolted. Horn signaling is possible opposite the site. Using the method recommended by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, the noise lev_l (Ldn is the same) wa :!; calculated at 61 CNEL at 50 feet from the track. Inspection of the site Plan indicates that all locations . on the site will fall below 65 CNEL. The nearest buildings are in excess of 100 £eet from the track. Railroad noise levels will be 5o to 57 CNEL or less at the buildings. HUD indicates that a building may be rated at a minimum of 10 dBA noise reduction with open windows. Thus, interior levels would be 45 to 47 CNEL. With closed windows, the levels would drop another 10 d3A to 35 to 37 CNEL. Thus, as a "morse case ", the site's interior noise requirement could be met with ordinary construction. If windows had to be closed to do so, then, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code, for non - natural ventilation., would have to be applied. shank you, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Prepared by: Gcr n Bricken President n L, J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85 -33 LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE AND END OF LOMITA COURT IN THE MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 30th day of August, 1985, a complete application was filed by The Barmakian Company for review of the above - described project.; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of October, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is zonsistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, cr t:aifare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. i SECTT_ON 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the 6 environment and that a Negative Declaration Is issued on October 23, 1985. j SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 85 -33 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: GESIGN REVIEW 1. The building stucco color shall be of off -white color. Sample color serail be submitted for City Planner review and approval Dy-,Ur to issuance of building permit. 2. The chimp !y design for building C shall be "boxed -out" with 'r stucco material. KI ,%26 Resolution No. Development Review 85 -33 Page 2 3. Roof material shall be of tile instead of the proposed asphalt shingles. Samples shall be submitted for City Planner approval prior to issuance of building permit. 4. Landscaping shall be provided between garage doors. 5. Similar design for garage doors in groups of eight shall be provided to break up the monotony. 6. A decorative block wall shall be provided along the western and eastern property boundary. ENGINEERING DIVISION A flood wall to the height of it feet shall be required along the northern property boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CICAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Jack Lam, Secretary I, Jack t,am, 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 meet4ng of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,1 «rL du Ua-.L :r .d >.. y •! C w N O N g .—z y ^ L Y O -^ GS QI CU9 Y ^q�.4 �YN6 PO q�`O Au OLL Oaf u G _ L u G C d d w O y 0 A O c ° I 6w Audi .Y.. aAa �� _Ed up CA C^ u d L YM. C U Y O � Yd6 q Ny d6 Na PU.Gd _���^ 4Vw 4yC ~G D. ua d. i, Y C >M.-w OdM EAU d9O Ay�A Vw'a SrY'LP O r O u O u w 'E C Y O L O Y° r &0 d q p O em"y «'Y.EaYi. -qN �z Lam...°. CaG G QL . w Yu uuS nE L. u y S d r ^ 3d NM L U •aL�i u O o ^ L 6 p V 6L G qd dO �q Y 6n . u q �y Ys00, N u 0 .00 . � OL . w ^ �N 0 7 N Y A wY d€ •` v .°O• . 2w L L w { v CO„ Y o . CR. w A� a • E. d « V .S A '•. L OEea i Aa t«' wo + G 0 C wEE nu N 9.G., N^ q N 'd C.LiANd�� .•A•r0 dC��u N6 ACP^ uV CC D .0 C� qa0 N >p " mrN ono ^�rN.. :•.N _n aria -G-v« Oyu^ .dGn'.� O•n_T G �p Wit•. Gww r L9 C d p N u q d n0� u OV r •; OnyLN A y ••CV.d or.N.uy u dwc �O9 dT dCdL r °p6 OA 01 iv :Ladiry9a G`'u Au Y~.i Nw dN O ^ —Y 6.T u 0 N L.�� C > c O � � N f•1 � N s 0 0 0 1� ~ i s U u ° o 2 N C I' f v i5 m d � H K A V N u C d Y Y t•. p p.C. N A E ar+ T H u G 5 • O..ut qw 2 Ye N CdG CO.Cd u.^ J d a 0 W 9 t 0 u L u d > d = Ad d d L 6 L. dN C C.°. 6GA• v <J. Y N C •� i t O IY A�� u04 YL p,u. ^ Sp nCM p L L •O y •• P E r ✓ C D O V 9 P O a b M d v� d h `or. a Lr eas �Q u1� J wt N ••1 V Vj Y - 2 �" O Z 4J U N ,O S- G, >�oda t p y d da q E d AN� AEdT s ^o .°oLNo u° c� � p aoc O T E > D L O d u C m 3 O L C E n OQ >W' •a H T cb Cw [ g,U �•rEE i G GE�do N Z N °uqN gm �} m 6 d Cam^ d y N C Nav «o° � p q ud^ e N' w Ea ¢vni�u� u a`o�w d «d N "• o uN� d.- L B ^ a O cv' m'" c 31; d w2 V r N L O y O C L ^ y r V H) tC O°O yy PL ,a`O'u VUL ads pa b O^ C= o ku aL+ N N ^ a q N A T°i C� qa C =aN pE� 0 ,°mod - d.6d0 yy n2�y� yV ALL d ^uN Ya�E w.� nL a E La �� v o • c o y G g 6 1 c N e_ � v f a ~ t E d DE 70 y= a s'rn v N F c ^ i a= V iz O L D!od yC NZy . t uaa v'o" cAU C Y O L Q L � ^ d wue 6u tiI d as cm « y A m� n dr. o s n r2 A« r y C c p E "ply qyu YY �« .-" Y 4 « a M ap« L All NI a ILgC `ny a� .N nOa • oad 1e y'`xoNLNN vu �aa`_pLq C u D i° ua pv °a p ^yIOr D� da q no WO �E ^ _ ^ ^ ^ Y O Nk-9 j p P-29 u vy T.0 0 GQi a a L N L ya i, V y y d C O a t~ 6L A� L psis ` dpd C Sc A S N C y aE Fgaa a-.• r L «a n d ai '" oay �w y O C T 6 co dZ.d.rn O d a d T-2 N L .n uu w E Y a ^YOO« ct d y u° auiOm .o y NaN no «u 4 LI a a� e ° yo° n� v� o« a E ° d'u a` r^,O r c N� am mid a q it a v -1 �y ^ « d q U C va_a� °u Va >Ur BOG � E -k n u N C y 9 i <qLH. •' c w � �oaac q�m O V W d N YV °aL.dmd w o - vyo�i"ny 'O a., t or I III E Z ii U C1 •n i a ^ xo qi olu °FL-'� o q•V ^� N P6 A b�� OHO.. ° Y L °ar•nA E Ly +� LL • + +N ^ °LyM �x +N Oy° y NTN °L � °OO ^O'•Zi. wy..7 NS x INL uu =ti y+`NNUU NUKE ux y > `n; 6G. a a� wq.'. ° °+'•^i.o ice qO• °c •.. a. ah GSM a'r �o ` a o 3LO niA °T o wY i ^^ o tYC� d ° Eyy °� J� � uIY xLq +q' ^nYao.ov�•yq.°- u P.�u ° ^._' oN ` °1 ad•�Y° °c�N °ems r Y G w a ° C`O E� E 'G y u o.L•maoy.o- N +N a•^ir:= a•° s.:+`P �'� aiv u��a>u.mA « >o N •O I��m I� 1aa ✓ ✓t �a v u^ N r E O v o> >uo Nu0 4� E.�sv b q Y O C �N V^ nu�a' <MN vt a u N� O D 6 .E. x�.0 cd o y a d O '" Y• L >i' a L it ea u x � u. c L ^ Y + ^ x V C � C � _ v e G C pMv � d 1 0 v L a 9 V O G F. yu r > rn� o y b V + v � O A D N 6 • q.60� Y O• L r. dA Oy L �L+ O O t r L c a w o °o N a _ v N. CO � O Y P-3a b V N y c ^ ° a -2 v s C a urc'N� a •' t o... ,y AA C E t q° > °oa xs VC L M O O � E O+.�YO• E i L u Eav � yyv N a Hw ° Na L Or�O. O � N... of W A' c L Opp. q~ u�•" c q C Y ��dry tL O .c0 O.M I c� A. c^ C E da a ^ O � Y a u _ n L wr 'L ° L v $a aooN A^ O =a essay novo N o o` �EL.Li yb d`on <N aA N b wI J W •-La nmu c rnO C � 6 sq fL + a V Y c Y N °i° t..I�'� 01 z nw ��vc uw L S C + GS A W 6 0 y o u A Eb y a 6u C j q�Nm�L we V ' A q 0 M � ueba L L �u o. or w.°. e Nt 0 Z 1.% cu •n L a- •^� d•.• O d C C c en C.^•• !i O•� dt •. d A yyY V.Li Er �.� w•. .� O�ud cY. G O S • � • ��q �Ya �nW mow• uxuZN E`� Cuq. W`�. ��� o �Y:adiy 'D�rOY `y yaci • �4 «`E Y4¢ lY�.r v t7 �UOV Cq•• U >b> a °N y c c 2 E. N YfY.O 9LGw.N Ly_x H Vla� a a.�ro •O VMIL • '� c4 O X tj a 4 c BE Y.g• 'E.9 N F ¢,Opy OC > N3 uqG UU S ^� ~N •O..�n` yfi b«k y jw^. NFL 5 dd yg •Vn N ^+ Y« W A m!! `O ¢Vn �O. 00 VOy •�• • Y [L/4ym0. U c V u o> J y L N•E„ ° ^c y c�L V L yDN. «c aEOq NAt U 24Oy .�O.dC.:�Y ^n Ebb D as A LL �6u NFaa N _Yy O r¢y ^« +cMUY aL�e.•p. C sY O� 'NFL N7W�L •' ^^ W �_qq «Yy..d OYCC ? ~j �; 1` C, qU��O OLL O Uc a «C- OCVya •� yC •�ro6 Nd �- dtuQO Y •N H ... LjnY O:OV4~ E��y ~ iL c CGa p L a.-.A qcO L` Ly Y �fS H .GSa YL•Yryi °dG N V� y�•L L.� _ AO•` NFV O H V c .+�Q. Nd. -•row W y » iilt W •l �v� G Vic^ � wN y w U •- b c U V l V C d ID Y U ^ E@ r Y N 9. ' LcA ci .� aeF',pm« n4 e s ^��' Y.� >YN'� «^°o'•� y d '¢OO 4payi< L^ a to a '� • « LO4aN u LN`E w nq� 1-�vOo 1L•s[ aL+ iL�YNn �-a I�UIJ 6�6aWN 6r q�p N N p.Yp jO n.• � of d r _ _ y ad ap n Y nnq ,Y,•�o «� 41� � �`� �� � n�z� vv�e yro z oN6 ui'. A ^u < emu° ice° 'VroE d C.qd N ^.>. V� yud F ♦L..y 'LN. N Y a L. O Yd GN C 4 O a c O� E T�>q Cy M uvY a Yc^ NO 6Y0� '. O -1 d 2 l F O O• pT V L U u d q N C 6 O Y O V c C O y t^ cy G. q ¢ • ro VG E•� d�Z ¢L ^ • YO•YO•dN N q U Y M Y L C^ N 9 y O > Y 4 G a N l ai 4t ..E. Y UZ O c w y ^ y ^yam S �lU O. AL LL V O NY 6.~..L C O 6ro N Y F .• V c F. p N ~ L v � a¢•i N �n a .ro. u L V vs y .-. ao � c cNy y`'V •'. ty. L.M VL€ uc OE ^ > �± q L U A6.Q q N ¢•N a L0 � a9 L. V•'bro. O ^LC � TAF ` E N Ciiq� LV- a+L�C YY NTp O ¢L ��d¢.qG q Y � ...L+t .^+ Nirow Gc • co.•"" a`` Ya ••c vNr 2Y o °E q yNV qoT� �. a.d qco 4•`n'• n �� n4 w.^ ^ui �yY. .AO •di 6d • . yOi�N + ` aror .r qpuuM « •�yamy .• CC Ocp 2 4=C Y C.� . ay OL.i «V O Y U �O?g.- Lr i- GL p$ El 071 11 !. .°.CUEE •� b NL LO�mwb °O ° a Na .c. OI f ��• Otl �qw �` A ° F J ` a � NoJ .°c aL ✓ C wuE NYw Luc N b N � ^ �• w"Si NAM c qua ca U Nde °v.= 2 ° �u U rn Y Ewa^ +d d p U O Lp ^w O g6 Vp ^ Efca0a ds0 �w Y Yz-07;x uo 3 T r L r. � N✓ X�~ N C B GO�Ngadi N w�'L, a) fi a�Ny Ol O O>f '.~..��0� Coq y A -q°.L. ~i. 2°. LC ^CYY w0 L.O�I°1 60uuO =ltd ^^ cis LL. dq `vE QUA a a� L Y J W�J �.^ ^ C.I O 4 .• cH b L u^ c 6 Y C .Le 'N'mL A� °YNYc L LO V ~R c tl y M L O d E V G v r q C• O .� 9 b M w na y aLp+ b u. =L -•° «o '"mac � wW °cam ., °Y °'^ °.,y 3 «�.wu o a °oa C`o A`o yew .+ e° o w w •- E. +J «Y ¢very Yw My .- e° °tqN °e''°^T. q vu .`.E as ee b G � ygyw .nu•La� ani O `-« ^yM _ D ^L �noYT6 6 2V C N�`d N r� L 'C► O y w V 0 U c tl o EE D Orr M M Y,0 r.0 aYt .. N« cE CGMw .^-4� tY•Y =a nt ^u U O �.vw>. `U` ca° «jYtlGN - Nc as a q NY n °e Y Op4 WN° Wut°J b � Nff n1 < Yf 1D c u uu L N�o� z o ^`oo o� moo• u LLYUY y Y o•n a: • ^ r T x E Y�.NO 6 y l u C u Y Eli 1` 0� �L•r C �• ^ ^ �. N Z O�ML O M a p Y .r O %n E •La uCi O w G N Y Y • Ly�� _ y NuLr qM � Yti. e ;. ..•� u O � 01 ^E�t >r^ w V Cl V 6 iZ � E L. yGM`.G M � agpy CA ^ L Yw N uE• Y d� n �' ' � � .�L�{I O Y4 Z HE 2 p w R 1• G P C x O v ` °.�. C Y r. <•C U M • Y s L q �. w Y �. e..N+ o e. u '" ✓. w. ,n + N.v N.i a) •f7 q � �o u r C < 0 0 ,Y w f ^ L •VTLC.' Yip �, � �Y pO �n Orw "NC' ��� dC AO c�`.� y C pu VEc• < Ot 5z;-,-= LYwy C CVL VV q�A•"DV NVW 7 C L � C O ^>.p L q wY uy j Y °k C Y.. nqY C V D!Ve ^.• ^uY iY Q E= O G GN vE N �t-.C. ..0 wL O mwp N M �•� c O 4 r NY«Y p O i e N Y L>. ALA R6. FLU T ^VVOW �� C NYCY� 66NM NDr� �nC 6�..v 6U 6-5 W�M4lU 30 L1O < bI ^I m� /•.I tiI �I. ^1 I I uu L a _ v aNL.o a $ d r qW � ,n OED. L• o•n a: E.Y.. � `�+ Y i p ' °K ^• 9 E M y. N Y fi m o O M a p Y .r w w %n E L C Y Y r0 N w�• CZ fl Oy D r C w^ Otd � EEiyY wc� 8 So N.i Y..,,;�am •NDN �o u r x r.. <•� ^o oe Y •�O' &.1 t.. ' R L Y Y Y v Y RN Ss GOO 9 M G G < Ot a�ij` Y N� m NL a. �L u S cy L ^Y� a r v N O ^ Y ° N Y L ) O 6 Y RYA L L O Y p u }' F E v tiLv _ uq r � ^ n N ^Y Oq' LOQ � E O t O N 4 v L < u O Y p 1 J 4 u S V E d wit 11 11 Ll ^ ' Yi - 0701-02 o 10-23-85 P.C. Agenda Packed o Page 3 of 4 d� da a u aZ LY 2 da c «•- A s. « uu r ro nu rro — c — n Vz- ai nT oNC.. d :j9 9 c .°` ouro as E t nn ._. nV ct n :L.. U u « O L T EE cm cv a a y �dV Oy • VC ^L ^Y WaT a ro _ 6u dt 02� E6 C g e 2 N All o a • Alk BB °ro «� o vo 9 x goo zu �x uCq E O D aCroi q, y Yu O T = E r ad 4u 4n rod Oa N '^ edi 7924 ^ ` W V «— "y Y iY UZ V 6 ro ^ ne vW L « ro n O Nd tL p,oro CL YO wt. G Lro L O.O. l'L U V4� S.O. ¢ SY9 CQi a ^ ° aMq q roman CW �W �y 1 u n ro Y N c ~ i I v U X l 2 ° `�°je— Y°' ru cam. L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 23, 1955 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director By: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Proposed Amendments to Chapter 7.08 and 9.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Plunicipal Code pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property I. BACKGROUND: At ±he meeting of September 11, 1985, the Planning Co ^mission reviewed the initial concepts for amendments to the Tree Preservation Policies as contained in Ordinance 37. Based upon community input and comments from the :fanning Commission and City Co, icil, Staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment to the Tree Preservation Ordinance 37. The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Commission and Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, a copy was forwarded to the Building Industry Association °or comments. Staff has received favorable comments from developers regarding tieing the tree permit process to the project review itself. The proposed amendments attached hereto reflect the comments and suggestions of these groups. In addition, Dr. Alden Kelly, Knapp Tree Service, has reviewed the proposed amendments and has been invited to speak to the Planning Commission about tree preservation from the perspective of a tree arborist. The attached Staff Report of September 11, 1985 fully describes the pruposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance 37. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and consider the proposed amendment, make any necessary changes, and forward a recormaendation of approval to the City Council. Resp ctfully ,17submitted, Community JL :DC:ns Attachments: Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance September 11, 1985 Staff Report Resolution Recommendina Anoroval ITEM E an 1977 GUCAMO ~C�. CITY OF RANCHO CUC.A:MONGA ° G N-y -Jon D. Mikels O F _Z Conncilmrmbrn U > Charles J. Buquet II Jeffrey King 1977 Richard.M. Dahl Pamela J. Wright October 3, 1985 Gary Brawn, Executive. Director Building Industry Association 1150 N. Mountain, Suite 207 Upland, California 91786 Dear Gary: As you have requested: we are enclosing a copy of the draft of the revisions to the City's Tree Removal Ordinance. The Ordinance is still being reviewed by our Community Advisory Commission and will be forwarded to the City :.ouncil, we expect in early Novez!;ar. Since a number of local developers who also happen be members of the Building Industry Association Board have been working on the Ordinance revisions, we had assumed the Board and tce BIA were aware of the Cily Council direction to strengthen its existing tree r:moval process. Apparently, the word did not travel from your members to tba Board and we regret that very much. In .he future we will make certain that the Building Industry Association is on our list for ordinance revisions which are being contemplated, if those revisions relate in any way to the Industry. At the time the Ordinance is considered, please feel free to express the views of ihe'Association. You may [Also contact our Community Development Director to personally indicate any suggestions you have regarding the Ordinance. Sincerely, /n D. Mikels Mayor JDM /kep Enclosure a 9320 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA 91730 • Q719) 98° 1852 ` 4 AML AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.00 OF THE RANCHO CUCAfONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ABSOLUTE POLICIES, PERTAINING TO THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION is Chapter 17.08, Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.08.050 E.8 to read as follows: Section 17.08.050 Abs ^;ute Policies E. Resource Protection 8. The Project contains trees protected by the Rancho Cucamonga 'lunicipal Code that are worthy of preservation; an application for a tree removal permit and report have been submitte�' and healthy trees are pres:rved through proper site planning and grading techniques. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause tAe same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 1g *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D.—Mike—is, Mayor — ATTEST: Beverly A. Autheiet, City Clem �- 3 Ordinance No. Amendment to Chapter 17.08 of th:7 Municipal Code Page 2 r I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that thL foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular (special, adjourned) meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on tha * day of *, 19**, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the * day of *, 19**. Executed this * day of *, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk E -y E r1 LJ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIrORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19.08 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ABSOLUTE POLICIES, PERTAINING TO THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 19.08, Title 19 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereFy repealed. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19.08 thereto to read as attached hereto. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general •circulation published in the City o f Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk Jon D. Mikols, Mayor Ordinance No. Amendment to Chapter 19.08 of the Municipal Code Page 2 I, BEVERLY A. P1THELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular (special, adjourned) meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the * day of *, 19 * *, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the * day of *, 19**. Executed this * day of *, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk CffAPTER 19.08 TREE PRESERVATION Section 19.08.010 Purpose and Intent The eucalyptus, oak, sycamore, pine and other trees growing within the City of Ranch Cucamonga are natural aesthetic resource which help define the character of the City. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and counteract air pollution. It is pertinent to the public peace, harmony and welfare that such trees be protected from indiscriminate cutting or removal, especially where such trees are associated with a proposal for development. In particular, the Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrows are ta"vuniq_ue inheritance whose cumulative value as a windbreak system is a desirable resource. It is the intent of this chapter to perpetuate a windbreak system through protection of selected e�dsting mature ucalyptus windrows in key areas of the community, and through gradual replacement and expansion of the system through planting of new Spotted Gum Eucalyptus windrows along the established grid pattern, as development occurs, It is the intent of this chapter to establish regulations for the preservation of heritage trees within the City of Rancho Cucamonga on private as well as public property in order to retain as many is ees as possible consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the reasonaule economic enjoyment of said property. Section 19.08.020 Definitions Fo° the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows: A. "Heritage tree" shall mean any tree, shrub or plant which meets the following criteria: 1. All Eucalyptus windrows; 2. All woody plants in excess of fifteen feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen inches or more, as measured twenty -four inches from ground level; 3. Multi- trunks having a total circumference of thirty inches or more, as measured twenty-four inches from ground level; 4. A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; 5. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the City Planner because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. E —% 6. Consideration shall be given to the preservation o£ trees which are fruit or nut bearing. 7. Commercial nursery stock shall be excluded from the provisions of this chapter. B. "Remove" shall include any act which will cause a heritage tree to die, including but not limited to, acts which inflict damage upon root systems, bark or other parts of tree by fire, application of toxic substances, operation of equipment or machinery, changing natural grade of land by excavation or filling the drip line area around the trunk, or by attachment of signs or artificial materisi piercing the bark of the tree by means of nails, spikes or other piercing objects. C. "Drip line" shall mean a line which may be drawn on the ground around a tree directly under its outermost branch tips and which identifies that location where rain water tends to drip from the tree. D. "Associated with a proposal for development" shall mean any land area for which an application for a specific plan, variance, parcel map. subdivision, development /design review or a time extension thereof, , special or conditional use permit has been filed with and is ?endir conr-ideration by the City or has been approved but the related project or applicable phase thereof has not been completed. E. "Historic landmark" shall mean, for the purposes of this Ordins•;,ce, any tree designated as an historic landmark by City Council pt,.suant to Section 2.U.100. Section 19.03.030 Permit Required A. No person, firm or corporation shall cut down, move, destroy or remove any heritage tree within the City limits, including an applicant, for a building permit, without first obtaining a tree removal permit from the City Planter. B. No tree removal permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless the project has been approved by the City and a grading permit therefor, if applicable to the project, has been issued, unless an emergency waiver is granted pursuant to Section 19.08.110. C. No tree designated as a historic landmark shall be altered, cut down, moved, destroyed or removed by any person, firm or corporation without first obtaining a landmark alteration permit and tree removal permit. i i E U D :section 19.08.040 Permit Procedures A. Prior to the issuanc t of such permit, tae City Planner or designee shall inspect the site and shall clearly designate the trees to be preserved. B. Where an application for a Tree Removal Permit is associated with a proposal for development, the City Planner shall complete his investigation and make a report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall review the case, and shall conduct a public hearing where required. The Commission shall direct the City Planner to grant the request, grar_t the request with modification, or deny the request. C. Subsequent to investigation, the City Planner shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application to cut down, remove, or move any heritage tree or trees. The City Planner may impose conditions deemed n9cessary to implement the provisions of this article, including, but not limited to, replacement of the removed or cut „' Ewn tree or trees with tree(s) of specie.; and quantity commensurate with thk% aesthetic value of the tree or trees cut down or removed; tree relocation to another site on the property, provided that the environment conditions of said new location are favorable to the survival of the tree, and provided further that such relocation is accomplished by gnaiified landscape architect or qualified tree arborist. D. Where the trees in luestion are designated as a historic landmark, a request for a Tree Removal Permit shall be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission and landmark alteration permit procedure pursuant to Section 2.24.120. The action of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The following trees are designated as historic landmarks: Date Res /Ord # Highland Avenue Street Trees 4/1/81 141 Victoria Avenue Street Trees 3/4/81 138 Section 19.08.050 Pr.- teetion of Existing Trees Care shall be exercised by all individuals, developers and contractors working near preserved trees so that no damage occurs to said trees. All construction shall preserve and protect the health of trees to remain, relocated trees, and new trees planted to replace those removed in accordance with the f :lowing measures: A. All trees to be saved shall be enclosed by a chain link fence prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and prior to commencement of work. Fences are to remain in place during all phases of construction and may not be removed without the written consent of the City Planner until construction is complete; and B. No substantial disruption or removal of the structure or feeder roots of any tree shall be performed; and -7 C. No fill material shall be placed within three (3) feet from the outer trunk circumference of any tree; and D. No fill materials shall be placed within the drip line of any tree in excess of eighteen (18) inches in depth. This is a guideline and is subject to modification to meet the needs of individual tree species as determined by an arborist or landscape architect; and E. No substantial compaction of the soil within the drip line of any tree shall be undertaken; and F. Nr, construction, including structures and walls, that disrupts the root system shall be permitted. As a guideline no cutting of roots should occur within a distance equal to 3 1/2 times the trunk diameter, as measured at ground level. Actual setback may vary to meet the needs of individual tree species as determined by an arborist or landscape architect. Where some root removal is necessary, the tree crown may require thinning to prevent wind damage; and G. Eucalyptus windrows to be preserved shall have edequate provisions for deep watering F.nd limit surface watering within fifteen (15) feet of trunk; and H. The City Planner may impose such additional measures determined necessary to preserve and protect the health of trees to relocated trees, and new trees planted to replace those removed. PROTECTIVE FENCING / A NO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN DRIP LINE OR WITHIN 10' OF TRUNK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. PROVIDE TEMPCRARY FENCING AT DRIP LINE DURING CONSTRUCTION UP LINE !6� KEEP EQUIPMENT OUT OF DRIP LINE `o LZ EN l E. Section 19.08.060 Permit Application An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed with the City Planner on forms provided for the purpose. The City Planner shall require a tree removal permit application, together with any application for tentative subdivision maps or other proposal for urban development. The application shall be submitted with a report which shall contain the following information: A. A statement as to reasons for removal or relocation, B. The number, species, and size (circumference as measured fifteen inches from ground level and height), C. The location of all trees on site on a plot plan in relation to structures and improvements (e ., streets, sidewalks, fences, slopes, retaining walls, etc.). If the application is associated with a proposal for development, the location of all trees on site shall be plotted on a grading plan. D. Photographs of the trees to be cut or relocated. E. If a tree is proposed to be relocated, the relocation site shall be identified and site preparation and relocation methods described, F. Proposed method of removal, G. The health of any tree declared diseased, infested, or dying shall be verified by a written report of a qualified landscape architect licensed by the Stat of California or by a qualified tree arborist. Section 19.08.070 Criteria for EvaluatinLr Permits _ Upon receipt of the application, the City Planner or designee shall investigate the site and evaluate the application on the basis of the following criteria: A. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the tree, proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services; B. The necessity to remove a tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property, C. 1': number of trees Existing in the neighborhood; and the effect the °*moval would have on the established character of the area and the property values; D. Good forestry practices, that is, the number of healthy mature trees a given parcel of land will support; E E. Whe. ,ier or not the removal of the tree is necessary to construct required improvements within the public street right -of -way or within a flood control or utility right -of -way; F. The suitability of the tree species for ise in an urban area; G. Whether or not the tree could be preserved by pruning and proper maintenance or relocation rather than removal, H. Whether or not such tree(s) constitute a significant natural resource of the City, and 1. Whether or not such trees are required to be preserved by any specific plan, community plan, condition of approual, or designation as historic landmark. The City P :lanner shall give priority to the inspection of those requests based upon hazardous conditions. The City Planner, or his ar her designee, may refer any request to another department, committee, board, or the Planning Commission for a determination where it is determined the application involves unusual site development requirements or unique characteristics, or raises questions of policy substantially more significant than generally pertain and which require Planning Commission consideration. Section 19.08.080 Tree Replacement Poliev A. The City Planner, or designee, shall condition a tree removal psrmit for the replacement of certain trees within a time period as prescri a l by the City Planner as follows: I. Eucalyptus windrows, inc'uding those required to be removed as a condition of approval associated with a proposal for development, shall be replaced with Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) in 5 gallon size minimum, spaced at 8 feet on center and, except along public streets and trails, need not be staked. 2. Eucalyptus windrows removed in violation of any section of this Article, shall be replaced with Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) in 15 gallon size minimum spaced at 8 feet on center and properly staked. 3. Fgritage tree(s) including those required to be removed as a aundition of approval €:,sociated with 'a proposal for development, shall be replaced in kind with specimen size tree(s) as determined by the City Planner or Planning Commission. E 4. Heritage tree(s) removed in violation of any section of this Article, shall be replaced .in kind with the largest nursery grown tree(s) available as determined by the City Planner or designee. Heritage tree relocation to another site on the property may substitute for replacement. B. To assist the City Planner in making a determination, the applicant for a tree removal permit may submit an independent appraisal prepared by an horticulturist, arborist, or licensed las3scape architect to determine the replacement value of the tree(s) to be removed. Such appraisal shall be based upon the most recent edition of the "Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants", prepared by the Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers. Section M08.090 Permit — Notification Procedure At least ten (10) days prior to making a decision, the City Planner or designee shall provide for public comment through notice to the property owners adjoining the subject property that such tree removal permit was requested and the results of the investigation. Where a request for a tree removal permit is associated with a proposed for development, the public hearing notification required by Section 17.02.110 shall include a description of the ti=le removal permit request. Section 19.08.100 Appeal Procedure Any person aggrieved by the denial or approval of n tree removal permit shall be afforded recourse of appea3 pursuant to Section 17.02.080. The filing of an appeal shall automatically suspend the permit issued until action thereon is taken by the appropriate authority. Section 19.08.110 Emergency Waiver Where a tree is determined by the City Planner or designee to be a dangerous condition requiring emergency action to preserve the public health, safety and welfare, the permit requirement may be waived. In the event of an emergency caused by a hazardous or dangerous tree, which condition poses an Immediate threat to person or property, any member of the Foothill Fire Protection District may authorize the destruction or removal of such tree without securing a permit therefore. Section 19.08.120 Use et Explosives All persons engaged in felling or removing trees, and desirous of using explosives for this purpose within the City limits, shall first obtain approvals to use such explosives from the Building Division and the Foothill Fire Protection District which approval shall be noted on the Tree Removal Permit 45' i3 prior to issuance of same by tha City Planner. In addition, the applicant shall furnish such bond or insurance as shall be deemed necessary for the protection of sur.ounding property from any possible damage which might result from such activity. Section 19.08.130 Tree Maintenance A. The maintenance of trees standing upon private or homeowner owned property shall be the responsibility of the owner or owners of those properties. B. Builders shall be required to prune, treat, and maintain existing trees and plant new ones in such a fashion that wh�tq the trees become City, association, or private property the trees will be free of various damage, pests, diseases, and dead branches. The trees shall be in gcod biological and aesthetic condition upon acceptance. C. To insure adequate and uniform maintenance, Eucalyptus windrows should be maintained in a manner that preserves the aesthetic and history of the Eucalyptus wk - rows, as described in Section 19.08.13CD. D. Pruning prior to transfer of mate re Eucalyptus windrows to the City, associations or private owners must be done by builders as follows: 1. Leaves, debris, dead branches and suckers accumulated along the base of the windrow shall be removed periodically, or as may be necessary for reasons of public health and safety. 2. Dead or decaying branches shall be r... -'ved, trunks stripped, and tree structure trimmed at least every four years or as may be necessary for reasons of public health and safety as well as aesthetics. 3. Trees should be trimmed to preserve their natural structure; the practice of "topping" the trees is prohibited. 4. Remove unsightly or poorly crotched limbs and heavily leaning branches. 5. All cuts are to be made flush and /or in line with proper arboricultural prac.icec. 6. Dead, diseased, or dying trees shall be removed as may be necessary, and shall be replaced with I.E. gallon Eucalyptus Maculata. E. Young Eucalyptus windrows trees shall be maintained, fertilized, and irrigated as may be necesary to sustain them in healthy condition. Dead trees shall be replaced with same species of appropriate size; replacement trees need not exceed 15 gallon size. U] Section 19.08.140 Penalt'�, Violation of any section of this Article shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each tree removed in violation of this Article shall constitute a separate offense. KI im C CITY OF RANCHO' •UCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: sept-ember 11, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission JM: Jack Lam, ' iity Development Director BY: Dan Crileman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE REVISIONS ®a 0 z Fi Z U'I_ �> 197 I. ABSTRACT: In response to the City Council and Planning Commission concerns regarding tree preservation policies and tree removal permit process, Staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment to the Tree Preservation Ordinance "s7. The purpose of this report is to introduce the draft amendments and initial concepts for tree r - tion policies. II. ANAi S: There are two basic issues with regard to tree pr" ion: 1. i•he process whereby permits are issued, and 2. Preservation versus replacement of Eucalyptus windrows. The present ordinance does not require an application for a tree removal permit for a construction project prior to approval by the Planning Commission. Typically, the applicant puts off applying for a tree removal permit until shortly prior to construction. Therefore, the ten day notification and possibility of a lengthy appeal process before City Council can result in frustration for the a ,-:licant and the general public. With respect to the issue of whetner.Eucalyptus windrows should be saved or replaced, recent City Council direction follows Staff's recommendation in a 1980 report that Eucalyptus windrows be nradually replaced as development occurs with other varieties or Eucalyptus which will not cause as many problems as the Blue Gum variety, yet still maintain the desired windrow character. This is the policy established in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance 37 will significantly modify the ordinance in the folloea ng key areas: 6-16 - AMk PLANNING COMMISSION 5 {— e REPORT Tree Preservation Ordinance Revisions September 11, 1955 Page #2 The tree tentative tract maps and design reviews. The intent here is to bring all issues to the forefront of the approval process. By reviewing all elemerts of a project up front, the public is made more aware of the related issues early on. Expand the authority of the City to preserve trees o - :ause of their aesthetic quality to create neighborhoo character. This was not explicitly, expressed in the existing ordinance and Staff feels it needs greater emphasis and clarification. Clarify preservation policy for trees designated as historic ianamarKS. free remo-val permit retpiests for these trees must be reviewed by the Historic PrPservaf',on Commission pursuant to Ordinance 70. The Historic 'Preservation Commission would forward recommendations to the Planning Commission. Historic trees will be listed in the Ordinanc?. Define City policy to gradually replace Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrows. As development occurs, Blue Gums will be replaced with cleaner, safer variety of Eucalyptus that will retain winc:row character. This approach is consistent with replacement policy of Etiwanda Specific Plan. Strengthen fines for i'llecLa) tree removal. Emphasis placed on replacement with mature trees rather than montary fine. Trees removed in violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance will require replacement with the largest nursery • grown . trees available. The intent is to make it more costly to violate the Ordinance than to comply and emphasize the significance the City places upon tree preservation. Public notice of a Tree Removal Permit request will be made before the decision has been made by the Planning Commission, versus our current process which says that the decision has been made by Staff and people were notified to appeal the decision. In ess,'nce, the current process basically puts people on the defense and leads to confusion. By placing the issue up front, we can work with the public regarding their concerns beforE a decisiun is made. Appeals of Tree Removal Permit actions would be heard by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is most familiar with the design of a project and the rationale behind any action taken with respect to the preservation, removal, or relocation of trees. PLANNING COMMISSTON ST (—' REPORT Tree Preservation Ordinance Revisions September 11, 1985 Page #3 Establishes measures to ensure the protection of existing trees to be preserved. All trees to be saved must be enclosed by a chain link fence rior to grading permits and cannot be removed until construction is complete. This will deal with past problems of construction crews not knowing which trees were to be saved - Establishes tree maintenance guidelines to ensure continued hul•'.:u and preservation of trees. Particularly for Eucalyptus windrows, the revisions set forth standards for proper maintenance. III.. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the report and provide Staff with direction in the following areas: 1. Tying the tree removal process into the development approval process; and 2. General consensus on a gradual Eucalyptus windrow replacement policy. Wit: appropriate direction, Staff will set a public hearing on the draft Tree Preservation Ordinance revisions at the following meeting. Respectfully submitted, io Jack Lam Community Development Director JL:DC:cv Attachments: Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance LI A RESOLU 1ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOWENDTNG APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1?.08 AND 3.9.08 OF '1ANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE PRESERV ;PION OF TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission find it necessary to amend the tree preservation regulations; and WHERi.AS, the proposed amendments were reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Building Industry Association; and WHEREAS, oc the 23rd day of October, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code to consider said amendments. 4 y NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: t to The Planning Commission hereby rec:)mmends that the City Council approve and adopt the proposed amendments. 2. That a Certified Copy of this Resclution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADiIPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985. i PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA � BY. •Dennis L. Stout, Chiirman � ATTEST: : Jack Lam, Secretary • /9 Resolution No. Amendments to Tree Ordinance Page 2 I, Jack Lam, Secretary of 'he Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certif, 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 23rd day of October, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F1 LE CITY r ' ANCHO CUCAMONGA &1',&F REPORT F DATE: October 23, 1985 l' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission RIOM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH - A conceptual development plan for South Victoria Vineyards Village, a 117.4 acre portion of the Victoria Plan Community, located on the north side of Base line Road, between Milliken and Rochester, south of the Sr.athern Pacific Railroad - APN 227 -0816 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested` Approval of an area development plan for the South Victoria Vineyards Village. B. Purpose: To estab'ish the future land use pattern for South Victoria Vineyardv - dillage. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant property, Victoria Planned Community, the North Victoria Vineyards Village. South - Vacant property, Terra Vista Planned Community. East - Cxisting lumber yard, Medium Residential (8 -14 du /ac). West -- Vacant property, Terra Vista Planned Community, designated future 99 acre park. D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac). "North Low Medium Residential (� - -8 du /ac); proposed school /park site. South - Neighborhood Commercial an southeast corner of Milliken /Base Line; Medium Residenital around Neighborhood Commercial (4 -14 du /ac); Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) beyond. ' East - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac). West - Proposed park site. E. Site Characteristics: The Southern Pacific Railroad borders the area on the north. The site is vacant and contains no structures or significant vegetation. i ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, 1985 Page 2 �J II. ANALYSIS: A. Desi n- Review_: The Design Review 'Committee reviewed the project on -June 6, 1985. The Committee recommended significant changes to the Area Development Plan over the original submittal including size and location of the park, trail design and alignment and land use. To address these issues, the following revisions were made: 1. The ,liark site has been increased from 3 to 5 acres in size and was relocated southerly from abutting the railroad track: tn, the northeast corner of "Loop Road" and "Loop Entry Road ". 2. A trail focal point was provided on the south side of "Loop Road" and its alignment was revised to e°rovide direct access to the east side of "Loop Entry Road ". 3. Land use designations were revised to show Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac) at the northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. B. Planning Commission Workshop: Planning Commission reviewed the revised Area Plan for the Victoria Vineyards South at the workshop on July 1, 1985. The Commission was generally satisfied with the re- worked plan, with the only comment being: 1. Per the input from the Community Services Department, the park site should be redesigned _ with a rectangular or square shape. Rear yards abutting the park should be avoided. The use of a loop road around the park's perimeter or of side- on cul -de -sacs should be considered. The Area Plan has been redrafted to show a rectangular park site.' 'The park is bounded on the north by a trail and on the east by Medium Residenital. The Community Services Department has reviewed the lastest plan and has no objection to the revised park configuration. C. General: At the Planning Commission workshop for the Vineyards Area Plan, there was a general consensus in regards to the land use designation Tnd dwelling unit distribution (see Exhibits "D" & "E" and July 1, 1985 Planning Commission workshop staff report and minutes for complete breakdown and listing of land use and unit totals). The currently proposed Area Plan does exhibit some revisions to the land use designations and dwelling unit total distributions from the plan reviewed by the Commission at the workshop. However, the revisions are relatively minor in nature and involve only the area abutting the park site to both the north and east. The previous plan showed 5.3 acres of Low Medium Residential directly abutting the park site to both north and east, with 19.2 �-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFr REPORT VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, 1985 Page 3 qP acres of Medium Residential beyond. The new plan eliminates the Low Medium designation altogether and now shows 28.5 acres of Medium Residential to the north and east of the park site. Correspondingly, 15 more dwelling units are shown with this plan than with the previous one. The reasons for these revisions are two -fold: 1. The changes are to address the concern of the Commission to avoid ,ear yards of single family lots abutting the park; and 2. At the Planning Commission workshop, the Commission suggested dirt areas of land be set aside for future community facilities. Two 2 -acre . sites have been designated for future community facilities with the reviseA Area Development Plan within Victoria Vineyards Nurth. The additional 15 dwelling units have been transferred to the Victoria Vineyards South to offset the loss of units from the north that were eliminated to provide the land for the community facility sites. Aft IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The subject property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed land uses. The Area Development Plan in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval is consistent with the Victoria Plan Community and G nera7 Plan. In addition, the proposal will not be detrimental 'to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vici-ity. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all material and elements of this project. If after such consideration, the Commission can concur with the Facts for Finding, then adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. RespectfMAIC ub fitted Z Jack La Community Development "'or JL:BC:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Victoria Planned Community Exhibit 118" - Victoria Vineyards Land Use Plan Exhibit "C" - Victoria Vineyards Density Distribution Plan Exhibit "D" - Prior Area Development Plan Am Exhibit "E" - Proposed Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report and Minutes ll Resolution of Approval VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH LD�, ■ 4 t , . -- ^""" ---1 -- kh p� OUT P RC L �'J�r.�•� ®; t ;� ,�.� -- i�t VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH gm . • t7 � COM1tMUHrtr t+�AH r APIs WICLj OrIa ' to Raeclro rngt. I I NORTH CITY OF ITEINI: —E �at RANCHO CUCAMOtiGA TITLE. k e i. PLANNI \'G JJIVLSIQN EXHIBIT. SCALE: . W.14-AND AVENUE L z L LM +; M LM..�e LM LM 3 v LM _` •I I 4r- p:'Ta?��tiRKWi ►. ? i. M �y 'C '• M 'i; !�°°°""'cl ••.� �•• .T�"'• ` cis} MH \ -� faGfm!!.•�� _ of ��T���.. + '� �t - � �"rtl�a'r" M1, V�..L�•..d= LM •+ 4L l' y L `' , •'•�-� f ✓�`9u_ l •� 1 i:r LAND USE LEGEND M ik LM W{ RESIDENTIAL for 7•a ow. x MH 1 LM {u* b; •, `r Cj nr•r(ou, a.Awa ED Y_ C8. .N'�_ f_•�� �.lF —. +: • ��+ '� � r /OrW.Gw n -� OYr. BASFllE IWD r s -••-� r� �+�•• { Q wK, a.•soowa COMMERCIAL ' � Q MGOwaI CIwT(A • � Alfgw4 A(tAT�p Cant( COrr(IKfal Q .4a0l COrrlwpal ClNT(w MWER USES uu! -,os.( wor[ nr o, • Cfna•uTn[ M1K Yf(1. walq T,awfR 1T1TgV � �4nCM<f i, OMIT ffRfq {q!S ♦. VICTORIA VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PLAN Victoria • A Planned Community in Rancho Cucamonga the s,wa group • , —.. = land planners CITY or, � T T RANCHO CLCA4�IO \GA. ITEM: ,,� yl TITLE: -vlt,i,�/,,�i,,.rt PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT-. ._ SCALE. L ­77, 175 du. 3$dk r / 70 dM ��.. �I LM ° 1YSdw )LM \ ; r 7 c&� t. <: 23occw If ' 125d$& nScls� LM Mrduj r r7ods�� P� DROVES : M (( MH v ° M ? \. �L`M' !•'i LM LM 16gdw 315c&s! VIGT :.! /.. �LM I ; ORIA I `` I I VINEYARDS ^_ j 60d,c\ 90A. L/ m lisciu. l lM Lm LNf 1 111 -- Iw d- (50,tL: �1 ..l _ .L `"� 65 oiu- L gyp- �.. -1 1001W 1:"';"x: ^. r.....::;.Rn::t�.,..". --'...�;:�;�;.•:� i Mii LM Sy0 dw 3aodx. ZZodu- ell DENSITY DISTRIBUTION PLAN NORTH CITY Or ITEM: RANCHO CUCA.iMONTGA rrf E: PLANNI\G DIVLSI(XN LXHIBIT rt #SC�A F-6 L 3nv3nr �tr�s�l�oa i� r c j is to r \\ r i� IL 1, 0 vN ,ail .J I To ou 00 I I CI 7 `i or RAN(.-,'HO CL CrkX1ONGA PLANNING DIVISIUN i TITLE „AVI EXHIBIT- n :Vr_ SC.;. LE= . s o W � ch Y1 tr w $ Q E f•tr {; �C W z I . mu 8 © Q. i TITLE „AVI EXHIBIT- n :Vr_ SC.;. LE= . s ch Y1 Q O l:,l T N OOC I.IJ J 6 LL, y t= M � (n d m ¢ a a O O �T << Q= < cnz o o ui ui F a -• f LU io = CL LU og UU UU z - Va �a U _< U aN I— 0Z Q NO O N NT N N .e1A. �U 12; Nam aftso P a W r° W m J m CO �Y cz 9- 11 11 uj z9 ®W mi <� IN C i TITLE „AVI EXHIBIT- n :Vr_ SC.;. LE= . s 1 i �I ' tlwxlr� ROAD -- -- - -� -1i -••• - ' kEIORBORROOD ! ! THE VINEYARDS FK'+FL1UD AVEIy.E L REGI -)NAL BARK = -ear- . ; x --- LM Al » 266 0U 19.2 A0 • ;�p .1 Lm '•.. 't. O .i• +• 1�•i ... CITE' OI, RANCHO CUCAjNIC \'GA PLANNING DIVISION Lv M L ITEM: TITLE E,XHIGIT- l! • u SI ; ALE• __ LM » 266 0U 19.2 A0 • ;�p .1 Lv M L ITEM: TITLE E,XHIGIT- l! • u SI ; ALE• __ d CITY Or RANCHO CUCA.%L ION:GA PLANNING DIVISION? LL 'Ug VJ Q W ui c t7 Zt LU a Q w W ¢ O ` cc 3 O O y::�• (� V5 a 0 0 O U O VW¢ z < O IL s , Q W ui c t7 Y LU a Q T � U) ¢ O r O ctn. l.± w i l I1.I J w. 3 w m N U O y (� V5 a 0 0 O U O it J w a < h <a� o d'� c) Z i O o o Id � 0-- Z Q gs a ay W or z o Dal 0 O Z UU UU `66 K`6 U Q l c4cm ciq �jU m� ;^ EiNN,10 1A N > O. D NE N zQ ¢G m to < < U C Cv Q 7d NN N- �_ m S W J Jm rr 7 W Lij Z ;a cr. iti 10 iTEN 1: TITLE .a ��� '►Ls�. t . EXHIBIT: �` n SG1LEv CITY OF RF,NCHO CUCAiMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Duly 1, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner o �vcaat . I t � i' 1977 SUBJECT: VICTORIA VINEYARDS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LYON - t,onsideration of an area development plan for the Vineyards Village within the Victoria Planned Community, located south of highland, west of Day Creek, north of Base Line, and east oT Milliken. I. ABSTRACT: This workshop is scheduled to facilitate Commission review of the proposed area development plan, to discuss pertinent issues and consider alternatives, and to provide Commission policy direction. II. BACKGROUND: A central planning concept of Victoria is the creation of a series of smaller villages, each village to function as its own unique neighborhood, complete with its own central open space (parks) and community facilities (schools /churches) as a focus. As a result, Victoria has been further divided into four sub - planning areas or "villages ". The "Vineyards" Village is the largest of the four villages in terms of number of dwellino units and park acreage. The Planned Community Text projects for this area a design theme character that focuses on a central active use park with combined school and community facility (see Exhibit "B"). A large lood control retention basin operated by the -San Bernardino Flood Control District occupies an area in the northeast portion of the site. The Southern Pacific Railroad bisects the southerly third of the area. The railroad tracks function to divide the Vineyards into two distinctive sub- areas, and in consideration of this physical characteristic, planning areas for this village have been further defiaed as Vineyards North and Vineyards South. III. VINEYARDS NORTH: A. Project Description: This area encompasses the Vineyards north of the railroad tracks. V4­1-'.pia Park Lane, the central combined park /school /commui.iry facilities, and the San Bernardino Flood Control District retention basin are all• within this sub -area. Of major concern is the issue of _/d KI Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 2 privately owned land not under ownership to the William Lyon Company. Since the approval of Victoria it has been discovered that an additional 40 acres in the northeast corner is not under the ownership of the William Lyon Company (see Exhibit "$". This loss of 40 acres resulted in a major reshaping of the Land Use Plan for Vineyards North. B. Comparative Analysis: As per the Planned Community Text, the dominant thematic character and primary focus of neighborhood identify for the Vineyards is to be an active use park with combined school and community facility. The approved Community Plan, as an expression of this Concept, shows the park sites with combined school /community facilities in the center of the Village planning area on either side of Victoria Parkway. However, portions of this central open space were located within the 40 acres not actually under Lyon's control. To accommodate the necessary reshaping of the land -like plan a single parkischool /community facility is proposed on the south side of the Victoria Parkway in the eastern half of the Village, and the second combined facility has been relocated northerly and served by the Loop ;toad feeding into Victoria Parkway (See Exhibit "C"). Circui�tion and street patterning has also been significantly revised as a result of the Area Plan reshaping. The original plan showed a double -loop straet system. The western portion of the Village has accessed via a half -loop that aligned with a corresponding half -loop system serving the Victoria Groves. The remainder of the Vineyards North was served by a full -loop system. The revised circulation system shows an expanded half loop aligning with the Victoria Groves Loop to form a single loop system serving both the Graves and the Vineyards (see Exhibit "D "). Table 1 provides a numerical breakdown of land use patterns and dwelling counts and offers a comparative analysis between that of the existing plan and the proposed plan. Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Paoe 3 VICTOR' VINEYARDS NORTH STATISTICAL SUMMARY WILLIAM LYON COMPANY OWNERSHIP PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLAN acres acres LAND USE Residential Schools 241.5 229.5 Public Open Space 10.0 38.5 10.0 40.5 Parks 15.0 17.0 Victoria Park Lane 18.0 18,0 Trails 5.5 5.5 Major Public Streets 18..0 28.0 TOTAL 308.0 308.0 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY DU /% DU /% L LM 175/ 9.0 185/ 9.0 M 760/ 37.5 590/ 29.0 MH 765/ 37.5 925/ 46.0 320/ 16.0 315/ 16.0 TOTAL 2,020/100.0 2,015/100.0 Notes: - 1. 29% increase in single family detached product. 2. Overall density decrease of nearly .5 du /ac. 3. Community plan included park area for 400 ± acres of residential development of which 90 ± acres is not owned by the William Lyon Company. As indicated in the table, the Planning Area remains the same, but the area of land designated as residential has increased. This increase in residential acreage has been Offset by a corresponding reduction in acreage for both major public streets and parks. Even though residential acreage has increased, total dwelling co!.nt remains essentially unchanged. This is due to a significant increase in the proportion of dwelling units within the "Low - Medium Density (4 -8 du /ac) and a corresponding reduction in the proportion of dwelling units within the "Medium" density (8 -14 du /ac). El x CM 2 Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 4 C. Issues /Options: 1. Issue: How should out parcels not owned by the William Lyon Company relate to the Victoria Planned Community? Options: a. Develop out parcels are independent of Victoria, subject to requirLments of the Development Code. b. Develop out parcels per Development Code Standards, but include Master Plan Overlay designations to ensure harmonious development between the out parcels. c. Annex the out parcels as art of the Victoria Planned Community for planning purposes in conjunctioli with ar -:a development plan for Vineyards North. Future development of the out parcels would then be subject to the design guidelines and development star. -lards of the Planned Community text. 2. Iss.'� Circulation. The adopted land use plan shows both street and trail connections from the Vineyards to the out parcels west of Rochester. The proposed plan retains the trail connection, but no street connections are shown. Should or should not the Area Plan show. street connections from the Vineyards to the out parcels? Options• a. Develop street system to include an east -west connection north of Victoria Park Lane between planning area and out parcels to the west. b. Street system as proposed is satisfactory. 3. Issue: Land Use. Are the proposed density distributions appropriate both in terms of land use relationships (i.e., density transition) and numbers of dwelling units per density category? Options: a. Revise land use relationships (i.e., density transitions). �': /3 Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 5 r u b. Revise lanri use distribution (i.e., acreage and number of dwelling units within each land use category). c. Revise both land use relationshps and land use distribution. d. Proposed plan is satisfactory. 4. Issue: ParksSchools /Community Facilities As stated n the Planned Community text, the parks /schools /community facilities are the primary focal point and will establish the thematic character for Victoria Vineyards. With the approved plan, parks /schools /community facilities are a major element along Victoria Parkway, but with the amended resulting from the reduced land area, the relationship of these facilities to the community and their impact on the image of Victoria Park Lane has been changed. Does the current parks /schools /community facilities network as proposed for amendment achieve the desired objectives as expressed by the Commission, or are revisions necessary? Options: a. Emphasize a strong centralized open space focal point by concentrating primary open space along the Victoria Park Lane per original concept. b. Disperse open space throughout the Vineyards to create sub- neighborhoods with the intent of having the community facilities equally accessible from all parts of the village. IV. VINEYARDS SOUTH A. Project Description: This area consists of that portion of the Victoria Vineyards South of the Southern Pacific Railway to Base Line Road. Contained within these boundaries are the major intersections of both Base Line /Milliken and Base Line /Rochester, the Base Line frontage and the interface along Base Line of Victoria with the Terra Vista Planned Community. B. History: The Area Plan for Vineyards South was submitted for development review the week of June 3, KI Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 6 1985. The Design Review Committee reviewed the Area Plan for Vineyards South on June 6, 1985. The Design Review Committee reca;nmended significant changes as reflectsd in Exhibit =H" and described below: C. Issues /Actions• From Design Review Committee review of June 6, 1985, the following issues /actions have resulted: 1. Issue: The size and location of the park. Action: The park per input from the Community ernes Department has increased from 3 to 5 acres in size and was relocated southerly from abutting the railroad tracks to the northeast corner of "Loop Road" and "Loop Entry Road ". 2. Issue: Trail design and alignment. c Action: Provide trail focal point on the south ;,ide of "Loop Road" and revised alignment to E provide direct access to the east side of "Loop c Entry Road ". 3. Issue: Land Use t a) Density transitions at the northeast corner of Base Lne and Milliken. - b) Alternative la„d uses should be explored as to the alternative land uses appropriate to "wrap around" the park site's north and east perimeter. 4. Actions• a) Medium High Residential (14 -24 du /ac), has been :r provided at the northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. k b) Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac), has been proposed as the laid -use designation adjacent ,.o the park site's north and east perimeter. *Comment has been received from Community Services regarding the new park design. They find the configuration of the park unacceptable and question the choice of "Low- Medium" adjacent to the park (see Exhibit 11 E"). Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, lKS Page 7 V. OTHER ISSUES: 1. Trails. Issue: The Planned Community Text shows a trail along Victoria Park Lane along its entire route from Deer Creek easterly and souther , to its terminus at the Regional Shopping Center. Th- design of this trail has been modified and the Commission has opted to move the trail from within the median to the north and east sides of the street, respectively. When Tract 12044 was developed, dedications for trail rights -of -way were never required. As a result, there is no trail from North Victoria Windrows Loop south of the park site southerly to the railroad tracks (see E:iti1 »t "F"). A community trail is proposed along the railroad bed. Should the trail system be completed along Victoria Park Lane between North Victoria Windrows Loop and the railroad tracks to connect the westerly villages with Victoria Lakes ant, with the community trail along the tr,.ck bed. Options: a. Complete the trail system. b. The existing situation is satisfactory and the. trail need not be put in. 2. Highland Avenue Wall & Parkway Design Issue: The Lyon Company is proposing a new perimeter wall treatment along Highland Avenue: The concept is an uneven layer of whitewashing to achieve a mottled appearance. The intent is a coarse adobe look reminiscent of the Spanish /Mission style of architecture. Lyon has never tried this design before and would like to have the flexibility to try the design on just a section of the wall and then, once completed, make a final determination as to the acceptability of this design. Options: a. Design just a section of the wall and once completed and available for visual inspection, make a final determination. Planning. Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 8 b. New architecture is needed but the present proposal is unacceptable. C. The existing architecture is satisfactory. VI. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should provide specific direction to Staff and the William Lyon Company relative to: A. Resolution of stated issues with preferred options for the Vineyards North. B. The appropriateness of proposed actions to previously stated issues for the Vineyards South. C. Other specific issues and concerns as determined by the Planning Commission. With policy direction determined, the William Lyon Company can then refine the Area Plans in preparation for submittal before the Planning Commission as amendments to the Victoria Planned Community at an advertised public hearing. With the proposed amendments to the Victoria Plan, the Commission may desire to direct the William Lyon Company to prepare new graphics for general distribution reflective of the new amendments. Re pectfu ubmitted, _ of i �� is ome it P her ` RG:BC:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Victoria Planned Community Exhibit "B" - Planning Concept Exhibit "C" - Parks Location Exhibit "D" - Street System Exhibit "E" - Park Comments - Community Services Exhibit "F" - Victoria Park Lane Trails Exhibit "G" - Land Ownership f Exhibit "H" - Proposed Area Plan r-19 VICTORIA VINEYARDS Nonru VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH CITY Or RANCHO CUCrIMONGi PLANNING DIVISION t �J NORTH •T A . ITEM: f TITLE-' Area 1 will be a residential village called Victoria Groves and will contain a multi -use open space which will use the existing pepper tree grove on the old farm as its theme. Area 2 will be a residential village called Victoria +--- Vineyards and its thematic character will ce generated by ar active use park ;n its center with combined s,hool and I community facility. Area 3 will become a residential village called Victoria Windro.:s. Its central open space will be a more passive park with a small lake as its focus.. The desigxt of this park will extend and reflect the existing Etiwanda character) with a planting design that utilizes the existing windrows and palm trees. Area 4, Victoria Lakes, will be a unique multi -use community including a series of lakes, each surrounded by a succession of land uses from residential to office to commercial, culminating in a Regional Shopping Center at Foothill and the Devore Freeway. NORTH CITY Or, tTFr�i:�ttc� -r "t" RANCHO C CAI'IO.TGA TITLE: � PLkMI \G DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE--- ---__._ W-MLAHO WEkUE I -1� r- V NORTH CITY Or ITEM: RANCHO CUCANT10,NGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE.. I NE THE VWEY,0,4DS L NORTH CITY Or ----------- RANCHO CUCAN110I•GA TITL.E.- PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE. n '� { i Lr ,yam..- �s•� �! .i / 6 - . _ r 7 7 i LN 1�f LM ` LY • •.1• �. �s�:.:`.J'�_^" j -=r"i'^' -= ,rv.rl S ��J/�� LM LM U L- L LM LM � � rr � •� }�7 j 1 a►r- �wt- .�:.... _ _ — ivys's- lit ,e•. °�— - • I wits Nro 13.7 �'7• '. j, i•. \`cJWVES1 L• "'t1L ^ v \ •Sej�'''! . RANCHO QJCAMONCA � My , F/g LM NnRTH /\ 1 r• lJ 3 CITY OF ITE;ZI: RANCHO CUCA�ION�CrA. TITLE:- n�S�T , PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE --------- ____ -- F-tZZ , i i TECHNICAL P.EVIN CUMMUIT SHEET . PROJECT•. AGENCY: �') 'pity (T1! � n i �. l G5 DEPi _ COMPLETED BY: �.�rC•�__ M,�� %�� _ DATE: � �( _'5 -• -' -.__ SITE�OEVELOPiiE'.: CO?1F ?E:ITS 7- � �fl: irk- (7G'S'� �• „--:.. tr ivst -n CC) GRADING /DRAINAGE COMMENTS: - _ l v 1 1 :'r--4a i lvarr "Wo -z� III LA NE I Y 0 1V `_ •— alY it i in 1-ORT1-i CITY O1� Ale'C�IO CLTC.�li�r1O1'G�, TITLE '� y �u �' L PLANNI '- 1XVISIaN EX:-iIBIT-_ SCALE '40AC.J,ZVE Of VICTORIA GROVES 1150 ck+l pcwic: to A. VICTORIA VINEYARDS 31d0dw park: 41,x. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Opti7m.nl -fact lly Willy& Famalaia PlcuudivArea. not apart of t{rc Fla: ie,i, Cost Powity Pl,q -ming Area, 6owidarJ CITY Or' RANCHO CUC .iM j\TGA PLANNI1NG DIVISION i VICTORIA WINDROWS 1740 du. park:22A. %+I /1 VL K, IA C/�' .2165 dw park :241A j� r i NORTH IM I: -- '.A1,�T TITLE :�i�1C'7 �% EXHIBIT: SCALE: _ i .. LooD eaMrROL SCA00L CHAFFEY THE VINEYARDS '. REGIONAL PARK 7.0 - HMM Q AVEne _ DE COMMEACU I. Ip ' •••LM .co- car�..rs •n.wo r Lm a LM M _ ^ ` • - soom LM � .�-•�• OYES 2 w ' � �� >.ua..r .� . r t � •' j M r II M 1DU LM LM r. .� { •-. tIIJJJ. M .1 \ 01 PAM LM s Du ' • - • GROVES yt _ �-..� M +� •,.mAe _ _. SIXR/EPM ..CFlC nALrwAO RANCHO CUCAMONGA ?r ,.oar / ' 1L.. COMMUNITY PARK • +[I ,one � 9 Lm M "fv xosW MisaW I" AC •,. i EYAN6$ D xee W eiFKE PARK �t On5E7lE POl1p .._� - -��; .�._��- T•__.�_1IT"_.- ..,��r .. __. MH M : LM . , tEGEriO i LO1 2-4 •- - -� LM LDw -L ¢ A -a mAe CE MM W O -1A DWAC fM-Hl WDKA"W 14-24. DWAC QH RE M iA_x CMMR RC RECwMU CEMTER FR-R-1 nEC�MAt PEUxEO OrFKE[CDUe.EPCIAI fV VE.LADECOLWJC LCENM I NORTH .. © WUNAUVE USES I CITY Or ITELMNl��';° RANCHO CUOC Ni IO \TGIF TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT.__ ,_ SCALE: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 1, 1485 VICTORIA VINEYARDS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN S A. Victoria Vineyards North I. Issue: How should outparcels not owned by the William Lyon Company relate to the Victoria Planned Community? Action: Annex the outparcels as part of the Victoria Tanned Community for planning purposes. Future development of the outparcels would then be subject to the design guidelines and development standards of the Victoria Planned Community text. 2. Issue: Circulation - should the Area Plan show street connections to the outparcels? Action: Streets shall be used as a means of physical connection to relate the outparcels to the Vineyards and to divert traffic away from the Victoria Park Lane. A traffic analysis of the study area shall be completed to address the outparcels and the change in the circulation concept. 3. Issue: Land Use - Are the proposed density distributions appropriate both in terms of land use relationships and density distributions? Action: Proposed Plan is satisfactory. 4. Issue: Parks /Schools /Community Facilities - Are the proposed parks /schools /community facilities satisfactory, or are revisions necessary? Action: a. The proposed configuration & location of parks with combined ' acilities is satisfactory. b. A 2 -acre parcel adjacent to -each park /school area should be designated as a community facility and withheld from development for future use as a community facility, i.e. daycare center, church, etc. B. Victoria Vineyards South Issue: Park size & location Comments: Park site should be redesigned with a rectangular or square shape. Rear yards attotting park should._be avoided. Consider a loop road around park or.'side-o.i cul -de -sacs. M F-Z� i Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan Workshop Minutes July 1, 1985 Page 2 C. Trails Issue: Should equestrian trail be completed on the east side of Victoria Park Lane from North Victoiia Windrows Loop south to the tracks? Comments: Since conditi,ns of approval for Victoria include this requirement for an equestrian trail to the tracks, this issue must be addressed. Various engineering solutions should be explored by the applicant for the trail along Victoria Park Lane. However, this would not preclude the consideration of alternative routes. D. Perimeter Wall Design Issue: Is a new design strategy necessary or appropriate? Comments: The Lyon Company may apply their new proposed design to a single small section of the existing wall on Highland Avenue on an ` experimental basis for City review. Ip designing future perimeter walls, j careful attention is needed to avoid creating a long, monotonous structure. Strategies such as staggering, variation of colors, style, or !{ form and landscaping should be incorporated to break up the wallscape. E -29 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH VILLAGE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND ROCHESTER, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD IN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, on the 19th day of April, 1985, a complete application was filed by The William !yon Company for review of the above- described project; and W17REAS, on the 23rd day of 3ctuber, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning CL - :ission had a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accc °d with the objectives of the Victoria Planned Community Text and the purposes of the district in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed ue is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Victoria Planned Community Text and Development Code. 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That Area Development Plan for Victoria Vineyards South Village is approved subject to the following conditions. PLANNING DIVISION: 1. Landscape treatment at the end of cul -de -sacs along "Loop Road" shall be designed to provide open views into the cu] -de -sacs. 2. Decorative masonry walls shall be provided along Base Line Road, Milliken and Rochester Avenues, the "Loop Road ", and "Loop Entry Road ". Details shall be submitted with corresponding tentative tract map applications. f 3eq PLANNING COMMISSION RESG,,UTION AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FO.,' VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, 1985 Page 2 E 3. A minimum eight foot wide improved surface will *be provided along the interior /paseo trails to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle traffic. ENGINEERING DIVISION: A. Streets I. Two means of access shall be provided for each individual project as it develops. The access shall have a minimum 26' AC paved width within 40' wide dedicated right -of -way. 2. For Milliken Avenue, Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue, construct full improvements for the roadbed adjacent to the project area, full median, and a minimum 18' AC paved width within the roadbed on the other side of the median fer opposing traffic. The length of roadway to be constructed with individual projects will be determined on a project by project basis and will be dependent upon the establishment of logical roadway limits considering lane transitions to meet e: fisting pavement, median opening, etc. y�� +,gyp -� B. Drainage w. i. A revised storm drain master plan for t entire �y area shall be .completed by the developer' engineer and approved by the City Engineer end the Flood Control District prior to scheduling of the first � project for Planning Commission approval, 2. A drainage report identifying required storm drain facilities for each project when submitted shall be required and shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to scheduling for Planning Commission approval. Each project shall provide for a 100 -year storm overflow. 3. Interim drainage protection me ures for flows from the area to the north shall be designed and approved prior to scheduling of the first project for Planning Commission approval, 4. If development proceeds prior to the improvement of Day Creek Channel, a retention basin may be required to reduce the peak runoff from the development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, 1985 Page 3 k C. Gradi_'ng. 1. Approval from Southern Pacifie. Railroad Company shall be required for any .grading within their E. right -of -way. Approval .gall be obtained prior to submittal of the first project, adjacent to the railroad right -of -way, to the Planning Commission for approval. APPROVED AND AD:, ?TED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE L3TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman kTTEST: Jack Lam, Secretary I, Ja<<; Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly intrc;-141ced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of ,Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMFSIONERS: NOES: COMIMISSIONERS: f ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: This condition is consistent with Commission's policy to upgrade ` Foothill Boulevard it' ca,ljunrtion with remodels or addit "ns to existing buildings. For example, both the krcc and Texaco tions installed landscaping. In addition, it will eliminaue the unsightly condition created by illegal parking of vehicles in the public right -of -way (see Exhibit "D"), I1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold this Mi r Development Review and all conditions attachyd to it. Resp ctfull/ ybm'tt• =.d, v ; aC CT' Lau, ICP Community Developme!'_ Director ITEM G — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAA4ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 23, 1985 U t977 TO: chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, C„,mmunity Development Director BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8509 - A -1 SHCLL - A request for relief from landscape and irrigation improvements associated with the construction of a 450 storage room on an existing gas and service station located on the north side of Foothill west of Klusman - APN L08- 151 -19 I. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 1985, staff approved MDR 85 -09, a storage room addition to the gas station at 9524 Footh'17 oui7?vard3. --phis minor development review was the result of de enforcement ID eliminate outdoor storage of supplies and equipment per p ent Code regulations. This MDR was approved with the condition to remove the existing asphalt paving in the parkway and replace it with landscaping and irrigation. Landscape and irrigation plans were submitted to and approved by the City. The approved plans indicate 3 15- gallon California Sycamore trees, approximately 2 dozen 5- gallon shrubs, 2 -foot high mounding and Gazania ground cover (see Exhibit "C").The applicant's request is based on his opinion that the cost of the landscaping and irrigation is vareasonable compared with the cost of the . addition. - This condition is consistent with Commission's policy to upgrade ` Foothill Boulevard it' ca,ljunrtion with remodels or addit "ns to existing buildings. For example, both the krcc and Texaco tions installed landscaping. In addition, it will eliminaue the unsightly condition created by illegal parking of vehicles in the public right -of -way (see Exhibit "D"), I1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold this Mi r Development Review and all conditions attachyd to it. Resp ctfull/ ybm'tt• =.d, v ; aC CT' Lau, ICP Community Developme!'_ Director ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOa OEVELOFMFNT REVIEW 85 -09 - A -1 SHELL October 23, 1985 Page 2 JL:JM:ko Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit; "A" - Area Map Exhibit "8" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape & Irrigation Plans Exhibit "D" - Photographs Letter of Approval Dat,;d May 6, 1985 Dan Coleman Planning Commission CITY OF R/t(ACHO CU MCNGq PL ANNiNG p1,UCAM S•'+s d ' Ay 7� 819110111112111214141616 9920 Baseline Rd. • Box Rancho ancho Cucamcam onga, Ca 91730 Dear Mr. I;oieman: ; This 'etter. is to request to be placed on • X41 �'.' the October 24th " , agenda of the Rancho Cucwionga Planning Commissior We would line to appeal to the Bear:i concerning the landscaping require- ments, in order to .tain a permit for the shed oA the back of r, . our servile station at 1524 Foothill Blvd. Ir you should need to contac' me, you may reach me at the station 987 -6016 or you may call and leave a message at the Accounting Office in our home 899,1044. Sincerely, .(t/►�� Le Paul Kiehl. 1 A -1 Shell ' ' s' , K , •. 9$24 FoothjTt Bivd Cucamongal'Ca. 91730 �• � _..iii �� ..}�L .ti; .... t.•. .. .. r .�l: ..` _ 4 . +tiLwt't b. .. .t.... PRG�JEC.i Sl -r E NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CICAIVAoj\,G'A TITE,1;., PLJ,.-4N[ NG DIVLS a-q Fes;.- IIE31T SALE _ s -- .�.��.:�_- 'fit r � ✓�S. oo __ NOTE P �t tt W err PENMII� NBC PAV /N�i • i 'y� a 3.1 rYP/CAG - - -- - --'- = - -- -� - - i rr i' i � I j EXi,Sri.VG AjC PRV/NG. cor- rnml c44 0 I 9 r � NaW t e.:o � ° � B.0 /DLO +wG. IoY�/ �,j/• et�e'Y r.n•c• rnga � .. � i / 9 � �� I � / O 1 I fir• .ra - +.t. �. Q..•o a. of i I � Q.KR NwM6 D V t al 1 `sz � � - �.✓ac a �!+++o•°r 1� Q a �; � � •• � • �.�'"� � t /6.5:00 c :' Y+Q <�Gr /CN R BLVD NORTH Ctrl OF I RANCHO CUCAMONGA i,iLE: ..c1'iC PLANT PLANNiI\G DivisIoN EXHIBIT. SCALE _ tsy'— ��•I N 1 I 'i� - iT rr � f'i� .i' _'i4.�h�iLi'tli' �/ (°•'++', yiYR4W�f' LgFtclTrn�e ...- IiiLL °JG.:,:YE�C. t yn. . M • I • �*` jjO f am�,,) uV IT 1 CITY° OF, IT �r%'I: RANCHO CU CA' ,J0N`GA. TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: C SCALE:____�� E NP, CuCA e CITY OF RANCHUCMAMONGA - O 3%-Jon D. Mikels v Z Cannrifmrm6m l977 1 Charles J.Buquet11 Jeffrey King Richard U. Dahl Pamelal Wright May 6, 1985 Mr. H. W. Jenkins Carse Company P. 0. Box 3813 South El Monte, Califoeinia 91733 SUBJECT: MINOR-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -09 - STORAGE ROOM ADDITION FOR THE SHELL STATION LOCATED ON THE N/S OF FOOTHILL, W/O KLUSMAN Dear Mr. Jenkins: The Planning Division has reviewed your application for Minor Deve�opment Review 85 -09. It has been determined that the following findings can be made: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed project t05,!cler with the conditions applicable thereto, will no* be dvtrimental to the public hearth, safety, or wet %re, or materially injurious to properties or improl•,;,ents in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed project is �n compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4- That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, Minor Development Review 85 -09 has been approved with the following conditions: - Final Foothill Fire District approval The installation of parkways along Foothill Boulevard. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, and specimen size trees are required. Full landscape and irrigation plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. 'F 9320 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE C • IOST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 31730 (714)989•1851 Mr. H. W. Jenkins Minor Development Review -) -09 May 6, 1985 Page 2 Should yo•i have ? -y questions regarding the above application, please feel free o con, t me. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNkNG DIVISION John R. Meyer Assistant Planner JRM:nas cc: Gary Richards, Code. En-fdreement Officer Jim Martin: Plan Check Coordinator A..- ';Y^'.a..'•�'-'_ --14`` -nom r-r= •..: -,,��, :.' �_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �ocnMo STAFF REPORT O O F Z U > DATE: October 23, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: COt1DITIONAL USE HERMIT 84 -27 - BARMAKIAN - A review of wa design along Cucamonga Cree Channel for an approved multi - tenant industrial park located at the southwest corner of Arrow and Vineyard. 1. BACKGROUND: On September 26, 1984, tNe Planning .Commission approved Conditional Ilse Permit 84 -27 for the total development of 5 multi- tenant industrial buildings, mini warehouse facility, and a gas station on 11.03 acres of land in the General Industrial Cateqory located on the west side of Vineyard between Arrow and 9th Strezt. The Design Review Committee was concerned with the aesthetic impact of the perimeter wall along Cucamonga Creek Channel as it affected the Regional Trail System. Therefore, a Condition of Approval reg0 red that "all perimeter galls and mini warehouse scr,ien walls shall be split -face, vertically fluted block." The applicant, Andrew Barmakian, is seeking clarification of this condition as it relates to the wall height located along the Channel within t "e ir:zlti -use tenant building portion of the project (see EExhibit Ii. ANALYSIS: The approved pl&ns indicated a 4 -foot high wall at the property line contiguous to Cucamonga Creek Channel and the Regional Trail. However, a grade differential reduces the effective wail height on the Channel side to 2 feet as indicated in Section "A" on Exhibit "E". City Standards for fencing along Regional Trails call for a 6 -foot high chain link fence to be installed by the developer on the property lire as shown on Exhibit "I ". The intent of this requirement was to define the boundaries of the Flood Lc: ^trot easement and provide phy,ical separation between the trail and the development. Chain link was specified as the minimum acceptat;e fence material that could be installed. The wall iP question is 582 feet long and will be softened on the project side with landscaping. A total of 29 16- Eucalyptus gallon Red I:onbark and h 15- gallon Crape Myrtle trees will be planted on the east side the of wall (see Exhibit "J"). ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 84 -27 - BARMAKIAN October 23, 1985 Page 2 III. OPTIONS: The Design Review Committee recommended, on October 17, 48 that the following options be considered by the full Planning Commission: 1. Install 4 -foot high wall (from project site) as shown in Exhibit "E", 2. Construct 6 -foot high wall (from project site), 3. Construct 8 -foot high wall (6 feet on Channel sloe). The developer has indicated they world agree to build a six foot high wall (Option 2); however, does rot want to build an eight foot high wall (Option 3) because of the visual impact. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the information pravided and select 5etweeti the options listed above. Regardless cf which option is selected, staff would recommend that the periiieter wall be constructed of split -face, vertically fluted block as per the Conditions of Approval. Res ectfull su itted, Jack Lam, AICP Community Development Director JL:DC:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "I" Exhibit "J'I Location Map Site Utilization Map Site Plan Conceptual Landscape Plrn Grading Plan Gas Station Elevations Multi- Tenant Elevations Mini Warehouse Elevations Regional Trail Fence Standard Approved landscape Plans U L`J I CIRCULATION TRAILSIROUTES 120' R.O.W. 0000 Pedestrian immo- .e Creeks & Charnels 900' R.O.W, 6000 Bicycle wwmw� A8' or It ss F(.O.W. Regional Multi -Use �dn „`y Parks RAIL SERVICE �rT -ice-- Existing Bridge Ppeclai Streetscape - ++ 1--1- a-- Propas :d Landscaping Access Points 0 400' 800' 9600' NORTH CITY Off' ITENI: RANCHO CUCAN"OIN TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT SCALE: ate__ � -...... �i �• aaa r, w, • Tr K tl t i ARRM m SMEE111 •R Fnttrr ARRM al.e JJpq� �eN eta. v 6 e C, t spa l ,Talus r-;ar/ �jpp Pt� /-Served (574arezr{ ;tCCUIL'LOCWL; 2N AC r/L. ol ' STREE7�' •� NORTH CITY OF RAT�o CC AMO TGA PI.AMUNG DIMS QN EXHIBIT. SCALE: t r ._ 1. �!.`� - ��{•'�• — � t� i _ � ie�llii i.• �_r�— 2 i N � t �i�iil��i a• ,� a° . 13 -le :9 -t LOU] I � iT�ici /v u A; Aq ! UE, rp U i iapFM �i e■ t .' u� 6 ��� ^;IC SIC -_ �Wu SFr* ,l `C3u) �w c7i n a 3� NORTH cn Or T RANCHO CLICAI IO \GA TITLE- PLANNING DIWSION EXHIBIT. SCALE m AuedLu -z u twa� c L 7111. If 4007 t -4PAAmi A- I iedwoo n � d w �g LU -i r eve QJIU 07QI -02 Q 10- -23 -85 P C* Agenda Packet o Page-4 of 4 I Fw8va ISGAI 11-9 3 80 W�C Q)Y t; 3 80 W�C Q)Y z� ko a n� • �qq H a� =MA 3� jo AA Ld �uu �o Ld lu city of rancho Cucamonga 5.6.G.FG.C%. CASEMEN A:5R1YLLg T KQ&v I � U g v 0 MiNNWHK FSV4F- Dt'YELOF idly Fr- Feg'Pr LUTE S T ANDAR DRAINING � Lm� w � CH6InumK mwz lmw,dLLED t5y � F.00v WHTKOL GH<wNEL SYE'G iGFRtGA aO rIiNoC(y►5 � D , r zPSltc iA [i B� �`IRFPUNG AN D Ct� �� e^+ sp wS i C/ t H cI G�fzE w> = T u NDTE-:: FofL THE oTHEre Nve OF 'IH!' _A Resolution No. 81' ,93 Page �"fi REGIONAL TRAIL g �7 93 i 005 uy•ne�n••. rs.•.xasba au• tiI SECTYON S: Fencing: .' a. For Regional "Multi- Purvose Trails: Along Flood Channels fencing shall coRSist Of a 6' chainlink - :.nce installed by the Flood Control District, Corps ok Engineers, or the City 3f Rancho Cucamonga atop the flood control channe$,E.l wall. Thr. adjacent develo er shall be responsible for the installation o €.1 a 6' h hainlink fence installed at a ioint ro ert line for the length of the co- terminus boundary. Openings shall be made for access at ar,proved: points and for where local Feeder Trails and C o i .11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAWNGA PL&NNING DIVLS N n ty rails intersect. .ji..1 ITEM: TITLE: �EHYHI131T -_ SCALE- NA, O U N� CITY OF RAN -CHO CLTCAMOi\'GA PLANNINU DIVISIQN I NORTH ITE-N-1: TITLE = { YW- EXHIBIT. I SC�ILE '-