Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/11/13 - Agenda Packet �T�.� P „_, �. ,. ,..:.. n �. =----�7��=0� a 1`�--�. �-85 PGA -Agenda: Pac�e� o ' �� e �� ��' 9 I a i } 7 i { D G a mn. ti z�c a I- 7z m-11 �A Z CD � C'! a N O 'S Ati W�y N � A-y O W U7 l 1 f j. C-ICAMn, ' CITY OF < v RANCHO Ct;Q1MO\GA c PLAl1t11\'G COvli1�IIS�IOT F z 'AGE ID , d977 WEDNESDAY November 13,1985% 7.00 P.M. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CANTER 9161 BASE LINE RWNCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA ACTION L Pledp of All ante IL Roll Call Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Chitiea= Commissioner Stout _C Commissioner McNiel= III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes APPROVED,3-0-0-2 October 9,1985 V. Consent Cale edar A. APPROVED 5-0 A. APPROVAL OF THE HERMOSA PARK CONCEPTUAL Driveways to be restudied DESIGN - Hermosa Park is a 10-acre park site located at prior to completion of 9787 Hermosa,adjacent to Deer Canyon Elementary School. final design. VL Public Hearmgr The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. PIease wait tc a recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. B. APPROVED 5-0 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE Applicant to work with PERMIT 85-20 - HOYT LUMBER COMPANY--A request to adjacent westerly property construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building addition to owner to insure compati an existing home improvement center and the development of bility of landscaping & a Master Plan on 2 acres of land in the Office Professional block wall design. District, located at 7110 Archibald, northwest corner of Archibald and Lomita Court - APN 202-451-33. (Continued from October 9,1985 meeting.) C. APPROVED 5-0 C. .ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Applicant to work with REVIEW 85-33 -BARMAKIAN-The development of 72 wnt Edison on easement land apartments on 4.12 acres of land in the Medium High scaping. Garage, door Residential District (14-24 du/ac) located at the north,side design/:r,jrs to be and end of Lomita Court APN 202-151-34. (Continued from approved by City Planner. October 2".1985 meeting:) `':• Staff dire6ted to_monitor parkinq alonq Lomita Ct. D. CONTINUED to D. ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9350- 11- - 27 85 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY -A: division of 103.34 net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Planned Community,located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenue-,�eN 227-081-06. E. APPROVED 5-0 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8787 - HIGHLAND-HAVEN ASSOCIATES A division of 48.319 acres into 4 parcels located in the Low-Medium Development District (4-8 du/ac) located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue, at 19th Street - APN 202- 211-36. F. APPROVED 5-0 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9508- LANDCO -A division of 2.26 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial,area(Subarea 10)located on the north side of 7th Street, between Milliken Avenue and Bridgeport Place-APN 2'49-261-70. G. APPROVED 5-0 G. ENVIRONMENT--. , ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-17 - FOR KIDS ONLY, LTD. -The construction of a 91260 square foot preschool on 1.18 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac), located on the south side of Base Line,east of Turner-APN 1077-061-09. H. APPROVED 5-0 Walls-& fenc4rg to be H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'TENTATIVE TRACT reviewed' by City Planner ­ 13066 - CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA-A subdivision and design prior to building permits. 'review for 27 single family lots on 6.8 acres of land in the Mitigation measures •to be Low Residential District(2-4 dulac)located on the south side provided to reduce the of 19th Street,east of Amethyst-APN 202-111-61-and 62. invasion of privacy impact on existing ' 1• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT adjacent residences,, 12659 -BLANTON -A proposed residential development for 135 custom single-family lots, and 3 lettered open space lots, I. APPROVED 5,0 on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District CC&R7 to include statement (1-2 du/ae),within the Etiwanda Specifle Plan,located on the regarding roofing material. southwesf'corner of Etiwands Avenue and 24th Street-APN Trail connections between 225-011-35, lots 106 & 107 to be in- cluded on tract mao. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TiENTATIVE TRACT Landscaping adjacent 13022 - 'WILLIAM LYON COMPANY A residential to trails to be reviewed subdivision of 280 total lots on.216.5 total acres and including by Trails Committee. the development of 275 single family lots on 44.1 net acres in the Low Residential(2-4 du/ac),Low-Medium Residential(4- J. APPROVED 5-0 & du/ac), Medium (4 14 du/ac) Residential, and School/Park If developer cannot coordi- Community, Facilities Land Use Designations within the nate installation of rail.- Victoria Planned Community located north of the Southern road crossing signal & Pacific Railroad, south of Highland.Avenue, west of Milliken arms prior to occupancy of Avenue and East of the Deer Creek Channel-APN 202-211- first phase, secondary 13 34 and 38;202-221-27� access to be provided. r K. APPROVED 5-0 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT Trails committee to 130— WILLIAM LYON COMPANY A _residential review trail connection sub52 di Sion o 222 lots with the development of 220 single to the north prior to family homes on on 34.9 acres in the Low(2-4 dul%c) and ' issuance of building Medium (4-14 du/ae) Residential Land Use Designations permits. within the Victoria Planned Community located north of Base Line Road,;south of the Southe7n Pacific Railway, east of Victoria Park Lane, and west of Etiwanda Avenue-APIT 227- 1117-4, 5,18, 20,32 and 36: L. APPROVED 5-0 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE 14 additional parking• PERMIT 85-27-BROWN-A proposal to locate an executive spaces to be provi4 health concept center within an existing 18,240-square foot through lot line adjustment. building located in the Haven Avenue Overlay District on the west side of Haven between 6th and 7th Streets -APN 203 262-19. I. APPROVED 5-0 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-32 CROSS bf:,,ROWN LUTHERAN CHURCH - The establishment of a chur th,within a shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial ":listrict located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and ;xehibald Avenue -APN 202 17 54. N. APPROVED 5-0 N. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-CAL-13ANCHO(CALMARK) An amendment_ to the legal description of real property subject to an agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Cal-Rancho,Incorporated,regarding a senior citizen housing project located west of,Archibald, at the terminus of Lomita Court. 0. APPROVED 5-0 O• E'NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9301- FORECAST CORPORATION-A division of 5.24 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6)and the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located south of Arrow Route between,Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue APN 209- t , 42-18. (RelL,.zd Files DR 85-26) VH. New Business P. APPROVED 5-0 P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-26 FORECAST The development of an . 'industrial park consisting of 3 buildings totaling 44,452 square feet on 3.4 acres of land within a proposed 18 acre Master Site Plan in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 6)and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located on the south side of Arrow Highway between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN. 209 142-18. (Related File: PM 9301) Q. DETERMINED THAT Q. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 85-66 WOOD :- A consistency THE PROJECT IS ANCON determination between the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies SISTENT WITH FOOTHILL and a proposed commercial/office development located on INTERIM POLICIES. the north side of Foothill Boulevard,west of Turner Avenue.. R. CONDITIONALLY R. USE : DETERMINATION 85-03 - COLE/SHAEFER PERMITTED USE 5-0. AMBULANCE SERVICE APPLICANT DIRECTED TO FILE A CUP APPLICA- S. MtN' OR. EXCEPTION 85-18 MUMAW Appt as by adjacent TION. neighbor of staff's aporoval of an 8-foot block wall along the rear property�Ineat L369 Candle=.woad Street. S. APPEAL DENIED 5-0 VIiII.. Old Business T. REPORT RECEIVED T. CONDITIONAL.USE PERMIT 83-13-MOOSE LODGE-StPsws & FILED report on compliance with conditions bf approval fo►_ the MoosF-Lodge Meeting Hall located at 9375 Archibald Avenue AP.4'210-071-48, LY. Director's Reports U. APPROVED 5-0 U. ORDINANCE TO AL':Y A SECTION TO THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE PROCESSING OF VESTING TENTATIVE'MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS X. Public Comments i This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not ,c already appear on this agenda. XL -A journment 11:40 p.m. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that.set an it P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time,they shall by heard only with the consent of the Commission. `S VIC.NNITY � A .-.-....- - - '--'1. j L-. Imo•-, e XpMIM Xilhidp � tMLRET fICGIC 3I DIPL•l ,• �' \ V., GXIFFET I f.. Wffrrf COLLEGE S-1 •\\ � wt ieefl.li Fw.r.\`•1.c}yJ f 1 'ILID'S PAOI 'AL ✓� 1. p ! LY F J� t • a a � a � / a 4.IY 1 .wfa. ....+.... ..7�- .....+. .. 1 i is '.I . " 1f /e a rrf\�O 6 alta r: I oll r•• a am IT... CULIN^•l.t•f{UISif f0UN7v PFff�N♦ P /'/ ' OX7a NID IglE/+N�7MI/RC lIgP0A1' - `: CRY OF 'nAltCFf0 CtK AM;,)fJ - ` G�%Cn.y�t CITY OF n RANCHO CCCAVJ0NGA T1 3' PLANNING C01�IIl�IISSIO�T E g z AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY November 13,1985 7 00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LING { RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA L Pledge of AUftlence H. Moll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel M. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes October 9, 1985 5 _ V. Consent Calendar A. APPROVAL OF THE HERMOSA PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Hermosa Park is a 10-acre park site located at 6787 Hermosa,adjacent to Deer Canyon Elementary School dI. Public Hearings The •following items are public hearings in which concerned individ:clis may-voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait tube recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shalt be E.. limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. r B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE s PERMIT 85-20 - HOYT_LUMBER COMPANY-A i:equest to construct an 8,600 square foot warehouse building additton to an existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan on 2 acres of land in the Office Professional District,, located at 7110 Archibald, northwest corner of Archibald and Lomita Court - APN 202-151-33. (Continued from October 9,1985 meeting.) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 -BARMAKIAN-The development of 72 unit apartments on 4.12_acres of kind in the Medium High Residential District(14-24 du/ac) located at the;north side and end of Lomita Court-APN 202-151-34. (Continued from October 23,1985 meeting.) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9356 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY -A division o 1103.34 net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Planned Community,located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenue-APN 227-081-00. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8787 HIGHLAND-HAVEN ASSOCIATES - A division 48.319 acres into 4 parcels located in the Low-Medium Development District (4-8 du/ac) located on the south side �f Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue, at 19th Street APN 202- 211-36. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9508- LANDCO A division of 2.26 acres of land into, parcels in the General Industrial area(Subarea 10)located on the north e" side of 7th Street, between Milliken Avenue and Bridgeport z Place APN 229-261-70. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-17 -FOR KIDS ONLY LTD. -pThe construction of a 9,291 square oot preschool on 1:18 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac), located on the south side of Base Line,east of Turner-APN 1077-061-09. ,t H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13066 CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA-A subdivision and design review for 27 single amity lots on 6.8•acres of land:in the Low Residential District(2-4 du/ac)located on the south side of 19th Street,east of Amethyst-APN 202-111-61 and 62. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL'ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 -BLANTON -A,proposed residential development for 135 custom single-family lots,and 3 lettered open space lots, on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac), within the Etiwanda Specific Plan,located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street-APN 225-011-35. " J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13022 WILL M LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 280 total lots on 210.5 total acres and including the development of 275 single family lots on 44.1 net acres in the Low Residential(2-4 du/ac),Low-Medium Residential(4- 8 du/ac), Medium (4-14 du/ac) Residential, and School/Park Community Facilities Land Use Designations within the Victoria Planned Community located north of the Southern Pacific Railroad, south of Highland Avenue,west of Milliken Avenue and East of the Deer Creek Channel-APN 202-211- 13,34 and 38; 202-221-27e II K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15052 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY A residential subd afon of 222 lots with the development of 220 single r family homes on on 34.9 acres in the Low (2-4 du/ac) and tedium (4-14 du/ae) Residential Land Use Designations within the Victoria Planned Community located north of Base Line Road, south of the.Southern Pacific Railway, east of Victoria Park Lane,and west of Etiwanda Avenue-APN 227- 111-4,5,18,20,32 and 36. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-27 -BROWN-E!,pr.-7osal'to locate an executive health concept center within mi existing 18,240 square foot building located in the Haven Avenue Overlay District on the west side of Haven between Sth and 7th Streets APN 209- 262-19� M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -ND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85- 2 CROSS & CRU LUTHERI N CHURCH The establishment of a ehuceh wk-iin ashopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202-17- 54. N. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-CAL-RANCHO (CALMARK) ' - An amendment to the legal description of real property subject to an agreement between the City of'Rancho Cucamonga and Cal Rancho,Incorporated,regarding a senior citizen housing project located'west of Archibald.. at the terminus of Lomita Court. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:AND PARCEL MAP 9301- FOREC ST CORPORATION-A division of 5.14 acres o land. into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 6) and the Haven.Avenue Overlay District, located south of Arrow Route between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue-APN 209- 142-18. (Related File: DR 85-26) VIL New Business P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND _DEVELOPMENT REVEW 85-26 FORECAST - The development of an industrnal park consisting of 3 buildings totaling 44,452 square feet on 3.4 acres of land within a proposed 18 acre Master Site Plan in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 6)and Haven Avenue Overlay.District,located on the south side`of Arrow Highway between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue- APN 209-142-18. (Related File: PM 9301) F r_ Q. PRE11MINARY REVIEW 85-66 WOOD A consistency determination between the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and a proposed commercial/office development 'located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard,west of Turner Avenue._ R. USE DETERMINATION 85-03 - COLE/SHAEFER AMBULANCE SERVICE S. MINOR EXCEPTION 85-18 MUMAW - Appeal by adjacent neighbor, of staff's approval of an-Y8 oot block wall along the rear property line dt 9869'Candlewood Street. VIII. Old Business T. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-13-MOOSE LODGE.-Status report on compliance with conditions of approval for the Moose Lodge.Meeting Hall located at 9375 Archibald Avenue -APN 210-071-48: LK. DirLator's Reports U. ORDINANCE TO ADD 'A SECTION TO TV!E CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TABLISHING,I-,GULATIONS FOR THE PROCESSING OF'NESTIIM TE,rJ'FATIVE MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS S. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to add7ess the Commission. Items to be discussed here are thaw which do not already appear on this agenda. XL Adjournment ! The Planning Commission has mlopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m, adjournment time. If items go beyond that time,they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. s� ff � I '"tea S ,,...,✓a...•.,,_., r. %V"ICINIIT%ir'f' MAP ,.__._ .__. -- _ ......... j OL p �''. NJYW. IIiNuM1e t CN.tfF[RCGIONLLIaP�I.' � wagon. i a ` SNaFFEY' i�, C COLLEGE � 'a tole ��, •. � i s `fie t i11 _• ... •• '—71— Ti c cut•.^v.a.G1.5R Eco�tr• Rcr,^vu ca;�J - 04tAn10 l'ntE kNA t+:lrAC AtNPORY CTY OF RANCHO C7tCA1A--NGr r ti CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 13, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Pl&..ning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamganga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Denn:S Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Racy Fong, Asso^.fate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Barbara Krall, Associate Civil Engineer James Markman, City Attorney; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by r ...pel, seconded by Barker, to approve the Minutes of the October '9, 1985 Pla,ining Commission meeting. Chairman Stout and Commissioner McNiel abstained from voting as they were not in attendance at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVAL OF THE HERMOSA PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN- Hermosa Park is a 10-acre park site locatedat 6787 Hermosa, adjacent to Deer Canyon Elementary School. Commissioner Rempel was concerned that the driveway into the park would be a shared access with Deer Canyon School He suggested that the driveway`be reassessed during the final design stages and that some consideration be given to making it a one-way drive. Y 1 Motion: Moved b� Rempel, seconded by Barker, to approve the conceptual design for Hermosa Park. Staff was directed to re-examine the driveway issue during final design phases. Motion carried by the-following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A,40-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-20 HOYT LUMBER request o construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building acriton to an existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan on 2 acres of land in the Office Professional District, located at 7110 Archibald, northwest corner of Archibald and Lomita Court - APN 202-151-33. (Continued from October 9, 1985 meeting.) Nancy Fong, Assot;iate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the applicant work with the adjacent apartment developer to the west to assure the compatibility of adjoining landscaping and block wall. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration aced adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-20, with an amendment to Condition it to reflect that the applicant should work with the adjacent westerly property owner to assure compatibility of landscaping and block wall on the westerly property line. Motion carried by the fol,ewing 'F vote: AYES: COMMISSIOENRS: REMPEL, STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 - BARMAKIAN' - The developmentof 72 unit apartments on 4.12 acres of landin the Me um High Residential District (14-24 du/ac) located at the north side and end of Lomita Court - A 202-151-34. (Continued from October 23, 1985 meeting.) Planning Commission. Minutes -2- November 13, 1985 Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, representing the applicant, advised that he would-be willing to work with the previous applicant on the condition imposed by the Commission. Mr. Pitassi gave an overview or the project. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the applicant would be willing to work with Edison on landscaping their utility easement along the northern property line. Mr. Pitassi replied that Edison can be difficult to work with on some issues; however, generally does not have a problem with landscaping. He indicated that he would be willing to work wit, them on landscaping. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that he was concerned with the layout of this project becausi it eliminated much of the open space in the original submittal by Calmark. He indicated that he had worked with Mr. Pitassi to see if an alternative approach could be taken, but could find no solution. In light of that, he stated that he would support the project. Commissioner Chitiea stated that given the site constraints and alternatives presented, she would be willing to accept this design with modifications. She suggested that condition 5 of the Resolution to amended to include garage door color variations. She was additionally concerned with the view of the apartmeix units in the rear which face north and east, and suggested that the applicant work with Edison to develop a landscape treatment for the easement. Commissioner Rempel stated that the open space in this project is inadequate and that more open space needs to be developed in all market rate apartments to meet the needs of families. He was also concerned that a parking problem may be created for the senior citizen housing, Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that if this becomes a problem. the City could either restrict parking or post no parking signs along Lomita Court any time after the project is developed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the senior citizens would need that parking area and that parking should be restricted to use for senior citizens only. He suggested that some type of permit parking he considered. Chairman Stout suggested that no overnight parking might be the best method since it would be easiest to enforce. Commissioner Barker stated that he wTs pleased with the design. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 13, 1985 Jamus Markman, City Attorney, advised that the Planning Commission cot-Id not impose a condition relative to parking restrictions, but would have to -,�ggest that the City Council, consider restricting parking on Lomita Court.'• He suggested the Engineering staff be directed to take the Commission`s suggestion to the City Council for their consideration. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 85-33, with amendments to reflect that the applicant should work with Edison on easement landscaping, the garage dGnr designs and colo,s to be approved by the City Planner. It was further suggested that the City Counoii consider permit parking only on Lomita Court. Additionally, Engineering staff was directed to take the Commission's suggestion to the City Council to restrict the parking on Lomita Court to be restricted and posted as "No Overnight Parking". Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RENPEL, CH171EA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9350 WILLikM LYON C014PANY A division of 103.34 net acres into parcels in the e r a tinned Community, located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenue - APN 227-081-06. Chairman Stout advise that the applicant for this item requested a continuance to the November 27, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened the public hear•irg. There were no coim tints. Motion: Moved by Barker, secondd by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental AssLssment_and Parcel Map 9350 to the November 27, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8787 - HIGHLAND-HAVEU ASSOCIATES 7Fdivision of 48.3i9acres into 4 parce s ocate n e ow- a ium Development District 14-8 du/ac) Located on the south side of. Highland 1 Avenue, east of Haven Avenue, at 19th Street - APN 202-211-36. Barbara Krall, Associate Civil Env'Ineer, reviewed the staff report. i Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Piaoning Commission Minutes -4 Nov_mber. 13, 1985 } i Larry Bliss, 6634 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Bliss concurred with the Resolution and conditions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration , and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8787. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHTTIEA, REMPEL, BARKEP, MCNIEL, STOUT ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9508 = LANDCO - A division of 2.26 acres of landin o parcels in the General n us r al area (Subarea 10) located on the north side of 7th Street, between Milliken Avenue and Eridgeport Place- APN 229-261-70. Barbara Krall, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Alan Gardner, representing the appl,cant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Gardner concurred with the Resolmtirn and conditions of approval. There were no fur'27er comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, second& ` WcNiel, to issue a i:gaative Declaration and adopt the Resolution appro, Yironmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9508. Motion carried by the fol'l, Nte: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, VCHIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried rc G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES.'AENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-17 - FOR KIDS ONLY, LTD+ - The cons ruc fon a a ,, square foot prescnool on 1.18 acres o TancT the Low P'sidential District (2-4 dulac), located on the south side of Base Line, east of Turner APN 1077-061-09. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report 7 Commission Minutes -5 November 13, 19f f J F1 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. 'Antoinette Holquin, 'representirg'the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Chairman Stout -asked i; the colors used on the exteriorwere of significance to this preschool. ' N)ward Jones, 220 First Street, Santa Ana, project architect, explained that he exterior colors primary colors which are pleasing to young .hildren. He further ained that the windows had been.lowered and the attempt was to get away from the institutional loci and achieve a pleasant environment for children. He advised that because of the lam-'--::aping, layout and setbacks used on this project, it would be difficult to see from the street. Commissioner McNiel was concerned with the brightness of the colors on the exterior of the building and preferred that it ba brought to a more compatible level with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Jones stated that one condition of the Conditional Use Permit is to heavily g, .scope the parking area with trees. Therefore, he could not see , where 1 e is -a concern since the building would not be visible to. surrount- .' r,aidents. Conmi iiL McNiel asked if the applicant conducted a meeting with residents of a surrodnding neighborhood. Mr. Jones replied that two neighborhood meetings had been held, ,and that none of the residents attended the last meeting. There were no further comments, therefore the public he.,Fing was closed. Commissioner Rempel agreed that due to setbacks and landscaping the building was going to be difficult to see from the street; therefore was not concerned with the exterior colors. Cor-mo?ssio- Chitiea stated that this project had come a long way from the original subeittal. Further, that this design showed an interesting site plan and that the changes made reflected imagination and thought for the occupants. She was not concerned with the exterior color pailete. Cca-missioner McNiel stated that he was not concerned with the project itself, but was concerned with the color scheme because it was not compatible with the s•irrounding neighborhood. Cowissioner Bcrker-agreed that the color scheme way n concern. Planning Commission Minutes -5 November 13, 1985 it Commissioner Stout agreed that the project has come a long way and that the site plan and arrangement is going:to work well. He further stated that.he liked the architecture and hoped that sufficient measures were taken to mitigate concerns. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-17, as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO..MMISSIONERS: CHITIE.4, REMPEL, BARKER, MCN%EL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13066 - CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA - h suBdivison and desigr review p-, VIngle family lots on 6.8 acres of land in the .ow Residential Dist ict (2-4 du/ac) located on the south side of 19th Street, east of imethyst - APM 202-111-61 and 62. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Richard Genzel, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Clark Bosen, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that his previous concern had been the flooding problem which currently exists at this location; however, was satisfied now that this sit�.ation would be re::tifl ed with construction of this project. Amos Harting, 9606 Hamilton, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if it would be possible to have a block wall constructed along the south property line. Mr. Harting supported the project. There were no further colrsaants, `tierefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker was concerned with the adjacent property owners' loss of privacy due to the construction of two story units. He recommended that this issue be mitigated to assure that the adjacent residents would not have all of their privacy eradicated, whether it be through landscaping or placement of certain units on those lots. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and further stated that Design Review Conditions 2, 3, and 4 dealing with walls and fencing should include language requiring the review for consistency and approval by the City Planner prior-to the issuance of building permits, Planning Commission Minutes -7 November 13, 1985 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a.Negative Declaration and adopt the :Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and .Tentative Tract 13066, with amendments to include fencing and walls to be reviewed for consistency and and approval by the City Planner; and tots 27, 15 and I to include measures to mitigate privacy for adjacent property-owners, 'subject to City Planner approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITICA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:15 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened with allmembers present I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 - BLANTON - A proposed resident!-A] development or 135 custom single-family o s, and 3 lettered open space lots, on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Re.ctdenfial District 1-2 du/ac), within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN 225-011-35. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea stated that a trail behind lots 106 and 107 extending across to Street "C" to connect with the trail to the east was discussed by the Trails Committee during its review; however, the condition was omitted. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Wayne Blanton, apalicant, stated that Ccmmissioner Chitiea was correct with regard to the trail connection .and that it was not ork the map due to an oversight. Ray Buxford, Etiwanda resident, was concerned with drainage and flooding problems which currently exist on Etiwanda Avenue. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, explained that this project provided a detention basin on Lot 3 to detain the water on Etiwanda Avenue so that it will never be any greater than what currently flows. I Mr. Buxford asked if the project would necessitate the removal of the rock curbs along Etiwanda Avenue. l 1 Planning Commission Minutes -8 November 13, 1985 i Chairman Stout explained that the Etiwanda Spe ific Plan required that Etiwanda's rock curbs be preserved alo�jg Etiwanda Avenue. 'de advised that-the curbs may have to be rei'Aaced in certain areas due to deterioriation. He ' further ex0 wined that the City`s Engfineering staff is 'currently examining various materials which would have the tame appearance asrock curbs, but more structurally sound. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the applicant had done an excellent job on the design of this project. Commissioner Barker agreed and stated that the applicant was willing to work with suggestions made 4y the Committees anlr staff. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was pleased to see this -type of project. She recommended that the landscaping along the, trails system be reviewed by the Trails Committee. Commissioner McNiel agreed and stated that the applicant had done a fine job on this project. Chairman Stout stated that this project was one of the first large projects to be submitted in the Equestrian Overlay D,i;,trict and that he was pleased with this design. Ho suggested that a statement be included in the CCBRs for the tract so that future builders will be alerted to the fact that tile roofs are required. Motion: Moved by Barkej•, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12659, with amendments to reflect that the CCBR's are to include a statement that tile roofs are required; the trail connections between lots 106 and 107 are to be included on the tract map; and landscaping adjacent to trails is to be reviewed by the Trails Committee. 'Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMliISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: C0144ISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. ENVIRONMENiAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13022 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY re en a sub division on ototal lots on o Kr_es_an �-sad' including -the development of 275 single family lots on 44.1 net acres in the Low Residential" (2-4 du/ac) Low-`tedium Residential (4-8 du/ac), Medium (4-14 du/ac) Residential, and School/Park Comsiunity Facilities Land Use Designations within the Victoria Planned Community located north of the Southern 'Pacim. :2ailroad, south of Highland Avenue, west of Milliken Planning Commission Minutes -9 November 13, 1985 t Avenue and East of the Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-211-13, 34 and 38; 202-221-27. Bruce Cook, Associate Pla :•?er, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout referred to the condition which required wrought iron fencing consistent with the existing design on Victoria Park Lane and stated that he thought the-existing fence construction is a combination of masonry and wrought iron. He asked if staff intended for the'wall to be constructed entirely of wrought iron. Mr. Cook replied that the intent was that the wall would be constructed consistent with what is currently on the street. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Bailey; William Lyon Company, expressed concern with the m;,,nimum ten-foot setbacks required for lots 211, 237 and 263 under Design Review, conditions of the Resolution. He explained :bat in order to implement thin, condition on those single story lots, it woulO necessitate changing a great many lot lines and suggested that five-foot set:;ks be required. Mr. Bailey referred to Engineering Condition_3-A and asked it to be rioted that there would be an emergency access across the median in Milliken Avenues Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, was concerned with providing a break in the median. He explained that emergency vehicles could go the wrong way up the road bed and was concerned that vehicular traffic would access across the median. Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, explained that it would not be an actual break in the median but a rolled curb at that location to allow emergency access into the tract. Mr. Rougeau replied that a rolled curb would be acceptable. r ' Mr. Bailey referred to Engineering Condition C-2 regarding the coordination'of railroad crossing and arms installation prior to occupancy of first phase. He was concerned that this could not be accomplished 'prior to occupancy of the ,nits. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that Engineering staff would be concerned with elimination of this condition because there would: not be a secondary access to be used in an emergency if a train was blocking that access. He suggested that the Commission might consider requiring the applicant to provide a secondary' access to the satisfaction of the City Engineer if the coordination of the crossing signal and 'arms cannot be accomplished prior to occupancy, ft, Planning Commission Minutes -lo- November 13, '1985 Mr. Bailey stated that this condition would be acceptable. to the applicant. He referred to Condition E-16' of the standard conditions regarding retaining walls required to be, provided with decorative treatment, and sugNsted that only retaining walls which are exposed to public view �-equir:: 'decorative treatment. Mr. Bailey stated that William Lyon would be installing the storm drain facility as required by the Master Plan of Storm Drains. He asked if the developer would then be clear, of any drainage fees. Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised that a Drainage Fee Ordinance was being drafted for the City Council's -consideration which treats the Planned ;ommunities differently, which he felt would satisfy Mir. Bailey's concern. Mr. Bailey asked if a 12-foot rear yard would be acceptable in lieu of the required 15 feet. Chairman Stout replied that 15 feet was established as acceptable for rear: yards. Debra Brown, representing the Victoria Homeowners'Association.-supported the project. There were no further comments, therefore the F,uuiic hearing was closed. Commissioner McNi'el was concerned with the crossing signal and asked if there were an interim method to make that crossing sate; Mr. Rougeau replied chat he was not aware of anything that the Public Utilities Commission would accept. He advised that the crossing would have to be installed to f0l standards. Commissioner McNfel asked if there were a method to determine the time frame. Mr. Rougeau replied that he did not know the time frame of the developer's i. first phase or the latest status of the crossing improvements with the railroad. Chairman Stout asked if the other portions of the circulations system could handle the traffic without that opening; He asked if there would be some way to condition a certain number so that once traffic reaches that number and alternate traffic needs aren't suitable, development will have to stop until the signal is installed. Mr. Rougeau replied that staff could monitor the intersection on Highland to see if comes to point where could be unsafe. He suggested, however, that it might be better to continue the public hearing for this project so that staff. could get an idea of status from railroad.along with the number of homes from developer and come up with a reasonable estimate. Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 13, 1985 if Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the 5-foot setbacks requested for Lots 211, 237 and 263. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested a modification to Condition 2 to read that if a 2-story structure was constructed on the lot the side setback shall be- 10 feet, if single story the side sett-ack may be 5 feet. The Commission concurred with this modification. Chairman Stout referred to the condition requiring wrought iron fencing and suggested that it should read a combination of masonry and wrought iron consistent with existing design. -Regarding emergency access, he suggested that language be .added that emergency access shall be constructed consistent with the standards acceptable to Fire Department and City Engineer. Regarding decorative treatmont for retaining walls, he stated he could see no reason why low retaining walls only seen by a homeowner needs to bo decoratively treated and agreed that it should be those=4sible to the public. Mr. Markman suggested that the condition read "walls visible to members of public other than 'owners/occupants of lots on which the walls are located". Mr. Markman asi:ed for further discussion regarding the phasing and railroad crossing. Fe pointed out that the one phase proposes a buildout of 275 lots, which meant a great many occupants living in that tract without a railroad crossing. Barrye Hanson,_Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff was concerned that there would be no east/west access, Mr. Bailey of William Lyon Company asked if it would be possible that a secondary access could be provided should the railroad crossing not be installed prior to occupancy of the first phase. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that this would be acceptable with the addition of the access 'being installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mr. Markman suggested the following modification to Condition C.2.: strike out "first phase" add "the railroad and signal arms shall be installed prior to occupancy or developer shall provide secondary access to satisfaction of City Engineer", Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a,Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Trac," 13022, as amended. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES;. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 'OMFISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -12 November 13, 1985 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13052 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY' residential su vision of 222 lots with the development of 22U single family homes on on 34.9 acres in the Low (2-4 du/ac) and Medium (4-14 du/ac) Residential Land Use Designatiop_s within the Victoria Planned Community Located north of Base Line Road, south of the Southern Pacific Railway, east of Victoria Park Lane, and west of Etiwanda Avenue APN 227-111-4, 5, 18, 20, 32 and 36. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public heai•.ing. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there wac a reason why there were no sidewalks or trail connections to the north. Chairman Stout opened the public heatng. Jim Bailey, William Lyon Company, referred to condition 8 of the Resolution and stated that there are four connee'clons up to the railroad tracks and asked that an additional connection to extend the trail not be required. Chairman Stout was concerned that a person would not know there is a connection and asked if anything could be done to indicate that the connection would extend on up to the railroad track. Mr, Bailey stated that practically speaking it was a short distance and would beome known by the residents of the tract. L Commissioner Barker stated that there was a design elemzrt that was suppose to go all the way through Victoria Lakes and this i_3 one of chose design elements. Further, that every time a project comes in its chopped off or f cheapened. He additionally stated that this is not a continuation of a passeo � statement and not a continuation of a theme. 5, Mr. Bailey stated' that the applicant had done a decent job in connecting trails andthat he couldn't understand the concern. He -referred to condition 2.b. and requested the addition of language statlr�; "upon City provided road dedication". Chairman Stou. 9d that it is impossible for the City to required r condemnation a. •ty owners expense.- Further, that the law implies that the City has the du:, ' ausist a developer if it is impossible. r Commissioner Chitiea pointed out that condition 13 should be checked. F , „ Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 13, 1985 Mr. Bailey referred to item M-3 of the Standard Conditions and stated that 'Uhe driveway apron is something to be dealt with by the individual buyer of the custom lot and requested that this be clarified. He additionally referred to item 9 of the Standard Conditions which ►relates to master plan lines H-8 and H-10 and suggested that this should be per revised Master Storm Drain p1ra for this project.; Mr. Hanson stated that these lines are shown on plan and if the master plan. changes, the lines will change accordingly. Chairman Stout stated that Etiwanda Street has some strong architectural requirements and the feel.ings of local resi-;?nts was that they wanted a str,�et scene upgraded with strong standards. He asked why wood fencing would b;e appropriate. Mr. Bailey replied that the Chaffey Garcia Hose, which is adjacent to This project, will be improved with wood fencing. Therefore this fencing would be consistent with what is being proposed as part of the restoration project. Chairman Stout stated that he had no problem if the fencing would be consistent with what is being constructed as part of Chaffey Garcia House historic restoration. Commissioner Chitiea recalled a Design Review Committee question of zero lot line areas and tile roofs without any iuerhang on the side and asked how this was resolved. Mr. Bailey replied that the Mediterranean look had been researched and found to use very minimal side overhand; however, this architectural concept would not apply to this project. Commissioner Chitiea asked that at the time this concept is introduced, photographs of that style be provided. There were no further coynents, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like to be assured that staff would involve the Trails Committee in all project which had any form of trail. Further, he suggested that Condition 8 remain intact but include the requirement that the Trails Committee should review the trail. There was concerned expressed by Chairman Stout, Commissioners Barker and Chitiea that a stronger trail connection to the north was necessary. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Street k drop down and the tra'-? which was part of the green belt brought to the north side of the street. He advised that this might emphasize more that this circulation is a direct route. Mr. Bailey advised that he would work with staff and do whatever the Trails Committee recommended in order not to delay the project, Planning Commission Minutes -14 November 13, 1985 P- Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration L and adopt the Resolution adopting Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13052, with modification to condition 8 to require review and approval of the passeo trail by the Trails Committee, and the drive approach condition of thy. standard conditions- to be deferred to time of building permits. Motira carried by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-27 - BROWN - A proposal o locate an executive health concept center within an existing 18,240 square foot building,located in the Haven Avenue Overlay District on the west side of Haven between 6th and 7th Streets - APN 209-262-19. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that there was a condition for a plaza or luncheon area between building 2 and the next phase as part of the previously approved master plan and was concerned that the proposed parking arrangement might interfere with this condition. He suggested that the lot line might be adjusted to assure that is accommodated. Jack Lam, Community Development. Director, advised that by recalculating the parking spaces according to current polilcy there is a way to accommodate the required 14 spaces. He further advised that staff would look it prior approvals to make sure there are no conflicts. He additionally stated that the sale of another lot south of this site is possible and would necessitate a w moJi`ication to the master plan. Further, that the applicant would then be required to remaster plan the other site and would have to incorporate all applicable conditions along with the c iitional 14 parking spaces. Chairman Stout opened the public'hearing. Leonard Santoro, 1325 S. Rockefeller Avenue, Ontario, concurred with conditions. There were no further comments, therefore the public nearing was closed. ;1 Commissioner Chitiea stated that the use was appropriate in this area if the parking could be worked out. a.r Planning Commission Minutes _15- November 13 1985 i t Chairman Stout stated his only concern would be that the lot line adjustment be creatively accomplished so that it does not disturb the master -)Ian to south.. Commissioner McNiel stated that an unsuccessful attempted had been made on this project to screen the doors . immediately behind the building with landscaping. He advised that when the new master plan comes before the Commission this should be issue should be reassessed. Commissioner Barker agreed that the landscaping did not succeed in adequately screening the doors. He further stated that it was appropriate to recognize the attitude and work between City staff and the applicant to reacn a solution to the problem. Motion: Moved by-Chitiea, seconded by Stout, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution. The Resolution was modifies` from one of denial to approval by the following changes: Section 1 modified to read "the following finding can be met"; Strike finding #4; Sect?on 2 - to read "Conditional Use Permit 85-27 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (1) total membership of health club shall not exceed 3,000 people, (2) prior to any furhter occupancy of building 1-A or 1-8, the developer shall finalize a lot line adjustment to provide at least 14 parkin4 spaces to the south of the subject site. That lot line adjustment shall nt disturb the previously approved master plan for the subject parcel and parcel to the south that will allow for the development of plazas between the two parcels." Motion carried by the following vote: APES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA_ iUUT. BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried M. ENd1::wNMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-32 CROSS 8 CROWN LUTHEkM CHURCH - The establishment of u church w fiin-a shopping cen er in the NeighbQrhood Commercial District located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald A,• nue - APN 202-17-54. Dino Putrino, Assistant Plannei, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Rick Nelson, pastor of Cross and Crown Lutheran fhurch, concurred with the findings of the Resolution. There were no further comments, therefore She public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -16- N .vember 13, 1985 v Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment.and Conditional Use Permit 85-32. Motion carried by tiie following vote., ' AYES:; COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIE.A, REMPP —OUT NOES: CC44ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried N. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CAL-RANCHO (CALMARK) - An amendment to the legal description of real property su j,ic oar. agreement between the Cif: of Rancho Cucamonga and Cal-Rancho, Lacorporated, regarding a senior citizen housing project located west of Archibald, at the terminus of Lorita Court. Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Kevin Payne, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution. Commissioner Rempel stated that cars are to have parking permit stickers under provisions of the lease agreement for this project. He asked if the applicant anticipated parking problems. Mr. Payne replied that Calmark had conducted extensive studies on parking ratios and provides .7 parking spaces. Further, that since this was in excess of the normal requt;:ement, parking was not considered a problem. James Marl-uan, City Attorney, advised that State law requires the definition of seniors as 55 years or olde". However, a survey of senior projects places the average age at 70 to 75, which is more realistic.. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to recommend adoption of the amended legal description of the Cal-Rancho Development Agreement to the City Council'. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried. Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 13, 085 10:35 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 10:45 p.m. ••• Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Chairman Stout annou::.:ed that the following items, were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9301 - FORECAST CORPnRA ;.ON - A td bis7'vn or acres o and into 2 parcels in the n us ria Pa 'r. District (Subarea 6) and the Haven Avenue Overlay District:, located south of Arrow Route between Haven Avenue and Utira Avenue - APN 209-142-18. (Related File: DR 85-26) P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-2G - FORECAST - The developmert of an ind5strial parK consisting of-7-Yullaings totaling 44,452 square feet on 3.4 acres of land within a proposed 18 acre Master Site Plan in the Industrial Park. District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located on the south side of Arrow Highwey ,etween Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue - APR 209-142-18. (Related File: PM 9301) Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the Parcel Map .ataff report. 'a Nancy Fang, Associate Planner, reviewed the'Development Review staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Joe Carmer:, 7265 Hellman, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that 300 feet might be too shallow of a distance coming off of Haven Avenue. He additionally raised questions regarding the reimbursement for the completion of Utica Avenue when he files application of a tentative parcel map adjacent to this project,. since � the curve in Utica places the street more on his property. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that inequities do arise from time to time throughout the City and that reimbursement or the attempt to make sure that 1Z is 100% equal in these cases in not normally done since it is the luck of the draw in properties. Further, if a street had to be master planned to avoid a bad intersection and it impacts another property slightly more than another no special ffort has been made. to make things equal. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.. C� r Planning Comnission Minutes -18- November 13, 1985 x, Commissioner Chitiea stated that this project has undergone major changes since design re✓iew including two buildings which became one and traffic reorientation to make this a proje;.t that works well now. Further, that pedestrian areas have been included and that the redesign of the building will be a much safer plan. Chairman Stout stated that the applicant came up with something that will work for the development and work for the City and that he was placed with the outcome. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9301. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MGNIEL, STOUT` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Motion: gloved by Reinrel, seconded by Stout, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-26. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, STOUT, BARKER, CHiTIEA, WNIEL HOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried New Business �... Q. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 85-66 - WOOD - A consistency determination betwe::n twe oFoo TiiTlodor:hter�o7icies and a proposed cn_mmercial/office development located on the north side of Foothi11 ,Beal evard, wast of Turner Avenue. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Don Wood, 10040 Foothill Boulevard, stated that an additional 10 feet of landscaping would be provided on t°a rear property line. Further, ,that this project had been designed with consideration given to the adjacent residential development. He further advised that the intent was to phase the project and asked for the (s z sion's comment. Planning Commission Minute, -19- November 13, 1985 Chairman Stout advised that phasing would nt be an issue discussed at this point in the process since this meeting would be to discuss whether or not the project is consistent with the Interim Policies established -for Foothill Boule,,ard. He further advised that the City began preliminaryreview by the Planning Comm ssi on in an effort to save applicant's from placing a lot of time and money into a project which may be questionable as to whether it would conform with the standards being established for Foothill Boulevard. There were no other comments. Comnissioner McNiel stated that this project would perpetuate the problem of piecemeal development, which the City hoped to eliminate through the adoption of the Foothill Plan. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and further stated that this particular piece of property is located in a group of properties that basically is what the Foothill Corridor Study i -S y s directed towards. Further that the property is located in t'a middle of an en; re block which needs to be master planned. Therefore could not support this project. Commissioner Barker supported the staff report in that " Tald set a precedent toward piecemeal strip commercial which is what the ,icy is trying to get away from at this time. He advised that it would not be to the advantage of the City or the property owner to go forward with the project at this time. Commissioner Rempel stated that this project by itself does not lend itself to the City's concept of the Foothill Corridor, therefore could not support the project. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to find Preliminary Review 8 46, Wood, inconsistent 'with the Interim Policies for Foothill Boulevard. Motion cFtrried by the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REIMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -car• `ed Curt 2ohnston, Associate Planner, asked if the Commission's direction was for the applicant to stop processing on this project until adoption of the Foothill Plan, or to work with adjacent property owners and staff on the development of a master plan. Chairman S*9ut stated that if the applicant could work with the adjacent land owners within that half-block area to develop a common master plan which affects all of the businesses, this is exactly what the Commission is trying_ to accomplish. Planning Commission Minutes -20- November 13, 1985 h It was the consensus of the Commission that they would be willing to look at a common master plan for the area. Commissioner Rempel advised that the applicant should be made aware that the property would have the be developed according to the common master plan. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time for discussion of the following project: R. USE DETERMINATION 85-03 -- COLE/SHAEFER AMBULANCE SERVICE John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Pat NcAlmond, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request. Chairman Stout stated that this item is appropriate in the area should be a conditional use under public safety and utility services. He advised that the reason for requiring a Conditional Use Permit might be the necessity for certain control with regard to noise nuisance. Commissioner Barker stated that the definition of public safety and utiIliity ervices requires a conditional use permit and would agree that this is the process that must be followed. Commissioner 0itiea agreed and further stated that this gives a measure of control if ther;t is a nuisance factor in the future. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, that Use Determination 85-03, Cone/Shaefer Ambulance Service, would be a conditionally permitted use under Public Safety and Utility Services. Therefore, the applicant was directed to file a Conditional Use Permit. _Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, STOUT, CHITIEA, MCNIEL,`REMPEL NOES: WiMISSIONERS: NONE - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue past the adjournment time for discussion of the following item: Planning Commission Minutes -21- November 13, 1985 S. MINOR EXCEPTION 85-18 MUMAW - Appeal by adjacent neighbor of staff s approval of an 8-foot oc --wa- T along the rear property line at 986.9 Caadiewood Street. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public cow-l'it. Cary Mumaw, 9869 Candlewood, explained that the wall he was proposing to construct would be similar to the wall next door. The difference would be that he would construct a two and one-half foot retaining wall and on top of that a combination block/wood fence of 5 and one-half feet. Chairman Stout asked the reason why he didn't select the same type of material as the existing fence. Mr. Mumaw replied that the first reason is expense and the second is to break up the expanse of a solid block wall.; Brad Buller, City Planner, askod if for consistency Mr. Mumaw would be using the same spacing of pilasters and the same stain material and wood treatment used on the adjacent fencing. Mr. Mumaw replied that he planned to use the same colar block and same stain, and would be willing to use the same pilaster spacing. Chairman Stout stated that he had no problem,with the minor exception. He suggested that Mr. Mumaw make his fence consistent with the one next to it for the entire run along the appealant's property, just for the sake of being neighborly. Commissioner McNiel suggested that one more tier on the block be extended from the ground to preserve the wood for the fence. Motion: Noved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, to deny the appeal of Minor Exception 85-18. Motion carried by-the following voter AYES: GOMMISSIONERSc STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Planning Commission Minutes: -22- November 13, 1985 Old Business T. CONDITIONAL USE PER11ft`.83-13 -'MOOSE LODGE - Status report on compliance w conditions of ,approval or the_ ose Lodge Meeting Hall Located at 9375 Archibald Avenue - APN'210-071-48. Dino Putrino, Assistant <Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Putrino presented a letter from the 'foothill Fire District stating that the Lodge was . in conformance with their conditions of approval. Chairman Stout questioned the reduced membership of the lodge and its affect on the conditions of approval. Mr. Putrino explained that. representatives of the Moose Lod4e had'requested that the Fire District reduce the occupancy load due to a decline in membership, Commissioner Chitiea asked how the occupancy load would be monitored, Mr, Putrino explained that the ;Fire District requires the posting. of the occupancy load number: The report was received and filed. Staff is directed to monitor the use and report back to the Commission if issue:5 arEse. _ DIRECTOR'S REPORTS U. ORDINANCE TO ADD A SECTION TO THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ` RRUCAM :FOR THE PROCESSING OF VESTING TENTATIVE 14APS FOR RESIUEWrW Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, 'to recommend adoption of the Ordinance to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT,, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Planning Commission Minutes -23- November 13, 1985 n ADJOURNMENT Motion.. Moved;by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unarimous7y•carried, to adjourn. 11:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary cl Planning Commission Minutes -24- November 13, 1985 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CUCA.1yp STAFF REPORT z O Rate: November ?, 1985 v 4j�z To: Members of the Planning Commission 617 1 From: Bill Holley, Director. Community Services De pa tment By: Karen McGuire. Assistant Park Planner Subject; FM*SA PARK COP E TUAL PLAN ABSTRACT: The Hermosa Park Conceptual Design is being submitted by the Community Services Department for review and acceptance of the plan and request the Planning Commission to give direction to proceed to City Council. BACKGROM: The Hermosa Park Site, which is approximately 10 acres in size, is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, between 19th Street and Victoria Street, adjacent to the Deer Canyon Elementary School. The conceptual park plan. see attached exhibit A, reflects the ideas and concerns of a core planning group which was made up of local residents. This preliminary design, which his been reviewed and approved by the Park Development Commission, includes ballfield with overlay (to be used for either soccer or football), a 9 station exercise course, approximately 9,000 square feet for a tot lot/play area, restroom facilities, open turf area with picnic tables and barbecues, and a 50 stall parking lot for the user's convenience. Deer Canyon Elementary School has expressed intere8t in vrorking with the City by allowing access to their two existing softball fields and possibly extending the exercise course to include 9 nnore stations. RFM'%UMATION 1. To approve the conceptual Hermosa Park Design and; 2. To provide direction to the Director of Community Services to proceed to City Council,. Am ITEM A a 'El , UL a m / AbO RPM a. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cVCA�y0 STAFF REPORT �.r° "�� z t 0 ?ice Z DATE: November 13, 1985 i977 TO: Chairman and Members of the. Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller,, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner' SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-20 HOYT LUMBER - A request to construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse uilding addition to an existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan on 2 acres of land in the Office Professional District located at 7110 Archibald Avenue, northwest corner of Base !Aie Road and Lomita Court - APN 202-151-33. I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of September 1, 1985, held a public hearing and continued this item to this meeting to allow time for the applicant in revising the Alk elevation to address the,concerns of the Planning Commission. The Commission felt that the proposed elevations did not project the image of retail facility and the proposed upgrading of the existing home improvement center was inadequate. The purpose of this report is for the Planning Commission to review and determine if the revised elevations have adequately add-essed the Commission's concerns; and to review and consider the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant has revised the elevation to address the' concerns of the Planning Commission as follows: 1. Provide extended par-21tat to the south, east and rear elevation, which w,• screen the existing roof mounted equipments. 2. Provide wood trellis along the east elevation and the south elevation to the point where the rol'lup doors are located. 3. Provide a floor plan showing that the rollup door is needed for efficient flow of loading and unloading traffic. ITEM 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-20 Hoyt Lumber November 13, 1985 Page 2 4. Landscape planter along the east elevation has been expaided from 5 feet to 10 feet in order to provide a better pedestrian connection. 5. The color scheme for the entire project has been changed to a more earthtone color, such as gray. The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised elevation and recomended approval with the following conditions: 1. Increase_ the s"ze of the wingwall for the roll-up doors located at the south and west elevation as shown in Exhibit "C1". 2. Provide a strip of stucco over above the roll-up door roof, to the size of the one proposed to the parapet " I as shown in Exhibit Cl•. 3. Provide protective guard such as steel poles at the sides of the two roll-up doors as shown in Exhibit 11C1 4. The trellis work should be of hecvy wood beams, such as a minimum of 6" x 6" post. III. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a pubic hearing and consider all material and input regarding this project. If the Commission makes the determination that the. proposed revision to the elevation has addressed the Commission's concerns, approval of CUP 85-20 through the adoption of the attached revised Resolution and: Condition of Approval condition and the issuance of. a Negative Declaration would be in- order. Res ectfully subm' ted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Revised Site Plan Exhibit 9" - Revised Landscape Plan Exhibit "C" Revised Elevations Exhibit "D" - Plaza Entry & Floor Plan September 11, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report Revised ie„>olution of Approval with Conditions r ZAP,:i /IX'J'°C4'1 CI�> :i?Mfhi, i1,cr:�t may. .emu ,'I _/.'_ {� s"{ ' t:t. L �.' QG'XiLlT4��o W�+tU�{V P.7T t_ �ti5� olt�'I4oi-iiy to ,.T)• r-P �� N •. \T �Cn 2�rrti�� H' is PciN 1Y- PIP .d�� �•00 �1-d -,.t 5 v a l t LIE IJ'=- t o p ZruTURA)2tl.i 71t�� I 'iE{L{ 4t3kgrd=4 � .l] NG r�6Ec ' zd • �'.0 r .w �' hP$°6�l��:J 331r.Q91 ��. �jT'•d _ 24•d� /,: (MTURE)LCI417A GCUfr[ _ a4OT eFm", Pkk%��L p�apcllrree: s�IxNr�:9rd++cu Ro 4,46 FIB I4xto (�GVIGC-�t 3'► GOMf�'j 8xif� NORM CIrY OF MUM: n. 0 Aft RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tn • k PI.ANNI1\T DIVISION EXHIBIT: _SCALE' 'I aM ♦\ VetY' RR`i m�Rv. aRvr.. .. III l \, i... ' III�V�),I�I'1`il.� i 1 �h• ! � ���� � I ,! ' �i. m � ;.�il I ,�'ilI ,IIIIIII iI� «.ai. 'l+hpi 4) Pilo ll V' �• JQj7,�G_,1j',,�`� ���. ( - ,� -e(p'i��.EolyfiNl� Qd1% '.. x °�_-� •' toy L411TA &;9di4T CFt►7tJi � I �' n-ANTINC I.E— ,- F OUrI> OJEj� /OK te'!criRtlZy 4T TpEEr;, V �I NORTH CITY OF rMM.-_ rCJ� f3"-2r RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tr.rLE: PLAN&M, DR%MN ' EXI-HMrr-. SCALE: L Doti WE g X 3 0- Q - d u! 7X R ea = -_ _ _ _ � S� sa V• u C _a .. � wa .3...� .I�1' f� '. s .`� )��~ a 1 � � r 'I� ` r,? � w'j =�--- �� ' . �� 1 , _ �� � , i ti ' !�L �� , � �I �. � d�•� � � V 5; .f f a , v sf —> �E f � � ' . if � _,_: t� �U r ; � � { 44 P! i [�� U� 63+ r ;• iS ,]i ..� 1 3 �Y I L 7 1 r, �) ; ��. i i , , ��`� � _/ (,p �.� i I ML�•G ._ I I � t I $Paz, =Dcl<IT GPlei r' 1�'ii:!o• NURTH CITY OF CJP I RAl`CH0 CUCAMONGA TFIU: PLANNINU DIVISION EXHIBIT- .ALE: CITY Ors RANCHO CUCAMONGA o�uc�nrolc STAFF REPORT a 1 v. O U �> 1977 DATE: October 9, 1985 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack tam, AICP, Corm unity Deveiopment Director BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-20 - HOYT LUMBER = A request to construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building addition to an existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan cn 2 acres of land in the Office Professional District located a, 7110 Archibald Avenue, northwest corner of Bxrr Line Road and Lomita Court - APN 202-151-33. I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of September T1, 1985, held a public hearing and continued this item to this meeting.. The-purpose is to allow time for the applicant to revise the elevations. The applicant is requesting a continuation to November 13, 1985, in order to have enough time to complete the rcaisions. (See attached letter). H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Con itionrl Use Permit 85-2U to� the November 13,- 1985, regular meeting. Respectfully ubmitted, Jack Lam, AICP Community Development Director JL:NF:cv Attachiaent: Applicant's letter of request i n 23 �+4 q —RECEIVED— My OF Rpftft CUCAMpMQ,� PLANNING DIVISION of,I9a5 Ilcr PH aew�� As fie `r F _ t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wcanlo,� STAFF REPORTc"0 0 j F � Z G > DATE: September 11, 1985 19777 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director, BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'85-20. HOYT LUMBER - A request to construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building addition to an existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan on. 2 acres of land in the Office Professions) District located at 7110 Archibald Avenue, north corner of Base Line Road - APN 202- 151-33. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:, A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan and master plan, elevations and issuance of Negative Declaration. > B. Purpose: To construct an additional 8,000 square feet to the existing 11,200 square foot retail commercial home improvement center. C. Location: 7110`Archibald D. Parcel Size: ± 2 acres E. Existing Zoning: Office Professional F. Existinq Land Use: S. M. Hoyt Lumber Company/Home Center, vacant. G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Southern Pacific Right-t)f-Way, vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac) and Medium High Residential District (14-24 du/ac) South - Vacant; Senior Apartments; Office Professional; High Residential District (24-30 du/ac). East - Vacant; Apartments; Neighborhood Commercial; Medium I High Residential District (14-24 du/ac). West - Vacant; Aluminum can company and Alta Lama School (Elementary); Medium High Residential district (14-24 du/ac). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-20 - Hoyt Lumber September 11, 1985 Page 2 H. General Plan Designations: Project Site Office Professional North - Medium and Medium High_Density Residential South - Office Professional', High Density Residential East - Medium ,High Density Residential West Medium High Density Residential I. Site Characteristics: One-half of the site is developed Fith a home improvement center, the remaining one-half is vat.=at. Vegetation consists of indigenous weeds and one mature Eucalyptus tree. Lomita Court at present is under construction Tor street improvements. J. Applicable Regulations: Section 17.02.130 of the Development Code allows expansion of a non-conforming use and structure through a Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (see attached June 13, 1984 Planning Commission Staff Report regarding the use determination). II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The, Planning Commission at its June 13, 1984 regular meeting, held a public hearing and approved the expansion of a non-conforming use and structure - Hoyt Lumber. The Planning Commission also established criteria that the expansion should exceed 8,000 ,square feet and a Master Plan should be prepared for the entire parcel. The applicant has provided such Master Plan illustrating: (1) the expansion of the home center conforming to the minimum commercial development standards and I (2) a conceptual plan for the remainder portion conforming to LL the Ciffice Professional use regulations and standards. Also, the applicant is proposing on-site improvements including upgrading the exterior of the existing portion of Hoyt lumber. B. Design-Review Committees The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and determined that the proposed use and the overall site plan and Master Plan comply rith ,the intent of the Development Code However, the Committee recommended that . _ the following improvements be made which the applicant agreed to: 1. Provide the same sandblasted horizontal band and color trim treatment to the north elevation. 2. Provide landscaping along the north ele,+ation to break up the height and mass of,the building. 13-ej PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-20 - Hoyt Lumber September 1 1 1985 Page 3 C. Environmental Assessment:- Part I-of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant imoacts on the environment as a result of this project, A copy of Part II of the Environmental Checklist is attached for your review and consideration. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed extension will not be detrimental to the goals and -objectives of the General Plan and Development Code and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to the surrounding properties. In addition, the proposed use, building design, and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has 'peen advertised in The Daily Report as a public hearing and notices were sent to all the property owners within 300 feet of the'project' site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consi er al material and input regarding this project. If the Adlhk Commission concurs with the Findings, approval of CUP 85--20, through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval and the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Res p ctfull s mitted, Jack Lam Community y Development Director JL:NF:ns Attachments: June 13, 1984 Planning Commission Staff Report & Minutes Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" -Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C Detailed Site Plan/Master Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan and Landscape Plan: Exhibit "E" - Cross Section Exhibit IV' - Elevations Initial S:.udy, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions y -- i IT Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT t°�° j O� a VIL—_i> DATE: June 13, 1984 1977 I TO: Chairman anJ Members of the Planning Commission FROM: stick Gomez, City Planner I' SUBJEci3 EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE - S.M. HOYT LUMBER COMPANY HOME CENTER 7118 ARCHIBALD I. PROJECT AND SITE CESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Planning Commission review and consideration to allow an expansion of a non-conforming use and. structure (Development Code Section 17.02.130). B. Purpose: To add an additional 8000 square feet to the existing ,200 square foot retail commercial home improvement center. r. Aft C� Location; 7118 Archibald D. Parcel Size: 2 ± acres E. Existing Zoning: Office Professional F. Existinq Land Use: One-half of the site is developed as the S.M. Hoyt Lumber Company/dome Center, the remaining one-half is vacant. G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Southern Pacific Right-of-Way South - Vacant; Approved 219 unit senior citizen project East - Vacant; Approved 240 condominium project West Vacant; Aluminum can company and Alta Loma School ' (Elementary). H. General Plan/Development District Designations: Project Site - Office North - Medium High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac) South - Office Professional East - Medium High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac) West - ,Medium High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac) II. ANALYSIS: scant, S.M. Hoyt Lumber Company/I?-ne Center, is requesting the Commission's consideration to expand an existing legal non-conforming retail home improvement center consisting of 11,200 k PLANNING COMMIS; 1 �IAFF REPORT I Hoyt Lumber June 13, 1984 Page 2 AML square feet b adding an additional 8 q Y 000 square f 9 � q e feet o retail floor area. The building was originally approved by the County in 1978 in accordance with the County General Plan and Zon;,,, Ordinance. The issues the. Planning Commission must consider are three-fold: 1. Does the applicant's request for expansion present an impediment of the City's implementaton of its General Plan and Development Code. 2. Does the proposed expansion represent' a detriment to the surrounding properties. 3. Doec the expansion allow sufficient use of the remaining portion of the site to implement the General Plan and Development Code goals and objectives, In regards to the first issue, it is the intent of the Development Code to limit the number and extent or" non-conforming use and structures by regulating their expansion and/or alterations. The Ask Development Code has provisions which provide the opportunity for the Planning Commission to review requests and, as in this case, to determine if expanding any non-conforming use would be detrimental to the goals and objectives of the. General Plan and Development Code, The General Plan and Development Code designate this site as Office/Professional lead use. The intent of the General Plan was to develop a neighborhood center concept for the area of Base Line and Archibald which would provide for neighborhood commercial, office, and higher density residential. While the Hoyt Lumber Center existed prior to the City General Plan, it was the City's position to designate the site as an Office/Professional land use as opposed to carving up the site with one-half relating to the existing commercial/retail home center use and the residual at office. This request does limit the implementation of the City's General Plan/Development Code goals and objectives for Office Professional' { uses for this portion of the site. There is no mitigation to this limitation to the implementation of the City's General Plan and Development Code. This use is relatively new and, if successful, will remain on this site for some time. The second issue relates to the impact to surrounding properties due to the applicant's requested expansion. The proposed expansion Aft is contiguous to the Southern Pacific right-of-way. North of the qu i , PLANNING COMMISS , STAFF REPORT Hoyt Lue i June 13, '1984 Page 3 Ak Southern Pacific right-of-way is a mixture of other non-conforming uses (rental yard, contractor's office and yard). Along the west property line are 721 market -ate apartment units which are part of the approved Calmark project. East of the site, across Archibald, are 290 residential units setback approximately 200 feet from Archibald. In addition, the existiag home center is set back 72 feet from Archibald. The southern one-half of the =ite is vacant. The proposed expansion does nct propose to extend into this area except possibly for afire access 'lane and additional landscaping. The proposed expansion_ does not appear detrimental to the L surrounding properties to the north due to the separation with the Southern Pacific right"of-way and the nature of the existing non-conforming land use. The residential project to the west seems to be separated by a proposed setback of 36 feet on the home center side and •20 feet on the side of the apartment project. As a comparison, any commercial project adjacent to a residential zc;ie provide a 30-foot setback ii conjunction with a height limitation of 25 feet within 100 feet cf any residential district. In addition, the site seems appropriate to Kandla the expansion. Currently, there are 58 parking spaces for the existing 8000 square feet. This meets the current parking ratio of 1 per 300 square feet of retail area for lumber yards,, excluding outdoor display. The additional area of 8,500 square feet will require 26 parking stalls for a total of 63 spaces. Providing only a deficit of 5 spaces, which could be eliminated with redesigning .M, existing parking stall layout. The final issue is focused with the southern one-half of the parcel. The residual portion is approximately 35,000 square t, approximately 100 feet wide X 350 feet long. The Development ,,..de requires a minimum parcel siza of 40,000 square feet !Pone acre) with a minimum width of 200 feet and a minimum depth of 175 feet. At first, this residual portion would seem to be deficient to meet k the minimum Development Code office/professional standares should the applicant want to develop tl:e remaining portion in a permitted fashion. The only mitigation to this is that the entire parcel be conceptually designed as an entire center with the appropriate easements for access, parking and maintenance. Ak S PLANNING COMMISS STAFF REPORT Hoyt Lumber June 13, 1984 Page (? ' III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Plannima Commission can cancur that sea the propose expansion will „ot be detrimental to the goals and ar objectives of the General Plan and Development Code and will not be ,l t detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, or be materially to injurious to surrounding properties, staff would reccamend approval )tic of the applicant's request with the following conditions: .he 1. That the applicant prepare a master plan for the entire parcel ,.rat, illustrating the expansion of the home center conforming to the !nt `y minimum Wi mercial Development Standards and the conceptual )pme` development of the residual portion conforming to the Office aS.10 Professional use regulations and standards. In addition to the =` requirement of Commission review of the project because of its location on a-Special Boulevard (Archibald), that the master bE: plan be brought to the Comnission for review and approval at lot_, the the same time as the Commission considers the expansion design .W. review. axua" 2. The expansion be limited to no more than 8000 square feet :ct subject to provisions necessary for on-site parking and ivewta• improvements for both the home center and development of the n porticn of the Entire site. ;ubnr Res 17y submitted, Rick.Gom)z• Cit,''vy Pl ner RG:jr Attachments f s CONS CALENDAR f Motion: Mov_ by Hempel, seoor'-ed.by McNiel,-carried unanimously, to adopt the Cnsent Calen ti A5 DESIGN REVIEW R CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-12 LEDERMANN Reapplicatioa for r gn review of modifications to the architectural designs for a preseho to b�TRACT located on the northeast corner of Ch'.rch and Turner - APN 10 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIP 10246 A,SSAD - A custom lot subdivision of ten acres of land into dots located in the R-1- 20,000 (Single Family Residential/20,000 sq foot lot minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and _ ven Avenue - APN - 201-111-.14. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. HOYT LUMBEP. Consideration of a request to expand a non-conforming use and structure located at 7110 Archibald. City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report and showed slides of the existing commerciai use. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Nelson,.7110 Archibald, the applicant, stated he was very interested i to knowing what he would be able to do with the rest of his lot o,d expressed agreement with the Planning findings. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated there was a conflict in the Development Code relative to non-conforming use expansion and a ed page 14, items C, G and F. Assistant City Attorney Hopsoi., replied that there is no conflict as the last clause in C1 explains when and how an existing use can be expanded, that, it is not as inconsistent aek it Ft Zirst appears, and, that G15 .rives further explanation. Mr. Gomez stated that the verbiage was added because the abatement schedule was eliminated.. He further explained that the findings would have to be rn�t as forth in the Development Code on a case by ease basis. Commissioner Hempel explained during the General Plan hearings certain areas in the City were mentioned to be non-conforming uses areas in order that the General Plan would ,iot have to be changed for each individual site. urther, it was done in this manner so that expansion of uses could be allowee. Planning Commissi:ou Minutes -2- _ June 13, 1984 l r Chairman, Stout stated with respect to non-conforming uses, the Commission should discourage {tiny expansion, but since this expansion would be to the rear of an existing stricture and not really vi ible from the street, he thought if the Commission has the capability of bringing the front' structure up to current rtty standards that may be the type of trade-off that would make the non-co►}foiming use able to be expanded. Chairman Stout felt that.a master plan for the site would be excellent and provided some comments relative to blending in with the residential uses near it as well as changing the roof to enhance it. Commissioner Hempel asked if Chairm;, Stout is referring to the new building or the old,one. chairman Stout replied that he is referring to both and that weal, is needed is some type of landscaping and treatment. Commissioner Hempel stated that there will be another building between this one and the one proposed. Chairman Stout stated that he would rather have the architect -re of the old and existing buildings upgraded rather than have the new s* ucture brought down. i Commissioner Barker state-f that he was a little uncomfortable with this but as long as there will be a master plan specifically aimed at the architecture and landscaping, and it will confor¢ t� the surrounding area, Mr. Hopson stated that this item should be brought back with a specific proposal and findings. Motion: Moved by Hempel seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, that this piece of property be allowed within the non-conforming use category with consideration of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and their future review. D. IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-05 - DANNA - The esta _ ment of a recreational vehicle storage yard on 2.4 acres of land in the Lo --idential District generally located on the south side of Base Line, east ermosa Avenue - APN 1077-051-40. Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, rev. d the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked wherc'45 feet w d be on the map when measured from Base Line. Mr. Beedle pointed it out and clarified that the meas ent should ba taken 45 feet from the ultimate fence line. Planning Commission Minutes -3 June•13, 1984 u - • �. ►t: .. N '�'1 •• �j�f lij • s 1� ti .PLAT GRGWt9 � / � PLJ1Y IClls1D � MI •I ''..,. 1 � \ M rfH 14.4 f-tW OY-P —� vxr.ur caw�c.c uX-.o-- 1 !t ssr�i. I «� (Utnjverc rrra,;,Tauerlou) �T \ M�.MWLMJT �MC�tT / . � OP 1 )` YACAQr W—N3T "` v�c�4lr �—_-—� T uw supime vms urj_ 4 aao►s n�oacr vmmm -- NORTH CITY OF ITEM: CLIP&-.20 _ (' RANCHO CUCAl ONGA TITLE- JVL47,iiD y 4mP C PLANNL NAG DIVISION E: E IBi;: --SCAu, t+tss -- Paib+Lf. :a�ary e,.w. v;ws+ws:4s�aswa .0 �,� 9su4_+ _ wwrxra�iw+. N�w4' rr.4wd. „� sttd wr ♦ad.Ml wow vasd °amµ _ + - - - — _ MAL Aol IL' "I �,` .�, t •�.`� �FV�ttrr',i to 7sJ rr i�'� MCI`1444 ?a r mw ;tR -{ � i �M � P1'kM10 eY ?• i I;� � '�, .ate. &. 1 ppl�y bt:�Yva �u sada� T � `� NORTH Cl OF NC U C 'CAIrIC> , -LE: Mks-�r 611 pall PUNNING DIVIRON EXHIBIT:_LC SCALEt '' �I . ® 1!"tee`_!�Y'� Tab• :"N�itSO�{LYF+q9� 1*4 LNIM P�AN '-� NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CT.JCAry,r,)�TGA TrrLE: FLANNINC DIVISION EXHIBIT- SCALE. �/ _ tsff65EGTbN_A-A_ • ..tAtw7: M1 O�;thlls.^^lr 41 � ���w uvwnauwa. NORTH CITY OF ITEM- CtjD --,2D PLANNING G DIV ISICXN EXHIBIT.- _SCALE-r tttairruraw.csN� v .- ? 'rr�'ur t 'f.liwpa{+ n. 5a1TF� vAmav_ Ru�mr a smom w'aoa,,r ►� ` raid'CtMF7 --� y 'V i NORTH CITY RANCHO � , r Y�'lydtit: LCANI0G,4 TITLE: 51ftlArttays PLANNIrr, DIVISION EXHIBIT: ALE`"----- _. AIK CITZ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: _ .�✓Z APPLICA,`L:__ � /� LnL9vl FILING DATE! SLOG NUMBER ,20 ') PROJECT:. SM.ET• / �iGtdCt0.1/ of d- MME sM/VJSUEA1r �IItF� PROJECT LOCATION: -7110 AftW7ShLf7 A?le I, ENVIRO%MNTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe"answers are required on attached sheetn). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in:. i C a. Unstable ground conditions or In changes in �,eologic relationships? b. Disruptions,, displa^emcnts, compaction or burial of the soil? c. ,Change in topography or ground surface` contour intervals? d. The destruLtlon, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e• An7 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• Exrosure of people or property to geologic f hazards such as earthquakes, landslides. mud- slides, ground failure, or*s{milar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. H droloQy. Will the proposal have significant results in: Page 2 YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Ch ages in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the cours- or flow of flood waters? d. Charge in the amount of surface water in any body of water? f e. Discharge into surface craters, or any alteration of surface rater quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? f g. Chauge in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direzt additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer.. Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of crater other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure 1tf people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. 7.ill 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 o% local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature; 4. Biota - y Elora Will the p )posal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number cf ,any species cf plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of Any unique, rare Y or endangered species of plants? ,�� ?age 3 YES `UM \0 t� c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an areal d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant, results in: a. Change in the characteristics of speci--,, including diversity, distribution, or numbe:a of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result :'.n a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ d. Deterioration or removal of exist.ag fish or - wildlife habitat? 5. Povulaiion. Will the proposal havki .t.'gnificant t" results in• a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or / create a demand for additional housing? p" 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have {•; significant results in: a. "Change in local or regional Socio-economic characteristics, including economic or• commercial diversity, tan rate,; and property values? y. Will project ecsts be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? i. ?..and Use and Plann____ Considerations. Will the proposal have sigificant results in? a. A substantlal alteration of the present or plannee land use of an area? b. 'A, conflict with any designations, objectives, / ` A95L policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An Impact upon the qulaity or quantity of, existing consump"t ve'or non-ce.nsumptive recreational opportunities? � /� Page 4 YES %KAY9E 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 �� J demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circular tion or movement of people and/or goods? vv f. Alterations to or -ffects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? / g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, / bicyclists or ;pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A distLrbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? _ 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will O e ii proposal have significant results in: I` a. Creation of :,xj health hazard or pat ential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? f c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous / :substances in the event of an accident? ./ d. An increase in the .lumber of individuals or species of vector or-pathenogenic / organisms or the exposure of people to such / organisms? VVV e. Increase :in existtng noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dang_rous noise levels? f g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? -.� Page 5 YES IMBE NO 11. Aesth^tics. WI.11 the p ..ro o� p al have significant $ ant results.ia. - .. . 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 ano Public Services. Will the proposal y have a significant need for new systems, or alte:-ations to thz following: a. Electric power? V b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? ✓' e.. Wastewater facilities? f Ipf. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i i. Police protection? J. Schools? r k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, includ rj& roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant result% in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? n. Substantial increase in demand upor. cAisting /^ sources of .energy? V Cc. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? }> d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption f of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource.? 14. Mandatory Findinrs of Sie,"icance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project havt� the potential to achieve r short-term, to the disadvantage of long-ten, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one i7hich occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project areconsiderable when vic,,ed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have ennvironmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects / on human beings, either directly or indirectly? v II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO;I"SENTAL EVALUAllol (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). �(t> � � Mel' d� — cP• OIL 9J 4 a P c ep &L . Ask eon s$_ # &Ad a Page 7 III. DETM%JIaATIOV On the basis of this initial evaluation: I ,find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifi' effect an the-environments and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bc prepared. I find that although the proposed project could .lave a significant effect On the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation measures described cn an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGk1,'IVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ("--� I find the Proposed project %A3 have signif ant of ec o the env-cnmenr, and an ENVIRO.. T I!%J?A REPORT e . Date igaature Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 85-20 FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER ANO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER FLAN LOCATED AT 7110 ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL 3ISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of August, 1985, a complete application was filed by Hoyt Lumber for review of the above-described project; and i WHEREAS, on the llth day of September, 190 ; the Rancho Cucamonga P1anr,Irig Commission held a public hearing to consider the abo :,s�..-ibed project and continued to the 9th day of October, 1985 and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of October, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November, 13, 1985 and WHEREAS, on the 13th dale of November, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga held a public hearing to consider the abo'rt!-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the followi' 3 findings can :;: met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, thq ibjectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, tog:ther with the conditions applicable thereto, wi11 not be det. imental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That t%e proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a 'Negative Declaration is issued on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3• That Conditional Use Permit, No. 85-20 is approved subject to t— he foTTowing conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Dense landscaping shall be provided along the north elevation to break up the. height and mass of the building. I= Resolution No. CUPCS-20 - Hoyt Lumber .. November 13, 1985 2. Dense landscaping shall be provided along the western property boundary for screening and buffering the ansaceE�, residential use. 3. Future development of the site shall be subject to the Development/Design Revi-.w process to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 4. The size of the wingwall for the roll-up Boors located at the south and east elevations shall be increased to match with the column as proposed at the main building entrance. 5. A strip of stucco over to the same size as the parapet shall be provided above the roll-up doors roof (located at east and west elevations). 6. Protective guard such as steep pipes shall be provided at the sides of the two roll-up doors. 7. Heavy wood beams such as a minimum of 6" x 6" shall be provided. Details shall be included in the c��tstruction plans for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 8. The texturized pavement pattern su;h a., brick pavers or stamped concret:• for pedestrian copnection shall be provided. 9. All non-conforming signs shall be removed prior +o release of occupancy for the exparsion of this project. 10. All loading and unloading For heavy lumber materials shall be done within enclosed area. The developer shall obtain aW-nrization from the westerly adjacent property ownet to -install a joint 4ecorative block woll along the west property bou�i6ary. Details shall be included in the landscape plan to be submitted for r(,view and approval prior to istuanre of building pern., t.. ENGINEERING DIVISION A 6 foot block wall with a minimum of 2 feet being retaining wll is to i s designk 1 to City standards and constructed along the entire lengt; of the northern property boundary. 13 k 07Q1 _0 o1- �-85 � � 1C� ac �t'0 � C 4f � Resolution No CUP85-20 Hoyt Lumber November 13, 1985 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANAING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8Y• - Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST. • Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERSt NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: non �a oy .`� Noo daN=y. i '� ng mmo vn ne No. qq o¢>'d o.�.. oo.`D L N 8c vr, is dd _'o aEo CUidY a L' FV M�Q QW. L: O. •Fi. lryyp Nut Aq` O L q U q N+ �O.3c0 ^_. COC 6bti O. rnL ZC 6.EOo Be d Y uy@�OY:n pVyor NLC t Lr d~ cLY� ^� d d 4. N pw^ d'n�i q.de euM. ca�uo � v onoe '°dn GLaorg � u6 }' N�ner t'cu s.r a• `� � vie xcY.=o. V '�o 01�� o L>:u. No�d o• 01p o N ao np a d ins m y, y ccmp� y=N cue me �q:5 cL 2p.O.rdW� %N OMO. -:�a� NUS 3dW EaE.9YYA. a 9Y9r LY[s LG.Y A.Od dW �» dIL dT cO. NOW. 01.0 C. C Oy0 _ U c qut d: o E E n W e q ~ Cn AN~�d00 90�A Caad• cNG �G Yd uEC; N C u N d r 9 C O N c g y 0 N b L Qy. C E • 4 T n c E M c1 r c'e qNu n>•aw V4D �G OOd d G '2 Ea+� p�pO C,.c.c aV0 Y.CU c pp OU O.Nda U M y E c L E A d�5 N N. d E N t d � Ol. O T d•�u 0 uaY>N E o'd YC V q= uu. 00 Zti d.cv�O�i C N�.�C �6 q0 U COIs 1 � �I I � r-I 2 +u t C Ned.O NOO .c Y W NU > Q..C.NNOumCU u �o � � o.N.aN.rN amain c u uvq rF rnM A y N a q 6e yLWYVt 4 E N s O ua�a 3aTi -.= a.0�0'O G y A G o C.�i^ F- J WS 0 O } .p a• y.Ya UY..O..Y 1 W i d av L dNlfi. N N'u OL w ✓ _` • 9 q d 4 O c U z y U ^ A. j. � O N 9WL C da a+2 OYO U N p � N y tw `G uyy^O C O G NNC U W 2. N .XInAY d 0 C 4 p Z ddau. N d FG ACO'. � q.•C. 2 E O L J n L z.r N EE u 'o G u N e {I u io c`� E q a '�'uc$d 1. c ^ a q q c aye N �ii• N ga= o ¢ r�o a.N•sNn NFN f-— 'y y OF N A lt. kA ^u d e 9 9 d d qY.!• . •Y •-•a i N a.W a u • -zi U q ^L GU!O L E•gayL En=N L.AVnq d ONN.dc a•a^ � O �� O c U1 U C> N p O a'Y O .c L E y N d 2 U N A 9NN A o to ... 'O O qqd EOp A9 PN.Nie dcp M q N 0tiO d L a L q 0. u > .+ -20 Z cpNL o; p. L ^o^`•.i �..aa c 9L U 9 d g _ _ C7 9Ccn Od E WD QOLy."t V.UL t �q 1 EG •n O p U Y Y . U.:d N 2 4.N C N A N 4 d U u 9 ^C •N u 9 H ^2 A ^ L 9pc� V �"•OL 3�.1 ^ q- c 9 L W >•>6L1 y� o � NE> E qq a GN.��dd;N LtU WMC6 uG � vp� �O N`p d G. FNC FF a+ y =- O j 7;D• a O q 3 L O.N y(� T ... nN C d N N^ NC.Y LO. p d pp pm N E a G G E• I p Oi A O ^ a" • E U S l L C�c Off^ ^�«0 da0 0 L9pW�N L E d b W d 0,C U EE N G N 3.E z d ' ^ L G.o� �F aaC C aT• O . O61U UZ.A rd � C9 n NG.9 a 4eC I6 Gp • pCU�� d EU y�a�y 2 CEQ. =L >•6 E OW9 C9 vGy A a 9 CC p n YY u q. 6 E 6 6 6 U d^ N u w>i T L 12 ti N 1 9�C nE wQd . per• �N A. 9.Q .y9W.9 • YdC di•td q 9.c U i ^ O c N.a OMTa+a W'.0 VgggoA a L O W.^C L N a c U I^ p O C-oOS O L �� Na N •.r G E d O I I= Q �6. �U" NN da EAE YL c L Ody c N ..y. C T O d p L1 L T • E O 9 Y p A ^E a N g U dE A d L �•aU .0 > N O+ N dy Gy q0 LAY 9y ^WY •N 60V Y .tea uqi L W OO G Oo. qY UU y.dju yyC p o L=C dN .G y,W CEw AZ6 _ „.}cq Yd.E NCUI•+'^ 0.A dr. cOa = 6 u.T q Lt.> U N yq qy^ vN 9I 9W N c cyu 9 D• Nd Z L�6y^y �FGO L. a ,^ol Yam.. > A6�y 9y L. O GO L N41. d O.O 1u Q: WO 2 ~ tJ W96 Sri 6 d6 O 9TC90 YZLO d^ 'Bu V.�bL^ C�a00a+o quo O� N N A d.•^ '^>d O� L. {L r 2 CI L 9 r A E d c o d �6 p .r •.�N =aw d�y q n u c ... N.y n9 dC day ^+'p EU N 6�.QA 9 6q 9w.d^yM C.L d6a ^A. G Uy C O O t .•.L u I L O o N y+ N N t Y ,V y q O d N Ly C , �LJ•ci EuI T NESu =� �LGU •O HCZM.s. 9a CL.. G d U • n CCY q yp �pU 9u cd~�NqN Ua L 'Lw cc 9 Yt� ^.A •.1 e q A Q d D- aGFLOV aA AO. U LLL9^'2 f..l p UL Oq•. - C T 6d C6 01 69 N d O 6u E0 6.A SL 6 •wN6 l�,C NG� C,2 N.N..A 4U ��96. F•+�.YNCA la-�gQAp 0-3 o L d p vi N A po o m. 'bqd oc N n AS d^ co�a'� a qda� « cumc aso �.LO N • d L C9^d N d .n C dxl 6 6L ado. p V D D •a ENO oM O.% a.. O 06 O d L L a 0 ED y�y9 M.t C qL w ap'OOOL06LiD Lu5 N Op E d L ON.Na Oa Q azy L O.�A ndyd NL • L.GDL CyU� 9 0.; yM u dp �dYd aGN6QT LN'DJO 2 cyaf EddyG.Wd a d.•p,, duL d. Ia p L Lc'-0.a _ C A0. ywMU q V� y I � W dq �' N II�bL� 4•r^K w c o c a m Y c c M n a.. d oN o. 01 dA d y w dYq u u vim.�.ob O nc G • N 6 N C >9 C. E.brn dD ^9 o�v oda+p-ad. N CUCN 6 N^ SNO f Z 6NYpp C�>mA •- e co ¢A aDu ai.coAom o dd va a c L � ddc as o•�' �La ei u 9T 0 Y•^-N ^i aY Dq G>^ E 6W N L n L4 •O.E O vpi D a L S ...� T U '� O E u a 9 q � � •�L t .2 Ld 2- cc ,^a D diO 3 ip dT6q o.;: a."us'a« o Q. 66.0 AigY O NO q OW >d «6 gOGT Alt - zan a C L.y d G Ddw dy O. a 2 pd mo i ty aN T� • � Vu 9u O �O. ii O d6dp Urd. La vDi a i? o "'. d ay ugd�Lu L.aG y uo q ao dr V. 0 Cp b Cup. N S mC2Q.d mo Nu A«o c y,o •' p p N O. = p0 N9 L a •�E61r V tiC p A > a Opp^ yb ^jVc LyA NqE p C .•. q 0 U C a U �N •. N u L dp = bp^_n Ed A�Fpy9 v nC GJ pi tpiLU. .fin NC. Y OL Y Un�dL 6MNp QA�rO ? C.9 N 1^nN 4u. 6.9 It-O NON 4Op 4N6A W66.••��� y I (y S E.95� C�n U L�c F f G� e • L W L 'E C u •d L E N a C E q E p O^E a6E U✓ y.� 12, -Z LaR we lusO suu U d l C L q E ^ add ON OTC W EO SN C ✓ O dL Cd q N W 6YO C.. LL1 i aN !Td • tea.'"- �o s�N rs- Fas do ai U� CLEm41 i N q✓•ON m. p� U Pq. ✓ H _ O N 00� U y m Y^.. CO 6^- E L �Ea qd 9cq�0 qOu ¢ a'roo L qa n--E. c Eq .1;C^ O y E Y xuy " dy ar ^.q. oq ✓o•-• I u CO O.a q O a O ^ p y p C H L � 9 O d V LL O O 6 L.d EE nq^✓ Opy C pV u�d u L L L q0„Y., W u•Y^gq a .O. W s L �_ r•9 =✓a fj.W O C q ^ _OI ^C6 x� wLi 60 N U C•Od O ar. H SL qyy . ^00` 4 aEES S.q4. d W✓Y Cf ^€ a9 ✓y C LL✓L 2090E L U�_ N y .>,. m OCix Eo✓� � ,•..y a �Y. LEa O✓ u��y Or-^ J C.dT. 00>dN^ ~NVEOI al'N C. dagiEL I' ` rLa F-n q F�.0 d� =LLLVg14 �Nn ` fUWL 6�6�K.of 6•rA O N O.Ua v^`aa ' an "mod vmy. .to uV.5 L qa NVL EgICI yCv .O� L oa ELL S �'9 pqO na qyN 9Vq E aL M^.' m N..=p- 9 9c Nd - 'at L a �O �• �u a NIL n=c N.I q O ^ G d s. a G.N C u 9.. N y^^ q c n 0 EE 00. G iq O« 2 LOG C.... 0• QT U q.V a q day g jCc S p C✓Y I . _ Y6 Eq EL Id. N v La 'ovE QQ d L u u L.L O✓C w.p L^ N y L V N y Ol ✓9 7-3- C ✓ C a N^ �- L A y N 9✓y s+2 polW n d q id �6. a0 d�tU Y.y N anti C V OLaC d0C E u. Nag6 Y q L ^ L LL �y p�0 r Ya-9 n9E .L pr mW CZY.0 sru HSC O ass aA a: da N u a a OI NL� EQQu i '^d C y` d q u 2 N >. C U C A. >L E�6d LL M a Nu>.a U. q r d L C O O a q o+ro q E OI a d r 1 IS p d •o I. L C - qM Ia•�9N N aNU N SO'•' J9 L EA' 6 rq p I p - L w a ` P C V ` 1 q. E wO d L C • ¢6m CYx+• z WI WE][ 61uY \J N LL3-3 ' u dq O Or-'OC rEll d q u Gy u j9E dui. co N — r0 V -45 N A d d a _ LAOd�t� a q 9 9 O. e EM Udr d9 N A.d :a.• 06 CLar>r Nw x L� 2 L O E d�, ,e a Z > Wo. .n L� LN Gp c. oy q LIL c d.' u o O �N✓ �.Nd Lam. bro p d N ^ N aEb y.p6 u Q pE6E^9 a da EL:u q Y LL s Eq dN 1pc. L COI OId d0� adi� L qV�.. O..dj. —o 1� O O« C10�CP dE .. Y� Ntn^pp ��Ed .- +:x A s of o a� EE P LLmCU QOUVO O.q O U O >> r 6 9 r —z' _ .u� C a o. of v c�� :YO. r N C.9:.6 A d M 4 u O Z N. 17 a Yf IC �.�. IWWJ G rIl ' I I ( I I J d C OI N rnd :a d LO N c.-N c E O c W N Y u O.0 q L ^p. N LC« L NN dG G 6 v L u^ NG �^ rT S. c u T '.� PCm 6 do 01 y�T.�.^. C ` W � Cl<CC G Oy 9 .. Y.� 2-c Q wN m a W 3 c q nG �^ q a �O. Cto O�G q A CM C O� O dN quOL.�: Ca 6 YLL qV rn NqU�= . o� a ^u. Aa � L aq 'd61 = N D O' r c q t O W w• ^p. Y. N p L N C 6 _ 6 U LO du d S 3 9 C u y. GOCCI dOY-.>d. uN d OuE Ol c dN C Y,yH., d. "8 A O.N d Uq YO=q L T� d =o Su u~q C L ET r0 LO p^ �d �. Trn o«qm agn'.n Ep ai. ^..p v M.s o d �iay So ^ ^r G^ o.Y y ^ uq a+ avi$ '"..p. Npdo9 N d:N E"p,ca ^ 1 ^p L.Q 6y Yr � m Gq L�� �L6 6^ L Np W da �9q0�+ �C S.O. Sd dq.Oc.a SE d 00 d0 uL ^O L CI E: Lr 1 A"2 Vq o �E O� u9�-p LV .�L u u tC O d VD 9. 00 u o v ad Np E om yo. xr " o.0 u �� yu pdo d++61 ad, O.y O M d d L d u 0a pf.N C.r ^ N b p �' y d^d L Ex N �d9. A I u0i S.gtr GE GC NG. aia Hry LLG� ppY Wd. q NYV.N� 4 q0 06.n E�.L AML 40 r�_39 uau ^cw �e ^v =ci a. ..dt u2 QY EL T� Gq an uIn ILL. E. pp 4,3 J CC N� Oldd =Y OTC Ili �O IN LL^ WH C N Z.. FF v. ACI6E Z A^ndd u ed OW ^ and dYp O uENEi 1-. u ed� W � a y t U •r7 N� uu ux EEa. Leo u �n =.€ Cey T � Bq SK a09 L Dq Dlpj d J aria W E m� _e.Y.L d O. ^q A E oq a 9 IS+r+Y C d„�•d V9 U = _+� gL1W�0 aL O A yE ped a YpI Sr p9 d ao>� Y da L S L Y >S F f Q u NEy U �a r Cl Oyu E o.E p d E dL n.•pi pY NapEI: Yp O.r^. _ SV� M ddNIL OACa Nc dLG Cq > E 6 L 20 v1 2 p W L IW La c � an u^� ao .ace .as r. nd. wrn E AMA. u Y u �� u Lq pro y D et T C a s V 0 Ca I., eE dCN C p 6 ^Q VT ' 'wY NLLq rA> CY N 9ud S • QpgC G ��O p.. G V O� IL�.6 Op � q9y yw.dC V e pii.V cp 2 u e.w k EV OI h. U 2 G e Y �pY Nd p.0 �� EY q L..T L6 O=V. O ELL.Ca YG G.y' � 4•C t Ny O n W� JL I- y a9a2 a dA d dO�q L. OIQny dCl aq.U. C�yLp.,L. p a E e �.O .. nap+ ea IYcll ndo du mE^9 O �t L q e P T d N e e a T o '° a n Y `m d � n E..V 4 EE Zo A N q =v oN =.p+�� Y= py pTc CTagO NY ; p a• L A C E O Ga L q N q � '^ NC eSc^ EO E C.p. o'c C Y p L CC .0 ai' P..E O pµ^p, L N�� ".fl \ �. NN SO.. J.L E•c' C IL-A K6ta ou Wlpi W ET 0.aY yC C4 i I LL 2 - 30 �. TOu L O 00. L _E • t oo aL a Lp C LL S • p N C G q Y N C b y N N • 3 Ot x d 6 G L c L c L 'nq ycq Ar a as 4u-2- NO W Q22 O y q.L q qL Cu y L+nyLO O. 4� O'E Cd 1ELa p'C CM CL �nL T Ly 6a,6 ml qC a t; EE O p �TZ�.q pOp aW CM. O^ S 6.L O. MAa pY..i d. 9a •^ p� m a EE y G Zu E up dgLa quuo 6N W U.q Oap+Q S y �'c T Td NC.f n0. Et T rn �^ 109 rn T T Eu a u� N GW�+p- 46ry NOS+ v1O 6C1 n at 6. e moo. a N T a x o.c e �+ d is " •:� a T ygm v y �- aT a W V w an pL w s� a $ L yak r n any A FF p E A Y cp ew as g —.E =u L px p cd— c d a c d I d p 0 V13 d'a up i.A yp, rnm a p.'-. '• yE d Nx NU m q Ui q O.Q S.-.. WE. la a -u-1 EE y tlW �' Adc a� q cEi E E�• E-W u c ANx EL d� xE ��\L api.-- .rNT[19U+ Q E d Hti ^ E • MM d a a C u rnM you a .pi v I Y.Ti^ .. s ~L a s 1 o s a a= N d c t N a y^ Oa O T q y o ^ a� � V C U Y `e 2 i O N C y'u o W �'. %i. y¢E �. o.2 4 Y�' y na: O T � d C NaL S r O Z.p Y NL ca a. =q 1-66v _ pi: yY. TY y L dNis . O �b aT O OSY. d^ i 4 E Ara SN _ b� y.NbbQ auk N Sri 61v lei d' bA =. a6p.Tv ^ B.Yer N 4.5 > as I i a aM ors o =N mca y A in U 6 q E a O py y A rnb, A o. s oa a u^ V VWa dv oL UqE N �.L o p �r N W.0 mN. T E6 bb zV pC dd .d O:. Nb = Y E L2.d o= +� b V a ^y Oa 26 S. is V2t Y b d 92 Y. yju R u =G^ b E .1 L.NL ot� _. o m V .V p j N b b ^ 2L OI W L L. y V A LL v 60L1 �^ C N LO.41 U �.�. a {A = b d 0 0 = .'.' O.5 F-V 1-.rM 66N• Q in J Za O:. 5.�.. I�u 4= d b. 1z CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT O p F ~� Z U > DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 - BARMAKIAN The development of 72 unit apartments of 4.12 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14- 24 du/ac) located at the north side and end of Lomita Court - APN 202-151-34 I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of October 23 1985, held a public hearing in considering this project. The Planning Commission raised concerns on the amount of open space provided and the quality of that space in terms of how functional and usable it is. The Commission felt that more land" could be provided for open space by clustering the units into 12 plex or 16-plex. The Commission continued this project to this regular meeting so that the applicant could prepare revised plans to address the Commissioa concerns. The applicant has not provided revisions to the site plan to address the open space issue. Attached for your review is a letter from the applicant regarding this open space issue. II. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order to approve a residential development project, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings:- 1. The project is consistent with all applicable general and spedific plans. 2. The design or improvements of the project are consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The design of the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avaidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The project is not likely to cause serious public health problems. ITEM C k PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 85-33 - BARMAKIAN November 13, 1985 Page 2 C 6. The design of the project will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the 1 proposed project. 7. That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a + public hearing and consider all material and imput regarding this project. A Resolution of Approval with Conditions has been prepared for your review. Should the Planning Commission determine that the amount of open space is adequate and concur with the findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Development Review 85-33 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ko Attachments: Applicant's Letter October 23, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution of Approval with Conditions P BARMAKIAN - November 8, 1985 -3 Planning Commission City of Ranch6 Cucamonga, CA 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C P.O'. Box 80,7 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Lomita Court Apartments DR 85-33 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: As you recall, our project was continued from your meeting of October 23, 1985, to your next meeting of November 13, 1985. Tin Issue that was of concern is location of our open play area in relation to Lomita Court and a previous project sut-.fitted for yo,,,r review. Perhaps a review of our design philosophy would be in order. NW �.. As an Architect I feel that in approaching the design of a multi-family residential project, the interior environment is as important, if not more important than the common area. The best design solutions consider both interior and exterior environments. If you study our prk'=ect, You willnotice that the units are designed as 8-plex bu3.7.dings, or corner units, in a 2 story configuration. This sIjws, especially in 2 bedroom units, two walls of openings fir each apartment and the opportunity to create more enjoyable spaces. The previous project presented by Cal Mark, featured 12-plex buildings which created a totally different type of interior environment and unit design. We feel very strongly that our product is not only moremarketable, but creates the type of living space which is more appropriate for multi-family environments. This particular parcel is of irregular shape, has wager tanks, _railroad tracks and flood control channels, among other things, as neighbors. In approaching the land plan for this project, we felt that to shield these unpleasant uses from our common areas would be to our advantage. The solution you have before you addressed our concern for both interior space and other external factors. Ash C.> 9375ARCHIBALD AVENUE .,UITE 101 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA • CALIFORNIA 91730 714-887-3084• I; Development Brokerage • Property management • Architecture - Engineering ,_ C-3 We have created an area wiL..'n the project that measurEs 170'x93' at its extremc7 and will amply provide the occupants a large area for active recreation. As Developers, we choose to build a product that ve consider the uppzr end of the market. .a eight-plex unit, by far, creates the type of environment that the market expects for a project of this q•tality. We havo met:, and in some areas erceded, the requirements of the Development Code for the MH catagory. We have created open. areas that are spacious and. enjoyable for the users as well as fullfilling our philosophy of creating well designed and marketable apartments. The Planning Commissions concern for open space is admirable and I fully support your position. In our application, we have provided for and met all of the requirements placed upon us:. We merely wish to be true to our design philosophy and create a liveable and enjoyable environment for the future tenants. As always, your thoughtful consideration of our application is most appreciated. Sincerer: THE BAR MAKIA MPA Y ete'r x Pig tarsi/AIA ^ice-President PP/bs — — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAA1ONGA STAFF REPORT Q„ Z L {> DATE: October 23, 1985 1477 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director B ; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 BARMAKIAN - The development of 72-unit apartments on 3.77 acres of and in the Medium High Residential District (14- 24 du/ac) located at the north side and end of Lomita Court APN 202-151-34. I. PR03ECT 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. Surrounding 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, I' shopping center; High Residential District with Senior Housing Overlay District, Neighborhood Commercial District. East - Hoyt Lumber., vacant; Office/Professional District. West - Existing water tanks, single family homes, vacant; Medium High Residential District, General ",ommerrial. E. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium align 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 Cownercial. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-33 8armakian OctobEr 23, 1985 Page V F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and relatively level. Vegetation consists of mainly weeds. Full street improvement is underway for Lomita Court. G. AP2lic3ble Re ulations: "' e Development Code permits multiple family dwel ings in the Wed;um High Residential District at 17.5 dwelling ,units per acre under the basic Development Standards. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: This proposed project is a. Womplete redesign of the market rate portion of the previously approved Planned Development 83-01 by Calmark, ac t`^wn in Exhibits "C and - "G This project arranges the units ito two-story buildings of 8-plex configuration. The unit si,..es proposed range from 649 sq. ft. for one-bedroom unit (28 u'aits) to 942 sq. ft. for two-bedroom units (48 knits) The proposed elevations are of contemporary architec.,,ral style that consists of thick butt asphalt shingles and stucco walls, with a variety of roof heights and architectural �stails. Main access to the project will be provided on Lomita Court. The site plan maintains the minimum 80 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 conditions of approval for Planned Development lsa, 11. The developer also agreed to provide pedestrian access along the westerly project boundary to the southwest corner of the Heritage Park fog, providing connections to the neighborhood shopping center to.. the south. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the projectJ conformance with the Absolute Policies and general design guidelines of the multiple family development. The Committee: was +:oncerned with the amount of usable and functional open space provided for this project. They felt that more land could be provided for open space by clustering the units i;ilto 12-plex or 16-•plex. The previously approved project consisted of 12-plex buildings (72 units) that resulted in substantially mere usable open space as can be seen by comparison of Exhibits "C and i°D". the proposed project provides 1,089 sq. ft. of common open space per unit (see Exhibit "I"). a ,�i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-33 -'Barmakian October 23, I985 Page 3 The Design Review Committee-was concerned with both the amount of open space and the quality of thet space in terms of usability and recreation amenities provided for the residents. The projectwill include a swircming pool, spa, and tot lot. The open space plan was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and 'recommended for approval provided that the emergency access- lane to the south be constructed to function as a large open lawn area. The Design Review Committee also made the following recommendations: 1. Building stucco color should be ?ff_;hite (net pure white). 2. Similar garage doors irk groups of eight to break up the monotony and landscaping between the garage doors should be provided. 3. The chimney desig►* for Building r 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 by 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 exceed',., f.eneral Plan standards. Also, staff has completed Part I' `he environmental checklist and has determined that they no significant impact of the environment as a result •`s project; therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration would ue appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project 's 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 compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: ibis item has been advertised in The. Daily 'Report as a public hea�.ag, and notices were sent 'to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site c PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-33 Barmakian October 23, 1985 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recom mends d �ens 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 Cominission concur with the F' is, issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Develop:.. Review 85-33 through the adoption of the attaches esolution and conditions of approval wc%ld be in order. Res ectful Utu'bmitted, �•�-......, ac am Community Development Director JL:NF:ns Attachmey Exhibit "A" Location Map E:,.iibit "B„ - Site Utilization Map .xhibit "C" - Planned Development 83-01 Approved. Site Plan exhibit "D" o Detailed Site Plan exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Landscape Plan qW Exhibit "G Planned Developmment 83-01 Approved Elevations Exhibit "N" Elevations and 'Floor Plans Lxhibit "I" Comparison of Percentages of Open Space ' Initial Study, Part II and Addendum Resolution of Approval with Conditions !!lNISi/� nauu �� ■ ��Biaggi QY � tl.� /ttH iiiat/BBtN/■ �� I. 1 tii■i�eg;��e 11 fillip ��„- .:. ,�/ '/.■..`�_�.:t'.h �CTs tom.. But multi _ - ■ 3. r. i ► v - .`. a a: ayr� 1A, a s T•�,}. -.1 1 r 1.;•1 +„ •„tr_ cF .1 n w 1 1LL y r ��.... i a �r � �' ���:c- 1. �Jf YKi,«2 �."'` £}� '�.w?'�' �,y.'v w •JI �� l iy t' �'F ti t"�y.�t t .•F�tt.'",:.ter �� ��"f' y "ac .� .�t� 1p7,� �e� t �y r I e � n' .�. 'q►' � -"{Sj:�S J3 ���'�S,� j,,71 Y �.{.f1 ��,r?t F•I �- 4 t �� .� �(1��- t �+� �'�'. df 4; Xf �'s�hv4 1`^ u�)�yi„ '" FC • 4Y J" � 1 } � ' �I�I }�, ,' 7Y "rw gsftr*-i 7,7"' �f A ` x Wq ..► .r;aF r - ti-`L y y tir7� > sYwr�^nt1•.d..`+.�'o.�---, - it - utiliz Lion p i SUNRISE GENERAL APARTMENTSCUPANCY: I ' s 1 ( Lp5n4.CWRT /- 34.uCo WATERTIMRS 46 6.eLET6 Aczf-- -P---- •'�� E HERITAGE PART{ .9. -•, t-. ELDERLY APARTMENTS I I k U U:hytil 1 .`.rtrc k - NORTH �. CITYRANCHO TTnAT� A�+A ITEM: �U iV1�1 VT�7L Nppty FLAMUNG DIVISION EXHIBIT- SCALE:iv •�''" ,� E T�. Tom. Will � r It J W '��� ��i'i detaile• si:t�� flan I r �� � �� l Zr *•. M! "Is 'ar7 �17 i�•y�(� i�t y�� ,yc .. psi u cc•�r�ceptual lar�dsc«-ale pla t t lo �� ;4t�r,�y _ �� .4�k v1 �P��• •,�' r,. — ~tom !i ! B. B B 160 I =-Y pyy NORTH cirly cu' ITEM. 0'• "33 RANCHO CLTCAMONGA TITLE& M l Al'!`Kl���ifR PLANNING D V ON EXHIBIT• SCALE • �Ji. aiYn:..tC����S.XLiffSJs.Ca+.--:•. ,®lam, AiAFA IIE�C`S vxIL a _ AMM��� � "< i Y'. kv O unk b ;WN V a•� N IORTH Ask CITY OF 1TEIV1 -- P9 P4-33 RANCHO CUCAA'40NGA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT SCALE. •, r .. 7. \i (F 1liy, `�T ram,�1i�..Y• ^^1lLAtl'. _ I ni r` III V - d Hit •f�`y k L ti C lFTTTI FT-FT-1 ti R�vC VE2 ' �/��+MZ` �• _ it 'tr " r .,� c•.a ..5 '� s -.v..; .m,ki� ..{�t�t. .fit �.Et•��'x� .�. ^w , �_ �,•"• >'.�ac�r��rti:Y' v�..•�3.'�,�.�` ,�•. :1�..'�`N.%� •.S,,,y x ,t" gem RA-\�•.I .y K 4K- ' -.4, 5y�TV.Ow a�'ty:'} �e`'4,ti''Aq c .`st )r�dr -x `'i�'++�.x' �-o•s` �_. a �,•�+ "rZ .. ''tlt�.K..*���tti ..•..p�y,� '-'��*,�J�"" �� M .. _. _._{E#-�... iiiSs�..x:a -•—,+�'�.+fic h.�`n.'a.,-w, tr.C ..:3le`.�e>ai�L3'c.i.�'i3,:.'.ew:;4zi�i:�.�`�' C: r RA CID CUCAMO NGA TITLE: - PLANNING DIVIION EXHiBm 1' 4. `r SCAL,E f_ APARTMENT PROJECT OPEN SPACE COMPARISON Project Density Unit % Common Open Space No. Applicant (du/ac) Arrangement Open Space per Unit DR 85-06 Lincoln 22.63 Up to 24-plex 40.9 788.80 DR 84-22 Bentsen 20.60 12 plex 39.4- 856.38 DR 83-21 Stampley 20.00 8/16 plex 5450 1056.10 l OR 85-33 Barmakian 17.25 8 plex 41.7 1089.26 DR 84-12 Davis 11.8 8/12 plex 57.0 2077.43 1V0M CITY OF ITEM: '3 ` RANCHO CLTCAI Q�tGf� TITLE:5-MS-Ay ��;� ri PLA,NNM DIVIRON FXHIBiT:- SCALE= :'; CITY OF RANCHO CUC-10'NGA PART 11 - J`ITIAL STUDY E`VIRONMENTAL CHECKLI;3T' , DATE: APPLI=,—r: mot, D FDATE-E- 7-3/451 LOG NUMBER: �3 PROJECT:_9a r-Aa,ar �wa.ry PROJECT LOCATION: I�ti7Q7JL rrnc �� I. ENVIRONXENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES 224YBE NO 1. Soils and Geology, Will the nroposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or ir. changes in geologic relationships? / b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or V burial of the soil? C. ,Change in topography or ground surface ✓/ contour intervals? / _ Y d• The'destruction, cover t Of an ng or modification Y unique geologic or physical features? e. en Any-Potential T tia_ increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either or, or off site conditons? f f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g• Exposure of peop c oi: property to geologic hazards such -a earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or*similar hazards? / h• An increase in the rate of extraction and/or ,L/� use of any mineral rescurtle? V 2. rol^ - Will the proposal have significant results in, Page 2 YES :LaYBE �0 AML a• Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers,, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Ch anges in absorption P rates , drai na or the rate and a llount of surfacege patterns, runoff? water c. Alterations to the cours waters? a or flow of flood d. Change ge 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 groundwaterIs, either through direct additions or with- d rawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- w ise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air puali�. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or inL:'rect sources Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of a . interference with theeattainment lofyapplicable air quality standards? /' c• Alteration of local or regional climatic V conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results sn: AOL 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 Y or emiangered species of plants? `/ Page 3 1'ESAuk LLaFBEJ c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of MW 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. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. IntroductionI of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant e j results in: a. W1�1 the proposal alter the location, distri butibn, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand tur additional housing? ✓ 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have gigniticant results in: - a. Change in local or regional socio-economic chara_teristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? j• b. Will project costs,be equitably distributed - among•project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? e ✓ 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or-adopted plans of any governmental entities? C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of / existing consumptive or non-consumptive / recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES 'AY9$ No 8. TranSDortation. Will the proposal have significant results in a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or dema•? for new street construction? ✓X, C. Effects on existing,parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass 'transit or air traffic? / g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians" Ash 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal havF significant results in: a A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, / paleontological, and/or historical resources? / 10. Health. Safety and Nuisance Factors, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? Y d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? V ` e.. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure rf people to potentially dangerou�D noise levels? ��ltTTf}�Ff � JVO/Sf $T '�. The creation.of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? YES .4aYSE NO 11. .Aesthetics.. Will the proposal have significant results ia: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic � / vista or view? V b. ne creation of an,ae site? sthetically offensive V/ C. A conflict with the objective of designated / or potential scenic corridors? V/ 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? V/ f. :load control structures? ✓ i g. Solid waste facilities? / h. Fire protection? v✓ i. Police protection? / J. Schools? k, Parks or other recreational facilities? e 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? a. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: /a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? V b. Substantial Increase in demand upon existing ` sources of energy? V 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? /Y S _ _ Page '7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: M1 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a,'significant effect on the environment,, and a NEGATIVE DECLARaTIoN will be pre;�red. I find that although the proposed *oject could have a signific,int (� effect on the environment, there ,rill not be a significant effect in e because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILLBE PREPARED: I find the proposed project :SAY e a signi� can ffect_on the envirnment, and an Eh't1IRMti, I'SPAC REPO A. i e d. Date ignature 53�lin& o Title f ; . I rri Page 6 YES !'AYBE NO e. Substantial depletio.t of any nonrenewable;or Aft scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findin s of 'SiRnificance. a. Does the proje ;',`nave the potential tc degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population r;o drop. below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a p1 --.C-»;animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of -a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods' of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve ��j•••/// 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 impacts will endure well into the future). V c. Does the project have impacts 'which are individually limited, but cumulatively' considerable? (Cumulatively considerable �. means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does ,the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects / on human beings,.either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF EM'IROFT9TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions-plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). Ask F- �-alp �r �5--' 85/409 WG�ORDONSRICKEN & ASSOCIAT7 ULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS .; August 26, 1985. MR. PETE PITASSI THE BARMAKIAN COMPANY 101 Archicenter 9375 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 SUBJECT: INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF RAIL NOISE IMPACT ON THE LOMITA COURT APARTMENTS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Dear Mr. Pitassi: This study was prepared at your 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 iy'°prior areas. The purpose of this initial assessment- is to cite the conditions and probable impacts. Previous contacts with theSouthern 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 K m Santa Ana California 9 2701 0 Pho ne 714 835-024 � ) 9 This track is not a �ia.in freight line and no through freights are scheduled along this track. %ne switching freight train, of.approximately ten cars, utilizes this track servicing industfies along the track. The maximum speed of operation at this location is 40 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 level (Ldn is the same) was calculated at} 61 CNEL at50 feet from the track. inspection of the site plan indicates that all locations on the site will fall below 65 CNEL. The nearest buildings aE.. in excess of 100 feet from the track. Railroad noise levels will be 55 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 dBA to 35 to 37 CNEL. Thus, as a "worse 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. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Prepared by: Gord6-n Bricken President C-�.g 1 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 8armakian Company for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day cf October. 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to cinsider the above-described project and continued the public hearing to November 13, 1985; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as fellows: SECTION is That the following can*cannot be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;_ and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the ;proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 85-33 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions DESIGN REVIEW 1. The auilding stucco color shall be of off-white color. Sample color shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 BARMAKIAN November 13, 1985 Page P 2. The chimne d "y esgn for building C shall be "boxed- out" with stucco material. 3. Roof material shall be of tile instead of the proposed asphalt shingles. Samples shall be submitted for City Planner approval prior to issuance ofbuilding 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 :-*notony. 6. A decorative block wall shall be provided along the weste,-n eastern and s ern property boundary. ENGINEERING DIVISION A flood wall to the height of 3 feet shall be requires along the northern propery boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH PAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary _ I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamoni a, 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 or the Planning Commission field on the 13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 •. L J LN y v a Vn�Q .V.` .•m �.O •.O .. J. Rli EL V 9L Ot lyy d ►•cam. �wC Y� cOc rS o wv Co L w. x. ...c L =a.OiV�`y.q✓. OV o �E oo.. �' =1� E. ••yam oG 6c y e E v E. -i:LOL Oyw qOC OL.u� r 9Dt Yr C.sw L a e.. qoo. L,MN O L+ C S.23.D ~�. GN w 9 UL.N�T BOG O w NBr6 C = ^ o T F c e9 Va^Q' coa G c C F w. G uE.O + y N A ems. V c a G O i n 6 N L eGi a M O o ^y? Lpt 53co v N O w adL _ F �� ✓OyE ���y00 U. oG Uu.`i Vn G Vt E. _ a 3RZC r U O e VL. 92.Ui� C •+� w` GZ YY w 60I Op 6 6N^w i 4. H. n�nV b C• tcz I m 2 r aSw�.2 O L E p w P-2 � EE Or _ y Z. N O . L W OG CpuU la n Gd O0 n EE x N+w p O L _ E O •,,. C q O O E a eli Uy U G GCC �pC is V F. .^..E~ n c c Oo yE� n F v.� w ¢p G �•'t e v a.n u.a�1.. .. aC^O E..+. o u O �Y 6 6 1�1. w.•c^p ` «�u`� OY Adlk •dai L O � Y C YCO^d 7N w O.0 00 DA S „C p� a0~ wr' D•� `� YL eQ co iu Yq o«yy Y.. .w-m w O qi New N Lp: „•.'i Cy' tl a0 u� i` Cwp C TdNp u� YO` O`EJr•� N.2 Ye ..e..YO «Y wAN u� v per. REY0.6 ¢Masi Y.. w p 2� u� ^T ..q 00` My a�� L<O ye GG�s i_rt>ip21�� oL Y N A v G Y L� r N Y i Y �a'n � t• � c�.. �iN�„ eq o wqo ua a' eoY. cao«uc � o _ a..�� Y.^. u.pp .•G.0 1�. QOaq OCR V r.p�V V=CIpB wC60 N w.L. ad i CEO itt G CiUVtL Qad tl n0 eOI�.�q d pe. .r•. Y_ cq�`. O at vG ... a O•d0 M� W. S~.L.tq ¢ ,ag p O C9 L A O..0 po•a_ONy tl� p9p 12o poAeu -+ c yi RE NLit V d� a: 4L .Li vO. [u L if Cy „G � E `o c o _ «u. of ca -�•-'°r vo'YN ca IA 6LC N.G ':iMCN 6.O+Na Maw •• 61 •V.y.• tl Gv y.O t?L Sr \cl \Ot .�••i ti C--33 �' to c L. GA d. S tii d a •u. us cc< ..y anx > c. Z V Pn.-.v L o O 6 p0 a 22 — O •.. ^O d t e u > z a C; U 2 A d Z P ^d c ,L mQoe o.-o d. '.� aeu or 7 oy rti E.co^� o � N.Gx � � <e.•• � a x < O.O. uV �p u UU•. o� d qC i O o p Lj O Y a 2 ♦ f- E L• d .y j <. L c a O^ G W L t •" CN C+• Cad `ii L O:dc E N L Il x O E L>G H a Y a ^ \m of Ij, c ♦d d d C L d d CO a m o a ^L a d q' P• �L Z l Cn c ^ � 6N q c N 0 q 9 2 ^ G ^♦♦ p E N yx du^ E u N� r O. yd .> de 'c°L ` nq. •S Ly6 O. i m e o� a n = Y o .•d z -x iY m ='Y 2-5 r t.NN L T 2 Rt iu E^ ^O COUO<QN III Eu u � � � U} W.CA i w.q E�• -I u YyNN 3d^ r Y i t.�. C L p < J .... a `L�� �^ C ^E� On •.0 .� d OCd A>.L. 9^+p EU6.a..a.4, a+i..m'.Y a V.N 1-6x Ru 6 t-0x+�q 6.Cp c 6w6A. W1i p�N�t`:. e � I '��� dy0 d�Od• �v C7 r .dv:' •. d 3 ¢ w EG Tom. < CO OLL 4C I t o m ci C N E Or O p O �— E 6a 3 �' U �yv Edo• Ep ._ OC ��� BEY °• t � .V C O > - Q dE« Ao 44 p.Ov Uq =Z4�E •O NFL :.�% v� .'.LL C•io aWi y�� s G O W e m LO` 4tlC. U.0 4i v . J �vLE n44mLL Q Eu °vi Vn K.d Y'^ L Ou !.r OL ^✓ `. ; ESA C,• E y w L�"• > L 4 Z. C O c^ Oc Lv Cvd 4E>1D,� 3` • L S 1-� .S Y�O Y .` a o 4 d T L 2 0 O LO E L U C E d u E 0 c a q w C C r >^ u p EE EN .w.v L Ed O _ q�NiO 6tir J 6� O ...d O Gi �T O � Ltl TgCN 1'4 TV N6 H.UW� S�GDIrN Lr n.urC N\ 6.dr v d:Y y] vt c•a 9d _ �a � � d� _t C j c wd 6 c w 6.L c c q q u o • o c uqq. Q.�.11 C vwG VN r6 C Yy yn wvL u Vy° E �y �pp' V rCY L P:.p.. '•Oa - Gv.� v V�o .. r O dt Grp r n V c .^ YLL q 7 N S A `� v 4 = NN .G.. O Yu _w z = Cn �� p v �vq nO CM ��GEi �00•C �`^ tC ."Z U Ly.• �_ Vdn ES DML 6v 1� M ry�en E :i aN.. Fwn 3. c ov L•' ae EO v . � w. Y C v L S • d G N•.. L L 4 dr w q 9 y i p ` e o «y- °nN a p e c..�e• qt. d va D mar a v E Jp� t p a >1� s2C awn4 o CD gip. dY � n 2 4L r Z.q E N O. tay r 3.._� N E q^ O.L Y. UO°•� 03.5 X 40cJ T CO�w O• Acip wu66 aq} Y.� CO. 4 G. Nam. 9 >\d TDq c C c 7G .E Opa W` 1p Nr�L. 4 LL L•i' . D C L Coy = C �, �• cV n. qt. L 12Ya O. Op... O�.O d.r. .Cps M.yy. ti y Y4 +L LGO r -j 'v.' pbELL 1.NL 4 H NL ua N c Ya JL6`c^ G M .c.yC Ju+.. Cw-- O C� wO..v..0p6 6r OY vbi.wn dl WW E.�... L>yC ES dYM:Y a W • FF,F" a. = d A N b J E O t0 L Y^ O Nw u $t. e r. d � a b d N —2 CO 6. Cw Y A.LGa �t A.SpCt OC ^.LO Wwp.W O ^V O � l LFt• N`p 6eL M1� � d tlG d. LC u y I, p„ O O q N N O V W N y 0Ei r� Y d ✓ r E.w ba 912p . L.>.E FEE p uo c ad.L � d i E p n q N p CC �A If u a q •^ D E L .� e. aL E � LLtC�. GCEVO OVA Y� > >• V^ a ^O pn-COS b G b 01 o a-- •O N V v L a C r A L ...+ U � d 2 f W j 1 bca c c ac s'• d e q Z SbA d .. �.0 rn c•n� p• y; CC a E mq �o O. U�y to e O �L. S9b..L Cti up y.h.. C a�V•,,. L. L d[T �.d0 6 '�6 w.GN Ot .0 S O C�q �O=BIT, d 9^ b p ! ^u 'q t a ! E.0 _ p a ss Y b U € q E yv b C a Cb ub- a tr3. oap EG •r L V6� p.p, V G N b 0 g n Ld •� N p q q f C ^ r ^ u.A.Y. p, V O. 'b A p pa, E Et Cr d� N� �•b ~ dC p'O �, C Vy C �� to L,•d d�.dG q. Qq N ANq dbO q J _ O = > NbL b .O P ui O Cp p V 4 L p i Ob 11.2 d btu CV a atE N n p p LE CN NC N.Q. N =OyuO.C• 2�N... ndb> Npa�yQ KOtt Nd. OA 2; u dd a N btn^. KAAQ 06^'E.d•V WN•O b•J YY b^�G LCL.. 1 N y Oy y E 1 i.• o n e C t C N V � � Z � L. � •L >N d. N.p Y � y q 41 sL a GE.e gr 72 d •� a ... `,r n .n n o� noa tE oya o O q Qom... E w 6 C 6.1 L W Q` qo ¢E q •pi m Y l � C � V qY. G�N ��u� � Ey d� � 'I CN U• rut dM1 •di D NQ C d OY 6C y 6 La v Ed =R gr p a h.E O 4 0 C^w O r0 E • .�L Y q.j O E L.. V d 3 r p A O E t W d N C N C L r "n Q _n d d Q= Td.�n Nti W. c vd— q N N �. cEi 2 N c QW Nr� 66•ti..0 L40. ^' Qu Z.5 m..N ru s n up vL Q v° 0I nl ml. qi. HI II ^� .v 'Y a L W Y dY.L.6.1 O N � ~ •�` v L O a n¢.� ` rnE mn o p a �?� _ L d .Laos O ^ L L Q A Q V N � d E y.. L O •Q � C Sa 6 p- W•' Nm yd 9a n ,co EdL. c ~'� w • tvtii u = E+Ya EE cc L O A t UE c G cp =co y.. Y•Y+� O 6 qN=•G f:O _� ju •N map C.. "IK a Q S YY S OL U A O~ N¢ ti � 9 C V 6 OL.NLI •O q •psi �+ c I ¢ N C L � N qO N a Old � as L a G O•C' p I O A. y Tb. C C q 4 G qA Y •nA '.t � 10 O •- C.41 040 •' to YL C A y Su } n aY•^ O ul u. C L yin Od O � EE L <� E4 Ta• VOL 4 a=_�. o `.N 'u.F..cu M Lo O O �� gVAd nS- L =tor A' 4114 OHO �• 3 A T� - m �c' 4 s�v e L � - c u ` •Y c Y ' 6 O:� A >Y `� pV � V> T p • 4a� Y rV „ L g n. G p•^NA y 12 C C9t Z T � ^ f L9 A a_' a• A 4 O O N a 9 L O.4 C C L V V V 9. YO ZN �•r.� d CO.� W 9L A� O CO YtE p n4. OC> 4V. G.LN `T� IW OIW �•„ 4 C pGp N` 4��. C I 9 �— O T •.•.— O t •.• A 4^ t rM•O r� F•w..� 46N 4N JZ.00 O 4a^ 4=•' L4 Dr C C m �' 3rf VV f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT o 0 Z v > DATE: November 13. 1985 tsn M Planning Commission FROM: darrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9350 - WILLIAM LYON CO. - A division of 103.34 net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Planned Community Project located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenue APN 227-081-06 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map B. Purpose: To divide 103.34 net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Planned Community C. Location: North side of Base Line Road between Milliken and Rochester Avenue D. Parcel Sizes Parcel 1 19.68 acres Parcel 2 - 25.39 acres Parcel 3 - 34.27 acres i, Parcel 4 - 24..00 acres E. Existing Zoning: Residential F. Existing Land Use: Vacant k G. Surrounding Land Use: i North'- Vacant, Victoria Planned Community South - Vacant, Terra Vista Planned Community East - Lumber Yard West - Vacant, Terra Vista Planned Community H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Desi nations North - Residential, proposed school park site South - Residential with Neighborhood Commercial on S.W.C. Milliken and Base Line East - Residential I Aft West Proposed park site ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9350 November 13, 1985 Page 2 I• Site Characteristics: to he The site is vacant and slopes approximately 2.5% II. ANALYSIS. The applicant is requestng to divide 103.34 net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Planned Community for future development of residential projects. (Exhibit 11C1, The parcels of this parcel map corresponds to the subareas Victoria Vineyards. South Area Plan, which was Commissions on October shown on the 23, 1985, (refer to ,Exhibit 11Bu)app_oved by the The off-site improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy for each parcel as it develops. III. ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW: is Part I of the InitialAStudlso atas completed for your review and t. Staff'has completed Part II of the, Initial SStudy, the en the applicant. Staff has has conducted afield investigation. the environmental checklist, and Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts o g !Upon completion and review of tift the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. !V• CORRESPONDENCE- Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding proper°:y— o ers and placed in the Dail Report Newspaper. the site has also been completed. Y Rat Posting at V. RECOMMENDATION: I,` is recommended that the Planning Commission con all input and elements of Tentative Parcel Ma 9350. consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, thenIf the adoption Of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative then the a rpti on be appropriate. Rould Respectfully submitted, BRH:JS:de Attachments: Vic'nity Map Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Ini'tlal Study �r WIL5ca AVE. ui T > a c c � a HIGH�/ D f GVE. 00 PROJECT ST. I PriGIFK R!R !A/E UNE AVE. VICIN MA! M.'r 5. Lt;e'�Slp CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN title; IONGA f y Parcel Mao 9350 z ENGINEERING DIVISION A �1977 VICINIT'i MAT N pageawfisrrig' CJ I F- Zi Q a� cn ca ��,�•�Cr " � sic ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ < ' raj ae r F o c, ,_: o -�-- } ~ m w n. I m e r r r; < l �? 4 g a a `) 4, r 'j p ,� o o N. a. 4 V N CL LU• � W Z . �J Vl o �3� 2 >Z a • ,- q J 'Zyo 0-'3 0 � Oo _ 1 �-M� W ca.. 2. :.. cm •..� NNN.• gg $ W j€€ J Lu mco x •J i a o't * I t r �s cc CITY or- RANCHO CL IT t: ��101�ir1 ta` PLAINNI\G DIV SION E11 JIGIT-�e --�---scram -- j II E5 ���- 3rrc�Y mjs�aaj` �,`,i'y• _... (�r� O � 1 1' 's • .ram �. ''1 it ��;� 1 _ i [ pp I{ ��, ... •I }!i rig. �� i.�1 'i•� } .mid . t�r�,� � .r 11 t .•i ik t LLPJ JL cq WZ If It M r1 ..r j.SidgE 1-2 a Ci - till - Q f4 1J. l �•• � �)((71 t t ' •\ i�• 1'd. ¢Q '�.dr as CL 34 Zia • �Y3'��811Y i✓3WM - :C:� ,fin �q: RESOLUTION NO. • F A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9350 (TENTATIVE PARC°L MHr NO.. 9330) LOCATED NORTH SIDE BASE LINE ROAD BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND ROCHESTER, AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9350, submitted by William L)r;t Company and c ,sisting of 4 parcels, located north side Base Line Road between Milliken and Rochester Avenue, bring a division of a portion of Section'31; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of.the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above &scribed map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1 That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is pE: aically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environment al-impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9350 is approved subject to the recomman a onditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF POVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C' ' 0. RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman i D� ATTEST- -Brad Buller, Depu_y Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regullrly introduced', passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commis:„;ion held on the 13th day of Noveidber, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 1 r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: North of Base Line Road', between TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9350 Milliken and Rochester Avenue DATE FILED: June 27, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Subdivision portion of NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 _Section 31, Township I north, Range 7 West. GROSS ACREAGE: 103.34 S.B. Meridian ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 227-081-06 DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR William Lyon Company Same Morse Cor dlting Group_ 8540 Archibald Avenue 4860 Irvfne Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA a , Irvine, CA 92714 Improvement and dedication rcnlei Penns in accordance with Title. 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access X 1. 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: 60 total feet on Milliken Ave from centerline of street 56 total feet on Rochester Ave from centerline of street 60 total feet on Base Line Road from canter ine of street 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. Recivroral access easements and maintenance agreements ensurinq access to all parcels and jcint maintenance of all comnr:I roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&h. and shalt be recorded concurrent with the map. -L- D-g X 6. All existing easements lying within f,ture right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer' requirements. X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 1636.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. X 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, carb and gutter, A,C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. X 2. A minimum of 2E-foot Wide pavement Witi°`rlin a 40-foot Yfde dedicated right-cf-way shall be constricted for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following miss'nc improvements: Prior to building permit issuance for each parcel. Curb & A,C. Side- Drive Street Street. A.C. Median Street Name Gu"ker Nat. Walk Agpr. Tree;: Lights Overlay Island* OtherAft Milliken Ave X X **X X X_ X X Base Lire Rd. X X **X X X X X Rochester Ave X X **X X X 7 _ *Includes landscaping and irrigation on ccn ,r• **Meandering Sidewalk 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 EngineL `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, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing lines of less than 66KV fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs,,: istriping and markings with locations end types approved by the City Engineer . I _ a a X 9.. Street light locations, as required,, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and i:he City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decurative poles with underground service. X 10. Landscape and. irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X 11. ConcentratcC drainage flows shall" not cross 'sidewalks. Undursidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. C. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfac`i;on of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guarantet.Iag completion of the public improvements prior to recording for (see Special Conditions). _ 2. A lien agreement my!.t be executed prior to recording of the map fo- the following:__ -- X 3. Surety sh,,Ol he posted and an agreement executed', guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels 13 the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to recording for Flrcel Map 9350. D. 6ruina2e and Flood Control 1. Privat-e drainage easements fi=yr cross-lot drainage shall be regi0 red and shall bP delineated or noticed on the final map.. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drzinage entering the property from adjam_ areas. X 3. The following storm drain shall be installO to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (see Special Conditions) X 4. Prior to rec,:rdation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall lie submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention boa in per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff lift -3- r Allk X 9•- Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Cucamonga. Lights Edison Company and the City of Rancho Y ?�all be on decor atve underground service. poles with X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to ,end approved by the Planning Division prior tc the issuance of building permit. X •_ 11, Concentrated drainage flows shall nut cross sidewalks. Urdersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. C_ Surea X 1. Surety shall be posted and tin agreement executed to the satisfaction Of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public. 'Improvements prior L3 recording for (see Special Conditions'. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the m.ip for the following: -- X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guarar`geirg I' completion of all on-site drainage facilites necess for d%atering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City, veer prior to recording for Parcel Map 9350. } Da Oraina a and Flood Cont�•ci1 1. o•ivate 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 ent— na the property from adjacent areas. _X__ 3. Tha. fallowing storm drain s",`1 be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 'zee Special Conditions) X 4, Prior to recorditioi of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. n. . A drainage detention h& hl per City Standards shall, be constructed to detain increased runoff _3_ ,C1.; E. Gradinc; X 1. Grading uF the subject property shall be in accordance with th Uniform' Bvild;'ng Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. _ X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such �.ork prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitte3 at th time of applic,tion or grading plan check. 4. Me 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 bu%lding permit wh'chever comes first. 5. F,ra. -grading pidns for each parcel Are to be submitted to the Euilding and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. ,enzral Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will he required as fol;;:�s: .• 11'rans for San Bernardino County I-(cod Control Dis,crict X Cucamonga County Water District for saner and water X_ San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) f Other 2. A cor;y o` the Covenants, Conditions and ;iOstrictions (C.C.&R.$) j approvE6 by the City Attornry is requi;.? prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide O l utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas anti telephone prior to street constructor. V X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water Distn,t standards. A letter of acceptance is t required. S. This subdivision shall be subject. to conditions of a;;?roval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secureca from all utilities and other' interested ag-=ies involved. Approval of the final map toil ; be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. t, _4_ X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at, the time building permits are requested,, When buildiig permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will 1-3 asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maxir,,am slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be-submitt,d to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for - and/or prior to building permit issuance for 9. P*ior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated colt of apportioning the assessments 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 arrd/or showing original land division; tie notes and bench marks referenced. G. Soecial Conditions AdIhL A. Streets X 1. Twi 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. X 2. for Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road construct full improvements for the roadbed adjacent to the oroject area, full Tedian, and a minimum 18' AC paved width within the roadbed on the other side of the median for opposing traffic. The length of roadway to be constructed with individ+..al projects will be determined on a project by project basis and will be dependent upon the establishment transitions to meet existing pavement, median opening; etc. The cost of one h;'7 of the mee.'an island and the additinal 18' of pavement in the adjacent roadbed shall be subject to reimbursement from the adjacent property Owner upon that properties development. -5- t;: X 3. The Rochester Avenue typical section shall be modified as follows: a. The curb shall be`placed at 72' from tht existing curb on the east side of the street (40' fr'om the existing centerline), and b. The right of way line shall be 14' from ,the curb line (54' from the existing centerline). X 4. Additional pavement widths and dedications may be required for turn lanes on all streets at the;intersect'ms of Milliken and Rochester Avenues with Base Line Road. Final dedication requirements shall be determined prior to recordation of the Final 'Map, X 5. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer- and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the street improvements on the entire Loop Road from Base Line Road near Milliken Avenue to Base Line Road near Rochester Avenue prior to recording of Parcel Map 9350 and constructed with the first phase of development of Parcel 2. X 6. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to Vie satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of a storm drain within the Loop Road and Base Line Road to Rochester Avenue prior to recording o Parcel Map 9350 and shall be constructed wi.h the first phase of development of Parcel 2. X 7. Prior to recordation, a Not:,;e of Intention to form and/or join Landscape and lighting :11stricts shall be filE�d with the City Council. B. Drainage X 1. A revised storm drain master ,plan for the entire area shall be completed by the developer's engineer and approved the City Engineer prior to the scheduling of the first project for Planr.'ng Commission approval, X 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. �1 X 3. Interim drainage. protection measures for flows from the area to the north shal'i be conceptually designed and approved prior, to scheduling, of the first project for Planning Commission approval. X If i.eveiopment proceeds prior to the improvement of bay Creek Channel, a retention basin may be required to reduce the peak runoff from the development. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMGWGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: i I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA :,JCA STAFF REPORT f 0 0 � DACE: NovEmbei- 13, 1985 U _1977 > - TO Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8787 - HIGHLAND HAVEN ASSOC. - A Division of 48.319 acres into 4 parcels located in the. Low Medium. Development District (4-8 du/ac) located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue at 19th Street (APN 202-211-36) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of parcel map B. Purpose: To divide 48.319 acres into 4 parcels for futLre single family tract development. C. Location: Southside of Highland, east of Haven Avenue at 19th Street D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 15.472 acres Parcel 2 - 32.522 acres Parcel 3 0.233 acres Parcel 4 - 0.092 acres E. Existing Zoning: Low Medium Development District (4-8 du/ac) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surroundinq Land Use: North - Vacant - Location of future freeway South Vacant - Tentative Tract No. 11606 East Deer Creek Channel and vacant land West - Existing sfnC;e family tract H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North ;'reeway Corridors Medium du/ac and nedium High (du/ac) Development Distric` South Low Develo�.,ient District (2-4 du/ac) East Victoria Planned Community AML Vest Low Development District (2-4 du/ac) - ITEM E ;a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT' Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8787 November 13, 1985 Page 2 AMIk I. Site Characteristics: The site .slopes approximately 2% to 3% in a southerly direction and is covered with sage brush and grasses. II. ANALYSIS: The main purpose for this parcel map is to 'create two large parcels, 1 and 2 as shown on the tentative map, which can be developed as separate tracts in the future. Parcels 3 4 are essentially residual parcels created by the required street pattern. Parcel 3 will be developed as a single family residence taking its access from Inyo Place. Parcel 4, because of its sub-standard size and access limitations, will be. dedicated as street right of way, resulting in the final parcel map containing only 3 parcels,Public improvements will be deferred until development of the parcels. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed ',y the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, ar,y has conducted a field investigation. Upon cimpletion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a 'result of the proposed _jbdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding ACA proper y owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed, V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input-E elements of Tentative Parcel Map 8787. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption -of the attached Resolution and iF,uance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, BRH:9K•de Attachments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study 2J 7 - , JTn> /e ✓/r0 TR`b e-W 7z37 ti w 2 HVb�j•6!Lb 04� C` ���, ite t 2 y `n a .I �. � 7ik.p.• r1 t, T _r f � a ?PACT --- CVO YOf/CM SPUR•• f0. Tf �. �..' ° �9434 i/e rdd I: lb � r tiu .aT�n w. ° � / � �. ,• aver- -i'�_�' �• �f/ � lI AIi. _..ve.ems/ si•7!-/i9/L• ,I.7s :R - • AEI l.^ a `TA:/ti-SV�b - M of-. ..Q q ��a .sr.. .__ TE2AGT 12809,,t`°t AML CITY OF PROJECT PARCEL MAP-`sus RANCHO CU'CAMONGA s. Ti ��=E VICINITY MAP 1.. ENGINEERING DIVISION � EXHIBIT,_ 11 A TENTATiVE PARCEL MAP 84-8787 BE it!A PORTION U SECTION$,TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,RANGE.7 WEST.SAN. 8ERNAROINO BASE 8 NEODIAM LY;HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,'000NTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.STATE OF CAUFORNIA. gouty* ijlo WJvls mst. ti�` Cr.uL.caentm. sim. tv R316.fTaJer Vf. y�soa ua,G. tsrm m. e.ec ..ostr �mom:-.b,u —vs+,u•e..Jo �. f.ewc xre.0'Im rs.ww.ss„ir,,, `m9Cf• -}•=-���n•+•>,cz.ot�. .t.f _•s�uaa.sa.w.♦.cru+..Q��TWT TIO KEG([ • Ht'.o�'+..`�'�� Z•SS:d!H FEF�1 4 acsM 'z i 5��'�:i ��, •� / =_p-era"_ � LL ARCEI 3 I o�zis'acl �t13T1.. I �.♦ 1 t ! IJ F-LEI--r--, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE "ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8787 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8787 LOCATED SOUTHSIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AT 19TH STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8787, submitted by Highland- Haven Assc•.iates and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the southside of Highland k.9nue, east of Haven Avenue at 19th. Street, being a division of a .. portion of Section 36, Township North, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and A` Meridian in the City of Raxho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, Stake of California; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 1985, a formal application vas submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-esscribed map. `- NSW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: ;. 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. I 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects va abutting proper-:y. SECTION 2: Th c this project wily not L,eate significant adverse environmental impacts ?rid a Negative Declarecian is issued .on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel ftp No. 8787 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining th3reto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING CO" MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CJCAMONG.4 BY: Dennis L. !tout, Chairman �-S ATTEST• Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify th t the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comrnssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of NovemLar, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: k NOES: COMMISSIONE RS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Am CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ..00ATION; southside of Hghland Avenue TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8787 east of Haven Avenue at 19th Street DATE FILED: February 42 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:_•EIL ion of Section 36, NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 T.I.N., R. 7 W., S.B.B.& M. GROSS ACREAGE: 48.319 ASSESSOR t'c'tCEL 110: DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Glenfed Development — Anacal Engineers 2710 Winona Avenue P.O. Box 3668 Burbank, CA 91504 Anaheim, CA 92803 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordarn• with T'tle 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Ct ;zmanga 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: 88 total feet on 19th Street 66 total feet on Hi hland Avenue Connector Rcad P total feet on Inyo Place X 3. Corner property line raeius will be required per City Standards. x It. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 19th Street fronting Parcel 3. 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all commn roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R'.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. -1- E-r1 6. Ai' existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to ANK be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where side,v°alks meander through private property. B. Street Improvements ua Fursnt to the Ctty of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation ofthe map and/or building permit issuance, 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights ci all interior streets. 2. A minimmi 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 fallowing missing improvements per Special Conditions G.I. ur e- Drive reef xeet Street Name GuttE Pvmt, W -e ian Walk Apr. Trees Li hts overlay Island* Other Highland X X X X 19th St. X X X X r Highland- b X X X Oonrprtor Inyo Plaic,N X X X x X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter X 4. Prior to any work being Pet-formed it 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 ,armits required:. X S. Street improvement ola:js shall be prepared by a. Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance tf an encroacriiient permit• _. Developer shall coordinate me where necessary, n?y for the relocation of any power' pones or other existing public utilities as necessary, X 7. Existing lines of 12KV er less fronting the Property shall be undergrounded. -2- S 07 1 Q 0 1 nda C . c Paddf X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control sigr , striping and, markings,with locations and types approved by the City Engineer, 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 irrigation plans shall be .submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 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 permit issuance on individual parcels. 2. A Tian agreement must be executed prior to recording of U.e map for the following: AOL 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, gu<;, anteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dawatering-all parcels to the satisfaction of the Build#rig and Safety Divison prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit for " D. Drainage and Flood Control 1. private drainage easements for cross-lnt drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. Z. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. X 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (see Condition G.- 4) 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- —`7 E. Grading Aft X_ 1. Grading ;of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. Tha final grading plan shall be in substantial _conformance with the approveu conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils repotlt -hall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit, 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall 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 t-o be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of buildng permit. $. F. General ReGuicements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows X CalTrans for Highland Ave,., 19th St., and Highland Connector Road. X San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading oermit) Other I; ` -2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is rec--fired prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. f, X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. -4- 5--/O . Ask 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. X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that -sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water ➢istrict will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building issuance for g per^�i 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels. X_ 10. At the time of final map submittal, the ' rations shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse cal rations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used a 'reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. �� S ecial Conditions X 1. The limits of roadway to be constructed with individual parcels will be determined on a project by project basis and will be dependent upon the establishment of logical roadway limits at the time of development of the parcels. X 2. Parcel 4 shall be dedicated to the City for right of way purposes resulting in a final parcel-map containing 3 parcels. X 3. The aTignment of 19th Street and the Highland Avenue connector Road shall be approved by Cal Trans prior to final parcel map approval. X 4. Master Plan Storm Crain Lines 4P and 4N shall be constructed at the time of development of the parcels. Aft CITY OF-RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B.JHUBBs, CITY ENGINEER .�-1 j `cam°ALL/ L_ C9 ENVIRONY _NTAL REVIEW {o APPIICATIOI� z 1977 INITIAL STUDY PART I GENERAL For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project_ application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Planning Division staff will prepare Part II' of the Initial Study,and make recommendations to Planning Commission., The Planning Commission will make one of three determinations: (1) The _project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declara� ion 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: Tannary -An. l Qpc; Project Tit)e: .VILLAGE GLEN .` Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone.: �PwFED'p•.En,T.O MFNm r_32r_ 16601 Ventura Blvd Encino Ca �4�6 (A n' hr. �: n� 8) 905- Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted 3 044 Concerni-9 this Project: J D. Os (above) or Tarr-, nl Ja qRq—dn 1 Z l 6634 Carnelial, Ave. Rancho CUamonaa, Ca. gY�ni_e Location of Project: SE Corner of i g+t, Assessor's Parcel No.: 202-211-36 List other permits necessary from "local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: Stae_Qf California - Cad+,-any (Route 30 - Highland Ave.) phase ILL. San Bernardino County Flood Control :veer Creek) Phase III. r_t PROJECT DESCRIPTION AM Proposed.use oV` proposed projects 260 single family detached homes and two recreational centers. Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings,. if any: The proiect area'ia approximately 37'5-acres with no existing ildinQs. The-Rronosed buildings will have square footacres of 1 100 1280 1439 and 1646. Describe the environmental setting of the project site including information on topography, soil stability, plants (ICIrees), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the 'description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets):. The Aroiect is an a 19. to 3$ slope with stable soil The proneity is Presently covered with some sage brush no trees and enerous amounts of arba e. There are a few survivin onhers sgut•, els snakes. There are no cultural historical or scenic aspects to this ro'ert A A V The surrounding Properties are existing residential or proposed residential projects-. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a ..eries of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact No, i' I-z F-f3 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO, Am 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes i;, the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? X Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project will generate daily: 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project: 9 trips per home times 260 homes-equals 2,340 trips-a slay. 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this project, in cubic yards: approximately 100,000 cut & 100,000 fill 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page: ; CERTIFICATION; I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and• information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be ade by the Planning Division. a Date: Jan. 30,• 1985 Signa�t � T tle Law2ence O. -Bliss I-3 E—/ RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AV The followin5 information should ble provided to the City of Rancho CucamonIga 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.:GLEN FED DEVELOPMENT CORP. Tract No. 12952 Specific Location of Project:SE corner or 19th Street and Palm Drive.- PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 MM TO" 1. Number of single #5,6, #7 family units: 40 31 25 40 39,41,44 2E 2. Number of multiple family units: 3_ Date proposed to begin construction: BlIg as Feb 86 Aug 86 Feb 87 8/87,2/88,8/8f 4, Earliest date of occupancy: 3-86 8--86 2-87 8-87 2/88,8/88,2/8! Modem and # of Tentative w 5. Bedrooms Price Range #1-2Bd $95,000 #2-3Bd $100,000 #3-3Bd $105,000 ;a #4-3Bd 110,000 I-4 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cvCAA STAFF REPORT O p O E- L� Z DATE: November 18, 1985 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krali, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9508 - LANDCO - A division of 2.26 acres of land into 2 prcels in General Industrial Area (Subarea No. ,10) located on the northside of 7th Street between Milliken Avenue and Bridgeport Place I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of parcel map B. Purpose; To create, separate parcels for existing buildings C. Location: Northside of 7th Street between Milliken Avenue and Bridgeport Place. D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 1.0 acres Parcel 2 - 1.26 acres 'total 2.26 acres E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea No. 10) . F. Existing Land Use: Existing concrete tilt up building Bldg. "A" Parcel 2 is 22,653 sq. ft., Bldg. "B" is 20,642 sq. G. Surrounding Land Use: North - Existing Industrial Building South- Existing Industrial Building East - Existing Industrial Building G West - Vacant H. Surrourding Indus*riai Spy^i�ic Plan 0esf nations: North General Industrial Subarea 10 South - General Industrial (Subarea 11) East - General Industrial (Subarea 10) West General Industrial (Subarea 10) I. Site Characteristics: Two industrial concrete tilt up buildings exist on the site. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9508 November 13, 1985 Page t II. ANALYSIS: This parcel map creates separate parcels for two existing . industrial buildings constructed on one parcel as Development:Review No. 84-35 approved by the Planning Corrmissicn on October 24, 1984. Off-site improvements are existing. III. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, ;and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and-review of the Initial Study and field investigation; Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consid?r all input and elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9508. ' 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. Respectfully submitted, BRH:BK:de Attachments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study r � Subar83� ' Z z nv, � F 1�-► 1 ] `S�` f 1 U �'SItG OC t 1 :.... , subsea � r771 x r Lu` snb +4 0 y iY Cl' Y O� PROJECT- RANCHO PARCEL MAP.;;950$ CUljAMONGA TITLE: VICINITY MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT; � ii i, SHEET 1 OF I SHEET TENTATIVE t�SS ACRES:226 ACRES ENTATIVE PARCELS•2 T CROSS PARCEL MAP Na. 9508 SCALE'I•50' APN-229-291-70 IN THE CITY'PARCEL CUCAMONGA.COUNTY OF 3AN BERNARDINO,STATE OF . . CALIFORNIA. .� BEING A DIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL 1U1P 7353 AS OF'PAR EL NAPS SHOWN ON A MAP FLED IN BOOK A,PAW 42 AND 43 C ,RECORDS.OF 3AtD COURT Y. ! - J03EPH C.TRUXAW RCE IORT SURVEYED: AA3JST 1984 ,) ' c.a1 N OtYce�AuenumLl �.c. I•')-. NEWPORT 1'in�lip°»' esntlATt],rx. Aw11.auk e � �_ e!¢aYSLO nw).w:rwnr w•1K C 4TeW a\tenl Ip - ! n !!!nl]S aat1�,1��lW aWU.eaLnYtL }ut R M�'ra0i+q.WRTTIMr lltlj alp lip IiA.�ull) wsA)lWG L{L1:t801tn.iluL/ cs aAtm a:saa sa• a rsk ul1 T�'•+.rt.1rA•1�+e�mun o.aar (. (. ,�$ �.`�•• DRNE' I�YV tIK p[tiMp1W t)¢vmrAAT Mnpy asl. •1f wt1AC'/L ;1t a ti•�/' 3S 9 _ ��K• l tY R.1n1 �. c+a RmT wam)na lawl,.tem+AlLs l-rw $///��1:: - � �— _illl amine Icawm otuvr w _ r am�rual.dYamcnmt. z PARCEL! I S W LOD ACRES �. o a+clm-1 ula— ,l} wew) snot:sAuaa Yr.a�L i �.Ylar1 •:-�• \� - ��r,'l��n�-� � � Tin T�iloo`Iltni+su'e�ra ..arc,-r ns.JA• �' � ( OLa j 1 } ( PARCEL 2 a aME DATA TA etf t J_ L26 ACRES • ({.... , rue> Y• Y• uYl x 9 �•J" (.L-pi y g c- Fr— IDa. vntTL\ • YN•LratK X� L llu.4nY)aca0 �[:ii f 1R•. LMR,S uYaa.�l„zr,� Ytit SEVENS ) ,, (/ Y srcm..nLn,.nawes an DI ii+a YAmtwvlu l)11 w.>11 yam:.to wsiv. ol � �1./ TBi.a[Ltil uWnyl , 1 l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projec}s requiring environmental review, this form must be Completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take actionno later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. Tb Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no sign .- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied b the applicant pp y pp giving furtheiinforma- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLES Tentativg Parcel Man 9508 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:Landco , Allan Gardner 10534 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA6/0-1188 NAME,. ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Joseph C. Truxaw & Assoc. Inc. 1244 Eisner Pl. , Anaheim. CA 92801 714 535-0135 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) N-E Corner Seventh St. & Milliken Ave. AFN ZZ9-Z61-70 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NA I-1 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF :`ROJECTt Snbdi yi de nnp; narrel i ntn ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF A1'Y Pro;er1- Are^• 9ti pnrpc Existing AtiTd'ngcj Al$g nAn 72 651 ft grnco Rl dg ��B 0-649 cn f� _orocc DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHI, PLANTS (TREES), AN!NTALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRDCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : This site is-a nart of he Rancho amonga Tnft„cr r. Two indus ria one ete surrounded by Darkinv and landscaping. The Drooerties to the North—Fact Industrial Buildings and sssori-,i-pit part i ng and ,a ,c,tirani�s>� The Dropertv_ to the West is ,rrentl > >an -1i,i rpmainC of inactive vinevards visible. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? I-2 t ` WILL THIS PROJEC?c YES Na X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours: X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? Remove any existing trees? How many? X 5. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fIammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above; IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation «a, to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I urther understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Signature Title C ' 1 1-3 I `i RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 4 The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid isi assessing the ability of the school district to accom.-nodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract. No.: Specific Location of Project: 1. Number of sin PHASE-I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 9 family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin constriction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model # and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms . Price Range I-4 r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9508 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9508 LOCATED NORTHSIDE OF 3TH BETWEEN MiLLIKEN AVENUE AND BRIDGEPORT PLACE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9508 submitted by Landco and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the northside of 7th between Milliken Avenue and Bridgeport Place being a division of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 7555 recorded in Book 77, Pages 42 & 43 of Parcei Maps, County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent wi.h the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is phys• ly suitable for zha proposed develGpment. 4. That the propused subdivisict, d improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaratirn is issued on November, 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9508 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY::IT;nr Stour t, Ghairmaii— AQk ATTEST: Brad Buller, Depuuy'Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of ' Rancho Cucamonga,, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul, and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plarning Commission of the City of -.ancho Cucamonga, at a rr -. r meeting of the Planning Comnission held on the Jth day of November, iy the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: k ' T--1 a CI1Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: northside of 7th Street between TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9508 Milliken Avenue and Bridgeport Place -DATE FILED: September 24, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: being a division of NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 7555 recorded in GROSS ACREAGE: 2.26; - Book 77, Pages 42 & 43 of Parcel Maps ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 2<?9-261-70 Cu;!nty of San Bernardino, State of California DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Landco Same _ Joseph Truxaw & Associates 10534 West Pico Blvd. 1244-Eisner Place Los Angeles, CA 90064 Anaheim, CA 92801 Improvement and dedication -requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited Aft 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 shownon the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the following streets; additional -Feet on i. additional feet on additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius Standards. will be `required per City f X 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: on Milliken Avenue as dedicated on Parcel Map 7555 X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or delineated on f the map. _1- 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaif�ed or delineated on the map per City Engineer' requirements: 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through ' r r ivate property. B. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16-36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation and/or building permit issuance. 1. -Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, ,parkway trees and street lights on all inte rior error streets. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half section streets. 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to recordation for Fehr to building permit issuance tor Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Median Aft Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr, Trees Lights Overiay Island* Othermp *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter 4. Pri.or to any work being performed in the pi.bl i c right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City 'Engineer'- Office, in addition to 'any other' permits required. 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. 6. Developer shall coordinate and, where necessary,. pay for the- relocation of any pol„er .poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. - 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. 5. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings =:th locAtions and fi approved by the City Engineer. -2- ,t 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern Californ',a Edison Company and the C-ty of Rancho Cucamonga. CigOts shall be, on decorative poles with und.--raround service. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans :iW l be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows _hall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be 'installed to City Standards. C. Surety 1. Surety shall be pasted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing+ completion of the public improvements prior to recording for and/or prior to building permit issuance for 2. A liar agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divisl+n prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit for 0. Drainage and Flood Control X 1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal 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 stud for the project Y p ject shall be submitted to the City Engineer for revie w. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- E. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance `with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards< and accepted grading pract :,as. The final grading plan shall be in substantial con.-ormance with the approved conceptual grading plan 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of ouilding permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified 'engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review ,nd approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whicheaer comes first. 5. Final grading plans for -:ich parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of bui;ding permit. F. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement ('required prior to issuance of a r g adin permit) Oth er 9P ) 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. s. Provide all utility`services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. 4. Sanitary sewerand water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Watar District Ftandards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans)4lan Bernardino County flood Control District. 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- 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time.building-permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County .Dater District wil'.' be asked to certify the availability of capacity. rermits will not be issued unless said certifications is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximuri slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and 'approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit issuance for x 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments 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 (she.;ts),, copies of recorded [saps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks" referenced. G Special Conditionsc x I. Notion of intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape district shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation of the final map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON6A` _5_ — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ito G`QAX1-STAFF REPORT Cy L' f C p DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL 'USE PERMIT 85-17 FOR KIDS ONLY - To =flow construction of 'a 9,260 square foot preschool on i.18 acres of Land in the Low Fesidential District (2-4 du/ac) located on the south side ,f Base Line, east of Turner - APN 1077-061-09. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan, elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning- North Mobile home park, Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). South - Existing single family ; Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). East - Existing single family; Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). West - Vacant; Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). C. General Plan 'Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). North - tow Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). South - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). East Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). West Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). D. Site Characteristics: The project site has a grade ifferential of 3.5 feet from Base Line Road with the remainder of the site sloping at 32 from north to south. An existing single family residence, and accessing structures currently occ ipy the site, and have been slated for removal. The site has a number of medium-size pine trees worth preserving along thF, east property line and one 30" (dia.) tree adjacent to the front entry (see Exhibit "H"). The developer has indicated a desire to preserve or re-locate as many trees as possible. E. Applicable Regulations: Day care facilities are allowed in residential districts subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CUP 85-17 November 13, 1985 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The project proposed envisions a 9,260 square foot child-care/elementary facility comprising one large building (adm nistrative/pre-school) connected by a breezeway/patio to two smaller classroom buildings in the rear (see Exhibit "C"). The remainder of tine slIte will be devoted to paved/sand play areas, playground equipment, and nature area. The site will have_a combination 6' high block wall with large specimen size trees along the west, east, and south property lines for screening and bufferin play' areas 'From the adjacent residential neighborhood ?see Exhibit "G") This facility will have approximately 120 students O th a student/teacher ratio of 10:1. The following is a detaki'?ed breakdown of the student population: Pre-School = 80 students, 9 teachers Elementary = 25-40 students, 1 teacher The project has adequate internal circulation and sufficient parking area to mitigate vehicle stacking problems. In addition, 32 on-site parking stalls are provided with a drop- off zone for students located adjacent to the front entry (see E;;nibit "CII). 8. Design Review Committee: During the Committee's initial review of the project, the following cc,-nments were provided. o Realignment of the drive approach towarus the front entrance of the building and elimination of the circular turning aisle (see Exhibit "D"). o _ Enhancement and up-grade of proposed architecture (see Exhibit "F") in terms of a design statement and compatibility with neighborhood character. 'As a result of Committee's comments, the applicant submitted a new architectura' -grogram (see Exhibit"E") designed more to a scale for children. ^, high windows were added for more natural lighting and windov were brought down to accommodate children. The elevations we, fled to residential proportions and unique architectural et.mm....ts were provided to have a positive effect on children. Staff notes that the proposed architectural style is significantly different from the neighborhood of tract homes to the east. The building is setback 200 feet from Base tine and dense landscaping is provided along the east property line. r• Ask PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CUP 85-17 November 13, 1985 Page 3 C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed and approved the proposal subject to fire-protection measures incorporated in the building design, access -gates at the east and south property Tines and 26' width fire lane from the adjoining southerly street (Kinlock Avenue). D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicants Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that the site is subject to noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn. General Pian olicies consider noise levels between 60 Ldn and 70 Ldn to be "conditionally acceptable" for schools and require a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements in the building design. The noise study will be required as part of building plan check. Playground areas are located at rear of site and are shielded by buildings and would not exceed 60 Ldn, therefore, do not require noise mitigation. A copy of Part II of the environmental checklist is attached for your review and consideration. If the Commission concurs with said findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration s:o4Id be in order. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plum and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent p-operties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCEc This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing. The property was pasted and notices advertising the public hearing were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, a neighborhood meeting was held on Tuesday, October ist to receive inp0 from the surrounding neighborhood. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission can support the facts for finding, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would b�: *. appropriate. Respect�fuullIlyy submitted, Brad Buller City Planner L :B:HF:.Ko G -_3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONME.'TAL ASSESSMENT AND CUP 85-17 November 13, 1985 Page 4 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 118" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Revised Site Plan Exhibit "O" - Original Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Revised Elevations Exhibit "F" Original Elevations Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Landscaping Plan Exhibit "H" - Grading Plan Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions •"' ■ ♦�i :u1.t1N111■Ii1ulI1NM II • I• " _11111 M�III■■I/t•1�-tl■■Wp 11� •I` Z"IIN I r � ii�l_I. ` • III mu a . .o. I ♦ WIv/1Y1� �, �� �lIIIIIIYIi111NN\:NNt/M1fIMIw� • lime ��"'�: E����,>: ■ ■ �A= ��.I� EL' P••.. li_I - tut /_t � --- .i Em ltf,.uY f LFNjr•,,,ii1fuuN.:'I■i 1WI1u •itlll�/ t1I YiS■lY ■N r•pA����-�_ � c��i�la�tNta 1 •y---L a •.M Illilll■M � . E E - 111"1 � �� ��rrw ■ I. NUNy .v I ,1 ��• ■rNr■rI■I ��.I�MAI� -� �`r•�Ir � � ■ �� ■�i1Y1' fi101. I-1RIU• ••� - 4■/u T • "I � c �-��-�� a� 'f•,•ma's;' 'I'm 1• .� � i cn 41 F f ,�. " •' � a•1't Tr Sa�. "I`2a iRt rCl•Ca eQt _a sr �•d. _� � . rl i I Z Ift o I� � ; j. N � •ia.M:. f I� g Z 2 � a a p o e os 4 n my tL m az � my ...-.*-,,.., ..,... f IM I. s _ i �`---�: �/v � � ,; ' /,--,\ --'�, gig• �; J fy it VIC all I s{pi 6i" 3 � lb 17 t.j l _ I y a - o F j - i m i r Im mK m r - C D m � -i Y o m Q< (�/) z p Cf) z 1, o - m - r 1 m tk�0-,," m a x f m o 11 H = m . I �S m O C U) '> - o °1 .: y� iS 4 s siR Fj co Gn � e - w. Fall 4�rl .......... Q kd i a W C— E— Q LLJ € � � U <i2 L ` z 1: i� M� • P P✓� O 0. LA III I' �. m EA ?o� 5 a° CL UJ U.. z O • fry�i�i �.: r: ti � \'� i r ��I J �.4 g �.. Wit'♦. 'L • �7-htylD r i '; - � t rill_0 1 � r j c D• I I ,Q J t r ,.�tl.. D Ij - • = o F dill; n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY MIROtiHENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: _I_1j_"Ly /Gi /ya•.S__ APPLICANT: 6- FILING DATE:�/yl �/��f' LOG NUMBER:tor PROJECT: IZS PROJECT LOCATION: I. EW. IRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES KAYEE NO I. toils and Geoloev. Will the proposa?, have s.gnificant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? I b. Disruptions, displacerents, compaction or burial of the soil? — c. .Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ./ e• Any Potential increase in w4_c or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or•similar hazards? h. &i increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? w 2. Hydrology,. Will the proposal have significant results in; Page p YES MAYBE ;Q. a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flrwing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water -,..Zoff? c. Alterations to the coul;se or flow of flood waters? d. man.$" in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface Waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? / g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other-- wise available for public water supplies? r✓ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _V/ 3. Air Quality. Will L•he proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or pe<iodic 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 f� 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 y or endangered species of plants? 6 -14 _ . - ?age 3 YES \0 Alk 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. Reduction of the numbers of an inique, rcme or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or / wildlife habitat? ✓ 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? -� 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional Socio-economic characteristics, including L,onomic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? -- f b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? ' 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal fi have signicant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, - �- policies, or adopted plans of any governmental / entities? e/ c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive 6 ` recreational opportunities? 6^t Page-4 YES :L-iY3E N0 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? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results tn: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of explosion or r -3se of hazardous substances in the evr_at of an accident? / d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation'of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? Page 5 YES `iaF3E NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? / b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive v site: C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities sand Public Services.. Will the proposal have a significant neeed for maw systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural, or as?packaged 8 / v c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? / e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? / g. Solid waste facilities? /_!•� h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? i _Y 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? / 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal —✓'' havehave significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? I 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 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findinzs of Sicaificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife soecies, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining leiils, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? / b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time w;;ile long- term impacts will endure well into the future), c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection wit_.. 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? II. DISCUSSION OF EN[7g07 LFNTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 1 4�, &'gAzigaQ ACTiv#-r#e5, t,iLL j3F SArsain T?O 4f'pp L. icy *kia�2Ae�i'V fa r^m (rTEC- 4AJD 36141, InJI Z)Epr-Por? Com?44Nc£ 'TD CITt &tc__5,,,4_& 177o,J.3 Z � SGCR �ccN.q (,�iC.e�JevG(2�gSE 11KE -to MEE COevST,eu.c7i0n) 04 l�rp�2u�txcs AaIqYCES. 41L t?_VECTS of D24tIVjJ56 w(C.L ISE L(NcAE=2 �l( E blk5cr(aad 04*Re Crary eIJGfNIEr!`, IS Desfe' mra� 43 CouJ �sr�F�7i�c_, cufftct{ ])l-Ar 4lea M A Ems gp'$cJ l��o EST LUIG(- Regular- Y►7NST 2- n1 fog T TN2E JI' ,41A9PJ ►EnJt , &0'4 cJ+ W,u OJECass r?,ATE n7Ecci S"e&57- Cc sT2ucTid.J a- PAz" qc` o9spexI"s W164 BE 4WDrz .IffE 2>i&, _7ri0,0 oaf f&E ZIvftwEf..e., �, _ �TlrJi r��,S'/ ANB !�/Id�1'�/�l t•�-• �e7 �Esr lJECcpr�•,� �/+/Te�db �./.��a�i�r.�p?-� .,C�3 CJ� T�1rz� aE.u.� �9rilds /�2'ONc -7' C�ivf i3N� SOctn/b �--�iE/Yc4,�O+�G(J,QGG Pull ci�c,s- Cort/SrD c�i� /r/os� l.F-vECs G�%Gr>E�,J �O s��tJZ 7O�,(�,v y S4 ;T,a L��%�G,Ea -4�'U.s�f/s cS o.�'e �tlOis� QjE�y cf,C7�v.J .P.�Qnul2�'/+1�v✓`.S (jctT�2 �ick/i2oNmEn/TGUtGG S�i/j /YO/s 4�' � '-710 " Page 7 II1. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed /// t effect ou the environment, and ja NEGAT T DECect COULD NOT LARATION will'ave a 1benpreparee. /I find that although the, proposed project could have a significant , effect on the environment, there Will not be a significant effect in this cese becauFe the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added Co the project, A NEGATISE DECLARATION HILL BE PREPARED. FDI flq' the proposed project S.iI have a significant effect on the envi_nment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date .la � in ` LCtf Signature Title 6� � RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-17 FOR KIDS ONLY, LTD., LOCATED SOUTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, EAST OF TURNER, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 5th day of Oune, 1985, a compl.Le application was filed by For Kids Only, Ltd,, for review of the above-desnribed project; F�4 WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning ,'-3mmission resolvAd as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in wb. h the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vici- 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the K applicable provisions of the Development. Code. SECTION•2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on November 13, 1985., SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85-17 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard n and Conditions: Des Qn Review. 1. Rubber coated wrought-iron it g on fencing be incorporated along both sides of front elevations. 2. Provide'seating in the rear patio area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP A5-17 Noe' .aber 13, 1985 Page 2 3. Utilize brick pavers within front entry. 4. Provide combination seating area/raised planters within front entry. 5. Submit details of nature area for revii;w by City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. S. Rear portion of site shall be planted in accordance with conceptual landscape plan. 7. The applicant shall submit state licenses for all three specific student populations (infant care, pre-schoolers, and elementary), to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. S. Prov•;de all 20 aox size or larger trees along Base Line frontage, mounding, meandering sidewalk and alluvial rockscape. 4. Provide canopl shade trees within and around parking lot at a rate of one 15-gallon size tree for every 3 parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50 percent of the parking area at solar moon on August 21, instead of Cypress'. 10. Provide combination of dense landscapi,­i and decorative screen walls along east, west and south property lines for screening and buffering, particularly play areas, from adjacent neighborhood. 11. Provide sidewalk connection from Base Line sidewalk to sidewalk along east side of parking area. 12. Sidewalk along east and south sides of parking area shall be separated from parking with a decorative metal fence. 13. Existing Pine trees along east property line and one 3011 diameter tree near front entry shall b:- preserved in place, or shall -be relocated elsewhere on-site for preservation. A written report from a qualified 'landscape architect or arborist shall verify the details of preservation or relocation. Any trees that cannot be transplanted shalt be replaced in kind with mature specimen. The written report shall be submitted together with a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to Ordinance 37 and a detailed plan showing existing trees and relocation/replacement. 14. All trees to be saved shahs be enclosed by a chain link fence prior to the issuance of any grading or building F permit and prior to commencement of work. Fences are to remain in place during all phases of construction and cannot, be removed withoutthe written consent of the City Planner uAt it construction is complete. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION - CUP 85-17 November 13, 1985 Page 3 15.' A detailed analysis of the noise .red'uction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the building design shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permits. A maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA shall be adhered to. 16. , Expansion of this use beyond 120 students shall require modification to this Conditional Use Permit approvai. A Engineering• 1. Developer shall extend the 8" drainage pipe and/cr provide r concrete or A.C. sWale to Kinlock Avenue to prevent ,rosion onto public streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. APPROVED AND AOGPTEO THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly an,4 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the g City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning CO'�.'nission held on the 13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C P-3 •',• LY»nqCq L YO^L1 L d C p^ OaEA C y 9 p O dLi p 'aClnEby ..016 Y Ora. LUgEOE -E a �0� L)Ld p d N -7- -526L E �M CY Y C TAUL Obp t'70 6..• 6�+ V p p n qoO C.0 Vb O..oL pu �6� ACY o , 3 ub � 4 rye' E» 5g 0 @E 6�n w Y 6 pr r a u t Y O � °'E Nac dGy y•• 'cp^�^V O`er. qpry,d' Ua o«� .� p iCC�p > E AY^C E p �. C b O r d C u.C p Y aCw�3 .OE yp�0 V bLG,L d06 E• C� C i C Y.=.= p'"€ Y.Ly d p r- Zn+nOp WHC •LyV .b,,.NN Ow. tV EL.b�Vy Y. c o u c a N _ N N E n%p o spa. .nod pNo N.m p^ O ~nu- 5 pm b1e N cra qma p A^. aaa'N^d�y^ by pa GNc 1.99 Z. `yw V1vL Dd dO.pu O`6j '7�• r' L90p�' n y O n r > C C a Y E E ^ L T L A B r C OC r-'C r�q p O. O L•C p i Y '�O C ^. «.dUL E CN�dYy C 6L BAVOp. d WL Oq C •� C L»� pY N YC E yr G6G Y uYa O V� -O� 6 L Gu b C m r,wu Y O O O op EyV N > n d C L Y V p Ll \V`Yp`I P m o d H. ti G E n C N L, wy. O pp o d.O d O J ` a n p O I O d a bpY y 1`II uu o �^ D. O O � •.. V `j N V^. NI Eu o s uN Q O H N4p C O aL. p�'«V rC Y j et= F' O O p ybq OC�p tr A c n p Y u C ,C o >O O p E C b Y j O ^O C Cp l.d C 11N O. c L dL. d d . LEVY. �q o ,E, a s a u or `1 Ca P^ t O CL E 2. E O pC q oy0 €waa ¢u u o ayid tE 6 TU O O Y q r0 L yvxa u G C U•C E U « .� p C OZir y Ea d AA c ¢C • R G yy bb �y E. ¢ O¢p O y d 9 E ¢N LE ♦ d umlu,N t.E d n ne qN de ExO .% N D.'cny ahO.y u b.••.O�dN .xdC N OTida N d 0.22c pp1�' 4J ¢o (U0 u¢ cObp a• E xa u �6 Ee' .O _O U < Y.� "-e p d • L 2 'TO1 cT NA L ^uC0 ..•Ud j E pNLd3�Ed^'. R gg >fO DV LZ n• p 0 N A.N p u O.O R C G u NEY' air _ mT�d.o u' LO do �.p, E�L•'u.�b q GC O SN9 C n L 1-• N. L p�^ E Y a C T 212, Nc y� �'o tea. E eip 6m o ro c« d p Y•A . e •�Np .°y < d U.or V E NE a d O Nd do Y6 ON 3b U tti R ..c0.O a�Y C9 u T.� O c b y 60 A y ZILIA 0. 9 2 N EE >•d OL. �¢ CE u0 < Vg G Eu66 dNYE�J+- v-[ 5L2 zN:Wu 4.pr NO dr•r.6 W.-�Rj. C< 6L1L•O N.n6 w U t N t c BEd Tqy T w.b y G W. TL� tb Ra ¢ Td „Ee L;. op o u. e. rt N < d�E OONx. SL C C>f e.U,M ERo r- L C O b N � L yp j� • aF-A Eu a 4•O < E S c E^n p c a R O� b+ w�Y•• u.Q c.Y� �E vyG E�=N b•n ;..Cl .tU..0 UNU ob N e� yu L v E A c R.^.O �^ PZ O N.Y0. U U Y1 rLAN 6L O u b6 qOb y COL =-u �Dp ~c oe cb qno - N l u E+ C. L q CyLi E '^ .'• NL up UT y6 ar a 2 N N y Y Y �. C .<Y d C e �qFy b� 3 G N d^ 99 p cU. 2<L A p Z. w>NCI d¢y.. =Ub gpp9 R AE.gyc R Lb •< U1..C. LA.d Od d d.On 6 b E E ¢O p d b A O Y q ux < v U..` OL VOI T-Fa O�^ u� u A .O tAo D«dQ oa O N U. Ed9 V d Z^p < p R b b R C Is a+ a ,cE Ns ep C a qp L CC E u •! a :-•YOV Gg6L6 ••N� I�L NOq G�Na N9 G.y �•+b 6U N«Ol�� L2 d uEp Vb. � � rl A � 1•••uY.NCA Hw<..Aggy i Y O o O L d C I N T g o r r Old C E L L a G m^ of u do L {� ^� EO d b L 6 L dC0 d Gd M ...l y 1 A F^O 1! t0. Or uaGi Lp. F n HCr w.Lc� 9a'. tupi G G q T d 22 O L Y N M u O V V L d d L i O j L A. O L Cq t � p p n U N v- T C T pw,V.G NOC d:O, SL �C O.N dO•^jtOY.y ^. u c Fa d oN a d X. •0 1. Oo Ntl L O. 4 na Oa TU C9 p L o. y m _o 6. A cc '.. Nd uQ+ dN a un .rp+ E e;E5 G ` nP d CC L L� Qy .'i nN n�. t,zt; G 10G n=.a q Lp rnoo c EvyO O. moo.. MLr „� pGL d- pM CI 40. L' op q p« d a E t rNi nL ac Lu U4 dp GL G'9 Nu L pA C.p d O q G w Y p Zmgd d h d O. V N E EN Eu G'L ,ri,La dPpN LON T mL. T� OE L d E ai>n C ^Y T p L EN Eau \N..�NAN Nr 6vni 3N0 HNz 6NUp�aYa 4p�tl6 4Y l�OmpN dd d�v. da do ^ a�dc am c'n La•u� -E ca -:5 waN,co 'd« 'c°n EeGi N2 nq'.i. ..5ka ^ O . d S,D9ya -qp n 02 �d fZ� EuN•CgO aNgt .S < Lo Tac uo oT �G u T G G ^u q c Q dv i , u u u.E L> yE CQ N.O.e 64� —el YV o O d mL •>E % nL N.G. 0 v d o d or uac a".aN. aca2 d• c O y, ,° n qy O^G�9 Nyn An c9 61y d` Gv._o m A.E u G qa C E u " Y n d> d LL V O p '° L G E a o_ v N d c€ T6 ^tO a «"U Gp v L O 'o n .2 d d q L q E d 2 y c O • up u Um uO Q W O.N. j 2. V y^ N p�L p K6 L LAdh U Ed uo ^E p� M .� L q E.0 d u T>{� V T d L. 6a+.-uOi O 4Nw.0 49 9 N fpN QU '4 HO 9.5 q C00 4N6A 6n�N�,Gr" _ o a� W ra u Tq dme pdt to cc mil s L T n u P mil E p.' y'^� aE yip E Nu `p� d�0.¢ Eurn :E LO • o0'f f . Wa cC O2: S �.a o� 9 Yytp. ua - V ayt d �69 Yi E2 CN` Cq C � O. >y CNL LL �0.. 2tl y Q PE: .IJ mtyrt Yco. vy�. N N = uEgq ,� Mya m vy aq uq Ts^ v.T.z �. �E> q E N LO.� t"• L�A O g O� 6 p�.,r y .qT €q t�O y O:C d a - Ld 4 Atad ay. N Tq ��^ y'Ld AC Otgait qV W. Lei StlOy ..C.O dyW OaEaC V �.q. n NtOEt� qQd T" y. � ^n ti yN ^v0aL NV ^C Y=N p s0+o O b+tq CO, ^.y•r 6�y60 y^o•... ~ tvz FF 5 C c.. O u 2>. L E H L e. A Ey OaTi O 0=.+ O n 1 •• LdC 1-1 4 d O L:` N C U L. V. � L Y N 9Y9 1---IML 406atta.N M1T.q tar 0. - 1 Vd p a�• U.TO NO dy d .iy L Ad yq b� NL A \ w9d t Otq Oa EtrL = L CtS u V1 q. 2 Ln d ^tom Uy SOY •yC1L �dU c E ja td. y4 q�Q qq aL+d ua. L V yN` L cj a .T- o c= V tEE.-i q JT T b ptrU.t O M n A 9 d.q E n9 E c LL.y N c EV n rnN 2 p�q p9 y4t �. C Mrs q N V aiH7. m E 9y a>i2 E u L Y Tn. O 9 E a M no O 6 L.pt N ♦+ ON y • N q� L> N u >•ctz %Y' L y Tom' ec ya u OtO,OT N q mLN o NQw. ' p F Nyt LQ E N C � ow aOt S. SG O qS 6 LO rn NS g G N p ^ C.p WLL d S N O N u L L O . fI.L tT L.0 .•C�.T L E a as G yt0^ O N � C yid � �+ bt c T E p. N�6 E6 M.� qNl. N2C T TOu p �N o CEO Od TO U K d E` Of btCO ^ POO pT� aL EL O 6Q O n n 3 C N N:O�✓ N � 3?� E^ 6 r A C A.� 6 6 W C u N N d C y d 0.�Lr WLL W Es\\6 mat u L N 6_ � r O O 1.0 C T«L 1 N. Y a a e­ w. o ~T t n0 R. E«^ >yw a x 0 dd�• LY Y a p aYq u E n A. Y M x A N q Eo 0 O a. P ♦ �? I.> S L'sO {i cE w Atr Xo. ^ O xo c- +'a« Q nw. E a O y Y�pYtiq A Vd O .^Ca Y.^Y.. a c O Z. w�€ y O ^A y d L a 9 A A A V y x E 0 C a X L 6 Ncodq WT 9d « Y727 .. ur y^Tp o v 9 .E. p Yy�. E WE Eupin L Wod=� LaV d ydTO d..E O^ d y:M N L 6 0 a c du u�" Q v n o A°1and i o A E ayi "82 c 1 Aa nu '=X Aa LL.m Q E F. A O o T y O o L O y c.d uX o A � nA. E P0d 9 d � dYO. .+ O QA CM6Ln 4YM O O 2 w J , Al O. 10.1 T 91LS1 9u E 0«ups ^ m = u y gg. L o V �.L Ste. anx C �. 0 aP o mn as _ d0 u^. SCC C V� L G� �q C«^� E'a d c I- n E d:02 '9m a �` dD e+ ' y0 C9 061 O.N LGO.Oy aA ¢ Ta vy 1. EAU~ P 02 ^C 03 C V;. N dp No nyp «« x0. a A n A 9C P ^Oa> aL ' E 03.1 O >iy 1 � N "« «OQ u d ECLud +'^ nV > CO V.. N.0 O.Y y 9 'o tl E>n0.4 a L Cn 6 Cp pA n j tl A A64 y�Otl �V�C _. W Op ..O.y cE O A id SL E Ta T y.T ro PE a �n pPp pu y c ^ EL. C o Y YEp2 a nu > oOI�AO a C V O N tl. YCN O 06 �Jd]F W N.9 W Y V n U' G X C�-a8 coa o aq L d0 9a' O C N No W a O'YJ No .r1 O uC O^ O..p dy L.uuta—i q _. r y oM a1..1 E. u N 3 N jr p6.2 L N �. u a 2 q G«. Z m p 2 a u T >o T a. r N4 a _ aLq o ok a r.E 9.6 a .uT yu E O0 w q a C � Y 4.f 6p u L`a >q yu w euL cry a y� pu a ;Sa: Nai a Nam. ao L� C d d 9q>6 uyp ~ 6q a 'LyY� E' Y LOI C N,O a L C.Ea. q.L 9 q>a y C� OiL O a9�9 Lp n' aC N EO EQ C«E. d d aq L. a c��p �E,a nv N.5-4 t �n `. a O- i a n ce^ mT c E q..� L aW ca Ep = Oppn ny ^aYG y Tr ^ ^ zz7y=O E.q L q C rn Q p T a a W u =L bC F o �u/1 dW n^ QGNO NO«M Np. icf. at Q W 79 �d _ u .O T O ai p Q `U _ A GJ =Gluu L Y O L d LL` N + nr T.q p, fF Eq LY u a 9n. T ^d N9 dd « p E_Ca u � U E EEy c ni E DLTTO �' emu^ yN Q q E u cV. 1 X Va EO Sy in0 NW of u p LO. s'O0. a E O a O y1 W17 Y nq Q IJWT � U qq NG QL IJ^ Qol E6xt1 •\ �• i 2 to c^ c ^Z; uu ya aY d M = Y q.6 O b�.✓ b.LO v �q Ot. mod••`' S D...� � t a eD• } U ^a N t L N.•A. E....L U O T' �y^O y L N d.LO-. C d. d= ?I v YO Va+iuy IXa' . Zoo 4.i d ua M N. C UI LVO b CL �L OiN CE V ^.d �p•YLi NT' S.Y � JrLW� _G NE tq .0'Oq de Cc qF- N d V V d d E Tg= TT d V a q N O Fe O.• vi el `w G•� _ _ O D.L & ^ Ly �� ^L Cy O L CA a I I I i y s� s4 _Z� av a u�o 0 c � q L N V y O.e. 4 �oN � N 4 O _ O C u 40 C L +i j d ^ u ^0 O ••D. 2� � ...y u V = L� V p OLD de`i , yQ p G C T Y FF L Oa LL.y > � b O G� b O. N •^Y L. wYa m pD W �� y S qd •"v 40 �q a =q, O_ U ••L. J O 6 OO a NOI d Ma d9 DLC Lq ^Y pW Y LL d � E p q N 4V LL d ... b ^C d ' i d C✓ �4 d ^ \ as N H1 1 s \ y� b •p N q. y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GvCA,yo� STAFF KEPORT v o Z v DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13066' - CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA - A subdivision and design review for 27 single fafam ly jots on 6.8 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac) located on the south side of 19th Street, east of Amethyst - APN 202-111-61 and 62. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested• Approval of a tentative tract map, building elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose. Construction of 27 single family detached homes C. Existing Land Use: Vacant D. Project Density: 3.97 duhc E. SurnUnLM Land Use and Zoning- North - Existing office/professional uses, 0/P; approved project DR 85-21 (120 apts) on 8.6 acres, Medium Residential South - Existing mobile home park, Low Medium Residential (4- 8 du/ac) East - Existing single-family residences, Low Residential West (2-4 du/ac) Existing single-family residences, Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) F. General Plan Designations• Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) North - Low Residential (2-4 ,du/ac) South - Low Resident (24 du/ac) East Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) West Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) Aft ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13066 - CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA November 13, 1985 Page 2 G. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant, sloping from north Ito south ;-it-W grade and covered with scattered grasses and weeds. No trees existon the project site except for a row of Eucalyptus within the 19th Street right-of-way. These trees are slated for removal as well as a Eucalyptus windrow along the westerly pc-c"Crty line. The applicant has filed a. Tree Removal Permit with the Planning Division and will replace existing trees with Eucalyptus Macuiata (see Exhibit "H"). An unimproved drainage ditch exists on the western site boundary which is subject to flooding. I_�. ANALYSIS; A. General: The developers are proposing 27 single-family detached homes on lots ringing from 7,200 square feet to a maximum 8,200 square feet.. The site plan consists of 14 lots plotted on the extension of Gala Avenue and 13 lot on Hamilton Avenue, both streets will be extended into off-set cul-de-sacs (see(see exhibit "D" . In terms of architecture, the project will have 3 different floor plans coi-.sisting of 3 and 4-bedroom layouts, with 3 different elevations per floor plan. The elevations are contemporary with tile roofing, stucco, brick, and rock veneer, and wood plant-ons (Exhibit "G"). S. Des n Review Committee: The Design Review Committee recommende approval of t e tract map and design elevations, with minor revisions such as providing architectural treatment to the 2-story rear elevations along 19th Street, use of 6 foot wrought-iron fencing with landscaping on the south property line. The fence will be placed at the top of slope, and the use of 4 foal: retaining walls along lot 13 and 14 to take-up ' the 8 foot grade difference. The applicant has responded with appropriate changes. Color drawings and a material sample board will b€ provid2? for your review at the meeting C. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Initial Study—ancF has determin_d that the project will riot present any significant adverse impacts upon the environment. However, there will be noise impacts from 19th Street. Also, the natural gully along the western boundary will nod storm drain improvements. Impact: The project site is subject to noise levels up to 70 Cnel. i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13066 CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA November 13, 198S Page 3 Mitigation Construct a b foot high perimeter block wall and incorporate double glazed windows on all units facing 19th Street. Also, a detailed acoustical study on materials used in the building design and construction will be required prior to issuance of building permits. Impact: The project has;n unimproved drainage channel at the westerly site boundary, which handles up-strewn flows and is subject to flooding, Mitiaatinn: The developers will be required to bu+ld a fully improved drainage channel per Engineering Division recommended Condition of Approval (see Resolution). These improvements will mitigate flooding problems for property owners to the south. D. Neighborhood Meeting; On October 21, 1585, a pub7,c meeting was held to discuss and inform the surrounding neighborhood about the development of Tentative Tract 13066. Generally, the audience receivb? this project favorably and were pleased that the project design and, style would enhance the neighborhood (see attached letter). III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The findings listed on the attached Resolution are supported by the following facts: A. l`no proposed subdivision, in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval, is consistent with the current development standards of the City. B. The project is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed number of lots within the subdivision. C. Adequate street and storm drain improvements will be provided to make the project compatible with the surrounding area and improve circulation, and drainage in the vicinity. 0. The project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with the Development Standards of the "L" District in which the site is located. IV CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 000 f feet of the subject site. In addition, public hearing notices were posted, on the property and a neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant. rZ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 1.3066 - CRESTVIEW ALTA LOMA Novemher 13, 1985 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission concur with the Facts for Findings and recommended Conditiuns of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:cv Attachments: Letter cf October 21, 1985 (Neighuyrhood Meeting) Ex'-bit "All - Location Map Exhibit "B Site Utilization Exhibit "C" --- Tentat! a Tract Map Exhibit I'D" Detaileu Site Plan Exhibit "Ell Conceptual Landscaping Plan Exhibit 'IF" - Conceptual Nrad4tig Plan Exhibit 'IS" - Floor Plans & C yiiations (A sheets) Exhibit "H" - Tree Removal Plan Initial Study, Part I1 Resolution of Approvz;.1 with Condit 1ons ,C CIVIL ENG VEERING • LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNIN(a October 22, 1985 Mr.Howard Fields City of Rancho Cucamon�e F. Planning Department 9120 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga,Cr, 91730 Dear Ur. Fields: Trac[13066 -Neighborhood Meeting J0L# 85051 This letter is :o inform you that a ITaighboehood Ueeting was held at-the Rancho Cucamonga ?.eighborhood Center,located at 9791 Arrow Highway on r onday, October 21, 1985, from 7:00 to 3:00 p.m. Enclosed is a copy of the invitation,and a list of those to whom it was sent. in goneral, the response of those in a*endance Was very favorable. Enclosed, please alea find a list of these who attended anc it summary of their comments. If yuu have any questions or comments,please feel free to call me at(714)946-9919. Very truly yours, C P LAITGE ENGINEERS .�� �..-fr•.^�! fry � -By r Richard;I. Genzel,P.E., Project'Engineer CPL:RrJG:pmh rnclosures cc: Nlr.Barrye Manson, City of Rancho Cucamonga ?3r.Donald I1. Williams, Bill-Williams Develop-,nt Corporation 840-K W. 9TH ST. o UPLAND CA 91786_ SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 1. Airs.Marjorie Stamm-6767 Amethyst: A. Was happy that t;!e development would "clean up" the gully and remove the eucalyptus trees. (The trees, in her opinion, are hazardous due-to undermining of existing tree root systems and the possibility of falling over in a gust of wind.)- B. She was afraid that if the development failed, they wuuld be "an orphaned subdivision"; the land would be rezoned, and_'a commercial center would be built,decreasing her property talue. C. She was pleased with the proposed channel, the subdivision, and the type of houses proposed,and said that her property valuie- would inerzase. ' 2. Mr.and Alps.Dale Lutz-9618 riligtonette Street: A. Were pleased with the type of houses,elevations and styles of houses. B. Were pleased with probable increase in property values. C. Were concerned with'a view into their backyard from a proposed house. They asked if a mature tree could be placed i.-, the southeast corner of Lot 27 if a review of the "line of sight" into their yard and/or the proposed lan6scape screen would not block the "view" from above. Don Williams said that he would investigate•.`he line of site and try to mitigate this concern. CIarke Boesen-4529 Nineteenth Street: A. Was pleased with the audition of two additional 86-inch pipes ue..,a Nineteenth Street(total of thre(_). B. Was pleased with the proposed A.C.drivewailoverlay. C. Was pleased with the temporary overflow drain which would insure p.^otection of his driveway from overflows, (.",Ir. Boesen showed pictures of water,fiowir:g over his driveway due to insufficient capacity under Nineteenth Street.) D. t'as pleased with the developer's I-,oposal to grade a '"leveled gravel pad" for his son-in-law's traOler. r. Was not concerned with tree rem�;�;s becru,;: the avocado tree was dying and the eucaljptus trees were messy. 't Flote: I offered to show him %.hat and where the proposed improvements to his property would be and he said "that would be great" I'll be meeting with him within the next two weeks. h, lie statea that he had Loped that t"-.;ity or State would have done somethi*in prior to this to mitigate the problem; but he was relieved to know that he would finally have sorrethinn done. rote: I -poke to his 0(1­h�r 22, I JB , and she indicated that sh t wE!s also pleased wiai r the problem they have had with water over their driveway. a SUMMARY OF COMMENTS(continued) t 4. Mr.aad Mrs.aaseph Harnit 9616 Mignonette Street: A. Asked questions regarding house size and architecture, approximate price, and roof type. B. Commented that they were happy to see a single-family development rather than apartments or condos being built, C. Remarked that the development would increase property values. 5. N Ir.John. 'Iafner-6743 Amethyst Street. A. Stated that he was in favor of the development and that we had his total support. , 1 • t , fti �� El�I sum ET. c:itl"► •' n.n�.aa,au �1 u: .At.. �Il �rl�� rr;•�Lwlw; r ■r � =1`}t�`'a'3 ti''•� r=:.Y: i�--`�=is t �..iu..wuN 'Trii �.■.lw ■\S_r ■ aNll n■.. r.liY�.l.g� : ,g ... � i1/u1114 t•'••� I==. '�f - � -� �a 1 �huuuuYuuu �wwy •4.N■..■wY MIII IMII ' i :" �L'�tiil�t,�� a+%r �1 1 L1`�S{� i t 111• ' �'"""" ` r In11nrllUuxl t4Z nnui .3 �11 .._.��� ��sl��• `Gii _ Fal M. Su' �-'-' 111.n�llri-'_.t�..•w'..��%:14I s'�rutL n N■N CCTT_ � u.,.�� r _ i n r s AL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING October 21,1985 i Name Address Phone # Marjorie Stamm 6767 Amethyst 3 987-2I0 Dale do Sue Lutz 9618 Mignonette 98 -2103 952S 1 Clarke H.Boesen 9th.Street 987-2902 ' Jae Ha*nit 9616 Mignonette 989-1546 John Hefner 6743 Amethyst 980-7738 (Bus)980-0612 i <<, l C - Ilrwwwr Ilw�. .rwlww�i�.r ��Illllill..am j tl�l d, mrtp Imwi �'w r mil; �y:�'iQ„r •lAfiti! A M�/.�_ .. 1pifl illll% M11 ■ • �. a"enmUP �llillll 11�Ut,li;l'��`I�����I�rl• ► Iw'rw�I �rr 1 o■wiFr�la�I ��: •.�� ter` a'�I•rc-�Iww�: rr»aF� •�,, .� � mow• .i■'�1 o- mollt� �SC3 '% M ifs fit. wtrlr� ir�l•� IIII - ,�.�, pl " - � • ■w�Nl�wrs'Iwr��,' �yl�o • u ��� �� ` ' l ter".■1—. I �1 � �� • " i�n']ii�Iwtr� ��'(' ' 0a4 .art. : - - �y-�•�G• • •^'. • -•R•�■=w,1 a �• - wwwC:�T�ww�l ' • •7 w.wwr. wrwh �17 a r 111 �I iP '.y u:a„�r' SS:&$..'S',...5.•^a;ns�JT'!'� .. :., - _ .. _ .. c=r_5�..�a. - '„'mot.:• •.�,\i..` •` $ , - LJ 4 Sam tnwww 'sm RI TZZ t „ 1 ` I , ww a�s uc ca 1I 11 le •�I�—_—�I ■- F ° RP-1&HP,I=p= 6 8 Oil y ynI 'I •_ (fit! -g °!e 6 till" Po 01 1.0 1, c� a;■- Pi1 fer'S.a * .awr ata ""'' r u".�'a'v"FS+ ?•F 'sl�f":� a�f4.tcz �l'3"a - �.asr� rl LI f�1� - 7 �uty� 'ul = ��� rt y��Sr�d�',y�. '3�-'i fe ty f�5 f'y��,+�y "J S'�•.�'�ti a .•�,� �. f:Y7. J• q ���....Jii 1 \ 1 j - i r -�I Irk •. 4e•� -� i J I �I L`_ �.ESL.. _�� • I f'' � I j � � II � _-1 I L.y I• I ! I I-j I II ��I � 1 �I l I I I I I - I `( ( _ 1,lffr If+• u 8 } } ^'1 ��'�.19P�!!�R+�w:�l�s.c� ?^9�'+.+nx�A�a�"Zt'��.C'��t.�i��� aa'"•, }ems'f"�,r� �3�ar-c ig- � 4 jx �f�F \�, _� S •. ..ti 6 t R •c�. �ii' l It UM Mf Ms t !a Si X,r Y. I �) l\I I n + • � 1 c E . 1 F�f i3—i LE u 14 it �I � !R F � `'— a -�..f� �. .�.�•_ _:_..._ � `�'� � "�_ LL3�'.c. r. � .'=:-� - .. .. ..;.i nw:.��,.v�'�.ter., .n•:" 13 IL �� y 1�QR Qt � • Al co .� GRR/NRGE �- i ti I IP15`14.730 :1 PE-/474.6 17 !` PE'=/4T3.9 i ,��a `�''°• ' I s•`y/� ens° ��_ Ii r� 1 1�2 D;ALTERNATE GRADING: a. "` (REVISED,1m-Y—lab PER GRADING COMM3TTSEMOaM1ENTS). • AVEtC�ll 1dI.L'f nY�J'ry 4 � 1. T , JU tY�cKrl'N!K • FAt,Eo.�staPE �� � ' ' �•' � FCc+ty tiv� DOWN DRAIN DETAIL' • .ve, acwa& , (OPEN i)hA[NAGr; SYSTEM! , • _... . :�tA'.�fiS'�4:'f0 By � ON pGgN1 � , n �? i•'% �'� it��� [ k�l Hh �a � ttl ism ' 1 1 \YG .,iwsaa,V MHO 4 e 1'! q z Ilfi�' � to 1 N, Dui;{:�1�31 b1 HIM � :ii — Al � 111 111■ It IIIIIII' .�� 11 1 e �( p � mm ` :t _ II 11.. Y' }7`Q1 o 13- 8. P C A, e a P oke- luluuuullt�, »� ��' NUNN ` ■grin a ip t }} MR, mil, . Illllllill it =3? .:i'LS -r,..,a+.�s�SY�t.IF• ♦�.t lti•... 'f�`l�.t a ...� e�•.:.o-Ja✓-.. +.-.♦ .�� .. :�+1�'v-<ic.N.''Ja:.iY'. I In t ig 0 7Mi'lPJ� >9q A I . aZ 00 . ?y 00 -�- 21 law � II o� + � x ZEE iEia sot an Y 43, ■Ir. _ mail -~ r moll "R �l - I :� 1111111111►f � -- x. . c5n!i } 6 , i,F Fes' Jt"., io tI'li�t - i OEM ►. .,,; -r _ 7lit Pi, -:t• - : - , _ q 9 to C m f� CoI Z Alh .•ram/. � {; Mn' � a1/ r•^ ® i�Ml. s {f aaa� .. mill :� fi111111111H'�;i '� 01. fix°e a .I in 1 ..1./iY �ti.r•...j 1� � si r f r - - r j� 15�:fI1tA tli� t ilil iJmama ptltl'- ■■■■ r--•• r of ..r �e .man ■.II �\..1Ci1 � e on .�fl:.ifsMf f�ya ME I ZIMafrm F ►. 4 •:.'GIs �c.�0 - _ P a: � t i � K Y—si S_ ,•..�,. .. � FY k. 1,. s y r i1 t. L �• `.' �' -.s�t5��t'} s # yc,, h'xy' '� St^ r !'• j ntc �� i�•- !v •`' rs� ri7 fi} .id-'L� +�Y���M,��+ �.A�7tTit i�}.,. � .L y..�r Z��� i •a�•:�' It s(� Em - i � m � till ' �: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONME,NT3L CHECKLIST DATF. APPLICAN-r: FILIaG DATE._/�/fr/ 2 F'lf�y LOG NUMBER: T,r• /3o L6 —"T—• PROJECT: 2, 51i2 A6T.Ceif/�G SrldbiviJia.J PROJECT LOCATION. y,�rsi�� 0� y�svST. .F.,ysT Off' �9mr�-.0 Y. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'; ' (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES yk) E No j l• Soils and Geo es. Will the proposal have signitcan t resu lts in: a• Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or s bus'Al of the soil? V*1 c• ,Char* -�r topography or ground surface con .our intervals? d• -The destruction, covering or modification ✓of any unique geologic or physical features? e• Any potential increase in wind or water site conditons? erosion of soils, affecting either on or off 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. Hyd_ col pay• Will the proposal have significant results in: P YES SO a Changes in currents, or the course of direction• Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage or the rate and amount of surface wate tterns, r pa runoff? c- Alterations to the course waters? or flow of flood d. Change in :he amount of surface water in any body of water? Jf e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface Water quality?' ✓ f.. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? . Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- ✓wise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water rel_,ed hazards such as flooding or soiches? 3. Air Quality, Will the proposal have signifi resu cant lts in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? y� b, Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a• Change in the characteristics of species.- Including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? f b. Reduction of the numbers of any uni ue ` or endangered species of plants? q ► rare ?age 3 YES `iaYBE SO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of ptaats into an area? / d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural y/ production? / Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results V in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare _L s or endangered species of ani--als? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growch rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing,, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. SOcin-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? —_ b. Will project costs be equitably distributer among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any govern-mental entit ? i es? , C. An impact upon the qu,laity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportuni ies? r/° Page 4 8. Tra YES :LAYBE Nonsoortation. Vill• the proposal have significant sesuits in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? V r b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new stre-•t construction? / C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or V demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or novemenr of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass tra:.ait or air ^-affic? / g• Increases in traffic hazards bicyclists or pedestrians? to motor vehicles, Ask 9. Cultural Resource,. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health. Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the Pro---- have significant results in: a. Creatior_ of any he;,lth hazard or potential health hazard? S b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Y C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? - d• An inc,:ease in the number of individuals or species of vector or pat her_ogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e• Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to n-itentially :dangerous noise levels? —_ ` g• The creation of objectionable odors? Y / iz• An increase in light or glare? -33 � Page 5 YES 4�YsE \0 11, k.!sthetics. Will the proposal have significant i `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. or and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? a C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? ✓� e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood cc_,trol structures? ✓/ g. Solid wasr_ facilities? ✓ ✓ h. Fire r—otection? i. Pol.- section? J. schools. _ k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of p facilities, roads and flood controlfacilities?ncluding M. other governmental services? 13. Energy and. Scarce Resources. ;,ave significant results in: Will the proposal a. :Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand 'upon existing sources of� energy? y c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of & of non-re-Iwable forms of energy, eYa teen feasible renewable sources of Energy are •2vailable? H-3 � -- Page 6 YES `!AYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of- any nonrenewable or l scarce natural'resource? j 1 . Mandatory Findin s of Si niiicance. �✓ 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 1,-,-21s, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal cocmur"-y, 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 impacts will endure well into the future). r �� C. Does the project have impacts which.are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENBIBONMENTAL EVAL1U 10, the (i.e., of affirmative answers to above questions plus a discussion a= proposed mitigation measures) i ro. ...i �/ �'6C/� /`°�.,"���� � •liliJ�y�f��iC.�-�PD�ccO ��JCNC f� mom �.y/z,� T�'•�; /g6.R.1 <.9.�'S,%v�E7- \\` i I I / 3 _� ?aze 7` III, DETERMINATION On the basis of,this initial evaluation: tVf /.n find the proposed project COGLJ NOT have a significant effect the environment, and a NivA l^r. 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, ei_rect in this case because the mitigation described on an attached sheet have been added to the r, ,;, _ ^ DECLARATION WILL BE PRE?ARED. mGATIS a ElI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnaent, and an E%11IRO:?---*\T IlTACT RE?ORT is required. Date v ..cC'COV Signature itle' ANIL ,2ESOLUTION NU. A RESOLUTION OF THE -PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13066 AND DESIGN REVIEW. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13066, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Hill/Williams Development ro., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California,` described as a subdivision and design review for 27 single family lots on 6.8 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac) located on the south side of 19th Street, east of Amethyst 9PN 202-111-61 and 62 into 27 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on November 13, 1985 and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has consideredother Evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: StrTON 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 13066 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,,ar.d specific plans (b) The design or improvements of one tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not like-,y to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict th any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Y J p _lTl�U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TT 13066 - CRESTVI:EW ALTA LOMA November 13, 1985 Page 2 (9� That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13066, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to'al'l of the following culditions and the attached Standard Conditions: DESIGN REVIEtJ: 1. Applicant shall submit an acoustical study prior to issuance of building permits, whinh indicates mitigation measures to achieve interior 45 CNEL maximum. Construction plans shall conform to the recommendations or said report. 2. Decorative 6 foot block wall with pilaster columns and wrougr^ iron reveals shall be provided along 19th. Street frontage. Design details for this wall shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. A 6 foot wrought iron fence with gate' and landscaping for each individual lot shall be provided at the top of slope along south tract boundary. Details shall be submitted to City Planner for approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 6 foot masonry block wall with decorative .cap shall be provided along the east and west property lines. 5. A retaining wall shall be provided along t e entire east and west property lines of Lot 14, not to exceed 4 foot retaining. 6. Material samples shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior-to issuance of building permits.. 7n Landsc?ping and irrigation, including street trees, shrubs and ground cover, is required along 19th Street. Detail " landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Tract Map: Engnee� Construct a storm drain facility along the west property boundary, additional culvert capacity under 19th Street, 19th Street overflow facilities, and protection 'measures for adjacent property on 19th Street in general conformance with the approved drainage study for the project. In addition, a nuisance drain shall be constructed through the mobile home park to the south. All facilities shall be as approved r , by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLU' ION TT 13066 - CRESTVIEW LOMA November 13, 1985 Page 3 Aft APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF 'N.OKABER, iV85. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ` BY: �Gennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brrd Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Panning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Pinning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: 4, p VL w��v'`L.o:LT.a+�.%. �v:A ^.�' e.p. ,T .' cao a=aNi«« •. •Q. ..Lo.« o. a o u� p•-aY.$ q.- L a._9 A d. .. Y q •e a n o c d. LV d y �. G • O�U V GS qy V> O yAmok utV •u L w 4 M G B Y m Cy A uai PiJ N ay q C 26 O• ^ S mC G��p: T9 LV.vgg.�Tu pE.�QV 60 uN YUOp9• C L L+G-:t d��. dL. Y aSi V Lip D.d` q m V _ '� a'^ m ay Pcp rG,.. .'c.:.K^ Lr a".P.p.n ra c" ))•n� Eu GU a oa NWq C E<YL E Ca a �V d A O Ya1L N.•O L r W S c m •n ay aCu 3-.�. YQ aY a CEE'=q S p. G vU ^NN FY E.oa uF yuy xa N.L p'TVa Yp6u .��� � �. GN E.oa EO y L ^DLY C NN:E q. ry r Nygg.O •� qU a4. EC6 LLiCCnoq >c0 p�6 6NVL qN dYN�P 6 d m�V SV" ^ qp a�d•J. %c v O pt« u• O dAd aY N A Ca' a.� COS a C01'O q� a��L �V� Oe•~EG .. a � es a L p n.n^Min r °•ca,,.oy. gg a qe0 Sp•••VIA ^ N L�'O q Pc C L.y L � . p� yViOS 6orY Gp! EEq�VY• GG q>� �yEE .10 MLY. pm n 0+• F A `�qOWa+�O dYG uC6 . Y Y g L G M d y N T Gp c U Y L O m g q G p • C O > y Y Y p N a a d G O L A S a S y E d r 6 N a N`: 4N La 0>u •-.... a >C i.LNGV OG{6.32 4•r YA 093N C2�` _ 1-OO.�p C:u« 6N•� 6UAm ILL 6 p1..1 m da ELa m EEV y a L ^ 6 J Ny r OO Nu a E u e T yyy C • M O O +.G Y m 4 p G G •' �d Hfi.yyLj=�y aN u ` m ooya q ig •2Q• y � OI G e E 6 L �M V 1 a0 �01 Y•>O UYG i A L V d _ ` � O O • u0Y � F aF..pd F N q L r CI L � S • pQ S^L• ym•'O J\ «Y a a G q pNgC pp � G z ``_• � $ N. " .� E W 1� = a y4.E 6 O y O \ 6 N S 9 G L q qa qD S. y \ h Y U q P x G Y $a a d P G d q !r Y Cap F y t enF +M F ad �. i t`.• ,pp 6� E r I I E— �OI V d o h i ca �N=N > NM rnq y.'w'Y' N'o a 9c w c Y u y E d 2 -n Y ^ O p Y C d«O Y ti c 9 N q E. •+q O.O .ad NEd « y dmg990 Oy.: :E dro c >cp,� p nC L 999 _ LV ro �C EoO� 9 ty L qN 9,C i E q N N L a 'L _EE a d nod EN i•Ta « 4 OM a n Q oro�m'.o m,n nN.y- moa. ,� o.2s 'uo VU.O CIL .9d roME U Ldwt _X�L « ^9 6 En c Gn ^oCA U ..cu�^u�0 p,00ddN V-UL = 9q NA.. •O 9 dC vyUN d a t.0 =4.dd uzz A6 LO do ^ Ny �Wf N.qN q.GLD• CN YL y ro^ COS tt Ems! LC TN O O Yd: E.- C O O•m CE6 E `a ZO Q <� Nd ♦. Az We GiLC dC^�u qym SC.L.. pY^ ans CC N L O c 9 N ^ro^ 6m l: q 6Ay.�aNi EC L R..L T CC N F Ea. �o v` 2GE a W 9 Y '50- 6 E.• . -2L mN -5 N7 auTiLZ ZN W0 C 64 NN r G W^;2 O C 6L C ofn. U 1 N 1 o.ES r, L A d T^ +ems A 94 wy9 0 9 _ Y N O.c a,�ati d dN f - 0 y _ T. Cb b�'c0 �2 Cq d V .+ Ycy,n C ap OUG^ro > q L� qy sq>1. n 66 2. CE^Y 6 Z2E GAL pow i -u d Y L L.T N p ro f u_O 9 • a.M q. L L E C a,�r-..L O� C y. C.�. N� ^.Qaproj t1L c cEv- ^ ..EO Ya 6 d O ^ N LNE� Lrod d y „L dT,' Ems•+ aY > N G d.O 60: a. NW2 N.2C. Y V �NL Cam:` a L •+ L Y n •^- p. .'. C O�y c v0 d24 d.. L UL CE6 tC'aV� uYE w U G 9 . �_ pNjd Z 6y 9 N ro0y W 9 z n >o 0 920gL _a.;nvm.c 9 cE oa• V m. Y m d �> VLL i 6Q PC S Fq jq LvMyE d.N. Ero c zZ-4 �.0 C6 Lyo G. w O..Y U=J qq� UN O IZ L a^1-2 Y� cQ Ey u2� ^w 019 UG d. NG It!-" _U �.` y n � w Ty dL. bpp u E LEA > 9.` L..`W e aF5 o f L L U u n^ S .G 2 O. G d C t G d L C E H d n n C C f c n 4 a p .�.N NLNO A i a n g o �o ..• eta Y c Ip.N�q u C y E y L�. `a c a o a 4 s c o c o {+';•a°� v b N > M NLn N O b n d EO L m ^'-e 1{ p• ♦q y a u G b d E Oro L Z dS Ep y Y .�L cC^ a Na T q L N Nu q` d L. va •raj po u'� .Yen 1 _ uiQ a� N�La q a�,Y y. � PcbiOL N dK OL n G p. 9:1 dlY C C o�N n C E t L Q�it L. 0900 y L tCL dnOm QIY C M g e E N!'t n - E�w i! T co d gUWL Ip� p bq d0 Lhn ccL N p1 yy p dEJ T III go u Y u m c..E• c N o p n q c p .2-1 T1ll�y y E u �d C ie L y6t I NqN 6.1^i1^ 6N 3MO F Z aN ^^a>p1to l q.0 o6 6V 1�0 d .O N q d OI d C L w d d C o^N u .a-o Angy cc ^p"E EiE u�go O.G C C Yn A� C> b01G Oni`L C IC ~pp �6n .- p dn� .CO d^ Sgeya �q yY NL Lbb^ E 9y b.^O A dd SN9 == GCC Up O �N Y.V C EE dam. p.` E L% ppu LLG9 q�S ai a i1 r u o °'p - N�n C1 SC RE�q p L r y L +N"u a1y t> .5m N e1 c�.p L=a >, t a c a ^ d v.c lq C ^ U •.- b Gn y b�L q� c� '" ro MN a1L 'c Off q D 01 u N C n p L 9 L 4 q0 p. Q p—Y b.N LY V y 6c LT N ny L Y d N 66 Q�MO QpY.mA Q.9N FY•ON KU 69' It-•ON�� ie,�pp 4NON ..,2 { c b b q . e dr�� •`a. Cui�a1� CTGq cN� uO..0 odL � Et O O Q O E^Q � 6 •''LL L ti upp o o`d GyG T� �•, L.� EVC u0 a E}y E ab T.W dJ �. • Q.` • y^� dQ E.. yt=] _a �. Ld G O•EWCi,pi A p u mE u Gino ao T L y C d 2 v f..l p � S C N C•. d �'nV �`EV .pl uL6 u n p a dZZ dy u c q9W u c6 YCp p • L.L ENE !_- u6�d A d� Odd C dy u CE !�- dLgA q up • C L E �p O N O � A L '^•�i, OJ D. CiEc O O•.= L ALC 3 N 9yu 9O'� w m •O N Gq du�O•V. ^ p V dGta� E uE LLd CddG � �N 0-E—y .p uy y mdLL O+uu .`: �OC t.I1. O u 2 Cd CO d a d U� ' p. d p. 4 V u C a O N >. y j. u d p q 0 9C =ay NVO C c`d W i wE OGvp T� NaP .L+4a u .N. p a� una. y Lugi uai n m Lyp .ems _F.S E d u Oa E r n 0. T W 012 T d Ta. c L L d a my y Od Ogny c "� dp do G. o Nvo Sid a L. 9N O d a J.ai �. u� f A9q HQ p� ='YLLV16 FqA I�UW.L 6�.pnLLN �•�A�G U.a. OA cV a .L Ta9 N dy. aG •L.M Ad -- 6A t2 M �. d Eep 3 A9 d y d o O� u L dL � u0 u q c c G n c 1 Pu O = 6 n yU Goa h� vT Ey LN.N' u Ypm dL L w9 T q d0��'6.) u LLB NL c U .1 1 w7k dirt N mo .LL d ep Zt z G Lu N .A d d LL a o W. .�G C d L dE:. Y^ 9 E C d 4 c T r L 2 Yp6 u u dy0 O.� G� 4tL yu 2 _A9 yy E1p L GN dN q�" olu .y_ o.NA a'u Ev'� Sao O. N .Et N r. V Lc EE• uL�r2 d qnC` p. uU.. �L q d =pa n SC yrp.Lq C `d NCyug^mp T L` qN 92 0 `O yOj.n6` d O O d9 0 L^� �L 9 N T V C a�A �•¢ Y V E j CL d q N T N N ON d C G-C� A E'pL oCdd. TLL �C Y. G d p C l O W. G G EC 490 yH �."" LC.0 L d0 A c LL F N a y u Vnl- G 3�•,.- J.L E+`�6~ F S'^N� •L 1 m G U N..r q W 1.O W E L\OIL.W yE Ey V W L b o O LN .• �GQ q.6..0.P �. ' 6d � C b � la P.. •-.� V C= TN ,. ✓^� L.A.O ryW. V 4 A O A d y E 0 a d O t N^y. rt+.`+u HL <.o� ^Pr •2.r • w � E�Dr .Lil v W d p y u q A cp iJ 64, AnE b" ac L L c ay4 A2 w P dAN^ O C1 y.A; vN dlq O L Vv. � W W � Odd :U�4 •n W M a y L p ^ y O L A V •-•L La d O a. O ^� oNE L..`. `"pc uE a d u Cz, N C a. v.=c.. � b H d d O^ d L ff^^ or.�cd La a='o u a aEEw L qqu O..O.N.-•dr L ;A O L N d O d d > Y Y ^ O Cb N pug^L s O � +OS+C bE aV. • �S NUL CAL 6= PO b2 UqO LL m.p 40V v0 OWN O VT N V^ ^- bL 6 Q Ld b �d C COW yw0. L.N tl9 CC C 6L 0. iYr J b d L c U CCU 4T• U O q U VN Wm OHO L m d yL�u d NY =Ld C E c dn.0 Elm. Aa'� a>Ac uwada. A ya > b C 6 W Ld CC S.dy4 A`.�r• L^py� Lw �A FA. d C A- ptT d y.OQ 9AmA .O.U.�`�q SL V G Cu N�_ dq�t O _N iyCQy Q•J A .r. � • ^ =W YM. ^ q V a Y, NL y6. Nam. C N dW y0. Y yo NO. AY Yb p .AC Ap u G L O d O A� 9 Gq cN N y ^ NV E L N 6g N W c L di _ E.^ ` O4p1� .mod Ci MC p-O� O iqd� LL ^b Lt N� �•D G t am+. L8 Ci.A Bid 6 N y0. N O.w a. %d q E. a.';A a wC G d dbcd0� Ea Q� ._ O2 d p' U G p O `. E p9 -C� -a �N G VqP _ �.0 db. O ro�Ly2 ^ V: gM btL-O �V Cq •eb <� „O„ Np >Wp d rd 9P0 ALO a Vz yb _ oWmdcc C{LL q� 03 V d u C b O• E U N R V =v J L o 2 W �� bUY NN A =OY WL A 1».VVNw QAAf.I, O.p �dYV N¢ N.0 L+•. d G Pad W N:o W Y.tOi 6 ��.62 or Y D o00 o:� •� n LtmDa u .:^_Xc dW od c h c a •G D N n o o [^� ' NCLSL. N +UiCO� ALl Y6' Y F r Y Y d O. L LY r 9 a C�> N OI L A u O•S+ NO u yU.gG �1\ L • g i n E � >� �O� E F.> r."Y N d D• nY M N L V T • D 6 y. L W a 9.u .U. \D. C L) d � U u nnay acD c�D.� 9v eG 'coei n UL .A YC Nu V �� E�9 �)• �.�- Ld 01N r� �. � OIiz • _ � A O O d CVyL,LLr LU.^6 NWV�. L` D7:5NS ^d uN AaOy .O LL1. YL• �. r L G N.O y u C Yy 9 V• Y` S Eul nun. E Lv d L L 6� a Y.S E` O n O A u01 C W VN E d L = cC. a V Ea0 6�l.+ CL YAL >L CU! D 6W�� �A yOLL. acau da zn Dpo a:s O L E N r O w op� �• a T L d T p l u L D vL a ^ al n LLD .72 d.0 aVO Et DIY Nn A..�.u0. E O G A N�a n. •- .O+.cA.y OI Cu .Tu U�p �`. L« "p C A YN Q v�1i uW •r- C C d y jq OT N CA �. N pW A•� <nN.M NOUM N9 64..M Qf� 4� WM.NL V.Li Sn �.1.'O +C 10r f0 Ol w�i o• u +.� L "E 9• O AW M V yr tJ r � G a � ad o r oe u dG qG � QO: r iti d L w LOp of a m6 v.v a y '" uav •- �_. dUH C.0 VW G D C N .T.Q L� •� 9C E CG 6 a Q`q d Z E O 2 n ID Nm Ed .O. N2 �7 G La CL Y .dC 44 Or +FCF U0 L.J Ec EE a0i •tlK. c M A6C • d y. L Ot } m c mZ! J L O ~L d q q n v \ O V aT 9 ♦ O % dC C�. O Y Li C d O Y �♦ d O LL Oi V 0 4 Z r.0 .pY q Av Y Y d y0 N q G N o L •O a q ^O a0+d Y d` pia LOy Ll• N.C L ye n Lo — na• ^L p w. _ ww a d w E nN S p u �V Ad Yo d=. C �: 6 O O C L N i u u uw Ad ii tdt � YE y d9 S^ w a2 d C Q�IeV C+O- d e i •O L v g W r= O E u =OZy e l d O d 1011. 4Ei MY 'C Qu' q.V Ay O L a S. O �OY RZ p A—C 6Jti117 o d a y. v u S� v o �u _ o'c ^y •^ w y w L V 6 E i L N 10 ^ FY w S C ^w Oy. wp d w O S E0 w ol y •- G. CI Od ... q N L Y Y =T Y n � dd C�4.1 dL �F. p CwiwE ^ Y t 9 d L d Y G y Y d Oz ^, T G { •may n _ O L.� L `a. C O C `d a d — C Y C C T y u u•.� L.O. q G� NL o. v ne 01.o q v n9 .e W r; cI wY e w uU L� E c .w sa' m CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C�7CAMp� STAFF REPORT 0 0 F z a > DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIk9NEMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 - WAYNE BLANTOi - A proposed residential subdiv?sion for 135 custom single-family lots, and 3 lettered open space lots, on 67.67 acres of land, in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac), within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th street - APN: 225-011-35. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Tertative Tract for custom lot residential sub-division. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; unincorporated County area South Vacant; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac), nd Estate Residential (0-1 du/ac), within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. East Citrus grove and single-family residential; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan West. Vacant; unincorporated County area C. General Plan Designations: -Project Site - Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac) North - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) with a Master Plan required ,South VeryLaw ` R esi ential (Less than 2 du/ac) East - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) West - Open space D. Otte Characteristics: Vacant land covered by natural shrubs and grasses and void of any significant land forms or vegetation. The land slopes southerly, at roughly a 6.5% grade. The Metropolitan Water District owns in fee land AM directly abutting to thi north of the site, along its entire i ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative. Tract 12659 - Wayne Blanton November 13, 1985 Page 2 perimeter, and for portions along its western perimeter. An existing windrow of Blue Gum Eucalyptus borders the site on the adjacent property to the south. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed custom lot subdivision is being developed under the optional development standards at the maximum permissable density range of 2 dwelling units per acre. To meet the requirements of the Optional Development Standards, substantial amounts of open space have been cItistered and provided as common open space areas. Further et.nancement of the oHen space is provided through the proposal to develop the large central open space area (Lot A) as an equestrian center, complete with a show ring an,' fables (Exhibit "G"). An equestrian feeder trail system ,ovided throughout the subdivision, and a community trail r—ament is proposed along 24th Street in the Metropolitan Water District property. A stub street connection is shown along the southern perimeter designed to provide access tc, the properties to the south for future development. B. Design Review Committees Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and has recommended approval, subject to the l conditions listed in the attached Resolution. C. Trails Committee: The Trails Committee has reviewed the project and Fa—sr--commended approval. D. Gradinp Committee: This project is being proposed as a .custom of subdivision. City policy for custom lot subdivis:,ions is to-. grade the street only. However, the project area f's situated in an area of significant grade in which slopes and grading become an important factor with regard to the overall design of this project. In a..situation such as this, .mere grading of lots become mutually dependent on each other to achieve a successful design, grading of the entire project area at the outset would be appropriate. Further, grading of the common open space areas is necessary. E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of this project. A copy of Part II of the environmental checklist is attached for your review and consideration. A flood study has been completed and effective mitigation measures ;proposed to a' es:; all potential impacts, including a retention design on Lot B. A geotechnical study was also conducted, and no evidence of recent faulting activity �, was indicated; hence, no mitigation is recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12659 - 'Wayne Blanton November 13, 1985 Page 3 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This ,project is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause, significant environmental 'impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,,the Development Code and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The. Dail Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 fee:: of the project site. z V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Facts for Findings and Conditions of ` Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BC:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" Land Use Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" Conceptual Master Plan of Streets Exhibit "D" Subdivision Map Exhibit "E" Phasing Plan Exhibit 'IF Conceptual Grading Plan k Exhibit "G" Common Open Space Details Exhibit "H" - Equestrian Center k. Exhibit "I" - Equestrian Details Figure 5-10 "Entry Theme" from ESP Figure 5-11 "Community Entry" from ESP ' Figure 5-27 "Etiwanda Avenue" from ESP Figure 5-32 "24th Street Parkway" from ESP figure 5-33 "24th Street Parkway" from ESP Figure 5-45 Elevation/Foot Print Variation from ESP Part II - Initiai Study E. Fault Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions S'3 �. — 5 �-�--w-. Ca Ilo� ® f� j R a a 1 ..• \ +. P.,k C-41 E. _ •L'.'�' � 11 a F C'Wri _L�_ # o oIC33 , :.. ; . BaeolM � N �j ■F- i� � Figure lft-•} GS I E $ LAND USE PLAN RESIDENMIL ✓ I%�'/�� °f�/1 Cd®a, /// "�' C_]VERY Low e2Dt'uAC. ano. I. -:. _.:. i.. �:".KS'✓ �,i/.�,:: .r.. ��/% C7 LOW.z..MAC C=1 LOW-MEDIUM s•acvuaC. MEDIUM[4a4 ahaC `'--_.1 <y„ r X ///%/G a �',. ✓/,. / j t E=MEDIUM-HIGH u.74Cvasc hrr t=HIGH 24•30Wv,AC AA //!/ i' / % �rc�/u� 0 MASTER PLAN REQUIRE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE Z=COMMERCIAL f__ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. ,fn �i��'I+ .'.: /// / .�,//4✓x L-I NEIGHBORHOOD COM&C REGIONAL COMMERCIAL F"oa�y 6 g INDUSTRIAL x g L_j INDUSTRIAL PARK' C=GENERAL INDUSTRIAL LI GENERAL INDUSTRIAL/ RAIL SERVED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE HILLLSIDSI E'RESIDENTIAL r OPEN SPACE b FLOOD CONTROLIUTILfTY COIL SPECIAL BOULEVARD. PUB, FACILITIES M EXISTING SCHOOLS (y PROPOSED SCHOOLS, C-'PARKS'IEnsmC.F,w,slCNx'r7 =CIVICCOMMUNMY - CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA L, GENERAL PLAN CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO CU(A1,IONGA TITLE PLANNING DIVLSM E.XIiIBIT: " SITE UTILIZATION MAP TRACT NO. I2659 VACANT / A. C A. N T ' V A C ... N T92 0.0 i >�\ '(Z 0 N I N_GP N'VL) (ZONING A ER) C. 1 f� h NORTH CITY OI' I`I Ei1 is � r FiAl�`CI-�o CLTCAN'lojNGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISIaN ae �, . EXHIBIT-.�_SCALE: — - - CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN - I•� i 0 FORTH CITY OF. RANCHO CUCAj:,10\'GA TITLE: ]PLANNI,NG DIVISION �' s+ ' E,ZIIIRIT: �r SCALE= M AV r uJ CCNVMI13_ 7�. _ . .. � •..` i�Ir c'� \t ,`�`. \i`•' Ir s� iii� i s',i "I �it Ir �\, - ru - i V! � is ra a ._\ I` '\l .Y\ ��� •; It 1 ti'� r '�t p 1 ' a w I/S !!!1 F St ii° \ • eft' ...v i , ; �. �1 a a �. -. \1J , /t t Oe �( as � �_'\ \ 2E� �^`.• �\ �\ ,�, `a\ r1 \ a 1 1 ct' '�� g, 6� €R3 jj V ` yo 21 i 1 I II131 EM LLJ • � �39 �� t , � q \` -1 I t�.g l� � _1 � 1a'E� F 1 ea l � y .tx. 3�fttcaL LU RICO L it s vs a�y� s AV 1 l +nlnj •t a'' a• a � 1 1 1. .•. a�,•.yaFJ.jwiii:i:�u. 1. t CITY or, ITEM I: l RA11CH® CL;Ct` &joj GA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISIC)�N E\I3IBIT- a •; , t . PHASING PL AN TRACT NO. 12659 . i (/ �� a/ w �+ - - � 1.£.x' �r Y _`Y qy •1v : -�� �ll�t �= .�- -1 •{J� ,,. PHASE--" ' .� ,,� �. -- `��� � l r=�-��.. M 1 . PHASE j,>��• ,FIH EfF - I O Wes.)�.!_..vr(F �(I-.V V JU`U OCt.+]rQJV '-�Ctw^`W�.Y Ltd V WL a:��`.r J .-HUJ 'r J•)Jw V ( ..C� NURTH CITY OF RANCHO CLTCANIONGA TITLC: PLANNING DIVISION E. HIBIT Jr � q � VONVMLL3 r T -2•-- N.H i :ih.Ij� Q 1 x ^z� ay = 7 for ✓ `;`.. rf Z �'+._;,� ,�. ':CL LM� V cu FI--7; a fit KW CL all Ld U Ul aG1 tia i ? } _,cam\w�. s1. _ +' '.•a In ' CITY or, ITFA I.,= -R-ANCHO CUCATTONGA TITLE:_ /w .� PLANNING DIN ISION EXHIBIT= 1. I H r^ z � _ c � a t 27 ID IL v V FORTH CITY Or. ITEM: "�i" i�.•�q RANTCHO CU AIIO\G --- 'i'ITLG._ PL I KING DIVISION EXHIBIT-2�SCALE. Y f YJ ;V atr G.c•m --- TF secna.! (1,LDLma�s Were •_„ .•--�. QRill Tux o.'a1 RGVaTaI ®� fFL4LA.4+L'�K ���.��-G_� M w NORTH CITE'' Or R INCHO cuCAtiIO\TGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION � E1I IatT " t'' SCALE: 24'n;STfiEET M W M L-� AYE il� F j 040 r ® • ® ® / a I pOlJTE 7p� HG1iJ M AVE��® ® -- r-- r I C1 40 ARK _ , AVE• iC . Ir 090 and a ®II�L City Gateway ® Community Entry �I �C ® Neighborhood Entries f� ARROW II title _-- figure c", ENTRY-THEME 5-10 a, UI I S�YG'2� a. } 4 cam, 4 ®-z4'C3o.ct'nlY1. � &-tA(on mm, , y t C , e 1LO c®rfiMUr 47" ENTRY "11 Typical�•sncept 5— 1 1 s�ree� �J"ees . murk►-gunk , • eutrtcryt�tze�?�'Bo�C mm. _ (�caran�aa�,NL � o• '� .,. s�ree� t } �'trecs ,> +,o' oL* I NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY. . ,� 1 Typical Concept t •L9rge. : fir . C=lUtaMr ccil'rttrtsr rr informal tree rittq informal , {tyy esc/ s tre—, nD( Par•FiK• / tYP o Per 111` vim_ `�ti . . gam. s �;��►� � � � r 7' too' 9' is, e eual x b l\s —; ., ea'Pow 5pe:�l�•:Fb�cks � requircd - rcguirr7 ETIWAN®A AVENUE North of Summit C coiummar columrar' tree ty�q EreetYFL-,A '� •u $� er e` A-' . EAST AVENUE � F:Gm' ,9-28 blx(c�yaU� ,�,� berming� !nsalu5es 4W, i 44 � HIGHLAND AVENUE FIG. a- 1 Informal c tree muc ��ttyy�� e corumnar rte r G' h4�style�an{�n8 type,C> f=F F 3e 14! 3z' varjcs I it vans zo' � , 24TH. -STREET PARKWAY FIG: 5-32, 5r way c ••,•�-• ♦ :,.f' +'� ''i� t"•�'>i^•�•� :T tom.•. r `_' 2; � .. .sr :1.�.:.\ �,r/Yiilt%—��• � -. lot �• •. 1 v r i s` w4lk/a►keFath� a".•• ' .nth _....... t r. qW, Q1,WIL q � wil }r.�a �UeS�Y1dYl call r rrrbd 24TH. STREET PARKWAY Planting Guidelines - Sfreef frees(►n ublic fzpwjo GY GYCSS-SeG�IO{ftr�e 6G��jule ree A, 15 cal. Flan per tabIc s-41 plane �n-clus�ers, 14 irez- per -5 tree G, :steal. plan mc�u�{ers.±eirces per 55c, f a'_Trce D, Pz c al. plant m -1usIer5, trzzs F-,r 3zr-,-' - :1're--W s�aL plan{ g o.c., per Mien 5.41.5co. >�tr�'s apes �4ell be CuppjeM nted 6y apprevr►a�e shrubs c�rcurt�ccver. - F1 ® 1,51)®3 Number of Single Family Minimum Number of Minimum Number of Dwellings _ Foot Prints Elevations/Foot Print 5-10 3 2 11-20 4 3. 21-40 5 3 41-60 6 4 61-80 7 4 61-100 S 4 Over 100 1 Additional For Each 40 DU's Over 100Aft Fig. 5 5 i r' � J. H. KLE1NFELDER & ASSOC'iATES GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS • MATERIALS TESTING LAND R WATER RESOURCES VICTORIA CORNER BUSINESS PARK 901 WEST VICTORIA STREET.SUITE G COMPTON.CALIFORNIA 902:0. October 21, 1985 (213)638.9344 Q-1038-1 Community Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 rl Attention: Mr. Bruce M. Cook Subject: Review of Geologic Reports Tentative Tract No. 12659 Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Cook: As per your authorization of September 30, 1985, personnel from our firm reviewed available geologic data for Tentative Tract No. 12659, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.. The northern portion -of the site is situated within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the Red Hill Fault. The purpose of our review was to evaluate the existing geologic reports with respect to compliance with special Publication 42, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972. General Information We understand that the northern portion of the subject site is in- cluded in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This area lies southwest of the mapped trace of the Red Hill Fault, which is con- sidered to have been active during Quaternary time. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has extended the special•studies zone further to the southwest along the projected trace of the fault. The subject parcel encompasses approximately 67 acres aad is located southwest of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street. 1p Development plans £or the parcel consist'of" single family residential construction Currently, the Site is vacant and has a dense cover of cham:ise and sage. OTHER OFFICES: 9 - •' Walnut Leek•San Ramon•Sacramento Stcckton•Fresna Fairfield•Merced•Rohdett Park.•Reno••Lu.Vegas•St.Ceorgr..Utah•Denver J.H.K'LEINFELDER&ASSOCIATES 0-1038-1 Page 2 AOL Scone of Study , Our study consisted of the review of available geologic literature bertinent to the subject site, evaluation of stereoscopic air photos, and field reconnaissance by a geologist and an engineering geologist. A bibliography is attached. Special reference is made to a study completed by Richard Mills Associates, entitled "Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Residential Tract, Etiwanda, Avenue and 24th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California", dated September 9, 1983., Conclusions Observations of the aerial photographs ;show a tonal lineation extending through the northwest portion of the site, as an apparent extension of the mapped trace of, the Red Hill Fault. This lineation was not dis- cernible during our field reconnaissance. Review of the trench logs completed by Richard Mills Associates- (1983) , did not show any sub surface expression of this tonal lineation, or any other evidence of displaced soil strata. "he above study completed a series of logged test trenches, totalling 983 feet, excavated perpendicular to the extended trace of the mapped Red Hill Fault. Based upon our research and field reconnaissance, it is our conclusion that the Richard Mills Associates' report is adequate for the proposed residential proje�c at the subject site. Based upon our review of available data, it is our opinion that traces of the Red Hill Fault do not lie within the boundaries of the special study zone which crosses the northwest portion of the site. We conclude that addi- tional fault studies for this proposed residential development area are not necessary. J.H.KLEINFELDER&ASSOCIATES Q-1038-1 Page 3 AV We appreciate working with your office on this project, and look forward to discussing with you any questions that may arise con- cerning our opinions or conclmsions. Very truly yours, J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASPOCIATES Mark C. Bergmann Project Geologist ' . c Thomas C. Ries Senior Engineer C.E.G. 1253 MCB:TCR:sl - I J.H.KLEINFELDER&ASSOCIATES Q-1038-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1979 Special Studies- Zones, M unt Baldy Quadrangle, dated January 1, 1979. 2. Crook, R., Kamb, B., Allen, C., Payne, M., and Proctor, R., 1978; Quaternary Geology and Seismic Hazard of the_Sier m Madre and Associated Faults, Western San Gabriel-Mountains, California: California Institute of Technology, Division of Geological and Planetary Sc nces Contribution No. 3191. 3. Davis, J., 1979, "Cucamonga Peak Quadrangle, special Studies Zone, scale 1:24,000, dated January 1, 1979, by California Division of Mines and Geology. 4. 7ife, D. 7 ., Rogers, D. A., Chase, G. W., Chapman, R. H., and Sprutte, E. C_, 1976; zeologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernadino County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 113, 40 p. 5. Hart, E. W., 1980; Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines aryl Geology Special Publications 42, Revised March 1980, 25pp. 6. Jennings, C., 1975; Fault Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 1. 7. Morton, D. M., 1976a; Geologic Map of the Cucamong Fault-Zane Between San Antonio Canyon and Cajon Creek, San Gabriel Mountains, Southern California: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 72-726. ),H.KLEINFELDER&ASSOCIAT.S Q-1033-1 Page 2 f 8• , 1976b: Geologic, Fault and Major Landslide and Slope I Stability Maps in Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bern- adino County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113, 13 Plates, Scale 1:48000. 9. Richard Mills Associates, 1983, "Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Residential Tract,_Etiwanda Avenue .at .24th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California", dated September 9, 198t, 9624 Turner Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. 10. Rodgers, T. H., 1969: Geologic Map of California, San Bernadino, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale-1;250,000. 1 11. San Bernadino County, 1974, Seismic and Public Safety Element; 42pp. 12. Tinsley, J. C., Matti, J. C., McFadden,," L. D. (editors) , 1982; Guidebook: Late Quaternary Padogenesis and Alluvial Chronologies of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Mountain Areas, and Holocene Faulting and Alluvial Stratigraphy Within the Cucamonga Fault Zone: 78th Annual Meeting, Cordilleran Section, Geologic Society of America, April 19-21, 1982, 44 p. Aerial Photov-aohs Reviewed Date Flight Number Frames Scale Source 1930 C-829 12-15,43-46;1 1:1500± Fairchild 58-61 1938 C-5042 14-23 1:2000i Fairchild March 13 �Y za TucL ua._. co 'tea a$^ a — Gac , E = p C a U Y Y N aP o •_J E A E V O L o C L.i � d TL EO CU O.G a O a o 0 6 V q A q Y d02'O �L na U.A V G` O AL A A.� L OaaLi =u�da. >P E` cVd p�C U , uu �aNn„C Y„G U+-O m`J�^ UE Nn qvC p Y Ly 2 a� Ca.PbA oCti —a.. bid GO.0 G`YN G'W Y b F.o.G O O: a G A O �.d F p 61 'O To AO 4V GO. > O N4 tA.� d . . '^ as C:d :C aU CEO q�EY�Lanp^—.� `ter �Vd pJ OdL. " O d6 U a•6 G a.'^ N E r. �LQ y.- �L a• N>. T ^tY�E ,rb,.0 O � MO�i �.�b'V9 Lp � .A O 6�O.M O Y j C<t�T ub i OO P b Y Sy.E c a Oii?N E 'n m =T u La L J L> E L O a' EON EEEE AO'O H bo O O�.Oi:N N , j - n nado� �c chQEG cY= z o rd v o.>s GM WLl d4 p G �� SNP c e a� Sc LL O 4�- ``• E d S �t � N T U C c VjAl Ix Gam+ p Gdo o `o ova 97.5 P2 u b u > `pJnQ Y j aV r J�o O N L.G.�i c ZGA uV o .,E a d M G 3 . E O G C ua u O: �.Sd O p•gOo LO rL E a .G . u t2. .N aA S Ll�aa �C o G 2 y a^ C 6u �n Z O .) O.pLu o nN T a � In2 a L 'N a O.. plo a�=U AL C BEN In X = 9 m u d 2N�^uoi �' aF Oa Slr u=E Aq€ NrN a =6U W tE6.a C9 W ON 30 �� ao 9.` ON aE gOlaO> Gm amp N C 3 i ayiq oa u O N E • X. {i al v .OQ EG d YL L� �qL -A, 3 2Ndu � ¢wo.S Ge c • +•u 22 ^d R.-. C a 36 Ou d d^ c apL+r aarr+N C n`« o EbOa u''�o^,1 3r. A 6 6 _C Ir Y o a. _ d'�aN O R V o. a F• �.Eu G E�.U..o as m � N Elan Cu A G yp O. a.^ Y¢ III • „'^ c°• u 0« a Pq 1^ T^ E N a p C a tts dy YY nL � ='a a> O S .n LnpaY .d OIG L pOOL TT- '.. �S>q. dq 9� ca� GEo q�6. � UULL.6 u E.Y .- h � u L>d OUE L G � O p M Ida G a d rY A O N r C O Wa S.NL tf C: dn .� ua p g3 'ao r< Arlo dC a� a U.—mVz GNP o'nN ^d01 lL L C9 as 4a +. CyC 2 2! u U'i L w Y •.9� d Y�E ' E N ~ S.oJ O NL N AL G t.l -V m UM- NUU E y 6 i E y In 3 S U O a`i: Eda cam v 4'a a aGvE « o �pc o"cc u..L EGE .. yo N •_ > d >a C\L`' a nULo L...A>O E Ya Y AO olLa^t U O.'. + Yo' 00.E Ina G.. Q Y u a 6 J E O • J l I\ G b u O a Y C.� O O O N r O O G Y.Q • � L D _vVp1 d �'L ELdG y W P� = O n F•a j b y Np i E ny 6G N � d0 p0 •qd Np G �` btu cr N �.c « iu LL y.mo pv oui — v 'c.. u U GquLi Ym 2.. �L;y a:C o N� m� H Yub GdA�. e • a •O ov'c. un� q'":o'+98 L O N Lul L 6N G 6� N N d� Gb b dL a m �' D•o a p. u «c d Ca o ••- O G d O � L.'Gib o a� NNUP u� �n EN aEEi` ��O .G CC Lu CND.- L �Lu pb YCY 0• ED Cu lg ... 6b Cl C•Y.i CE Y C R q—��'f O O t C • CGpL G;J Gj^ N dGN �D L.L�.�N Gu La7 ` Cd 730 d Lj n T ..— �u 'L It �L q Y y. O O• n C l N G v N� q qF O.V�Y n� Oi.dL Oj G Gnn b � YO EE O. L. p0 nLN d=^ Y.L 4GLC O ^xl F Y •q L C � L O'L i q O• �� E. 6�6 6 G.. G a• Syr L V C. b. EDu L E H rdu yn o n — Ed .0 YLN .•av ^9oE� •^•Yc>>G •^ ^OLN C.N�.OL �' WO•a nN o. Y vc ,oi L �Y o'c Y M y ^� S ^ `^O� G p ^L a•Y� Nb�6 �� Nam. LL dp w...c O:gap qLa L Y • O6.r ZC I-E d 9u Y pc C� uN u e qua. d � Eu bb `aa LC Cy • ~ cpS� .. • C OO N N T YN Nyw dp Olq i C.q� � LO L�6C OY up O�u L q • O. L d � y �a N c o Ca D,o C L Ofa 6 ^�N� G WY 'yG c'ub O.tOr N^ C`jL•�C. AU _CV�O e. Ly L OOq y6 OLD. 'd. ^nd � bb u G^ y au u pC.s dD^LY r'Gi e _, vN ,xG'> E u b Y uj' b a Y a N by - N q u q L q•L'•� O•.d., C C u N . dd om r,1� O L DR b Eb N. ba n .•. OLyo GC.L1i v0._L `. OC A YY p w= qLt� bd.OG N@ L y .OGi b H N �CI o N u e L� a� b i•� ....+o D �U �. i pu t .N c yq @yam cCE p N O n q b y G V ^ T L y Y nC L V Nb N YdO O^ O V Q�' C q•r.m > Q V N-H C w Q V Q V F•O n.G..q 6 G 6 9 q�...C .^E y y�..0 � C lu 0 V tTc O� cd! u o L a �'�� �'W EU L O p E.O. j a=, •+ D• Op y Z. Aew pOO ddw. LL_ ? pa dd cy c x � O CL. f.1 ® LY L �E.> `�q V. qoQ r40p K YAgo Y >8 RO` r A� Lq O. � Z�Qr C�d �OCaU SA yu M ^CC ay &j.9Ucu yqY. IL y N Ca nl 01 r t O.N _ u TtL ma` N O N �.oOq F6 Cy' SLtLNp h O !-NWL Lam. 4Ya N o�-.ewa N J �...p^• �w9 N4 t)b' dtr db _ d LO � - OY A r `LY OLD .G y M N =C Y .''d >G u OO �d� Z ob c u nm . G.`o a± a a„ot v svNL ua. a O DVip O-0aTi �. O c Jaw. Ocy Y YOS d yb A�w �•p Z Z 1�'q V^ a0+ h. Y 6H.q N �6� V �... uvTq y� Y Lv acr. No nu.� ro .. Fd'_c:.— aav E E« rx a0'9. n0 G �Od♦ �' er bM O G-0.4�0 a9 �d AFL L VE N. L C 00 C OC �f KSC ON OL aN -� E FAN vai.N -... 3yr lL +' < F-4�io+` Q6.m burn.. E W1� tY 6x 6YV, m y E L d W d b a o a•. m v c � a oN O• pY.. O C. y.+ A n E •r y u V 4N v�1 L p.O�0 N ZC. OL O 4p C p q E c uy O L _ d E V oE c d Nyq W.AO A d NEO'er d=A qd C b a'O O.y • " d a A ? E p S d o d " u.A Nbu v E p.. cd ooa.. La LL. a'u aouuo o�`e. c cr. y p? nN �a vmm- L y= 12 Cq LO A d6 upb use z. nia bQ u« aNI �►� �E �i �i Izi. Ln C^ u c c c b a "d A a c ca cu,��-n a occ L d a c N N C d _E t v.i W. y� uLAi' -C. p2 " y0d10 � O Ob Lys y..+qy L d d V N d VS 6O� O 9�t y ."O L C O E C - A Od dC y yd mY G~ A Ny ♦tea " .TW ~E NO " t d u d o'a a.- b�^.Cp :+ a A: o p��. dy CN p dd d. Lam" Lp b u du.d l . C am_ mb a E ^ 9 torn . . .5 y y d F 2 M. P .� N y d G4 "64 99 V 4u. }� GA Pp ...d A. hYON"..Q dAG. a6rE=► 441 uay Jr E F ^ -9 ` L L 2 Q Y B 4 G x EE N Lq�V Cd dq.L q d S � A 0 4S S A dP S y yA O �� Q 4L 2 o 6Eq MW ny U _ _ d 0 R x 9 » � c'o cLo.E vq ` Q E qL. G C `Q_OI NS _ 6 _ a . Eu LA qC e '^ OGi tJ d 4 a.u. �--- u �. mao o2FF d.L 4 y0 xp. Cd v3.SV t O L xyt C A 4 v N 4 `O GS EN E Eyy d N q � 3 EA _OpO cd `.O '- E�'O N p d Ld gA•YL L A uG y�UL Z L aV.0 Aa„ x n •- OgaAi pu U- o Y c Ty E. T x Iz 6g w N O Y _ 6 r [J N ytz •-V q G `_ �� !a • at +Ord CL ` Y M O to f_ E 4 C� S L •G - ?mo d rn4 ' 60 L4. d»O pP �.glt C4 1 L E W� 6 Y yC SY S E a. VfJ „ 9E cC pEiu un xt vq =u L 1 1 4L� o y d o Nr S q d� C �^` HS L d N^ x w.E p p. A•u^ qd;..Et yN o Lam. � vi .^ I u =q L m-, q. CE C d R N �1 U� 4 C1 e T y.. _••, � y C �tY 6q 66'L WZ L gNiT 6L Ur... W o O• ^q r� a 2 •� u N i q ! « d� W.C D Y Y r «Y 4. p - e N c pq. oeJ E N Ga b` dd T -w C V d F. b c d ua t+y c q N 6N 4 uY Ld dy q " E �r1• Baia ZZ =N q 2. q N b ti:.. L v 4 A L p~ u+ 3 T e1 N t c d^ a q get E C � C G: 0 a 79lad. L ya. jT o L 06 uq ° n o a rn. d Cb C °J pc _J 2Ob _Ea ~y Nq V cq » dq o2 4 2.N io Ley 0 q. c Lc _ qc q�� U dL do Y« O Ot 4 q[T^ u da q d �•�q �fY 11Y ...a O Cam. 6 2•. i, CITY OF RANCHO CUC MONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRO„MENTAL CHECKLIST 'r DATE:--�` �- �- , APPLICANT: FZLItiC DATE- lOG NU:ffiER; '�f/ PROJECT: 6�`(aCl ® PROJECT LOCATION:���-r I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. So.'s_nd G�eolo¢v. Will the proposal have significant resulresults in: a. Urstabie ground conditions or is 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, COW-ing or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting ei'Ser'on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or*similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? ' Z• EydroloQ X. Will the proposal have significant results in: ' Page 2 YES ?LAYBE No a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, channels? _.rivers, or ephemeral stream b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flo3d waters? d. Change in. the amount of surface water itk any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or anv alteration of surface water quality?" f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supYlies? t i• Exposure of people or prope_ty W water ,4 related hazards such as f.tooding or seiches? 3. Air related Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Dete-ioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the attainw-nt of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4• Biota -- Flora.in: Will the proposal have significant results ';..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? Z-- Page 3 YES `=BE \0 c. Intrcductioa of new or,disruptive .species of plants intro an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricu.tural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers f of any species of animals? 5.�® b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare l or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Povulation. Will the proposal have significant results ia: AM a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. posal affect existing housing, or Will the pro create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significata results in: a. Change in le:cal or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? /b. Will project costs be equitably distributed / . among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal,have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with, any designation , objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of an entities? Y governmental �— Ik c, An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-con'umptive recreational opportunities? I, '--7- Page 4 MS ;+aF3S NO resu 8• rransoortation. Will the,proposal have significant. lts in: • a,. Generation of substantial. additional vehicular Movement? b. Effects ou existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substancial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movewent of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects in present a:,d Potential water-borne, sail, mass transit or air traffic? S• Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will thz proposal have AOL szgnificant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety and"Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? B. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of ex plosion losion p or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? dt An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pati.enogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? I _ e. IncreasR in existing noise levels? f• LAposure of pe, le to potentially dangerous � noise levels" —� b•- The creation of objectionable odors? h. Ar increase in light or glare? Page 5 YES :'_4YBT NC 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 have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following; a. Electric power? b_ Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? _r d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? JL i. Police protection? _ J. Schools? — ic.. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including re.-As and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Enerey and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significanr - :suits in,: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sourn•es if energy? c, An increase in the demand for developmant of new sources'of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-•renewal.!e forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? Wage 6 YES MAYBE •;O ` e- Substantial depletion of any scarce natural resource? nonrenewable or 14. Mandatory Findings of'S,rzificance. a. Does the project have th- potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduca the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminare important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tern, 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- ters impacts will endure well into the future,' c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projocts). d. Does the project have environmental efft.:ts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II, DISCUSSION OF ENFIFON'LNTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers- to the above questiors plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). b f-lsx.o �iT�tG"� l-�� •PF-r''�.�t� Mom.�`R-�ri -tS� ��:UTIVZL`{ M�T�GA"Cc= p t i7�Ne 3,�liea ,�ss�-S -Ch pia-Z' P�-ei- ea,�t•�ida- -1G.rIT' GuR¢ Pr_� , t u�b-�cias�� lC^npJa�TS oF �t-� �t.t- !r -� � �.�:✓mow, c��_ tr�p�-4' /iF-� of !St-U�PT.��:� Staasb.4c�� IE� -iv�t�o Yea G�c-i->�o�-� o AS ir-3stGe-11 -ki: -t'I ° C��.W�'��.�1T 6-i��-t rlP��_ i cn�•-t�v�: �.��ac..i orJ -Tc�,-Z=P�'�'-TF�Ctch-� �`g�Tr--t T✓� L1�'i.�A..�1t�tG �z�+'\-5-c,�-lG �Pp•� �: fS�c totii:�•r1�.L1G-Tti-1Ls• �Ks Loc «a-� or tam �a-v gt oC�+��=i-t r ►h �a�c,,,,> as3.-cT L-L -TS OF �J�-pa[.x.�� Iraq(�A�jC�UGTc.l�2E.. �..e�.ME -xZS, `It-t�3 l�6Ve�s �-laa�cao �z Ti-i►S Pk�li�'GT �R B 1-1�Tllt�t T l r1e E1�+rlt.l�U �gFzVIGfF Grt�i�Coll lTl lsS i-FPi 1�i Or Ei�PAr-vaDl� LF -tic l�-sFF./>5-t�t�G �� t.11ct_ Fs 'F_z;Jz-r Yrt TAM V7_\1 tcVili Page 7 III. DETEIRMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the; proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIy% DECL.RATION *.rill 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 c se because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A NCGAMT DECLARITION WILL BE PREPARED. DI-find,the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnmenL, and an FNIrIPMEENT MPACT REPORT is required. Date Signatu^e Title ` ` RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12659 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map Nz). 12659 hereinafter "MAP" submitted by Wayne Blanton, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as that 67.57 acres, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avem:e, south of 24th Street - APN 225-011-35, into 135 numbered and 3 lettered lot:;, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on November 13, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Planne.!r has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division`s reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered tha. Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Cormission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract.No. 12659 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, ' Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consisL.ent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substanti-i environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans avd wildr,,fe or their habitat; (e) The 'tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through ar use of the property within the proposed subdivision. AMA (g) That this project will not create advers2 impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaraticn is issued. _3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page #2 SECTION 2: Tentative. Tract Map No. 12659, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved'subject to all of the following conditions t and the attached Standard Conditions: Design Review: 1. Revisions shall be incorporated into the equestrian area to the satisfaction of the Trails Advisory Committee (Lot A) as follows: I a. Trailer parking spaces should be designed as pull- through. b. Some of the trailer spaces should be large enough to accommodate 4-horse trailers. C. Gates or,, the central arena should be provided on the east and west ends, as opposed to the north and south saes. d. Bleachers shall be provided for t.e main arena, e. Utilities, pad, etc., should be made available to accommodate future installation of an announcer's booth. f. Ramps on manure pits should be more gradual, and a landing should be provided at the top. g. Manure pits should be located on inside of loop road further away from the houses. _ h. Horse washing areas require a cement pad, and the spigot is to be located ou*side of railing. i. Hitching posts should be positioned edjacent to both ends of all tack rooms. j. Horse watering troughs should be provided. k: Feeders and water basins on individual horse stalls _ should be positioned on outside of stall fencing. . 1. 5-rail high fencing should be used on horse stalls. m. Metal tack rooms are not very durable; an alternative type of construction should be used. 2. The equestrian easement on the west side of Lot 129 shall be extended westerly along the south side of Lot I28 to align with the trail provided along the east side of Lot 92. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page #3 3. Ten (10) foot corner cut off easements shall be recorder ao the final map for local •feeder.trails per City Standard T#10)1. 4. A final comprehensive design of the Equestrian area including, but not necessarily limited to, a standard design for all tack room construct':)n, a landscaping and irrigation plan, a lighting plan, and details of the restroom/caretaker facilities shall be brought back for review and approval by the Design Review Cormiiit'ee prior to final recordation of the map. Perimeter improvements shall include the construction of walls along 24th Street anti Hanley. The wall type should be o` an open nature such as wrought iron. 5, Design of the perimeter treatment of the tram including, but not necessarily limited to, details of perimeter walls/fences, landscaping, and community trails shall be brought back for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to final recordation of the map. 6. Design elevations and building footprints shall be brought back through the Design Review process :or the review and approval of the Planning Counission prior to Final Map Recordation. t Variety to the footprints and elevations shall be achieved �. consistent with the architectural guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and numbers sh&- conform to the requirements of Figure 5-45 of the Etiwanda Snecific Plan. stateme7it shall be included in the CC & R's t.ir thie tract notifying property owners that the architectural design of their dwellings must br consistent with the guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 7. Tree planting shall be consistent with the Windrow Planting Policy of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 8. Lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue shall be developed,in accord with the Etiwanda Aveni'ie Overlay District: and Special Access Policy as stipulated in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 9. The Etiwanda Avenue/24th Street intersection shall be designed as a community entry per Figures 5-10 and 5-11 of the Etiwanda Specific Plat. 10. The 24th Street Parkway shall be developed with an equestrian trail and bike path, and the Etiwanda Avenue parkway shall be developed with bike path per Figures 5-27, 5-32, and 5-33 of tie Etiwanda Specific Plan. 11. A feeder trail system for equestrian use shall be required. Such trails shall be located within easements and shall be designed as a continuous network providing access to each lot. Improvements shall be consistent with the City adopted equestrian trail standards and their construction shall be accomplished concurrent with lot gradinq and street improvements. F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION' Page 44 12. The final design of the Community: Equestrian Trail in the 24th Street parkway shall be coordinated with the final design of Hanley Avenue to ensure a workable solution that provides for a logical future exten-,ion of the Community Trail to achieve a continuous and interm'sert-rd system, 13. The indicated improvement details fir the open space lots (Lots A, 8 and C), shall be developed concurrent with grading and street improvements initiated with that particular phase of development per the approved phasing plan. Open space improvements shall be completed prior to the re,ease for occupancy any dwelling u;iits within that phase of development. Tentative Tract: 1. The developer shall make a cash deposit for one-half width street improvements-on Hanley Avenue fronting Parcel 73. 2. 24th Street shall ba -constructed per Etiwanda Specific Plan Standard 5.3-23 and landscaped per Etiwanda Specific Plan Standard 5.3-16 from Etiwanda Avenue to the projection of Hanley Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Lot "B" shall be designed and constructed as a retention basin to the !,itisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Developer shall provide the necessary transitions for street and drainoge along Etiwanda Avenue from the -joutherly boundary to 23rd Street to the sat+faction of the City Engineer. 5. developer shall pay the Cit,,'s S�.arm Drainaga fees prior to .ecording Tract Map. ,. 6. Street improvements on Etiwanda Avenue,, adjacent to subject tract, shall be constructed with the first phase of development to the satisfaction of the City Fngineer. 7. Developer shall repair the rock curb along Etiwanda Avenue from s!!oj -t tract to Highland Avenue for d•ninage purposes. APPROVED AND ADO?TED Ti"S 13TH W OF NOVEMBE^, 1985. PLANNING IrI •iMISSION (Q; THE CITY OF MUCHO CUECAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATE""T: Bral Buller, Ueputy Secretary t '`ck701 02 et Pa � of � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page ,15 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herebycertify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �UcanroN STAFF REPORT O O U DATE: November 13, 1985 15,7 f TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM; Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Pianner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13022 -• WILLIAM ,YUN COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 286 total total acres and including the development of 275 single family lots on 44.1 net acres in the. Low Residential, (2-4 du/ac), Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac), Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac), and School/Park Community Facilities lend use designations within the Victoria Planned Community located north of the ' Southern Pacific Railroad, south of Highland Avenue, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of the Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-211-13, 34 & 38; 202-221-27 I. BACKGROUND: On March 27, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the Area Development Plan for the Victoria G,-oves Village. This Area Plan establishes the future land use patterns and circulation- system for the Groves Village. This proposal further subdivides two of the planning areas into 275 individual parcels slated for single family homes. In addition, this tract map will subdivide the remaining portion of The Groves Village into large parcels per phasing plan (Exhibit "C"). II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of f;ubdiv,sion map for 280 lots and approval of precise plot plan and building elevations for the development of 275 single family homes. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac). South - Vacant; Terra Vista Planned Community designated for future 99 acre City park. East - Vacant; Low (2-4 du/ac), Low Medium (4-8 du/ac), Medium (4-14 du/ac), and Medium High (14-24 du/ac) Residential within the !Victoria Planned Community (Victoria Vineyards North). West Deer Creek Channel and vacant be, ;nd; Flood Control, - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) and Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). i ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13022 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY November 13, 1985 Page 2 C. Genoral Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac); proposed elementary school site; proposed park site; Neighborhood Commercial. North Foothill Freewa_,t; proposed high school site;,Flood Control. utility corridor. South - Park site. East - Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac); Medium Residential (�-14 du/ac). West - Flood Control,/Utility Corridor; Low Residential (2-4 du/ac); Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). D. Site Characteristics: The Victoria Groves Village is predominately vacant land void of any significant land forms or vegetation, save for a grove of mature Pepper trees. This grove is to be preserved and is planned as the major element of The Groves Park at the terminus of the Victoria Parklane. No structures or improvements currently exist. The 44 acres slated for the first phase of development lie southerly of the Pepper grove. Within this area, the property slope 'outherly at approximately a 3% grade. III. ANALYSIS• mr A. General: The proposed tract. is consistent with the Area Development Plan (see Exhibit "B") conceptually approved by the Planning Commission. The area slated for unit development is divided into two areas with different lot sizes and product types. The westerly 94 lots are a-minimum 4,500 square feet designated as Low-Medium, and the easterly 181• lots are a minimum 3,000 square feet designated as Medium. The architectural program proposed shows center plot units within the 4,500 square foot lots and zero lot line units on the 3,000 square foot lots. Three foot prints each with a variety of elevations are shown for each product type. The two product types are separated by a central green belt spine that functions as part of the Victoria Planned Community Trail network. This project will include the development of the Victoria Parklane/Milliken intersection which is designated as a major residential entry by the Victoria planned Community. y B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee approved the project but offer the following comments " 1. Front 'Yard landscaping should be required on 3000 square foot lots. r• 2. Tile roof material only shall be used exclusively s; for all homes. E fa PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13022 ;LLIAM LYON COMPANY November 13, 1985 Page 3 3. Variable front yard setbacks should be required for lots fronting on street "A". 4. Elevations should be provided showing architectural treatment upgrades for side and second story rear elevations that face streets. 5. Lot plots showing 8 foot or less driveways should be sited on a dispersed r,;,ttern throughout the project and should rot be grcuped in small, concentrated areas (automatic garage door openers required). 6. Eight foot grade differentials between building pads and the loop street are acceptable, but Slopes should be c;;raded to standards of contour/grading and : lope planting should be -accomplished in an informal, flowing type of design. Am These comments have been incluc!cd into the Conditions of Approval. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: Part 1 of Initial Study has been ccmpleted by the applicant. _Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of thi;, project. A copy of Part II of the Environmental Checklist is attached for your re-,iew and consideration. The results of 'a noise study completed for the project indicate a sound wall is required for noise attenuation for the lots rearing onto Milliken Avenue (Lots 24-30; 43-44, and 60-71) to achi ,e exterior noise levels in conformance with City Stagy:lards. In addition, building features have also been proposed necessary to achieve interior noise levels consistent with the City Standards. These requirements have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project 17 onsistent with the Victoria Planned Community and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Victoria Planned Community, the Development Code, and City Standards. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This il:em has been advertised as a public hear?ng in The Daily R�1 eport newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to aT"f property owners within 300 feet of the project site. J-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13022 - WILL-AM'LYON COMPANY November 13, 1985 Page 4 Am VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. R ectfully mitt Brad Buller City Planner BB:BC ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Area Development Plan Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit I'D" - Sections Exhibit "E" - Site Plan Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan Exhibit IIHII - Building Elevations - 3000 Square Feet Exhibit "I" - Building Elevations 4500 Square Feet Initial Study, Part 1I Noise Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions I p SMOMONIM aRl <—�> S3HYT 3Nl JL! ` IL 0 to lv . z z o Q --_=__----- """ ----- 6 z z LL o v v woo X e } 3 I I &u � uj O 4 z 3 z z V CD z z Z 13 I 5 5 � a� s w Itlt a a � \ ( w z0000 � m g I m in N =t w w w w u r CITY OF ITEtit:_ �� W177 S RAI'CHO CUCAj�,IOjTGA TITLE:. PLANNING DIVLSIaN s• � EXHIBIT: SCALE: ' AREA VICTORIA DEVELOPMENT PLAN off_ Rancho Cucamonga,Ca .`�.MIWA,.=Y(WK..,y.� - _u.�o..e.nwf /FJJ ,,.{.f/ \i•\•� 1�' ' -..t" LAND USE LEGEND vu AND � � :Y1{ 1.1=' AGE cmaucm coam "" w UNIT tABULATION LM ao.m PHA'E i t1-L�It. f AQ 1tW"wTs 12 il.1 i,uf. WAr ft�a-Rl U WA NNN AS OIYC I' ,� �ry••' - towrEou1 � vtstrr nziw wT ica s �. , l�twwAq tt �// � towamuotzartv WO {I 1 I �• .`� .:�. MEDRA,HgH DEW" ��t�Aq lA2lAi8 � �) 0.3 g11A1: l;- I Y j( i��{ •;e tl ry��� 712--sr 25M AC � ,^ PHASE Qwl it 1_.I takllY OE/t9f'/ 2A9]On �� r. �', •j ? \ `�\ �I{A ��F _ N Touts T�!dwTs PHASE I aEmwrat ootsnr •/ � '•� I o\ AiDo)1 OEHSffT t t -. tmm ma" moat I'ire ntmv=smook sire tmcoosm PAiK are !�� PI 4 •�,, ��� - - PAfJIC -. '—MIJIOAD :.;r__. - .i-�.yam.. E _ •� �i [` L.72Wa bb �JOC2`q ptle - �.•-t_� CITY Or ITEM' �" � �� RANCHO CUCAI•'IO\TGA TITLE: e PLANNING DIVISICIN' , EXHIBIT- j! n SCALE- _�_ 7 V• V 1 yaa'11�aW4tj�� q�.►�:�35d ,t�� ^n �yaaa,w xw o I -I�I s I � , LOT 261 ..i MoBo _ .« _ =�V -6 , a �.,• ••p .@ ' LOT 278 ' •. �.- SCHOOL&FAM SfM .�.- t',,BMW xo t p • fj�/ ..�'�B,B.a�°1a' Fen � +.o ,� OJw•oa*0®� rc. ! �!_, I,�{� f.p %'t .� s®,tea® ®p•o� �sw�w w.m1+s ��® Y •� eri.�w ��, , B®�� t s -ec%, a ��.s a•r •a o .�./'y 1+ ~, i 1'�`��.. I L ' t �...�,�e;6' � �''•� � ,.� e.� '® » ,fed ( �• 1 �` i m »taf® ��Q J"1 `yam''_ ' ro� a+ ®w .. �•W q I �-� •1 w. L n, , it ® a a. .r �` "• C 6 �'''..�{ta � La .-.��+^f-q,�.m .r`.^.P �� ~"e Lac p .��F s' LOT 27J •_a ^p '" w, a,.,a �,a w�`'B�s o ` s`.� a?J. ^�� �.•-� i '' s, P M / ®.r .a•.ea,a o w�a Ai;~ LOT 276 ==�6Y 2,78 SEE&£Er Ma.I, GREET!Of 5 TIENTATNE TRACT NO. 13022 VICMMA LYQhI %WILLIAM LYON sss, _ NORTH' CITY OF ITEM: BC 22 RANCHO CUCAivIOTNGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT. � SCALE-. _ J-a . i wrap tnram CITY OF ITEM I [6 a RANCHO CUCANMONGA TITLE PLr9NNI\G DIVISION EXFIIBIT--4t!j-SCALE. =L ,a as MLLIKEN k4ENUE � � r !r nook .0 � T bb VICTORIA PARK LANE VICTORIA GROVES 11 SECTIONS THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY INC. w p CITY Or' ITE\i=_ l 1 0'J�Z�• RANCHO CUCAi\-IO1GA TITLE: PLr1 iNNIdTG IiIL'ISIQN EXHIBIT: !�J sc;k[.E. �-lo r 4// - .. rrsoa Mlly I arena wu.4 (ff � r CC�:JOP ROAD a 1v�ix �wr,c dd INTERIOR STREET er HLOt MALL er mnatMNL 4• f1l VAM � y ]lIB.U.]t yt Q ee LWEAR PARK SECTIONS 0 o r VICTORIA THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY INC, OWAF MMDS=IIRQCMCU ACC Q11.Gg*0"91= .sue :L1 } CITY OF ITE.M: RANCHO CUCANIO\TGA TITLE,=-'-�'1�S`-�_� PLAT NI\G DI<rISIONt —" EIHIBIT:-!�" .SCALE: �r LCOP ROAD ""`u1S twMa w °�'^u�T SCHOOL&PARK SITE — •POTENTIAL FM PARKING, •./ � ' � I 1 Itoi Rui M'1•'iWi M. NOTE Oa ,S".-• \ �" •'cl ✓ .. _ " �OP PIER MW AREA J 4 A `..s _ r � A sty r yglt�`�A ��• ';,, "� �•� •�//� � tt t . 1-'i• L ' f Lu cc r... _ T� I DETAILED SITE PLANt-- CITY OF -- RANCHO CUCA- ti'IO 7GA TITLE ll 1 Z PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT--.!` +' SCALE: . • J-�a A VIGTORI a 5lnl w000iMCE TR. J � L—�Y�• ��1 r c't' L �r�. ;.—tt t\ '_" ,'--. 71. I <t ^, b���ur� ti t r•� � �� `, 1 � G 1 ` I 1— bF tY/R1lLOOcweLL-1.�" i�' ,e {t�Pti�`., •r ` w�. ( _ t, III '\ �t• ,. ��� .- ;-7 NOTE 1p° -- i SEIVERS PER AREA DEVELOPMENT LAN �' SEE STREET SECTKM EXHW V 1 x x" DETAILEL 51T CTY OF T ITEM: RAI CHO CLCA- tiI01GA TITLE- PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT-2 SCALE- j PRpFrRYACCt;tff TREES O SCSOUEPLAMfq SWiU3/OROUNOCOVEp rnrwaaaiva.� aa«ewu awarw�ua x. MARY CCEN IFORMALTREES. rma �.SECC'iOMY�CCEHfTREES. 0 awanne roaa wn'irrasvn rrm�.ra +.e..:..n•reoarun. ncunru ruruma�oa �acnceawta.+nA• .w.nrnvuatc arwn (a INFORMAL MASSING . EVERGREEN aGROVE maruuwwsu Q TURF / ® WOOD FENCE 7 PRIVATE YARD O IElGMOMMD STREET TREES PEW.ETER TREES P=:� PERVEfEN WALL •�•=° �. a� ~• EWE..TRAA./FENCE PIEtUC WALK uuwau $ aac aoocr.a ClI-DE-SAC TERMNS HEDGEROW �..PflNATE WALKS unrmo.•aw 0 aonanrouaura• SCHOOL g PAW SrM r� rLrr 1.•� 11 { Li i j 1 W /".ram• �,� c"::-s i lu La CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAINT � -----� �_-_-�� ---- C a RANCHO C CAIO\GA TITLE: PLANNING D.ViSION EXHIBIT: . �� - SCALE:--. \y -yam• .� _ ,. a �� o00 �oG a SR. q e s f _SECTION A _ I;�,... i C SECTION E_W .. �1- _._._.SECTION B_ SECTION C SECTION.F _. S29T]nw D SCHOOLa PAgf -W _ ' y �LIS PROPOSED PAD EtEVAi.'�.N Z27' Zw z29} 1 ,1 PRCPOSEY)F3i9S CO:tIDlF3 Zs a ' r \ 221 .? i .�i .r.I i I e F.X rn con7CUR. � ¢- ' a\�•��,� 1- �u3��� Q\\}�'�_ —_—I�' I• 4.�-;�OA'(LICif L4.'E. `g f +< ~r�222.,� '� .•`f.S\ --..I -- — jt-T'14IMSEri.G9415r;l 242 C=l TT� 2M PROPOSED CATCHi OASN. I }22I : .,,( '� * i -.�� e ROPoSED Mxw a" to z�s J Y zts `•.- vaoeosEnVE: '/ I •- /.f 2zo f y i. 211 ivasv mwaaa'a a7 II 0. 115 •33 � { 250 ! al ' N3�6 ` e� r,£S 'yJ i .•-� ..;c. Isi f 2.1- Zc2. Z03 lit O;N 255 lit lic s7 \217 �- di 1 169 164 4 163 2a2 ta:. I i!5 1 f .-.-_---r-' �`'�.,.. 2�i> Y zce 5 J:�J 1-?J i 3�.i'�i •��-,,, "x .V 1 DII l 2G7 246 ZGO 270 271.z72;273 274 - ------ CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN - CITY Or IM1: RAINCI IO CUCAiNIONGA TITLE._._.4��>,*.l�e PLr�VNiNG DIVISION EtHir[T- " °B --�_.__.SCALE:______.__--- 47 n.�;w.• ¢ i r��-- 1��a1e'F �eT.� r}653 �, � i'' f a � Oil ,7591,: 63 c c7r-.0 } ^ ]G �-_-may '� � •�` �3/t ��,�' _M ,� �IoS 1. r rl 4. 9i.�: ,_. •} 70�, 055 y -y1Ds 1.7 } 13 Epps , z t V.; ``��r. ItRp k p - } I i'td• Ss 56 I y7 5D 5D r. Ito IH On it. -`✓' r. "g)(Gy 1 a1IIRR 141 46 97�46 45 p147 x \ 4 '4 FFo\�'�•yD _.A, � 146 I9141 144 ro\ ,o .. ,.. \ E.9 If'.a� ` ©153 "✓" � I61 �' Ice "�.= of ,%/`/� .1 •I 17 10 t j/29fl 20 `•. I] 17i.a 17D 14 �. �:•� y J x2A 'r 7 ns�.rz `�xs1151 1-7 24_J t - r � ' 1 ; K�.I •�° �C' \\�\ y/Te� _• vwtoal��w vca wo�*o1`b. 'M.TO E \ \ \ `�-`.n'l. 1(/Zt�r'r SFTOR .CONCEPT IN ' CITE' OF RA-' O CUCAN"O'NGA TITLE PLANNING DI NrISIO�I EXHIBIT.t[3IT: ° �, SCALE- V J3AOUD Ul i. W W w J i �� > J YI yt Yd N ' G ' :i W °N ° to {. N W l lL , W , W ;j r UL rk" ' —Ell (I1 H N �—+ I I a 3 CITY Or �-• RANCHO CLTC1 I ITEM I O\G�` 7fFLC:- y�►►-now PLr`iNNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: • ! SCALE: I V SMAOU+J i SBVV d - f 0 w _ W w W w N co U. J �... 1 I W J r < ■ q� n � I Lw < a w ■ ■ ¢ 19 m i 1 m o � ~ O O Ell s x ¢ CITY Or RANCHO CUCAj'IO\ s�,G ITE�1 _■ � � ' �_ TITL1r� �..OG PLANNING DIVISION TITiII3iT: a ` 4183 ELEVATIONS O PLAN t i - �eAi s ul.� O n� A PLAN -- _ goo.SOFT Mas(A;'u.�tAu -fit CITY Or ITEM: RL�1�TC1O C1L'CA�'IOoTG TITLE: al. � PLANNING DIVISICkN EXHIBIT- - SCALE-•____ J-ao 1 A ELBVATIONS PLAN 3 der. •� MEN LR F'✓..'a. 0.W ETREA H w ep .I a a.o,� .PLAN. Toe+sa FT c CITY Or ITEM: RANCHO CUCA 'IONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION E\HI13(T •► a SCALE: . J-a� Jj ti f13 m @a ELEVATIONS �A PLAT! 3 w �C gift FTP.. , I 1 � Q t O• • e �I "" ! .j Pl.GH R* usa so fr y �}'If CITY Or. ITEN I RANCHO CiUCANIONGA TITLE: PLAINT tI\G DIVEYaN EXHIBIT: u SG1LE- It S3Aouo cop,z FE� ( J - W mz AoEE m i� CITY OF, ITEN I-�-"ili • �� �t RANCHO CUCAIN-IO',\,GA TITLE: 116'Pf& PLANNING DIVISION �1- E.tHIBIT SGALE��_ J-ate I ➢. NV9d 3 NV3d w la I J J J ! ■ W ■ I J of la W pf G G in \B W ev U. W 1 '-'J l W .■i ILL I .�� I LL ■ W q Ij 1 I l i R �u Wa W _ W ■ • El S a f e e c a z ul 1 > W > > > ul W W L .' ala' W W I al _ W C G i O p C t 44 ely or, I'fEill: ` o low RAI'CHO CUC.AINJOiGA TITLE) La �l. $VATt PLANNING DIVISION - EXHIBIT. m �je"SCALE S3'AOUD $ NVId W it W W ( LL I LL LL .WA j ( Q � ( w I � r r W p1F � r \ Z B d p 6 r C � � LU Ul q—� lr= t W W W 1 W I us cc RE v CITY Or ITE;�I: "6i t3o - R Al\'CHQ CLTCNT 'IO\GA TITLE: tad 'f1�1•d�s PLAlNNItiG DIVISION EXHIBIT---v Jp SOLE: 'J_as- (, ELANA'IONS a `y I 7 yr� LN 8R I uu 0 r . • . 1 �. t PLAN - 1010 so Ff CITY Or ITEENI: 13D RF1NCHO CL'CI�IO\TC TITLE .L�G, PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: � � -SCALDS_, I € f � N O d• ..JO, E3 . • Y , ri CITY OF ITE\I: R �1fC-1O CUCATMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION B,tHIBI T -SCALE- L i •1 n ` ELEVATIONS PLAN 2 Man . •il: 7kT c. y LR 6R O b{-= • �.�� a K PLAN t�ss so Fr CITY OF ITEM: _y1 ...4 AM RANCHO CL,C.jNjG,--\-GA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION E.YHIQ �IT_._ _ SCALE -.-E- 4 - 9 F W o 1 a-- CITE hor ITEM: RANCHO CU(: ,\,IO\GA TITLES.�p PLANNING DIVISION Ett itr(T: ,a 'a SCALE K l�t,�rry r-1" ( � B s { l� r- ELEVATk US r PLAN 9 IER o FB— Ng a. LB m I � BB. -- � —t { PLAN 1 . - 1377 SO FT CITY 1 TEN 1: RANCHO CLCAIo.NGA TITLE: [ ���v�•-a° PL��I�tt\G DIVISION EXI MIT- --� _SCALE: J-3o i i !� f1■� �1raT 1 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCA-MONGA PART II 'NITIAL STUTf EINVIROI^!EtgTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICA'NT: FILIvG DATE: /I�J(a�� _ __I.OG NUMER:_ PROJECT: �.JGt-¢ �yaMtt.Y �oNer3S PROJECT LOCATION: I. E*MIRO`IMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" ar.A "maybe" answers are required on attached - sheets). ` ]LEI, MAYEE NO 1. Soils and Geoloev. 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 geologic or physical features? e• Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? t 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. HydrolottY. Will the proposal have significant results in: Page ES u4y3E ^O a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivens, or ephemeral stream, channels? y b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? y vZ d. Change in the amount of surface water in anv body of water? e. Discharge into surfa^e waters, or any _ alteration of surface water quality? e f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity?' h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water su+,plies? y I. Exposure of people or property to water re,nled hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air %uality and/or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture _ or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: Ask 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 s or endangered species of plants? ?aRe 3 YES 'AYBE NO C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of ` plants into.an area? qW d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the prcaosa7 have significant result.s in: a. Change in the _haracteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or 'endangered species of animals? c. introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an -area, or, result in a barrier to the migration :or movement of animals? d. Deter4nration or removal of existing fish or l� wildlife habitat? 5. Population: Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors, k_11 the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b• Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations;, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entitles? / C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of k- existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? { Page ?, YES LY1 E '40 B. Transportation. Will the.proposal have significant results in - a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. bfzects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parkins? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or I air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 4. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have qW signifiC?nt results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of an•r health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? e. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposurt of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? _ g.. The creation of objectionable odors? h.- An increase in light orglare? Page 5 Y`E u4TBE NO 11. Aestheti r. Will the proposal have significant results ia: 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 have a significant need for new syste-s, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? ;• C. communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? I, f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilitic..;, including road; and flood control facilities? ,p 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? t* k T, _ J-3� Pdge b YES MAYBE "IO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or JIFL scarce natural resource? 14. Mandator*r'Findings of Si nificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, `- cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Ce'-fornia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-tern impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brier, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed' in connection with the effects of 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? _ II- :DISCUSSION OF E:MI?ONME4TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed =:Ltigation measures). Ask { Page 7 _III. DETEMMITATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COI,2D NOT have a significant 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`PREPARED.SlC6 �f®, `-K--K. (---� I find the `aruea significant par�ao effect Prrk h L,—j proposed project :L4Y have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT LD?ACT REPORT is required. I Date Signature Title J- 38 { �l 85/356 O GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1 August 2, 1985 A C O U S T I C A, L A N A L Y S I S V I C T O R I A GROVES C I T Y O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A AUG 5 1985 THE WILLIAM LYON CO. San Bernardino County Division Prepared by: Prepared for.: Gordon Bricken MR.. STEVEN FORD President THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY 8540 Archibald Avenue, 'Ste. B: , Rancho Cucamonga, California, } 9173.0 '1621 East Seventeenth street,Suite K • Santa Ana,Gal;orna92701 • Phone(714)835.0249 -3q C GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS S U M M A R Y An analysis has been performed on the VICTORIA GR OVES project located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to determine design features necessary to control noise to meet the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed elements are summarized below (1) SOUND WALLS Sound walls are required along Milliken Avenue_ The wall height of the affected Lots are listed below: LOTS HEIGHT 24 to 28 61 ; 29 to 30, 43 to 44 6.0' 60 to 67 6.5' 68 to 71 7.01 (2) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR SOUND WALLS Walls may be constructed of any material with a surface weight of 3 pounds per square foot or greater. The wall must fully enclose the rear yards and have no openings except drain holes_ (3) BUILDING FEATURES The following features should be incorporated into the plans: (a) Lots 24, 25, 61, 63, 66, and 70 use 1621 East SeventeenthStreef,SuitefC o Santa Ana,Califomia92701 o Phone(714)835-0249 C, dual glass on Plan 3 Bedroom/Den and baffle roof attic vents over room. (b) Lots 26.and 27 -- use window rated STC-30 in east face of Plan 3 Bedroom/nen. All other Lots not listed along Milliken are spec.:.•-d as single-story floor plans. (4) VENTILATION Air conditioning or a ventilation system, as listed in Appendix 5, should be used on Lots abutting Milliken -- Lots 24 to 31, 43, 4.4, and 60 to 71. C O GORDON SRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL'and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a noise impact and design study of the proposed VICTORIA GROVES project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Included in this report is a discussion of the expected exterior community noise environment and the recommendations for control of noise in exterior and interior living are-as. A vicinity map .,,.owing the general location of the construction site is presented in Exhibit 1 -- Site Location Map'. The proposed development is a single-fancily tract consisting of 176 mostly zero lot line tract homes and 93 conventional lots. The site is exposed to noise from Milliken. -.0 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA The City of Rancho Cucamonga requires that all residential projects conform to the requirements of Table 1. TABLE 1 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA(l) Exterior 65 CNEL Interior 4S CNEL (1') Please see NOISE RATING METHODS (Appendix l) for a complete explanation or acoustical terminology. iz 1621 East Seventeenth Street,Suite ® Santa Ana,California92701 o Phone(714)835.0249 3.0 EXISTING NOISE L VEL:) A measurement was made or_ the site at a point fifty feet (50`) north of the SouthernPacific. Railroad tracks along the future Milliken alignment. The measurement chart is attached as Exhibit 2. The levels are extremely low with the average noise lever of 42 dBA.- 4.0 DESIGN NOISE. LEVELS The expected future roadway noise impact was projected using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise Model. (FHWA RD-77-108) together with the several road+ ,y and site pardmeters of this project. The key input parameters which determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise include the roadway crossection (e.g. n:c_mber of lanes), the roadway active width, the average daily traffic (ADT), the vehicle travel speed, the percentages of auto and truck traffic, the roadway grades, toe angle-of-view, the site conditions ("hard" or "s?£t") , and ".he percent of total average daily traffic (ADT) which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. A traffic volume of 37,000 ADT for Milliken was taken from the DRS Study for the General Plan. The value selected was Alternate •C "with" the Freeway. The Victoria General Plan specified ,only the Victoria contribution and, then, only "without" the Freeway. '_he Milliken truck traffic and daily distributior, was take^n from a 1975 Study by the Orange County Road Department for Thirty-one Intersections of azterial highways. The data is listed pp i l in Table 2 on the following page. ,r.. TABLE 2 MILLIKEN TRAFFIC DATA $ DAY % EVENING $ NIGHT % VOLUME Auto 75.51 12.57 9.34 100.0.0 Medium Trucks 1.56 .09_ .19 100.00 Heavy Trucks .64 .02 .08 100.00 Volume 37,000 is The Millik n speed was taken as 45 MPH. � }' The calculations are lis`.ed in Appendix 2. 5.0 MITI',7XTIOiI 5.1 EXTERIOR Only the Lots abutting Milliken are exposed to significant noise levels. These Lots are above the Milliken grade. Sample calculations were carried out. for Lots '26, ,43, 63, and 70. The calculations are attached in Appendix 3. The results indicate that barrier heights from six to seven feet W to 71) are required. The list is provided in Table 3. TABLE 3 BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR LOTS ALONG MILLIKEN LOTS HEIGHT ABOVE PAD GRADE(l) 24 to 2!3 6.5 feet 2� to 30, 43 to 44 6.0 feet 60 to 67 6.5 feet 6B to 71 7.0 feet (1) Lots elevated above street. Wall location at top-of-slope. ( Barriers may be constr,acted of several material types, as for example:' (1) Masonry -block (2) Stucco on woca frame (3) 1/411 glass or 1/2 LEXAN (4) Any combination of these materials. Each completed noise control barrier must present a solid face from top-to-bottom. Cutouts and openings are not permitted exceptfor drain holes.' 5.2 INTERIOR The City's-exposure criteria for new residential construction requires that the interior noise environment, attributable to outside sources, be limited to 45 CNEL. Analysis and recommendations for control of outdoor ^'o-indoor motor vehicle noise intrusion are presented in this section. The exterior-to-interior noise .reduction expected for the planned construction was based on a detailed analysis of the typical spectra expected for the primary sources of community noise impact, the typical octave-band transmission loss for each element in the planned building shell, the relative square footage of each element of the planned building shell, the expected typical interior surface treatment, and the acoustical absorption coefficient for each interior surface treatment. Also included are corrections for the "A" Weighted-room absorption factors. Each component of,the building shell (e.g. exterior wall, windows, doors, etc.) provides a different amount of transmission Toss for each "A" Weighted octave band of community noise. With the knowledge of the building shell components and the individual octave band transmission lobs AML values for motor vehicle noise, calculations of the composite building shell transmission loss can be made for each r1,om. . ii i i In some situations, the room has exterior components subyected to different levels ;from the same" noise source. In, cases where this is true, the trans- mission loss values are adjusted to include the source noise differences, and the entire calculation is referenced to one exposure. Usually, this is the face with the highest noise level. Where more than one source type is involved, the interior levels from each source are computed separately and, then, combined to determine the composite interior noise level The minimum characteristics of a basic building shell are listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 BASIC BUILDING SHELL CHARACTERISTICS PANEL CONSTRUCTION Exterior Wall Stucco, 2" X 4" studs, R-11 Fiber- glass Insulation, 1/2" Drywall Windows 3/32" single pane aluminum horizontal sliders Sliding Glass Door 3/16" sinyl�, pane aluminum horizontal sliders Roof Shingle over 112" plywood, R-19 Fiberglass insulation Floor Carpeted, except kitchen and baths The. .noise level at the first floor level along Milliken will be 65 CNEL by virtue of the barriers erected to control outside noise to 65 CNEL. The noise level at the second floor level along Milliken will vary as a ` function of building location. The values in Table 5 are the,Lots along Milliken which are impacted, the distancr_ from roadway centerline, and the expected noise level at Ask the second ,:loon --please see following page for Table S. TABLE 5 SECOND FLOOR NOISE PARAMETERS LOT(1) DISTANCE(2) NOISE LEVEL(3) REQUIRED PLAN TYPE NOISE REDUCTION 24 95 71 3 26 25 98 71 3 26 26 90 72 3 27 27 90 72 3 27 28 90 72 1 _ 29 90 72 1 _ 30 95 71 2 31 123 70 1 _ 43 117 70 2 44 98 71 1 60 102 71 1 _ 61 118 70 3 25 6:& 1W 71 1 _ 63 100 71 3 26 64 97 71 1 65 103 71 2 - 66 105 71 3 26 67 95 - 71 2 - 68 105 71 1 69 95 71 2 - 70 102 71 3 26 71 90 72 1 (1) Lot numbers taken from Morse Consulting Group's Site Plan dated June 28, 1985. (2) From centerline (3) CNEL at nearest building face. Plans 1 and 2 are single story, so the values of Table-5 are not relevant except for Plan 3 and the eight (8) lots which are Plan 3. For first floor plans, the construction listed in Table 4 will yield a minimum noise reduction of 2.0 dBA with windows closed and 12 dBA with windows open. With the outside noise levels 65 CNEL, the interior noise levels will be 45 CNEL when windows are closed and 53 CNEL when windows are open. The closed window condition is satisfactory and no further design, consideration is needed except ventilation is needed at the first floor level on Lots with Plans 1 or 2 and for the lower floor of Plan 3. Inspection of Plan 3 indicates that it is always oriented with the back to Milliken, which means that the entire upstairs is exposed to noise. However, only the Bedroom/ Den has any glazing with exposure. The noise reduction calculation for this Bedroom/Den is attached in Appendix 4 The values for various design options .are listed in Table TABLE 6 PLAN 3 BEDROOM/DEN NOISE REDUCTION SUMMARY T R I A L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Basic X X Dual Glass X X X X Fix Side Window X X X Baffle Roof Vent X X Special Window X Noise Reduction 22 25 23 23 26 25 26 27 Trialit 2 and 6 satisfy Lot 61. Trials 5 and 7 satisfy Lots 61 , 24, 25, 63, 65, and 70. Trial 8 will satisfy all of Trial 2 plus Lots 26 and 27. Considering x J'�a all possibilities, the recommended mitigation is: _ r (1) on Lots 24, 25-, 61,- 63, 66 and 70 use dual thermal glass in Plan 3 Bedroom/Den and baffle only attic vents in the roof over the room. (2) Or. Lots 26 and 2.7, use a window rated STC=30 for the east face of Plan 3 Bedroom/Derr. Buildings on all Lets listed in Table, 5 should receive spe.iial ventilati.:)n treatment. Use MECHANICAL VENTILATION OPTIONS in Appendix 5 or use air conditioning. II Aft EXHIIBIT 1 SITE LOCATION MAP • 1 .• sa. a � t a � I 1 sr E s� AV• -----cl t l+ t r x It 1 S a FRWY 1 t 1 � J-sG RESOLUTION NO. A_RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13022 AKJ DESIGN REVIEW WHEREAS, Tentative Trac* Map No. 13022, hereinafter "Map su by The William Lyon Company, applicant, ."or the purpose of subdivid- real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County Bernardino, State of California, described as r. residential subd;vis 210.5 acres to develop 275 single family lots on 44„1 acres located n- the Southern Pacific Railroad, south of Highland Avenue, 'west of M Avenue, and east of Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-211-13, 34, & 38; 202 into 280 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for hearing and action on November 13, 1985: and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Div reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and consider Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other e presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning :ommissior of the City of Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following find regard to Tentative Tract No. 13022 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildiife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problem3 _(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property v'thin the proposed subdivision. J-s� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TT 13022 - William Lyon Company November 13, 1985 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on u the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13022, and Design Review thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: DESIGN REVIEW 1. Each lot within the project: shall have a minimum flat (2% slope or less), rear yard area from building to property line; or slope/retaining wall of 15 feet. A final detailed site plan which indicates the slope and retaining wall %.ocations and unit plotting shall be sutaitted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Ten (10) feet minimum side yards shall be provided where the side of a unit abutts rear ,yards (Lots 18, 119, 143, 211, 237, & 263). 3. Ten (10) feet minimum side yards for single story units and fifteen (15) feet minimum side yards for th^ second story of two story units shall be provided for the sideyard adjacent to the street for lots abutting Victoria Parklane (Lots 71, 72, 36, 87, 101, & 102). 4. Street facing side elevations on corner lots shall be upgraded with additional wood trim, veneer siding or plant-ons where appropriate. Wood surrounds shall be, provided on streets facing side windows which ire on front of the side yard return fencing. Construction details shall be indicated on the working drawings (including specific lot numbers). 5. Corner side yard fencing and/or retaining walls shall be setback a minimum distance of five (5), feet from the back of sidewalks. All interior street facing retaining walls shall be constructed of decorative block, and all wood fencing installed Sy the-developer shall be treated with water sealant for staining. 6. For all corker lots, sioeyarus between the back of sidewalk and the sideyard fencing shall be landscaped. Ask 7.. All roofing material within the project shall be of a concret;e.tile material. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TT 13022 - William Lyon Company November 13, 1985 Page 3 AIL B. PHor to the issuance of building permits, a report stating that the recommended accoustical mitigation measurer to achieve acquired interior noise standards have been implemented, shall be submitted to the Planning Division, and the building plan s`,all be so certified by an accoustical engineer. 9. The passeo trail system (Lot A), shall be fully improved by the developer, including sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation. Landscaping shall include canopy shade trees, shrubs and ground cover. Low level lighting shall be provided where the trail is internal between dwelling units. Details shall be included in the final landscape/irrigation plans, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. Walls/Fences shall be provided along the entire tract perimeter for Lots 1-275. Walls on Milliken & Victoria Parklane, and walls for rear-on lots on Victoria Groves Loop Road shall be of masonary construction and of a decorative design. The walls should be staggered and off-set to increase the visual interest. Walls on Victoria Parklane should be of a wrought iron construction consistent with the existing design along the street. Construction details of all perimeter wall treatment shall be submitted for the review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Design details of all retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Division prior to approval of the final grading plan. Maximum wall height including retaining walls and screened fencing shall be 9 feet, with screen fencing to he a mi,ftvm of 5 feet high. Where 'this standard would be exceeded, graded -sl,,pes and/or terraced retaining walls shall be required with a minimum horizontal separation of 5 feet. 12. A minimum eight foot wide improved surface shall be provided along the interior/passeo trails to pro°,,!ide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 13. Far the Zara lot line. dwellings, a perpetual wail maintenance easement of five feet in width along the adjacent lot parallel with the zero lot line building all shall be provided. 14. Each within the designated 3,000 square ferL minimum lot size portion of the project shall be provided with front yard irrigation and landscaping including street trees, shrubbery, and se3ded PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION IT 13022 - William Lyon Company November 13, 1985 Page 4 lawn. Deta;ls sha , be provided on the l,mdscapp and irrigation plans submitted to the Planning Pivision for review and approval prior to issuance o-' building permits. 15. Landscape treatments at the end of side-on cul-de- sacs shall be designed to provide open views into the interior of the cul-de-sac. Design treatments shall include sidewalk connections from the cul-de- sac to the perimeter street.. 16. The Milliken/Victoria. Parklane intersection is designated as a "major residential entry" by the Victoria Planned Community and shall be designed to the appropriate standards as designated by the Victoria Planned Community. 17. Lot plots showing 8' or less driveways shall be sited on a di persed pattern throughout the project and should not be grouped in small, concentrated areas: 18. Slopes on Victorii Groves Loop shall be graded to standards of contour grading and slope planting should be accomplished in ?n flowing type of design. ENGINEERING 1. Victoria Groves Loop Road shall be constructed full width to Highland Avenue with the first phase of development. Sidewalks and parkway landscaping may be deferred until adjacent parcels are developed. 2. The entire width of Victoria Parklane shall be constructed from the Loop Road to Milliken Avenue with the first phase of development. 3. Milliken Avenue shallbe constructed as follows with the first phase of development: A. Portion from Vilctoria Parklane to Southern Pacific Railroad: (1) Full improvements for west roadbed, (2) Full median with only one opening at the Loop Road, and (3) A minimum L81 wide pavement for the east roadbed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TT 13022 - William Lyon Company November 13, 1985 Pagca 5 B. Portion from Southern Pacific Railroad to Base Line Road: (1) Full median, (2) A minimum 18' wide pavement on both sides of the median, (3) Drainage b s control installed ro curbs devices h be paved heas AC approved by the City Engineers C. Railroad Crossing: (1) Construct full improvements for both roadbeds including medians (etcept for parkway sidewall!, and landscapin,) fc~ at least 200' on bo,'h sides of the railroa�'. (2) The developer shall coordinate wish the City to have the railroad crossing siT.t l and arms installed prior to occupancy of the first phase. D. The cos of the permanent improvements in excess of th3 standard one. half street improvements adjacent to the tract borndary shall be subject to raimbursement frxn the 'City for the adjacent property owners upon development of their property. 4. Storm drain easements as required fat, ass lot drainage shall be dedicated on the final map. 5. The storm drain master plat: for the area shall be completed and approved prior to recordation of the final map 6. Construct sufficient storm drain fae'litier, to serve the first-nhase of development as rewired by the City Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L,Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TT 13022 - William Lyons Company November 13, 1985 Page 6 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby 6rtify that the foregoing Resolution wasduly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ra+icho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 1985, 5y the following-vote-to-wits AYES: COMMISSIONEPS; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENY: COMMISSIONERS: j I - 1 A p Y C u L CggLN'0�1.)l d3 L' 1 d L A Y•G N t d.p. n. d G ... O a i C)y^�C Aw V C O.N u,J., fiC+JJ nL v OS E S L ryry m9U 6=d. tT ^• �p E it y �q � tl O. Y. YY Qad Y� a—Z; L� LL d Op dC a0 0 �7A7 pw dr O u OL v a n 11 O C fr L LL i' 0 d 6 0 d q n u€b N - �� OC� a::.N.wvri2T V�d c' fn^.c +• V B.A".�.y�. L TL Ya�YV 6�gNN O�O� =jam AV+ 2 L' E€v Ned � YjQ„�. A�Gi.0 6C Y-rL W. ^LrN at d� YrU p ow.ys BMW o'auia e. aY Na ._L go ,'`Y' f1 LO LLL.A' AAO A Y ` ti0e@6 C LLC A A.- 9 Gp,I NL Y Lp. C 9 Y ANY ps p�� N br Y6j O/p0 b Mwrow m'attz G.vAYtTC} @ Y Yad Y AYu nCru Yu GO =d YLWO ^VG G dT ¢p. R.�N•Y 6>3N 11 L Z•C. 9ol-1A 6N.N•Y�F .Q arno bpi L6441 N Amh It S . fTP L L ~ '•• A � H�N ZO. Tpw W q.Y q � G 111 �GYV ti .L O dw Ir p V �6t! G I = Y=GZ=flO I W Z • lr L O N�- A i y Y N f ^ �d S Trrd Op=wr g i L n=. Z ¢n $ s r n3 y i• � g Cai;N p g fi dOL. l'� 4 G .• y' u A VC G•Y?C3r H G JO � OrrLLO O Y _ O • v mayy. Y N L a d O L G o 0 S ^ w u q a u O u q EE O L uds EON=N y L 6uri 01. n„u'ci es O' A p N� o� 6Uu0 Zbdq p oYq dt+0 G E A 9 d2a+ « L q A ^ 0 0 O c C 6 d•„•FF 2 •-• N L� a N: : Z GOML Y...o` Ga q'.O Gn..::W�GGl� yN9 d rn2Sc ap cy G0�4�. - N.9 w3 qaO C...L wui « b`�y EO• vNy .n E 9N y if"6G1 12 qNG... E 9. � q^OG SW.Ea^ NL.v AON q a o O C E G �wC yp d ^.d ^L M•VA.N «VjG y,. O^ qL� � �q0 q GEG..G. O^ LO L SO �Gw. ti ntyC GgO.A uL ram.. dpN d^ad COUd O > A q EE Hg Z F. ' sq A �° G^ d,GA acy io .^r oaY� o Lo4 T O � O di � •J1O V 26 60 C.N A 4 pU L a ^CT q$ M OI C d 2 Ol i CT nAV Gugg N Ev L m� F.S.�N C u`qE 6La�L tT6� E oY Lc 9.�.jy 4 E.�+66 api'd+ YOf�..NY L=�N.dLpT CI 4�NM Lr.�.9 W«S as 4Lg3 V �I I• � o µI � � '� �� r EE qCC�. �L. O��L sG-A A OQw�C.O.q . dCiN wL u�a b Qa u 4 U �U p•'O uu a C.aQ>S Yn aU+?4uG@�.LN �O C S aoGJT^ C _Y 66 2 L 9 d uy\ �O O'GVNi O = C TUE" O O Ls ut � C L E d V p NS. C >•t Q �p G G A p0•� 'tJ L E qq .� Lt �p UQ N E u i 1 C! N a G p aL. yA w.La N 7 In.p+ uu �. %u.. ..V aPGJ AVC G�� ZE q.•.�V d. y U �`I ^dam N A O b CAO L' qp � AP fGGyOC.N U..OrcN i OOf1 L IIpn.0 C^ �Oy. d y^ F Or LJS µwe er .•' �q uC6G i F y,O. q p u� N�L• O�p3G G y ^� N CC.���w N ^6d.N ys CEr. m.`p. ao AL N`pdadi. Vp`dy0 Ya.L...0 , VO. ^.2 ROLL �� •pyS v.0 wyi2 N6N O.j 1 L. 9�T Q��v •;� A ♦q�N da\ GdiU [y 7 S � V u ytl Wwa > �� •\.d'.>d L � LL � W q O N � JS O:a� Ca tl f1 N�nG WC d=uq qQu uw �E d AdOA C Gt G.O p.^.O� ' Lt A`a O L W u LO.-.6x C O. Lu^ 9E�E LDS GLJ EOiq =.W NC S P9L�` yN O NOW' Gu y�� q ur A L V H c Owf . O. � C,Q �4 yP ^n Q•G ON��. y. u L.r O�.Y Eqq = Y Y COIG� d F d\Oq Val V V C G O o L E f u q ^d 'u O T O a.d q u G d d dq d o O 4N6tP N6 Lu C9 Qr0-.\..p fA q.A t,U Ju96Wq p1r tG6u dlw Ey Ask li HyJiw wNGA �-.^A4ap L.9A0 C'O Gu \u OCLLO bg92 M.L rns .L9 CV0 d da L 9 1`•. dAC) `N �O qC a V. u Cyd � E9bi _ � PS•LN K O a a a dV P•C nGto E Loa1 A Pu C •O P o A d 0 0 N d O O O C a d q O u o °O n ' O d N V d N Z d i u EE V d P S L >.dGn U. iP. O �� �G•N0.`O_ GdS< ^�T CQ Nwd^ •O PU00 NdM ,aoAL 6�¢ O.L NNd� �P�C N y9 gOYN� a q O P N d d in.V 3 _6•� E_ OI.+ O O 0 0 6C= V O ^• O � rn V O d d C u u Ob0 W R 6N " E«may �tl:P K NA' �.di dnC�� o e=O.00 dFa G i 6N V •e q G.N _a '°is e d L.:" �%.. �p•° o.` a s a N C m odp o^xI p0 Yoc ^•Od ay�d d a cwo.> 9••. Gyy C G =d oa A = a •OQ po >•.a•ao.Y C V. w d N NaN ¢N^ ¢voi �3No '1=u"ia v2 us 6tUu^_P. P 60�0> 6.0 C.GN M 5.5 1 N 06 M 6 Y A •o> V CC. _ G yJJ O� P PLb I mL LO 0�91 pd1= .p .O.II O.c G dP C 9 uN Y T.M I�r La^ NS C G � aY C SN .PSG u•A.�o ..•NCOi �t • ^d 9Na A NC yC d qL . Ot 41•Y n C C p Ny Pq�. .+ ` yO ^vCd..L �L •`-•q lO�'= Y.N.C,q yp.. d� � ^ q S « G d. d E N 9 C • i�i !� ' }=„eM a vv 2m u of :• o toow; W. E� q�O y dU0 O Om y_ gCdO CYdayC� C 6 9 C C E y C A a s O t 0 0 = a O d S °d L.O O.dAO• U ^p Ot dN ^ 1°,f>.0 d0 n •y C. C d w d roi y O•� •�°d a V 9 Cl -w To— 7 10.5 O A GU �N w0 yv O.Y9 ^ Md..�L `Cy gyp9 C Er 4Y ` O Y GG L'•'O'O QM �y t)�V V O! EE O. G zEM YO M ^ d`LVY A>E V.^pn rG4d9 1 6�V Q Aim T V N F SN ¢G! QO r O N�0 60 C C Q.ai..6b W6.G�N�YO. 2_4 „a dYoa q z= • d� "S q = - - C Q O E L , LMk ` V C: E T q o a^^ ^`� VV✓^ LT V �aa E 00 U�a Y cz d q ttdd LEV Y O V L O.dO AM OI C✓ E� >= ...LE Eup S --� Nyj� •tpa� A p.�1 6b.�.U.. OT dT1 Od.YN CL 4J Nx a a✓tdN FN F E- OLAa q✓Md m '_L •� N� LpO. 9C`^EC� LO u dN.n^ O ..ElO. qua YogiDO d.O✓ O � Z O T d O C C Gi ErE tl a C> J ✓a Y..E- 6 ✓ C^_y^d a. O�. O C q Y Y T =U r.Y C A d.T W R a gEa O. C O Y C 292,9 . ✓ll7 �d L O y W p j C a 'I _ u C pu aca av ads.4€ Y e� a. `� pa �m youau N uii yt �_L CAGa N�� y O nE d✓ p,^ �.a Y E J .•p. O C✓Y Oq 6 t F d q u CI r•C O O O Y 6� q y^ -T p T p = c C C la Om H Lq uE -� O L L O �O "E d O ti 9 .L O d a✓i A^ T a n a t L Y r- A. �¢n✓ s.adN.oa.�nal�.Inc.^wpm C N a C L C S a 6 Y T X a d u t 0 s A y '✓C U 3 V� .D O ✓d '-.L 2 na dA. Oya C SV�� yN �G C VV 6L� u xx p Q u da A aOc E F T q pt� Y L ^a C 4 0.p6 O L p F S ^d ✓ 82 d y ✓ Aa dy Ca ✓✓ O.a E LO WdN g 6 _ S' d=. L d 9 V.O tl Y O L C 6. d`y a dy•Cr d �L N� 6� E.✓ Q L q ✓ d dL wY O `� a v.✓p T L N i n yam : ac a povl oL A�i yc c�u v `oi W 6 q C � U C ✓ Q N A�. N N C d A O d N. m E^� !a O. bki p.O. �q O• q L 0.�. O d as G Y o V T = L d Y E OIi C C'.= E LO a M=a 6O. E u^ ap C O` .pi I �V gOTH r C6 rcTc _EE oo WILL YL Y t • l.L.C = EE O >G E.p O..a Oul Y q N T ✓O lT lT L G Y O C d pV_C Y E? O�✓C O C OO.0 G O.L E+- 4 r u.._q... Q<Lm u O N L C gONM CY^ ��O'-O� qE.d tl dl N V �,i• Y9CC �.C� O1NL 00 L YLL V b q LNa CO .^.q C ^ qo p0 N O S V A j O O -w'C Ya a•rtli }.CdF.�O• L.aC O�••Y V V ¢ COON YdN C= i C H L On^ Nba �qC d�C CyLO. C cL. O b N �V.LM Y••O.d' !«^ R YL iJ Y ••L� L A.NO WS •{�. y q N.01 Y � �l C1 YAK Y VY �. � I• C« �. i. cup Y. LL O b U LL L`.q 6A^ FY O b YL as .L.�. r L cL'1'r„'. o-a o u.C. q,y« Y p'•.'L. ^ « E.Y. 6 Ys.O � YN.p� ONidSmeO :I.�^`•. O` a W Y. 4 �.Y S Y bgeo�>. Ey+. FY fIV u Yt0'^.Av L YM• YV M ^ A N q b L NE.L�'T a f l G G N Tp1 61.NCV6p [tltL�C. f�. M M M V^ M �. CCtlYayN..^+JNL G cdc yyy udc ^ ® W& q�I V a pN4N 'y q NY V d YEA .O V. c9 C Y UOCC^yq q q N C Y L. �d'C ...L:.C^ .•.N d L ^ W W.qC y� O y.C-.. C O O a a g O a q.•+ L N N�A �L 4.4• � } g N N L C �L.p I- b 4.1 N 6 •. Y Y ^�O,D 0 NN�LV@�YY L ... A �C N.L Sui L.O ADA = �.0 dq Cp.CL. L �+ a T l L G Y_ Y.NOLY 4cY VO OIA � }t!. Y N b Y > C OO.OW pb •+N Y'LO eN SM 6L6 6YM O I L W Y yCI vO }, !� L. q Lb �b}I L Y✓ N � a. o•ce. c •• �= A Y a tl �-b 0- rri A•r L�.^Y q^ C•� � WN, NN E b q.T_« u•c^�u cLYu.� ` V .g cw ti �N.�` sa� : ub uYq i L C+Ym6 gdgq T �O= Cb ' V.•A. w0• L 9� 40Y9tt LM�= bM ^•a9 �� V� vb w. O'OObq .•CC. a T �C uy p gY.rY C� � To u A o �L. .t �c A� i. �d.�e •°.. . ¢ L`yz Qz _ ao N $$ Y.+ ry da y� �� aN .°: u� yc a ZVL,gq • d y» yL,OpN o.N. • @� ^` N oCf 6P d0 d6 I -... ��, C. v'�«o •.o'"ttY5�j]] Y`�[.t'. AL ME M4 Gw tld y.1��C L �� « pp6 �I•L O 3 NC q= •+yp aVwp...Y O LL9 0�. CY >� N O\4q y1^ a~. `N < ' ^O NA Yp•O rp• A ady ^�. q.qj -C� bH4 LV ^� V q V N O "�O. t�•b6 b.On Ob. Z q G Y b ttli V N.. i' • ydjY by -- R VO. ^q YA.. 01V J rbOLIy C' DyL� `u Y.Cy u u v 1.9 JC^ ^�. QN C C a ^A �L q. ^ Y L EO W 9N 6pdrbCO' •OO-At p CL VI .LI p^� W` vtUbtnw 4n G C.a.•.E�� WOE rpO 9.•tl. C i«n NY A q0. IVC WY.. �.0 t��p'24+ae Qc 601 u. 1�0 6 9 Y Nw Oi L C L ddL - � rnu.0 y G a. — ♦ ' Y oa Y s p 6 dVL O Z O AO Y G ua^ OI 1 wV` u G U H CO� i MY� OH m F6p IN 'Y G -cc Z, �T 01 L O N Y C A� A O a � C +• O Z G.e� Ym f Go w « mW N4 no T v r TA @@ L L x • 2 L d q d N d Y V S i 6� d x.� •+p q� G x V. N Y.00 •r9 p'. c �Y Rio y. o.-� "' e\ d e G LmW.n n\yq.: O. ^A _na. moo^ �S Lx tea.o'y a ru rL. i g N«d C nw n g d N UT d L^Y Y d G CSI G G ^o^ L A.y Q A G L C y A CYC. N•L C O b V r L 3 Y P a 6Y H d9'a� N LLp,'N 6� a qCl G L E` L. Y n d q L = p O y C� nd uE9� dCpN. GL L^L �L •d LY O.d� a G� y G F a Rut d a L u M ^L ^ ^W N n A O^ N G Y 2 O C O 4N C A C. �� C Lgd.A .mod Oryn rY � qdu W� aL. LN Y _ C N C q d N46WA� 4Gxr NO«« NQ dVd.« a:J 6w W LW S6 U9 C. Mp. QI ^IAll ..I N d N `.�u0 wY - • A H rnn •' dy o N c �a p E x G t` oG C� vY v.n6 I4 � WH n t _C dam. Sw L N Y� pTL p.� GE� fR NJ 9 � 9Y'p nL y ua wm N d YG .YL �d G Y Sy S DJ C C � G Od C d d�= Ed E M ax20 Gp =d Wl C W � O: L^.W A •-�-� �xl Ld da0 cvC1a� E - .OY y �l u 'o 6 A 4 Ct L W 3 4J J IR C: e(L V^ N 6 E L N Ii 2. ✓t m ✓ Y c E g a u.t' ° A A `En E312 N ` m a .n FF a d V p p ` LA �O 9 M` ✓ Cr sppa Y Cy •� �N. i6. V✓ pC ✓^ W4� CA Z✓ O.nC � �q N,u m M1 9 W � �Ci ; H N 6 N d V•r. a czou r e i a Y ✓ p1m o 00 CO dO.G W O � A Ca yu AY yM Ly L y ^LL 6C OL.CN `Y L O S^ E�E C ^L ^d mty C ` L OY qp Lp COSY ...� N Q. NA 1°C q N Y d C,q yAll- g 'C YY oT dST CC 6Na �.9w0. Qr » It-5 1 44 64N cz S 10 r g 42 1 W LL ' Y EEY` ✓ ' O .. Y S L� p 'OOp I ✓N j� CO L A LY p � p'11�nn O A � ay pW ^N Sw OpT N � u. Pam Y p Y @ 1.�. .i ✓o.w EG tm oo CS W. r u = 40 Al off. Y T10 ✓ YG q q C T N OY✓ UU Y S.✓ q G p A� y. Nd V L ` .- V OOy V Cq� AC rrn p ®e qT A—L o D.q Y oet Np Y` ` pl ✓9 ^y I : . LL - CI C4 �1E Jiwp. n0. `Y m VV V O . m O IV 1�1 R N 10 1z m CI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CVCAMOM STAFF REPORT z��° t RI, C I r `o a F ^� z c > f DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller,City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13052 - THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of lots with the development of 220 single-family homes, on 34.9 acres ii the Low (2-4 du/ac), and Medium (4-14 du/ac), residenttial land use designations within the Victoria Planned Community, located north of Base Line Road, south of the Southern. Pacific Railway, _east of Victoria Park Lane, and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 217-. 111-4, 5, 18, 20, 32 and 36 I. PRO07CT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONe y A. Action Requested: Approval of subdivision map for 222 lots and approval of pracise plot plan and building elevations for the development of 220 single-family hones and issuance of a Ncigative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land use and Zoning. North - Single-family Residential - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) within the Victoria Planned Co=unity; primarily vacant with isolated single-famil residences, Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac within the Eliwarda Specific Plan. South Vacant - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) within the V-ctoria Planned Community. East - Pritiarily vacant with isolated single family residences - Community Services Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac), and Low Residentiai (2-4 du/ac), within the Eciwanda Specific flan. West - Exi_,ting nursery - Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac); tacant - f;edium High Residential (14-24 du/ac), and Village Cormaercial Center within the Victoria Planned K�- Community. fU AAL ` 1 ITEM K I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT I Tentative Tract 13052 - William Lyon November 13, 1985 Page #2 C. General Plan Des%%nations: Project Site Low Residential (2-4 'du/ac). North Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac) South Low Residential (1-4 du/ac) and Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) East - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac), and Neighborhood Commercial West Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) D. Site Characteristics Vacant land covered by natural shrubs FT grasses and void of any significant land forms or vegetation save for an existing Eucalyptus windrow along the northern perir:ieter of the site adjacent to the railroad tracks. The )roperty slopes southward at approximately 2% a grade. A 6,200 square foot out-parcel lot with an existing single-family residence is located at the southeast corner. Dean'-s Greens Nursery and residence exist at the northeast corner of Base Line and Victoria Park Lane. II. ANALYSIS:• A. General: This project is the first within The Lakes Village see xhibit "A"). Using the density flexioility of the Victoria Community Plan, the site is being developed as Low- Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). The lot,, within the project have a designated minimum.? Ict size of 4,000 square feet, with typical lot sizes averaging 5,000 square feet. The street pattern has been designed with extensive use of curvilinear ar.1 cul-de-sac streets to enhance the streetscape variety. Access is to be provided from Victoria Park Lane and Base Line Avenue. The architectural program is a continuation of "The Country" series, first introduced in Windrows I. Three different floor plans, all single-story, range in Size from 910 square feet to 1,228 square feet, and offer two, three and four-bedrooms, respectively, A variety of design elevations of contemporary style architecture are offered with each floor plan. An existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrow is located along the western 1/3 of the project's northern perimeter, adjacent to the railroad tracks. These trees are proposed to be preserved, 1L - � PLANNING COMMISSION `STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 13052 - William Lyon November 13, 1985 Page #'s but no extension of the windrows along the railroad `flacks for the remainder of the project is proposed. Staff recommends new plantings of Spotted Gum Eucalyptus je required along the entire north boundary of the tract. A north/south greenbelt passeo trail is proposed from the internal,,loop road south to Baseline. An easterly connection to Etiwanda Avenue is also shows►.- No trail connections to areas �Io the north are proposed. In addition to the 220 lots slated for product development, two lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue are shown as custom lots only. Though these lots are within the Victoria Planned Lommur=ity, they wculd be subject to the requirements of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Ili B. Design�Review�Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and their attention was primarily focused on the detailing of the architectural progTM rt to include tile roofing material exclusively, and upgraded corner side elevations. In response to the Committee's concern, new design elevations have been presented to the City. All elevations show concrete the roofing and veneer siding, has- been extended for a portion cf the side elevation. Howevcr� windows do not show the wood trim surrounds typically required by the Commission as part nf the corner treatment upgrade. C. Technical'Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent 'with all applicable standards and ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study hay been completed by the applicant. Staff has Completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of this project. A copy of Part II of the Environmental Checklist is attached for your review and consideration. Res :s of a Noise Study completed for the project indicated a sound wall is reqa'red for noise attenuation for tit lots rearing onto Baseline. The study also indicates that no mitigation measures are required to achieve city noise standards for lots abutting the railroad tracks. However, the applicant has proposed a block wall along the railroad track interface to provide a visual barrier, For the two custom lots on Etiwanda Avenue, the report specifies that sound levels would, be in excess of 65 CNEL, and that prospert'-ve buyers should bt noti-.ied of the fact that correc Ave action may be necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF KPORT Tentative Tract 1.3052 William Lyon November 13, 1985 Page #4 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Victori Planned Community and the General Plan. The project will •wat be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause sign'ficant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use ..ad site plan, together with the recommended. Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisioi:s of the Victoria Planned Community, the Development Code, and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This ikem has been advertised as a public hearing in The Il-a'tfy-7eport newspaper, the property posted, and notizes were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. ' V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB•BC:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Sections Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site. Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Tentative Tract Map Initial Study, Part Ii Noise Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions _ ^N.wMYuiN�.T� _ .., .d..�V a .• � � �� .\.\Tww i L 71 MH .09 S ( _ MH 1 4• vim°avcurTp� L � . —•�r1Y� D� t� _ BIISELPR RG1D _ e ro" ,� g�� � � ..f_ —_ 74 RR ^ -i L s .t) :Sl" i RR - N. •.t H M „� t ORy VF[ES. ter II,i iRR !g enrU ..L• RR va RR s H a AR ' `�.;' .✓_aW�• •:.AeLLER_AVENUE t5 -iz; - .... . {. j�i�yt.• ��eo� C+M� t �� C�ti• �� RRI�, RR S REGpt�SALCENTER' VICTORIA LAKES. RR 4ND USE_LEGEND • e pp N RESIDeMAL. tcw.wo.u.RR RR 10umNwMOM FMia ou'. F WAVy�,..�a�+..y�?anT�' t Q[EQAMK CfIR[II ± �_ .4•.R+o O 11[OgA\l.[:AT[O Oielt[ICOM�[IIG\l. j � ` O v0.t\OE CO�w[.LY\l C[MTE7t j t .•d` rw OTHER USES RR (�] CITY or. UE,i: RANCHO CUCANMONGA PLAID:INING DIVISION EXHIBIT- SakLE-__ k , ic- ,� _ —,_ a. as BASELINE: AVENUE dd INTERIOR STREET ee iNTEPdQYi STR AIL cc ENTRY ROAD ARK 'MIL (r NORTH Ty Or Y T ITEM- RANCHO Ct� ��I�O\G -rITLL: PLANNING DIVISON EXHIB!Y ± °' m,... ,,��,�, ��7=(�1�(� .�o �1,���1���85 P� G���'�.����da ��Pa��k�������a�� ���P�g�������.�' 0����'��9� SOUTHERN PACIFIC IK/otq{OCR wNl in-� AOL n .� $TREEf•C a ly P AMA COS"MEMM s� .J .e. �"'� siAEtTk• r r a e e a � a A � 1 L-i 1 � x+ x 1- ❑ �hr � q ul• m 9 ��IRr' Tvrrx�lw.srasr ._ a ':�.. •Ltl�l <seolwam rvKz ». " .I I ' tee.. ..•... .o•.. In `� BASEWNL ROAD SNORTH CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO NCHO CLTCAN'IUING TITLE- 4� PLA.NNI\G DIVISION --�- EXHIBIT, l—� .SCdLE K- co i5�s� 'lS�9!>�®�D�9�54v�+f��i��_��cvn«i:-ia6 •_�rot�9 �gl!"' 1 'JA FW ���� ��_� � `�3��►,��op off. ohm r 00.7� 11, lyIII� I , MAN -r C13[Ii140aNR.+u.Y.NW • T t� O � � O• p � F. �,t W• O :STm 6� _.r 1QJ a t -e 1� .amm¢ �� � • 1 _ SECTION A - nx.cauaw�w * 1 0 46 0 g i,E ta+c.eiocpw •t + t ' ' y• t _-��"L r ,r♦ O -f m SECTION .. it r �� __ •./� . TrP.Moaoo �" ` F#tC Mr.- .v. ..v. ._J _ CITY OF left ITEM i� RANCHO I® Cj.TC IVIOJNG i TITLE: ,.1G PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE- �.. RAILROAD EII41. -•--• b ra,�. —-`y - t, - b • Irr \ne i«. m rw irx� w Nt ro m (S>r.n' p v r qi) tu yr G w 1 • xs w iw nl I �, ,�q��I ,�--n.nM.i>w--� �.,w, 'I ,` j SECTION E ^� 4. k r man SECTION 1F- mac_ .; ` yai�� SECTION G ` O 1 — SECTION k ' SECTION I i t r l .SECTION J CITY OF ITEM: - RANCHO CUCAINIoiNGA TITLE: — 00.1 �►�--- �---- PLANNI\'G DIVISION SCALE: ANVdWOO NOAI WVIIIIM3k11 uo#ssugn.SNDH - U3dOl3A30 6 NV'Id _ Z NV7d Fi i 1 • El D m 4 m I A 1 C El J e Lq e W ell W e Y W w w K o y y y to p N IR •e ; j { i P N O OLu O O J i 9 J Z J W w J ycc c r r tu as iIc cEl ®' 1 I r E3 �a 1 W 111It1111. W IIII�iiIi�IP W ',*1; N t G N .i 1:® W W w HL- ul a N j qr� n, , N N `�: W �l�0�'III� j I F = = W w w ,ii C7 t7 LU 1 C p lu ¢ ¢ CITY Or 1TEINI: ISO42 B A1NCHO CL'CAIIIO\YGA TITLr: I.AIVI`1ING DIVISIOO�I _ ) EIIIII3IT. v�SCALE .5 �; �arsvarrvaaaOA"/wvll.mm3Hd andOl3A3a it VU!DOHd 101'.L: 'bS Of;4As AN1Nnoo 3411 ff qgrgAdy C NV,d f 1 ��!! a W L1 W J W O A p to Goy i— LL s i � w b f 8 � r s e = e W Y e tC c ' • t �TE— L� ER JEEEE OBI pp lu W W W W W W Q ' uj (WI G C IIIul 9 6^ CITY Or ITEM._ -rt' RAINCHO C CANT I®1GA TITLE PLANNING DIVISION -)3 E.1I�IGtT B1 a• SCALE 9 r, t I y MOM A)S CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO CUCAIMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:' '° SOLE- Amok ilk EEER 0 n _ a ®~ WW. Z� RANCHO Cj• IN'I01Gr TITLE �tm®� �+tEV.9�Sec�tS PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: " •�—� SCALE-. A • c r' Af- CIT�� OF T ITEM: RANCHO CL 'IOG TITLE: PLANNING Di`'LSIQN E.`*HIBIT��G1LE AuiNnoo sHiL ` s � Gam. `3 4 EU ZZLa .cc 3o L0N, I' !AS i - J W O bb CITY Or. ITEM: RANCHO CLT �v10 'Cil TITLE �� � �,,�t'csa.95 PLANNING DIVISION, ElHiI3tT os _SCALE. K� —1-7 „I rp� wut i CITY Or, ITEM: RANCHO CUCA- iNIO\GA TITLE -��ry_ �• PLr1►11N:\G DIVISION • a i-�•--� �"�'��� _ EIHIBIT• �SCALE- is t�' i i IE=�-YIEl� y I■ :i i -�� � �•ikaa`e;a 5 i� ��=7x�i7■, � -- ■ �S,=d Fi ri�w/k� Yl� Y �an'YUEEE'i�l■N .3 � f�illlll�� CITY Or, ITEM: _� i■i�!'i 1 • CUCANIONGA PLANNING DIVISIQ.N EXHIBIT: ci i l tit r �' �1 lJ' �''f � !��i �07�1���•i � it � , pis 11i10 • \, �ii�f� \ �. i Y , r, QA R• � q �, �' `t� Y, d` cn ! f ; t. Y r s• R i� s. CITY Or 1TFA I- 15osz,. RANCHO CUCAtiIONGA TITLE PLANNING DIVISION JC— EXHIBIT °� " SCALE' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: OV�C"tG36� APPLICANT; T.aVL Utu U6M_YO-! FILING DATE:—�4��,t�C — LOG NUMBER: T' PROJECT: RtKl07iZ" r"AL tT?►VtSte a �z ?ZZ dia'CS PROJECT LOCATION: n Fj�S�4►�1�� Lio I. EVIR=IIENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geolort*. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, di-placements, compaction or burial of the C. Change in topoZ -r ground surface contour intervals. -- d. The destruction, covering or modification' of any unique geologic _r physical features? ,✓ e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic haze,ds such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-- slides, ground failur., or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or +� use of any mineral resource? ti 2. xydrolca. Will the proposal have significant results in: Page ? YES %'aYEE \0 a. Changes in currents,. or the course of direction Of flawing streams,-rivers, or ephemeral stream s ch.-nnowin !L1 b. Chalrges in absorption rates, drain_-4Z patterns, or the rate and, amount of surface water runoff? C. Alteratiorm to the course or flow of flood water d. Change in the amount of surface water in anv body of water? ,o e. Discharge into surface waters., or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater charac_eristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with,an aquifer? Quality? quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i, Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiche. ? 3. Air p�ualty, 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 regio-nal climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Eieta Flora. Will the proposal have significant results Y.a. Change in the characteristics of spades, r including diversity, distribution, or number I of any species of plants? I l b. Red•tction of the numbers of any unique, rare or aridangered species of plants? � - k ate- nage 3 YES 'L4YSE VO c, Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauria. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioratio:t or remo•,al of existing fish or wildli°e habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- Aft bution, density, diversity, or growth sate of .r the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change iu local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? ZOO b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the TT-proposal 'nave significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? a. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational oppo tunities? Page 4 YES LkYBE NO 8. Transnortcion. Will the proposal have significant results.in a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. "Zfects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? C. 'Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?' V d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? �p e. Alterations to present par erns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? 3e Increases 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? �✓ 10. Health., Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will tLe proposal have significant results in a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increasa in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? �Z. The creation of objectionable odors'., h. An increase in light or glare? Page 5 YES HAFB=' NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or viaw? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a. significant need for new s;stems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? W C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? a9 h. Fire protection? i. Police -?rotection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? + I. Ma%ntenance of public facilities, including roads and flood controlfacilities? m. Oliher governmental services? i 13. Ener:v and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Ise of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increab.: 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 j renewable sources of energy are available? CDS- Pogo_ 5 YES `S YBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Yanda`tory g ,dim s of SiQa fic-nce. ' a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,' cause a fish or wildlife population to drop' below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce' the number or;restrict the.range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achiev= �- short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental zoals? (A short-term impact on ;the environment is ante which occurs in a relatively brief, definitit- period of time while long- term,impacts will endure well into the future). •c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of 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? II. DISCUSSION OF MIRO'MNTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of. affirmative answers to the above questions Plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). I i I 6_ r : Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this in__sal evaluation: I,find the proposedproject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be ?.repared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect an 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 PREPARED. v4{q, vo, 4owua S•�.p•C, `�rnv �c�.►oet f--R t t Tte-AMpe4 r'��r�x►p ``�' scuac�TR �� I find the proposed project SLAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an E.!'VIRoNM.NT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date .Signature Title L 85/422 GORDON BRI KEN & ASSOCIATE CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS' September 4, 1985 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS V I C T O "R I A L A K E S C I T Y O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Prepared by: Prepared for: Gordon Bricken MR. STEVEN FORD President THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY ' 8540 Archibald Avenue, Ste. B Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 1821EastSeventeanth Street,Suite K ® Santa Ana,California92701 ® Phone(714)SS5-024i1 IC GORDON -ERICKEN & ASSOCIATES- CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS S UMMARY An analysis has been performed on VICTORIA LAKES in the Cityof Rancho Cuca,,,or; a g to determine design features necessary to control noise to mee t the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed elements are summarized below: (1) SOUND Sound walls .are required along Baseline. These barriers should be 4.5 feet high on Lots 1 to 6, and 117 to 120. Lot 121 should have a 5 foot wall. Lots 221 and 222 are custom Lots and are in excess of 65 CNEL. The buyers should be notified of this fact as corrective action may be required„ (2) CONSTRUCTION MATERIAI•S FOR SOUND WALLS Walls maybe constructed of masonry block or other masonry material. They must fully enclose the rear yards and have no openings except drain holes. - (3) BUILDING FEATURES The buildings along Baseline and Etiwanda are satisfactory if constructed in accordance with 'le 5 except the Kitchen of Plan 2,. This Kitchen ��.axires 3/16" or dual glass. 1621 EastSeventeenthStreet,SuiteK • Santa Ana,California92701 o Phone(714j835-0249 a GORDON BRICKEN & As O'CIATES COh1SUITING•ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a noise n:cact and design study of the proposed VICTORIA LAKES project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Included in this report is a discussion of the expected e terior community noise environment and the recommendations for control of noise in exterior and interior living areas. n vicin ty map showing the general location of the construction site is presented in Exhibit 1 -- Site Location Map. The proposed development is a single-family tract. The site is exposed to noise from Etiwandi and Baseline. 2.0 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA The City of Rancho Cucamonga requires that all residential projects conform to the requirements of Table 1. TALE 1, APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA(1) Exterior 65 CNEL Interior 45 CNEL (1) Please see NOISE RATING METHODS (Appendix 1). for a complete explanation of acoustical terminolcgy. I I 1621 East Seventeenth Street,Suite K 4 Santa Ana,California92701 0 Phone(714)835-0249 3.0 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Adpbk qW 3.1 ROADWAY Measurements were made on the site. A cc?y of the measurement charts are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3. The results of these measurements are listed in Table 2. TABLE 2 MEASURED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS POSITION DESCRIPTION L A VEHICLES HT(1) —eq _ #1 50' from the centerline of Etiwanda at Chaffey Garcia Adobe 63 17 3 2 #2 50' from the centerline of Baseline 63 52 2 1 (1) A = Autos MT = Medium Trucks HT Heavy Trucks The vehicular traffic volumes are lnw. No other sources of noise were noted in the vicinity. The existing levels will be less than future noise levels as traffic is projected to increase as development occurs. 3.2 RAILROAD The Southern Pacific Railroad tracks are adjacent to the north pzsperty line of this development. Previous contacts with the Southern Pacific Railroad indicate that schedule train movements consist of one switching freight train west bound at approximately 9:30 A.N. and a later return east bound on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. No passenger trainsutilize this track. There are no nighttime operations. I� -�1 This track„is not a main freight line arl no through freights are scheduled along this track. one switching freight train, of approximately ten cars, utilizes this track servicing industries along the track. The maximum speed of operation at tn:;.r, location is 40 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 level (Ldn is the same) was 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. 4.0 DESIGN NOISE LEVELS 4.1 ROADWAYS The expected future ;roadway noise impact was projected using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise Mrdel (FHWA RD-77-108), together with the several roadway and site parameters of this project. The key input parameters which determine the projected impact. of vehicular traffic noise include the roadway crossection (e.g. number of lanes.), the roadway active width, the average daily t affic (ADT), the vehicle trav6l speed, the percentages of auto and truck °traffic, the roadway grade, the angle of view, the site conditions ("hard" or "soft"), and the percent of total average daily traffic (ADT) which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. The traffic volume values for Etiwanda and Baseline were taken from the DKS Study for the General Plan. The values taken were "with" the Foothill Freeway.- The volume values are listed in Table 3 can the following page. TABLE 3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES STREET "WITH" FREEWAY Etiwanda 18,000 Baseline 14,000 The Etiwanda and Baseline truck traffic and daily distribution were taken from a 197S Study by the Orange County Road Department for Thirty-one Inter- sections of arterial highways. The data is l.iste4 in Table 4. TABLE 4 BASELINE/ETIWANDA TRAFFIC DATA $ DAY $ EVENING % NIGHT $ VOLUME f Auto 75.51 23.57 9.34 100.0 Medium Trucks 1.56 .09 .19 100.0 Heavy Trucks .64 02 .08 100.0 Volume: Baseline = 14,000 Etiwanda 18,000 The roadway speeds are taken as 45 MPH. 4.2 RAILROAD Railroad values will remain the same as today at 61 CNEL. I_ l 5.0 MITIGATION 5.1 EXT:MOR Houses are plotted on the Lots along Baseline. _.ots 221 and 222 are custom Lots. The noise levels show that Lots 221 and 222 will exceed 65 CNEL. However, no specific recommendation is feasible until the Lots are laid; out. Buyers should be notified that the Lots exceed the City's allowed noise levels and treatment will be required. Sound barriers are required on the Lots along Baseline since the levels exceed 65 CNEL. Calculations were carried out for Lots 1, 6, 118, and 121 as sample Lots. The calculations are attached in Appendix 3. From these samples, the barrier heights are listed in Table 5. TABLE 4 BARRIER HEIGHTS ALONG BASELINE 4 _ . LOT HEIGHT(1) 1 4.5° 2 4.5' 3 4.5' 4 4.5' 5 4.5' 6 4.5' ll 117 4.5' I 118 4.5' 119 4.51 120 4.5' 121 5.0 (1) Above pad grade. The lots along the railroad alce below 65 CNEL. The nearest lots to Etiwanda, other than Lots 221 and 222, axe 260 feet from the centerline Of Etiwanda. The noise levels will lie in the 64 to 65 CNEL range. No sound walls are requiied. The Baseline sound barriers a=e located on Exhibits 4-A and 4-n. Barriers mazy be constructed of several material types, as for example: M Masonry block 12) Stucco on wood frame (3) 1/4" glass or 1/2" LEXAN (4) Any combination of these materials Each completed noise control barrier must present a solid face from top-to-bottom. Cutouts and openings are not permitted except for drain holes. 5.2 INTERIOR The City's exposure criteria for new residential construction requires that the interior noise environment, attrIbutable to outside sources, be limited to 45 CNEL. Analysis and recommendations for control of outdoor-to-indoor motor vehicle noise intrusion are presented in this section. The exterior-to-interior noise reduction expected for the planned construction was based on a detailed. analysis on the typical spectra expected for the primary sources of community noise impact, the typical Octave- band transmission loss for each element in the planned building shell, the relative square footage of each element of the planned building shell, the expected typical interior surface treatment, and the acoustical ausorption coefficient for each interior surface treat- ment. Also included are corrections for the "A" am Weighted zoom absorption factors. z cG � 3� Each component of the building shell (e.g. exterior wall, windows, doors, etc.-) provides a different amount of transmission loss for each "A" Weighted octave band, of community noise.- With the knowledge of the building shell components and their individual octave band transmission loss values for motor vehicle noise, calculations of the composite building shell transmission loss can be made for; each room. In some :situations, the room has exterior components subjected to different levels from the same nose source. In cases where this is true, the trans- mission loss values are adjusted to include t1^- source noise differences and the entire calculatic- referenced to one exposure. Usually, this is the-face with the highest noise level. Where,more than one source type is involved, the interior levels from each source are computed separately and, then, combined to determine the composite interior noise level_ The characteristics of the basic building shell are listed in Table 6. -TABLE 6 BASIC BUILDING SHELL CHARACTERISTICS PANEL CONSTRUCTION Bx erior Wall 7/811 stucco, 211 X 4" studs, R-11 Fiberglass Insulation, 1/2" Drywall Windows 3/32" single pane aluminum horizontal sliders' Sliding Glass Door 3/16" single pane aluminum horizontal sliders Roof Shingle. over 1/2" plywood, R-19 ri Fiberglass 7 -alation Floor Carpeted, except-kitchen and baths. �3 The noise level at each of the Lots is listed in Table 7. TABLE 7 NOISE LEVELS AT BUILDINGS LOTS NOISE LEVEL NOISE REDUCTION All Baseline Lots, 65- _20 All Etiwanda Lots 65 20 All Railroad Lots 61 17' The calculations are attached in Appendix 4. The results are summarized in Table 8. TABLE 8 I NOISE RSDUCTION VALUES(l) I PLAN _ ROOM GLAZING NOISE REDUCTIO 1 1e3rth/West Facing Bedroom Single 25 Dual 26 Dining Room Single 21 Dual _24 Kitchen Single 20 Dual 21- 2 North/West Facing Bedroom Single 26 Dual 27 Bath. Single '12 Dual 27 Dining Room Single 21 Dual 23 Kitchen Single 19 I Dual 21 3 North/West Facing Bedroom Single 24 Dual 26 Master Bedroom Single 24 Dual 26 Living Roon„ Sin le 23 Dual 25 t1J Dual glass means either 1/2" Dual Pane or Single Pane 3/16" glass may be used. (G -3 All, but the Kitchen in Plan 2, are satisfied , (20 dB.X or greater) with single glass (Basic Construction). The Kitchen must use 3/16" or .Dual Pane glass. EXAMIT 1 SITE L,4CATION N1Api M- r sa BASE 11NE AV ,BASE U1.' t FOOTHILL __ F v« OWEN 1 t ^aeaxur ' � hNE —ARROW .Ke _ROItiE ARROW ra_ a • 1.. j , "SIR SrEEt FOBUHA ItAVr i 1 ' r/ r<. . I RESOLUTION NO. A 'RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13052 AND DESIGN REVIEW. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Mali No. 13052 hereinafter "Map" submitted by the William Lyon Co., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the rea"i property situated in the City of Rincho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 34.9 acres, located north of Baseline Road, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad, east of Victoria Park Lane, and west of Etiwanda Avenue, APN 227-111-4, 5, 18, 20, 32 and 36 into 222 lots, regularly carve before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on November 13, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning. Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 13052 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans;_ (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General,Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems;` (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. . y PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page #2 (g) That this project 'will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract.Map No. 13052 and Design Review thereof, a copy of which attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Design Reviews 1. Each lot within the project shall ave a minimum flat (2% slope or less), rear yard open area fra, building to property line, or slope/retaining wall of 15 feet. A final detailed site plan which indicates the slope and retaining wall locations and unit plotting shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Street facing side elevations on corner lots shall be upgraded with additional wood trim, veneer siding or plant-ons where appropriate._ Wood surrounds shall be provided on street facing side windows which are in front of the side yard return fencing. Construction details shall be indicated on the AMA working drawings (including specific lot numbers). 3. Corner side yard fencing and/or retaining walls shall be setback a minimum distance of five (5) feet from the back of sidewalks. All interior street facing retaining walls shall be constructed of decorative block, and all wood fencing installed by the developer shall be treated with water, sealant for staining. 4. For all corner lots the sideyard between the sidewalk and the sideyard fencing shall be landscaped. 5. All roofing material within th, project shall be of a concrete the ateriai. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report stating that the recommended acoustical mitigatiun measures to achieve acquired interior noise standards have been implemented, shall be submitted to the Planning Division, and the building plan shall be so certified by an acoustical engineer. 7. Prospective buyers of the two lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue (Lots 121, 122), shall be informed' prior to sale, that these lots may require noise mitigation. IG r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIOd Page #3 " 8. The passeo trail O ot-A),• shall be extended northerly to the railroad tracks to provide a potential connection point with the future community trail system. The passeo trail system (Lot A) shall be fully improved by the developer; including sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation. Landscaping shall include canopy shade trees, shrubs and ground cover. Low level lighting shall be provided where the trail is internal batween dwelling units. Details shall be included in the final landscape/irrigation plans, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9. Per City policy, on windrow replacement, the existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrow along the northern property perimeter shall be removed and replaced by the Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum). These trees shall be a minimum of 16 gallon in size, planted a minimum of 8 feet on center, properly staked and irrigated, along the entire northern perimeter of the tract boundary adjacent to the railroad tracks. 10. Walls/Fences shall be provided along the entire tract perimeter. Walls on Base Line and the Southern Pacific Railroad shall be 6 feet high and of masonry construction with the Base Line wall being of a decorative design. The wall on Base Line should be staggered and off-set to increase the visual interest. Walls on Victoria Park Lane should be of wrought iron construction consistent with the existing design along that street. Construction details of all perimeter wall treatment shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Design details of all retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Division prior to approval of the final grading plan. Maximum wall <height including retaining walls and screened fencing shall be 9 feet, with screen fencing to be a minimum of 5 feet high. Where this standard would be exceeded, graded slopes and/or terraced retaining walls shall be required with a_minimum horizontal separation of 5 feet. 12. A minimum six-footi wide improved surface shall be provided along the interior/passeo trail to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Tentative Tract: 1. The existing rock curb and gutter along Etiwanda Avenue shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: 2. Base Line Road shall be' constructed as follows: 1 �y, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page #4 a. Portion fronting the tract: 1) full improvements for north road bed, 2) full median, and 3) a minimum 18 foot wide pavement on south roadbed. b. Portion from tract to Victoria Park Lane: fall median and a minimum of 18 foot wide pavement on both roadbeds. c. The cost of-permanent improvements in excess of the standard one half street improvements adjacent to the trar;t boundary,shall be subject to reimbursement from thO. City for the adjacent property owners upon. developme-.t of their property. 3. A deposit shall be posted with the City for the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under the Mello Roos assessme:at district among the newly created parcels. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY:•Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November,' 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 3 iL L45 n o.- o. 9 vn. v0 yo �ho6 cM o Boa lx, d' Fa y bLco ck5 bze Yn� yoY oo,e .► qnq� d = 6�. 'C. u �tJ qy�n eSp Ct •� 2T B. E T O.Y m^d C ^^q O^q d Y W y d C'N^ Lai � ZyGO� H`O �VW noo U ,tE a 0 Vcv O^d w0 OLG YOB t. �y S qc d•i d �u^ 2t«'.q O q O •n Cc cY S 'E YM O du0 �O dqY C�qN^ O V d O E n q L. 2�•r �`9d �'• o. a^�aY p�i•`e Yc�a o11 •�ata�a coY e�apcw. u.�u.SY•YnO yc C.O pd� N.N Auq>�V 6 dLY�^OLm q N EEEg - Y n O OIA 6 bid. u F °N CC C E O N p A Oy qc ^ q q`C��+• n ^jj �. v o� nG^O O'uY -N E c yc^ aaQ.- N ^ q%-� ..gc L•O yyo6 N G9' nnp CEga y,6 N1 .21 �ga.. S E y a a 2,4= n. ggggg O�Y6 u cc^ 'Ey` C N S d.cV Sep ^ n Y q V ut per^ O•�U YV d� 06aY 'Y^•r E �? 7CY d iN Y .� NN Yd.�u` vs' ei= o`o N cu'`. c Y,•.+N.St+z $`o 4m rani nv m b G N l�l y m 1 '4 oL oL o y L�.-. E Gq• Y rod V • M N W g Y Y V S L W au HE NSO V��^ q n� G O•, N O N^O E O d� I Z + YY J O w d c:O YN�G LS d� G •xpn • � LOE o �N ocgE Lt�. ' ¢3 � 2 C q O c 4 3 tl N q O". O O Y oOoee _O Z d C M y p". n`-g L d s ddV }& O Ln _g. H �y uu w u O O O pe O• O V y Y G y Y Jyc,OYN` v J• p •y/j. °. ova ._ o ` inv. arq T 4 n 3 i .� O N.Yr E d O n en $ai o an q rq a.N•iN H Q.•J F QY f �. NI �I CI. ^w 9 OL. d Yr9 6.. y.Ep 74 E, O wuO r9 ' G N u.- tea^ O.L� a O • A. fi d n-•ai p g O Y p N a q O Y N a a C n r 0 V d� o p a O p G u L 4 Po7 q �•�Y N Y G R =2 q'EY CO.9 Q.Y OA o.Oa'�w Cn aY�� u•`•O 9 G 9N � �s L AL RTC p NLb41 4 ry 6t N.L My.L o.Lpc^O Y nN Rya dN .. RC b �p Y p G pGGy. Gy Y.q �.Ct�N4.C. rA Yyuai 1^rUL r n ..=p C S•Qj n C AL `X. S 9nNr NA L ^ qqO ydU1 • 9w LY2GEij.^ .r fiR q�r v�M u CL oNE> �.H.NAc yG Od OW O�' LZ dRY A� NBC dOW �� C G� aaN a-.Ycuu.N N rqn p '^ .C, N9O.' Yw. rYd CNC^_ A SO O— aCa Y� NA L Y^.O nnOW y� CC �.-. A Gd aC 9Agg G Lo prima Y N GA pm "2 C .n NL.. •SC YC p doh w YL dO.. CL — A AV® O a.0 R Vd n A �W EEL NBC NpAYLO G. d.� ^YdY, Cu NV v'9p yc dpobiuNY Y^ S� «�d. L y ^ •'• ^N U. >K Y 9 Y t Cv C i•pQ� }A C p. L EE o w@ F c C C 6 J r E Y d 3 g r FF d r N O L a p R ` p Y Y 9 Vg. A A _ 9 `E n ^ N C ^ pp C '^ 6•Y+ •C ^ o 4E«60 O:NUY— N«NNLE2Nd d`.p.»NY..Sn W.. •.._ L�`C. 6L uy N6p N 1 1 u S.R r Nr .19 .sYCd b}• . O 94.•«9Y.9 . wL—CdN tom«Od YOV• Uqo N L prtl1^. dr Y L b t'nO d X.L« p E ups- LO •Y t � ,_� L90. AO ► gFioO .Fd .'a. L ` r N a r„ EE N 6 M C E C OAF C r S i <u g w Y— YN KAi C.A.. OdaY d0 L1L TO EO�.V ��E CjAy< ` p d A u Y N O G c�4 d • E— > oil y p 0 L C L tea. VGa°'r c _ ^ N� qo N 4w �p Q C.N C ^JVCNI M •�� �YL�C i G L Z. uF � p cov L W�- Q VIA. W9 <M`NR Q:. yr 99O y 9 a C G. SE G u p ORLC C Y A y L �'>Y O• LOY. u9CC.�V Rr —Y dN AG `aN N�u- dC y•^r` 7 1 M r t G � OY N L1 C r LO UFJ.0 w ppG 00 Yam. �Y S .0��u Y o Yp. pt 9d H . 4 60 9 Er NSr C 1+'`C.r� NO O 1=.Lr ► ��., C .d9 .. 9 Y Y t o9 c C L 9 C O Rd o CC O A O L 6�O O Y 9 Y O O 9 LEO�p6 C tq� O q E yO57 L ap ^ d`lL9^i V C 7G W.fl�Uc-:2 6 Y L 4 a .� > Y 9 N j �+ 6 Y U 1 b n p O b o p y e p 'Q An pap N6 ftNCo ^.p-Na NNY 41i M96Y qw OIL. M«og u. H.`.N<RG 40 m O1 N 1•j: Q I . ,o wo q` c o .o cu ar weL Lb��Na,A o er rnm .L r-Y is an •. .. b zO.y.V 'Gt 4fn 9A Y Orb C.Y� Vd'y _CVU N nG w� y bN Ap P` O7 CL6 Vv9 '• Ea>y III LN � MI b �U. �� ". N ...•4. .�. OO O p aS b N U x4 O.• p u a t O A Oy .� L p YM •` U A � w 2 C L. � .'ci � • �t C9=G ouv��u N� r q aY.m s� 'c goNNau .�,N_a u er ca t.i CA � yON 4 � O :� v� C•p' b p �N U^ • ! qYV... Y aq OY Nb NO O RL Nb `C S• .N. = iy I a c `oR d^ sgr5 r 9 u �= 6 p. Op.�i.0 �rp yr C.0 L` wC O� LCUO C.c L ON a� O n][ bC q qU O^ 06 A O V UNd E C Z� Luv N•..J Oc ~ O �O N A r r C r'• I uu N L6N uN C'G L C. ads �.+ q ai cNCR c..«un..co. d0 �� a••� b.V O IL^K wM QO O• a qY q,p� L G N p6 N C M 9 L q E t l �d L� L � j Y• r T.T bib T U. rU✓ Y06 N U «N N.�hNN 6.Nr iN 3N0 1�NL iNV-q-^P7C�gw 60 iR�'Yon 4Y 4..Oq LR M •wl C_C A V r`O� L p OY ZEE ` E 9 G r+ C • :O S q r � N� A� C ff..rr 6 A C N Q •,,,ta�q. 6,0 .�-�.GG 01d n ' yE�O N 1 C U C 6 q^ C' yqa ad O r X L �u as ^ > pa np L� •+ � L' • �A de .� > ou Lo ..F na: o•N• ��n �d�m ad. C Y L r .0= u C 0• p N R py e .� O; • U L u. �9. G O€ O. t•.q Y d E C:�C CA.� A.O gg N O'N U F� .G.pudd Ou r y� RR O Odp. Jr �9�0 At n•L•q q N Y...N'• 9 N O a• C N L N a 0^6 p A M` `� „ F Y • d p .�u 0 0 �G. L G Q.u 9 T G?t i N N U M9 d p q0 �' � N d LV U.• 6b babu Vp�� d m '".NON „•u• vie- �L_o E� 99a. yugq OY A^ A`uQ 9VG��pp 6O L +_ u A q V E• H. ... v.u N V AqY> p � RL V a L •O LL Tq ^a b� O�pC P jup Q CO Nyp O•a CY. V r C disc N-b0.. ORN Oy'aa L 'Y`c ..p a.Lbo YNyr Oc_aF6. p.0 L'^A� r LN C •. �.U�4 Node ' Y Y O�. r R Y Y n O� V`d L • N N uqq� u•„• n L d "'• iN OA ..M r..�. L .Y >l .y q.`L EYR924 6+r+ 6gWm i ¢pN 4d GM GU iv Ft-C.N+C-e iG6yqj'.Oj' N • •O tz c N f•i < Yf yqv Y�2 C E2�.. Q N .9-.Tq E C gyp. �. > O yE V..G�p C , ut o G .tr y E n 9>. ^o Q.E V a •E .fit €O OQ E.�u. MqE ^ 6N v0,2 L LEy J cam G Yj n c LL E V O Z. q9� gO.yd W A6Yd GR L� ^ O 7 L YI y L y,f y v.. y a y « o c 4 G L •� N W C�6 V C ^p c.Y O U �n+ y u«i N^` « C � mom+ i �E>O �nUq du S. Nc. J. 1OD €uqu< Y�ys v D d Y V a o C �q L OT d EE rLi _ O.0 d O a0 p� Cq d.yr.d. Tv EdC O A M eD a'd ma � �uqq ao c L O9 Cv2 YnQn'y =7 Y' vq e= Ga C nLEY Ad co. o.$^ >Y'�LL �. q o60 n 6 Q LGp.LO .i O NN O L N E= 9TG dU. Y .� O1 -- E dvu[T, �.T.?.y tit Lep�n C d Y L nOA F¢ « SLILNG F� O 1-tiW 6 a-'XN k.5 qaA N L N . C > er S La c d6 T^a CIT 1L. .L« L qd u� (r� a^ a «_ v Cod uo Y y� qdN .Ge E dd T q?0 ,D� NCi sn ^ 1 «aDy « ca. '� p 9 E c i 4 D 7 a d q Y L d L CI L L Y�c d .q 2 L� q Y Oqy Y Y i C�q V E EE. >'� G 9 Y C n06 Yd tiU V O ' c= GvdS G q 6 =. p'v�C Lo. E L N «d y F.L. -Z C C OOy Vd q3j �4E Nu mo o O Y. G E a d. b o O. v 11 6C .n M a y^ T V O 4y „ OL aiL FC C wu C « r Oel L C q p� �y y4N ( Ca p c� tc T Saq CZ a �Y N30 o L E Y.T O a G T d TY d^ G ...iL L IF o.N T q NG'^ q 6 6a i C 2'D U E C d E C C� TE n c O E O1 C Y.0 �LL �WO LO 04UC. v -t L Or EppE H N O 4 35 Vp1 N T S«J^ J L E' 6 H.q G N+ Q p.C. CI u. R. 14 14 _�•[J7� ` i {-fit .dG0b Tq2i; f y t y 9 W dp AOL you u L�q O 9 9 d OI NE Lap ; b T O / E b a O O: �. a N N T +Y+E y • G c. �. 'qL 24 n. a r a A , F Z H V a ab m� 3 N L O. N 6 pY c E L q o c a N w 41 U. ` p nw. mop `c n o u N O L O.. u E db nb. C O N« M. d .i G a C a c O —5 r gyO1 CUZg �» E' �E d C ' p.n auudio �.aai+�'+d a� `o.e d un N«•=, eaa O bye ¢ cc.- u:Lo � q aE pow b.W iL] L Nq E O. - �• W L C N LO 0. C O E a •• U- S q E m s c c w a n m p q ILmC� 40 r V9 ' 79 S.�a � �2 L.•p. d F. � Liv � J - O G u Ld b U �W OwO. •+N tJV 4a CaO+G.Lk <Vr Yj J b d L U LO O g L b U b LO.O - �, yy. 2 6q y O a0 N. 1 aq a C S TOb T b q�T p��«d«n q a ? y L GQ ^9 EN4.5 91 _ L _ L N� L G 6 G O �..0 ✓'� C . w C ad ry. a C TH c O 1�fkj f° c as E A fib. b € 'o ia' iCgb b«g �n N L^ Er. Cl 6.P V a 14 b��LP W n C L l •.. •.�b�i O C. •U E b`Y.Y VN� tip �a LyNa N«C O w L9a�.L :5 •^ a q �..0 .N d N L �y}O.^y L q C «•:: 9 C p'� n� �a ,en 'nna GO p«« a NNE p F �q WEO O',rY1C a>O aYbG b OO OO yV b� p O '� yq �f.N Cly 4OO « O� .. y� d. • N� W-4 w S a a. N O C N q q HV9Nr 4NTG 06 .E►L. xo na q = o, o'om wm 4 p C :� boaa I .de d �3T Yd O iV d L� r ✓.q NQ t n� N. � =LNG q W T F N s 6u d: N T ✓ n N'O G G ^ O q cU G Cnd.q NCO dtE � o Yw Y � d �y ti o rn� TZ;L. =a=.� u .00 LL o�� c s Y ruEl . EN qy u✓iL O.q 6S 8p0 OL Ey '.Eu YN 2 n EGE¢dnd NE � �J L �:dd npt CZ O d d � CC a O i� TaT �'.�. y Oc wV O Fr 0.�� qYy Nq ✓EE yL Tr'1 w 6 EE d Y d ay L = TrnH v,V T Wu d.L-=T. 3N. 3 d� LLZ; 36 's, Q V to o. p w v oV q OG U Oy L L OpL o G ^` + Y N O GO yrf. 6 U uC 7.✓ Nq an. .=y 1-N 77� Y " q NC GO n L WS � Y L �pS .wit 2u ✓ O G„G. GO u L y9 Wd N ~L EE EY G WJ O CdT 3 ✓ CEa .--q O QUO OA V13 G y L q Y y qo Y o N y V as m Cl S C O O g N V .. Lad. N ✓ 2 � 2= O T 66 L N C G C`L b p1 _ s yv b rn `u az a y p � Y e {` EE N rpr �.E ( uf o Nm 41 u t g NP L6 a=. ^ LQ.A �.n 6y -Np N b q b Of c f.a E p f• �.- n0 on bC 9. UCt p22 0 ab o c L U L O n 6 N L a' a� N.N st T'^ ab2 c p y L bC N 0�a u Q L C r NO O S E L E a _ to n C p � dC� CO 61 G^IIy Q� ASS; 6 N LL 6 d h 6f YC o a y 2001 - o Ed Yo Q N v m bAZI b ^ an 2. a N O L �d b L Y a Epf r O Yu nr E:c Y� pLL y C � u a' L m.az'i p - c z y o cL �r y p zb yn. a -1: vL po u p n� ¢ o ca a .. a r r pd b �W PLC C. am ' .Lv .. anN al a n .L,amc bb sr �.t. o Nil z- ram. 0 r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gu-,Moti STAFF REPORT E ~� Z DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:. Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-27 BROWN - A proposal to locate an executive health concept center, within an existing 18,240 sq. ft. building located in the Haven Avenue Overlay District, o- the west side of Haven between 6th and 7th Street - APN 20-262-19 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit B. Pu.-pose: To permit an executive health center to locate in the Almindustrial park. C. Parcel Size: 4.09 acres 0. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial, Subarea 6 South - Vacant, Subarea 6 East Vacant, Subarea 6 West Distribution Center, Subarea 6 E. General Plan Designations: Project Site = Industrial Park North - Industriu Park South Industrial Park East Industrial Park 'West - industrial Park ` F. Site Characteristics: This site is the fully developed Phase I of Haven Plazz, a 57,000 square foot industrial park located on 4 acres of land. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: Mr. George Brown has proposed to ,locate his 'Executive Health Center" within one of the three existing buildings in Haven Plaza. Executive Health Center will be a health facility providing: weight training, aerobics, stress ITEM L p. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-27 Brown November 13, 1985 Page 2 Aft and body fat testing, nutritional guidance, along with lockers, showers, and steam rooms. The proposed hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. At peak hours, seven emrloyees will be on duty. Similar to most non-construction'Conditional Use Permits, the main issue to be addressed is the compatibility. The Development Code requires health studios and spas to provide one parking space for every 150 square feet of floor area. Therefore, this use would require 121 spaces. However, only 80 spaces are available for this building thus creating a 40 parking space deficit. To mitigate this problem, the applicant has requested approval of shared parking. 7ne Development Code allows the City Planner to approve shared parking; however, because a CUP request is involved, this item was referred to the full Planning Commission. Section 17.12.040D states that: "Parking facilities may be used jointly with parking facilities for other uses when operations are not normally conducted during the same hours, or when hours of peak use vary, subject to the following conditions: (a) A parking study shall be presented`to the City Planner demonstrating that substantial conflict will not exist in the _principal hours or periods of peak demand for the uses which the joint use it proposed. (b) Tha number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements- for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of parking stalls reasonably anticipated to be available during`differing. _ hours of operation. (c) Parking facilities designated for joint use should not be located further than three hundred (300) feet from any structure or use served. (d) A written agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the city attorney and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of the number of stalls designated for Joint use." PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-27 - Brown November 13, 1985 Page 3 B. Parking Study: The study compare- peak parking requirements of bath office space and health clubs to demonstrate that parking conflict will not exist if approved. To calculate the office demand, the study used "Shared Parking", a study conducted under the direction of the Urban Land Institute. The study used Family Exercise Center and Racquetball, located in Montclair, as a parking demand model for a health club. Family Fitness Center (FFC), has approximately 22,000 square feet, as compared to 18,240 square feet of the Executive Health Center (EHC). The study points out that the FFC has approximately 20,000 members and that the executive health center will have only 3,000 members. Staff feels that this will have 'little bearing on the; parking demand because it`is not evident what percentage of the members actually use the club. The study indicates office use peak parking demand is during the 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. slots, and again at 2:00 p.m. The Health center peaks at 5:30 p.m., and a secondary peak at 10:00 a.m. Table 3 provides the critical comparison of office and health club parking demand. Staff notes that Columns 3, 5 and 6 should be retitled "Projected" rather than "Required" parking. Table 3 Column 7 shows that durinq the 10:00 a.m. time slat, there is a parking deficit of 8 s aces and duringthe 00 re a.m. slot, the is' no st�rlus parking all spaces full). Therefore, substantial conflict would exist during the mid- morning hours. } Staff believes that the parking study has not fully addressed all_area,- of this proposal. The study clearly shows that Haven Plaza does not have enough parking to facilitate the health club during the proposed hours of operation. Currently, they have leased about 40%- of their space, (not counting the health `center) and have allotted 107 spaces so far. This represents two spaces above the City°s required parking. However, with only 111 spaces remaining for the 34,700 square feet of remaining space, this is 28 spaces .short, based on a i to 250 ratio. The parking study 'gnores a significant difference between the Foothill Family Center and the Executive Health Center. The six racquetball cot►rts at FFC take up approximately 9,600 square feet of the ?2,000 total building square footage.-Since there will be no raquetball courts at the executive health center, an adjustment must be made..,, Subtracting the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-27 - Brown November 13, 1985 Page 4 racquetball square footage from th_ total square footage, the FFC is reduced to 12,400 square feet. If a comparis9n of the building ratio to the number of cars parked is now taken, the peak parking demand for the Executive Health Center would now be 128 vehicles, increasing the 10:00 a.m. deficit from 18 spaces to 21 and creating an 11:00 a.m. deficit of 4 spaces. C. Option: The parking shortage can be mitigated by construction of additional parking to service the two office buildings. The property owner, Mission Equity, owns the master-planned site to the south. A written agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney woulc. be required to guarantee the continued availability of this additional off-site parking. III. FACTS FOR FINDiNSS: This project has been determined not to: A. Be in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. Be non-detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and industrial Specific Plan. 0. Provide the required-.,amount of parking spaces for the proposed Executiie Health Center, at the Haven Plaza location, IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing- in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to.all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is.recommended that the Planning Commission consider all material and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission cannot support the Facts for Findings adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:JM:cv PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-27 Brown November 13, 1985 Page 5 Attachments:. Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit"C" Parking Study Resolution of Denial I I � I i i � m e E ARRO rzz subarea 5L.}-�-+-;; / d S oai�t o 06 o w r� Ow. w 0 O D Oi Oe.Oe a { NORTH CITY OF ITEIM: RANCHO CUCA'_Y C GA TITLE c��rrr�.1 PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT & SCALE-_ - SEVENTH STREET L S"� bulldinq J: Flroi Fkxx OMCZ Q.CA8 SOIi=F6Ff = 5ecoro floor Office Q.iQ2 60LQQC Ft�T t TOTAL GROSS 18.2.40 SQ JP.Qg FM I, m W W D > FLU I WV J ci NORTH � I CITY OF; ITGbI: RANCHO CL UAMPI NGA TITLE: SITE RANI PL AINNIINrG DIVISIOil EXHIBIT- SCr'_LE. R ` t ,• i� �•I.tl .tits r 2'^ if,V r:'^r Z, xr��+ lM>rs Yafir . .>hL r' z• a)n RSk .z (sift :WX}.,a ">s i;yl :• S -••t. PARKING .':�®p/�p:,V.r� e t -y��'1•^�'P"�'j :�i��•a��"�ra'.1i (��t„�.3 r,r} Fi't a t2 > �"t ,- r r 7 [ � r I r ✓4�5 ��,b,,,,ee�����.v,,,! fr [f"�gfA:trir+�\�'•i;i��".. 'w�.`t t`{,•t >;K 1 4 ,, - ^.. •,+..t� 'x.i3YJ`.�t K� � �i•0.'Y •�+..Zt'ry,,.H 4 a.+�! � �r Y f•• '�. rr� *Y ly >�14p��6�P (•'�•L"l'�4N��...,Q,y r�itt4 ^'\� [ v Y rf+i i tit 1 " >� >..',.i3l .Sy-v�.�t y}">r ii• ?' [ ' _. /�•++. CtJ;. 9" (y- jy g--cgt�4:�!;l CO KO OS l6[t F.+�a•145rt'x n'tir S.G�•�.y�i �� 'r�i f r 1Y ;' . •. :' >- • ;, �'r,T+�.J*iP•' y.rti.'s�'�t,� iS�+ rR f\ � s `�+`�si�;� EXECUTIVE HEALTH C�cNTER , ��-��4�w�, ``'Ki�.fr.,7 tl+Y.- [r 1 , r »' -'"• -i�, j�F}Qvy}it �J��r�3�j,4yn�'�Ji4.t�i73"lTwt�1�i i' �. T - K.�l r ;..�^'yP.,g't ' 3•,^1'�o r>, u; it{r.K 5e a j[ /`� t•yF .� > � t` \ />9 a rr. t�i'�rts .�•i.h �tY!i1e'�f�t}�,r� + 1 �' � �#t �([ •. - of '•�?',r> �,��:1a'�1J ;T•ikh � 7 M s'� �. i,.r rr 2 HAVEN PLAZA _ � .� � ��� „• r•{` . r 1 r: ,`. �•hw .c•}"' 'y t :>''Y ff ts.•- sr� ��a•�y,Si1C•u��.��1�.'iS�if;. Y{t:s> r �, nrr a it F? tictit '• dl�'�-a 0.. t r��i�cyk�����\cy�.� •'�Hy�.�r ir•t�ZY�1 k YyYLi�.Lr TfN Y�`;� YI aY � :i 7? t •r - [` a.i''L W.,,aail{�r �H (�ti't"4 S> u,�/Y letCy�s �'i��41` '!•.?{ t >. -.. -. Jf,hy..e' ;1(ia,� `i �l t"+-1• z w RANCHO CUCAMONGA fT F :4. 'lA T '`, +.rYir � ♦�a �' Sz - v `'t l >. .3�T? ^i'1rL't h^",lt.c�,/� iif�iR�tV-,�4 j'R 3 •e. s r• r .t-:2 u/,1f,{'L' 7f > 5{' L 4) .•+t-lT�ilil.r LjY t.'[•.r.SSM +n T 3 ti t i t Y 'li L i.,yT.} (?^ i\•n {[ 1 `'1'! f'1 1 i* ��z 2�`I\� .k t '!i,.ytzi" t.. e � ? t /r� r•� ..rR■�-`! a - k> >'�i :�."kr,3 7, ��>[r t�+. Y !.x' `erty r+ a'[ •?.`, '2ht r.y ! .✓'3 FOR rFt h't1 �5YrW�7 s'`r 'it+r•3�'��,,!`S4yf c-�5i r i ++5 n �t � �t cr• i �.-s�7r<1�:fit�.S 4�>4-ati ��'`c "{ ',.7� C1 ,r{•'i: 3-i• ♦� > _ Yea 11� Vim. r{ is+�e i yr�•tw [� rid �rM u _t0 ��.7�,�s t:`�������5.. MISSION S l ! M1a > t^ 1 t �•7� -Y♦ > N h II \ •`r fi rwg...ti `�..._� 't rn , cat 4 s``➢'••V� �i{ ryi} >�a 7{' �`Ti'yf'�•! qti �Fa•-��+ r.�1. .M� "''t�'.s •• s �'➢' > S '`1`r;: r ^"vti'""t7_>+'�,r�.tat.y-,J'yk� 'ti�•w`',hr'ts"' n P t(�� •��1}�•rl J f. Y L`. T \ '•r J, {`\F'a 1y.A �y ! V.1'?C IIw �H $$,,,,,,�� Y 1+Syf}� '��}r�,y�.Ki�'�.Siy?`J'• 1 f y 5•t e,.o a > � t✓ r' � A ^aS tit Z s5•,e S� ��,,. rr tc5�\'>'•Z,.. I gt?r 'rraty.3dtYi' "`�1�ik.'�,'e;~S �,T•,ni'CS � �T.i\.r,�,a ' 4 ,..y1•z '. ,"V '.: ,,,p'�"-': tE<, r•x�.3,t x df'Gc�^,Yci tt ,�c si?:�Y••. i l ],+ 1 -.Y�"y�tiyf•[y,,r �R '. �a �C�s"•t`.c'4i13•,�•;v``ry`.ri tk -v'� 7'r'f> ts.• ys2' 'C-1`.+ '...t r�2}'J try rY• 0 4i > ty rF \ .� r '4 r,'`y'"r t 4d yk+� `iM F''t�^;;, •�L, yrYr4� �f �qq t^ry__ QQ/^� `R35 C37wr :raw'•yy���• t fi�� a 4 :••*•T.'ra 4r Ar•>^-®V Ri M�� ice/V V .�` 'S.�iYy :,N, ,x,.w• w >i r'[]- r .r e'1[.' [> 7s aT 1s„ar tt tt 3 r S. L a*c '+>'s., - ,} `,=,rt, a.f• '+,• 'Sv} et' rr: d 1 t a t ar •�,s,�r f'v t te.a ,z `t' '+tire•I ,Zri+� S^P c �1 J .ra, t�kF.�na> 2Y�d °vt•SY-• i F' 't7.�t.,...a�'y-.krt�tJ•y'tsr'�'3.''.�"'^F-S'^`31•rr..F`2:Sx't.7'.�'{ •�!y ti J -'��-.�+v:t3. 'rt ! r r ..� •�, a -.?, � z � bid v.•i��#x> �.>'Tlf•.'�"'y.., y �.a•7o�k�Z ry •y'2y""''-ak�iC` t t!".r g' .. z.>N ° ,r".,2r+ . �x;i..''r.`>>�i"j G�rt>•° R ��a-Kpa �s*r ►''v},. ?Zu.i kv .•.1� '~3• .: Y3h',G,,� M .2•>t J 9>`t"+aC 'tv t {L SS�.tAt."raO 'IS Nb 1— p/�rp 'a•4 �. h ,. a > .`L,>a virf 7,�� 15�.'` kk>ti t.LXYJ = ��� _�yT y';xL 'ul.t�r*'. t•�`1v r f a_ c > .. iA�l J 1�1f J id Db +.� ar f � r�3t` t jr��i+^~•ctJ. µ � �'R�R�. r�-.,, h•'u. t t `�\ 4 3tr { y � '� 1'�iy s,)„ a,.'r•...r7' ti s'Yrr�` l;y .4 ,r i ♦ } s,•$ ,it 1 4 a t'ir H }2i s aw 7 _ C�.. ryy,C�t } :s \ v .+Ira a9M�xJ¢>P ,. t h �; s Y n.,.t•v Y t t r t� f3 r errT9 ,+} [r 14 4I L�� tr � i � {%;�.rra.�y�'•tzt ts7"i;wly M ' � OHLE, GROVER ASSOCIATvSz '' ' �, '901 East Imoerxal Highway, r.�rte s ' cya Habra, CA 90631 (714)738 y p//.��V w ,,r„G ry•>�. {1 1 I'.r•) t• Y '+.•.i+,, � [ Y'Di l[r •w� t.1 > i ct�•`k4• Cri \. 1Y y•+3 .u:. r'•. -?Y t•• ..r h •4 Vtj!':x �k..rc,�`t 4+ �"� �.' It'1''7 , ?�';Sr} r. ^r� / ;. 'e�°r'al.•..c7ti�r'a•il'ii}r' 73 3r 7-s�'t�...? .,�_�'ti,uty.''�'R.A'tfti.�i'�y�.ai�'r7�f'�'1s� ' [9 tr�l� +��+ :t��}� i `j[���..t 1i'�s.1 e z�t�•�„ati� rCt''q�'xC�.�ij'3�L•�.�? •'t't�, rY�+t`;�K,x�`/af I, �J�C'�iM;t;��� `i ; T-,R`. ��nn�-rz.r�} y�:�\ 'a L`r., 'r�-7y.r 'x'�4•' v+,ii' ��ta^,.a ire '•��,y��ytrtn,ta,}'` S �L" .'0• 7', 4 y1.>y iJ 'r' 'Ti. S� j.�t/•i 7rr �Se { t �i'L�Y7• [] ,,,,. fi'n' �iX t>'7 +ri»L.-+•�+,}�•� fir. � � i.� t> d o�\-+.Y'r� r .;>' hr�- -< -.}•`.� ,ta r.,••�,,r:P��d� � +.r .,45„w� v?7 •r F � ytr:�^..'r . r•r 4 `i i+�o-.",�``'`'. �`'�'R_v 'S` �'�P�.�1 S`+KttiS y ''�S4Cai.�•�`y� `� -j" >+11�.��,'��7• �• M. �.^-�'ks4�.r•-f�a�'�'}�"s �3e�•e�/Y';�-+�•+�i�PH�� ��'��t�-Trt�li}�"v�C3sr>>'y�zser:•ji.��I,� �,- is_�'L ,,,,.. iSa,�"N+h._.L'�,^`r}•.�C, •r�ar,ti ...c>�n ' aye.1 4. .-t �"'ax'['2`a•? �.`J ±! � w •-.h�'it;.?�=A.;Y' ,�'T`_.Y 7-:.'os :.a'�ak xi;;�' r. _ ::'t ,x J"•£ \'.ti•.5:•-x-rfi'.�,=ank� +w e ..•Hr�, � erY�ar-an ...•.yw.� �f�.7..7w' a.N;r.•�s?i^ sr..`t7c.�i.+.....+<':7lnhY�,u�.+.u+tSr--cv�: c"di•�w�A=r• x i MOHLE,GROVER 9 ASSOCIATES o -901 East Imperial:highway, Suite A - La Habra, CA 90631• (714)7383471 October 28, 1985 Mr. John W. Delaney Mission Equity 27405 Puerta Real. Suite 300 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Subject; Parking Study for Proposed Executive Health Concept Center, 912C Haven Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga C.U.P. 85-27 Dear John: This is the report for the subjer,•c study. The purpose of the study was to determine if the existing Haven Plaza development has enough existing parking to accommodate the proposed Executive Health Center that would occupy Building 3. The health center is proposed to be developed by Mr. George Brown, III, _resident of Fitness Promotions. The report indicates that it is our judgment that the overall existing parking within tr- Haven Plaza can accommodate office uses in Buildings l and 2 and the specific prIonsed Executive i _ Health Center in.Building 3. ` Please call me if you have any questions or need amplification on any aspect of the report. Respectfully submireed, MOHLE, GROVER & ASSOCIATES j R. Henry Moh President RHM.jh Attachment L` TABLE OF CONTEN'4 S PAGE j` INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 3 METHODOLOGY 4 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED RANCHO CUCAMONGA CLUB AND EXISTING MONTCLAIR FACILITY 5 ANALYSIS OF PARKING SURVEY 6 PARKING DEMA10 BASED ON CLUB MEMBERSr- P 11 ANALYSIS OF PARKING ADEQUACY BASED ON }� EXISTING CITY STANDARDS 12 # PARKING ANALYSIS BASED ON SHARED PARKING AND OBSERVED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM THE%jONTCLkj., CLUB STUDY 14 CONCLUSIONS 16 LIST OF FIGURES t FIGURE I - SITE PLAN 2 FIGURE 2 - 2ARKING ACCUMUWtCION BY TIME OF DAY B LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - PARKING ACCUMULATION AT FAI.I�y EXE'�CIoE CENTLR & RACQUETBALL TABLE 2 - OFF:CE PARKING ACCUMULATION g '- TABLE 3 = SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS USING `LTY PARKING REQUIREMENTS 13 TABLE 4 - TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED USING SHARED PARKING AND PARKING FOR HEALTH CLUB BASED ON II MG.TCLAIR OBSERVI TIONS 15 I L { INTRODUCTION The purpose of this reps,rt is to analyze the parking requirements for the Executive Healt'n Center proposaa to occupy Building 3 of the Haven Plaza developed by Mi�siun Equity located in Rancho Cucamonga on the u-isterly si6e of H:.,ven Avenue southerly of Seventh Street; Figure l titled "Site Plan" shows the overall building arrangement and parking layout of th'=s existing development as well as the location of Building 3, which is located at the sot-°.vest corner of Haven Avenue and Seventh Street. The study is being made in conjT.nct:,on with the, City of .Rancho Cucamonga Condit4,onal Use ;:::miL 85-27. The specific purpose of the ,study is to analyze and determine if the 80 parking stalls that can be allocated to Building 3, which is to be used as the Executive Health Center, ara adequate to :accommodate the proposed specific use of Building 3 as well as rzm de,sratian of the remaining parking within Haven Plaza which ser-es office type uses. fh-I uity's zoning; requirements specify one spare for each 150 square feet of usable floor area for health club type uses. i Since Building 3 has a usable floar area of 16,240 squara feet and based on this parking ratio, a total of 122 spaces would be required. The disparity betwe,sn the 122 spaces required by the City ordinance and the 8D spaces that can be prcvided is the specific issue or this analysis. .�Y - 1 - s J33HIS FBJJV3A3 u / 4 C J � J r _' ' • C` w Z rU I 0 U LU Vh T ofruj rb L ,r g tt.4 J } 3 1 BACKGROUND Before desc,it:ing the methodology used to anal-ze the specific situation, it is appropriate to specify chat the City's parking requirements, without consideration of special circt.mstancts and conditio.:.::, require the following; o For offic-_ building-use ,- one parking space for each 250 square feet of usable floor area o Health cluba and spas - one parking space for each. ISO square Feet of usable floor area l F L I r 3 i . f t L S METHODOLOGY j In analyzing the specifics of this case, which from a parking viewpoint involve a combination of office and healt h club uses, the general methodology used was to determine the peak parking 3 requirements for both office and specific health club lub uses and then ana lyze the relative parking requirements on a time basis in relation to they;e peak requirements. In other words, inasmuch as parking within Haven Plaza is open to all the buildings within the development., parking can be shared 'between the office and health enter uses. For the office uses, utilization has been made of the publication tiled "Shared Parking," a study conducted under the direction of The Urban Land Institute by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc, dated 1983. This study shows how office parking requirements vary during different time periods of the day. In order to determine the sane type of relationship for health clubs, a s Y-^ific parking accumulation study was made at the existing health club owned by Mr. George Brown, III, ir, Mont- clair. This facility known as "Family exercise Center and Racquetball" is loca::ed at 5515 Moreno Street. This facility has i some 22,000 square feet of usable floor area and Includes six racquetball courts and a swimming pool, which will not be included at the proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility Recognizing -the differences in the two clubs, which will he discussed in more detail later on in the report, the time relationship of parking accumulation at the Montclair facility is considered an auequate model for the Rancho Cucamonga proposed facility. At thertlontclair facility the number of cars parked at each half hour interval was observed from 7.;0 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. These 7 observations were made on'z77ednesda_y, October 23. 1985, and on Thursday, October 24, 1985. The intent was tr document how the relative amount of parking compared to the peal- parking demand related to various times during the day. Another basic aspect vas to investigate in some detail the speci- fics of how the proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility would operate 1 and to compare this operation with the Montclair facility and t health clubs in general. Overall, the methodolcgy involved analysis of the proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility in order that. the observations of the existing Montclair facility ?would be placed in proper perspective and the actual, parking requirements for the proposed facility could be determined. 4 1 f r COMPARISON Cr PROPOSED RANCHO CUCAMONGA CLUB AND EXISTING MONTCLAIR FACILITY s i The purpose of this portion of the report is to document the specifics of the proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility and to relate these similarities and differences to the existing operations at the Montclair club owned by Mr. Brown. j The Montclair facility is a family type club with a membership of some 20,053 persons. In comparison the proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility will be an executive type club where_ it is -anticipated that the number of memberships will be limited to not more than 3,000 persons, At the Montclair facility the membership fees are $149 per year compared to the proposed fees at Rancho Cucamonga, which will 3 include a $250 initiation fee plus a monthly fee of $25. This means that the Rancho Cucamonga facility will be twice as expensive on an annual basis as the Montclair facility in addition to the $250 initiation fee, The Rancho Cucamonga facility will not }`av- racquetball courts or a swimming pool as does the Montclair facility. -The Montclair' club has a usable floor area of sore. 22,000 square feet versus { the proposed 18,240. I,t is believed that the most striking difference between the` two L clubs relates to the number of members. Based on data provided by Montclair owner, Mr. George Brown, that facility has 20,05: members. Since the club is aome nine years old, this number .is 1 considered stable and representative of this facility. The proposed facility, which will be a much more exclusive type 3 operation, will have an anticipated membership limitation of 3,0CD individual members. This means that the Rancho Cucamonga facility will have approximately 17 percent less floor area but will have a membership 85 percent less than Montclair, flow L-1 F f i a ANALYSIS OF _AW. NG-SURVEY As mentioned previously, observations of the number of parked cars were made at the Montclair facility, The results cA these parking accumulation observations are shown in Table 1. The table shows for each half hour period between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. the number of cars parked in both the front and back parking areas of the Montclair facility. The table also, shows the percentage of the maximum number of cars parked for each half hour period. The tab le ble sh ows that the maximum number of cars parhod was 87 and occurred at the 5:30 p.m. observation. A graphical presentation of the percentage accumulation data is shown on Figure 2 titled "Parking Accumulation by Time of Day." This figure clearly shows hear the relative amount of parking increases to about S6 percent at 10:00 a.m., then decreases to 24 percent of maximum at 2:30 p.m. and then increases steadily to the maximum at 5:SO p.m. Adbk Based on our previous studies and long-term involvement by our key employees in health club memberships, the shape of the park- ing accumulation curve observed for the family exercise center in Montclair is believed to be representative of health clubs in general and is usrble for the yurpose of comparing the relative time relationship of parking demand for tbE proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility. Figure 2 also shows a relative parking accumulation curve for office perking. This urve was taken from the study conducted under the direction of The Urban Iand Institute by Barton- Aschman Associates, Fne. in 1983, Thia curve indicates that the parking de:.-and for office uses reaches its maximum during the L 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. period. The shape of this curve is very similar to previous office parking surveys conducted by MGA, Inc, One of the most significant aspects of Fi„ure 2 is the realiyaticn that while the peak parking demand for the health facility occurs at 5:30 p.m., the office parking demand at 5:30 P.M. is only about 35 percent of peak demand which occurs as Previously stated during the 10:00 to 11:00 a.m, period, the Specific hourly percentages are shown in Table 2 titled "Office Parking Accumulation."' .T 6 L .. d } TABLE 1 ' PARKING ACCUMULATION AT TAMTLY EXERCISE CENTER & RACQUETBALL 5515 MORENO STREET, MONTCLAIR TOTAL STALLS 108 TIME NO. OF CARS PARKED PERCENT OF MAXIMUM 7:00 AM 6 7 7,30 7 8 8:00 16 18 8:30 37 42 9:00 14.1 47 9:30 55 63 10:00 57 66 10:30 53 61 11:00 45 52 11:30 37 42 12:00 N 36 41 12:30 PM 32 37 1:00 31 36 1:30 25 29 2:00 21 24 .. 2:30 21 24 3:00 33 _38 3:30 47 54 4:00 56 64 4:30 69 79 � 5:00 77 88 5:30 87 100 6:00 81 93 Wednesday. and Thursday, Oatobir 23 and 24, 1985. r . � d .-Y , i' aivuzi •. 4r4 m�zz-mNvp� L tIm'q� 0 ', hvO�� f N Q �ORh \ � wLa _Ilk14 IV' N �o _ _k 'zi r N �lh \ IQk> \ b jm mW�, CLt I _ Q�o� . �91W Lu 8 17 TABLE 2 OFFICE PARKINC'ACCUMULATION 1 PERCENT OF PEAK HOUR, OF DAY PARKING ACCUMULATION 6:00 AM 3 7:00 20 8:00 63 i I 9:00 93 7 10:00 100 11:00 100 z 12:00 N 90 1.00 PM 90 1 2:00 97 3:00 93 4:00 77 5:00 47 L 6:00 23 f 7:00 7 h I 1 1 Based on Ex:,ibit 28, uage 47, of "Shared. Parking," a study conducted ur.3er. the direction of The Urbar. Land Institute by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. _, t r Very simply stated, the significance of the data shown on Figure 2 indi'LItes that the peak Farking demand for the health facili- ties occurs at a time when office parking .demand is much lower. Therefore, unused office parking spices can be used by the health club facilitie,�. It is emphasized that Figure 2 does not show specific parking demand, but rather relative demand compared to maximum for different periods of the day. j s J a �4 10 { PARKING DEMAND BASED ON CLUB MEMBERSHIP { As is pointed out above, Figure 2 shows data on relative parking demar but does not address the issue of actual peak parking requirement:-. z In order to _elate the actual peak parking observations made at the Montclair facility to the prorosed Rancho Cucamonga facility, an analysis of peak parking per wm%er is considered appropriate. With a peak number of 87 cars parked and a total membership of 20,053 members, the ratio of cars parked to membership is 0.0043. This means that if this ratio were applied to the proposed Rancho Cucamonga facility„ 3,000 members times 0.0043 cars parked per member for the peak period would be 53 cars. t This number is considered unrealistically low but illustrates the greatly reduced expected peak parking if the club membership is greatly restricted compared to the type of facility existing in Montclair. I I 11 i r Ask i :-3ALYSIS OF LARKING ADEQUACY BASED ON.EXISTING CITY STANDARDS 3 The purpose of this portion of the report is to analyze, using City parking requiremet+ts of one space for each 250 square feet of usable floor area for office use and one space for each 150 l square feet. ot usable floor area of health club facility and the time fluctuatiods discussed previously and shown in Figure 2, and determine the overall adequacy of the proposed implementation of 3 the health facility within the existing office site. Table 3 titled "Shared Parking Analysis Using City Parking Requirements" shows that only during the 10:00 a.m. period is there a parking shortage. The table indicates that the total overall Haven Plaza parking is 18 parking spaces short at thin time period. s e `12 E �^aa-- 's1 y H 07 00 n: 00 O� ri: rl N C1. c'1 N N. cq -7 'C L A o w c� G.H.N 00 CJ 00 00 co00 co co 00 CO 00 O O M N C. N N N N. N N N N N cV. CI (N=Q. a as 1. p { z o�i r-4 a o a) -I .c 00 0 ' m :o n o r m W a r Na M e-I. 0% co r� 0% ON co r` .T \ F W H '"1 N N N ri H H H H e-i r-1 ♦-1 H tx a c ra 2 H H H ri 00 -T Ln LM O O 'O. .T' 4`• M .T In WW�O cn 0% 'T � �rt .Ti r�7-1: r�-1: r` v1 cn U cn 0 M HO �q H 5 H H O %o a% 0 O 0 CDa% M A 1-1 ul�cn c7 3 N N W L w w a 0 z a�zl C NL d\ N N R1 O D\ W N f+1 . a 1 c Q N in00 eU t[l �T N .Y' rO-i rNi 1-4 Wa rn co x � v H n ra r, :0 c'i N m m Cr CO 0 a. �.. V X 'T to V1 .T cn N f'1- v0 00 O 0\ <� a kl fa z w D+ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r1 0 N A h 00 m O km to 10 13 if d { 9 PARKING ANALYSIS BASED ON SHARED PARKING ANp OBSERVED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM THE MONTCLAIR CLUB STL`DY As mentioned previously, the Montclair study site had a building arcs of some 22,000 square feet and a peak parking occupan•y of 87 vehicles. Based on a,bu:lding site ratio of the p,oposed 18,240 square foot building to the 22,000 square foot Montclair facility, the peak,parking accumulation would be 72 vehicles. _ This means that the parking would be one space for each 253 square feet of usable building area: Based on the shared parking concept and the observed parking ratio from the Montclair club study, the total Haven Plaza, park- ing requirements were calctAated, Table 4 titled "Total Parking Required Using Shared Parking and Patkiag fok Health Club Based on. Montclair Observations" shows the hour by hour total parkz.ag requirements based on using the City requirements for the office parking and the parking ratio observed during the Montclair field. 7 study. The review of Table 4 indicates that the most critical time would be at 10:00 a.m.; however, even at this peak period there would be a surplus of 15 parking stalls in the overall j project, assuming a parking supply of 218 vehiel.ev. i � L ' i4 07 0 1 . .3 S , C.� e i d P :�e ka,g `7 9 zw F H N 1, O in 10 w N r-I i- M N N in.7 U c0 O � r-i N IT Ln to .7 n w ON v� q i 04 w� d H H 00 O CO. w 00- w 00 w O w w 00 w O �.d0. N N N N N N N N. N N •N N N W p. 1-4 1-4 O d f+H z L)F �O �-1 w M V1 %D %D M H. F 5 H E+d M %0. 10 1- ID. M N O Z F z w zEn H o 0 ww0 xvz p+ H Fd H ri' O -T u-f Ln 0 O ID IT M. v tO W M � .T M Ln IT �T to d rl n 'N f l W V C O a ri -1 ri H H r-4 r-1 -1 dda.Z mN Cc) z zo a1.4 wG a W 5 F i O M M O O O O n M t- C, Ln M a Q q C M z H N 10 OT O CD C', m T. m M N. a F 04 W C ° H q W w d j. PAw V O H d p x W U Z LAY. H tr1 fn M M7' M 00 O t1 ,D e N ]I 6 w r-i MIT M " r-i N .7 �D % t� �G 7iL W G+ "f F n CO n lO N r4 ID -Zr 00 T 00 O M W�A .-i 17 %a Ul -YT M N M %D 00 O T a w w g o o Oo 0 a o 0. 0 00 0 0 i .d O O C 9 O. O O O O O O M ;1 f 7S H q tom.. CO O 0 r4 N .r, N M -T u1 in %D r l CONCLUSIONS e is The conclusions drawn from this study indicate tb,at because of the t,7pe of club proposed, the amount of peak parking on a floor area ratio basis will be much lower than was observed at the Montclair facility. It uas pointed out that on a peak parking to membership ratio-, the parking requirement would be 13 vehicles'. Using the data contained in the City of Rancho Cucamonga letter dated September 19, 1985, wherein 80 spaces could be dedicated to i the health club, it means that the 13 required spaces calculation could be expanded by more than six times and there would still be adequate parking on this basis. The 13 spaces calculation is considered too low but is illustrative of the effect of greatly restricted membership compared to the normal tyre club, l The study lids shown that on a shared parking basis and utilizing a the City's peak requirements for office parking and the observed peak fsrking on a square foot basis for the Montclair facility, there is actually a surplus of 15 spaces during the peak mid ASk - morning period. The overall conclusion is thrt, based on the srecifics of the type of health facility planned for the Rancho vucamonga Haven Plaza site, there will be more than adequate parking for the mixture of officer and ex,icutive health club facilities as pro- posed. Finally, it is considered noteworthy that the City's office parking requirement is quite conservative comparea to The Urban Land Institute's study that showed a 90th percentile ratio of 3,0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable floor area and the Insti- tute of Transportation Engineers average ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The ATE ratio is based on 29 studies of offices in the 50,000 to 99,999 square foot range. The observed ratio at the Montclair health facility was equiva- lent to the City's office ratio. 16 r� i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-27 FOR AN EXECUTIVE HEALTH (.ENTER LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND 7TH, IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 18th day of October, 1985, a comple-L- application was filed by George Brown for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings cannot be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and Industrial -Specific Plan, and the purposes of them district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, will not he detrimental to the pub'ic health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Specific Plan. 4. That the required amount of parking has been provided for the proposed executive health center at the Haven Plaza location. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85-27 is hereby denied based on inconsistency with the provisions, intent and purpcse of the Development Code relative to parking regulations. k APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. rLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST- Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit 85-27 November 13, '1985 Page 2 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th ds'y of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS`;- NOES: COMMISSIONERS; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA coo STAFF REPORT U > DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members ofthe Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dino Putrinc, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 .32 - CROSS & CROWN LUTHERAN CHURCH The establistitent of a church within a- shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202-17-54 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approve Cunditional Use Permit 85-32 and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Establish a temporary church facility. C. Location: 9774 and 9776 19th Street. D. Existing Land User Neighborhood shopping center. E. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning• North Vacant; Low Residential. South - Condominiums; Low Medium Residential. East Apartments Medium High Residential. West - Vacant; Office/professional, Medium Residential. F. General Plan Designations- Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial. - North - Medium High Residential. South - Low Medium Residential. East - Medium High Residential. West Office Commercial Medium Residential. G. Site Characteristics: The subject site is a Neighborhood Commercial shopping center which includes )ne major supermarket, bank, three restaurants, and other small specialty shops. ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUPBS-32 - Cross & Crown Lutheran Churrh November 13, 1985 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to occupy two ;:n?ts of 3O(J0 square feet within the subject shopping - J center for a en (16) months. The period of primary issue is compatih '�ity of the church use in terms of awV1e parking for the droposed church use and other existing uses within the center. The proposed church hours of operation are as follows: Sundays: 9:00 - 11• Y _ .30 a.m., church assembly. Weekdays 9:00 a.m. - 12.:00 p.m., office hours 7:30 9:00 p.m., two mid-week assemblies for study or meetings The current membership is approximately 85 persons and is anticipated to grow to 130 people. Peak parking demands of the uses within the shopping center occur at different time periods which mitigates any potential conflict. The applicant has submitted plans to the Foothill Fire District Ah and applied for interior alteration ouilding permits with the Building & Safety Division. Final approval by these agencies is pending the Planning Commisgion decision of this CUP application. B. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for the Commissions review. Staff has completed Part Il of the environmental assessment and found no significant• adverse environmental- impacts related to the construction of the project or the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use is consistent with the Development Code.: The proposed use, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will not be detrimental to the public health or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the The Dail Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to the business owners within the subject shopping center. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. ry1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP85-32 - Cross & Croan Lutheran Church November 13, 1985 Page 3 V. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support the required findings, it is recommended that the attached Resolution, of Approval with Conditions be adopted. Res ectfully su fitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DP:ko Attachments:. Letter by Applicant Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit 'B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" Floor Plan Initial Study, Part I Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions fn Cross and Crown Lutheran Chi rch Fat CUP at 9774 & 9776 19th St./Alta Lma....Stater Bras. Sh opping Center MROPOSEB USE: Worship/Education for now Lutheran Congregation iza csgtudity for the 16 months of which wove signed a lease... A studF space for the Pastore.. A raception area for Chess individuals 1&0 may come to counsel with Waster r•spersenal problems & spiritual needs A wall office area where,volunteers nag answer a phone, coa late Papers, etc. HOURS © ' SPRM19DI: Sundays, 9so0am 11 s30am Weekdaylsi miscO112neous office hours, not to exceed 9sooam Nova Pastor will make use of pe.-sazml office at varying hours of any drq, but the unit would not be Open to public during these times. AMEL Not to exceed 2 mid-week assemblids for the purposes of study&fellowship: 7330pm-9:00pm Occassicnal meatings of elected Boards& Officers, generally at night, 71-30-9soopm, arA Not opened to public. LARGEST # FIM A%EES AT Alff TI B: Daly have 1 employee; that is, the Past: (self-em;sloyfed) LARGEST# ®F PEBPLE ASS$M9LEID AT ANY GZitliN T=t We currrnt2y are about 85 men,wexen, do children. Sur anticipated growth within the neat 16 months wouR be to no more than 13o people. REQUEST FOR CLIP AT THIS Tns? We were told are roust do it- reasons uotprovUed. AM Richard A.Nelson,Pastor a P.O.Box415 a Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 a(714)989-6710 i. 11 ODE � •'� E. 4 it I I I ,.'F'I� `fir ' d i. tz • im ,.Sc yr w Y fl—f i EQ 9Y b Mn n�-- o Ala\, ILI n- `ir 1 ir BHGPS ALAL0ING6 BRAWN •I !'J -19^�¢APCKI9AL0 CENTER — . LEAKY OREMENFm ..� EXHIBIT A (Page 2 of 2) CROSS t eANA V Lu�K l 4i(OXC V 116471AIA0 :i ---14' ...E �• . ® --� (Tip .. \ d _ .� Asps� ` ® � ♦ `` '� � .. 4,�stows i 1 r Via" 141fm s�i�#o slab ,r`•. ® j ® � / � � po`'���^� ir&;-iv.• dt,4® I �{�` ® ® ; (rL1 .iii ��[\Q—_J$y�l" .� ➢G' i i1. l d 3. L11 r! rL:i•{! UBIN!1-1 id to S n Q. 5EAr * ,! �. I:.'S nn, p 1U_ IJI Ct..SI -U1 ,PFSO-IFlF9r� Lark NA0.t'evmts C tui_ i�To GTH ilr r R na;In'!7 C�;e ° s�ttS AN*��i i NOR! P.t iMF!_ -mi- etdt TRAF,'.!d aua 7;4 P aStBll.tY FGR£.^,1!MUCC o VdT:l ALL CODES ;oN G• � 5 A6SIr WI'� 1 f3i;TE REVIEWED B1 1�2V&;I/G3 bchww roso.$ lJ l y • `oj ENVIRJNi aENTAL REVIEW oily - o APPLICATION �J _ , 1977 INITIAL STUDY - PART I GENERAL For 01 projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study and make recommendations to_"tanning Commission. The Planning Commission will makeone of three determinations: (1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, (2) The project will have. a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be re p pared or O 3 An additional rmation should be supplied by the applicant giving further information oncerningport the proposed project. Date Filed: /©/�Y/1Sr , Project Title: 835Ji- 'LrA�'�1 LvT,1* r Ch4%Ic °—/1ft-' eLvt,Sj`' Applicant's Name, Address,*Tel'ephone: f(t��. c�,,,�l�QoIJE./,,, s .S�l /l1m SPz• fm4 CrQ �.S l-6710 Name, Address, Telephone of erson To Be Contacted Concerning this Project:_- JZ Location Of Project: 51e � 4 � Assessor's Parcel No.: arcePs 1+�2 13 List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and fe and the agency issuing such permits: deral agencies !Ir a ell f: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOgGA PLANNING DIVISION Aft AA OCT 171985 t. 7181911 H1121112131415 6 , PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANk Proposed use or proposed project: At6_5 �L NZ'_ Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any:. VooO cam,fY. Describe the environmental se t:ia of the project site including information on topography, soil stabil y, plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, his'orical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets): DD ,rf t- xrsl�+c�c 4�rCa,- A O�/iaf�1,,Cr�lrc mil' e�S �Kft1'z�/G.✓it1Es- - �✓ o-ntr�cee, l2z�Q ltf-�iie I36 sysr Sili�i� Is the project part of a larger project, one of a. series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact Aft 71; I_2 rn—! WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO i. Create a substantial 1hange*in groend contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? Jb 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? S. Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? 4_1 Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project will generate daily:._ /Esi !L9, A ,tier 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project: 'J .& v 9 „w uI,rQ . p 9. Estimate the amount of grac'inq (cutting and filling) required for this project, in cubic yards:_ 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate ^taluation can be made by the Planning lanning ( Signature ,, Date• o Sign ture�C/ tc•. trio-�.ff lilt—RECEIVED— Title Title � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING aIViWN _ AM OCT 171985 4M '7i A100112111213141516 I-s RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The fo lowing 'information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamcnga Plannin Division in order to aid the school district in assessing their ability accommodate the proposed residential development. Developers are required secure letters from the school district for accommodating the incrersed n mber of stud!nts prior to issuance of building permits. Name of Develo r and Tentative Tract No. Specific. Location f Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Modell and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Ra"cqe Aft I-4 ��`�•� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: in\! r> I q APPLICA`T: FILING DATE': ax I L, LOG NUMBER: PROJECT:,S%AF,Li�`f�/1?�r*-(r LnF A PROJECT LOCATION: I. E*TVIRONM!rNTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geolo¢v. Will the proposal have significant resu',ts in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disrupti displacements, corn,-action or burial soil? c. ,Charge in aphy or, ground surface contour intrnLis? d. The destruction, _overing or modification / of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? J f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? ^� g- Exposure of people or property to geologic •fie hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slidesground fa'.lure, or'similaf hazards? -1L h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? }t 2. HydroloQ_y. Will the proposal have significant -- results in: C�. Page 2 YES 'LAYBE SO a• Changes in currents, or the course of direction ' AIM Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream J ' channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. AT•.. ..rations to the course or flow of flood •s? / d. Change in the amount of surface water i any ✓body of water? / e. Discharge into surface waters, or anv_ �( alteration of surface water quality? .141 f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g- Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? % Quantity? h• The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? / i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or selches? V 9. Air Oualiti. Will the proposal have significant results in: u. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? / b. Deterioration of -L ambient air quality and/ Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality starda.ds? / • 7 C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? i/ 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? m ► - Reduction of the numbers of a,,y unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ?aee 3 YES MME No c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of / plants into an area? I` 4 d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of ary unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Fieterioration .,r TLcPoval of existing fish or wildlife habitat? POD41arIra. Will the proposal have significant °sulr, ing: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri Alk - bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or - create a demand for.additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the picnposal have significant results in; a. Change in local-or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property / values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries: i.e., buyers, / tax payers,or oroject users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or.,adopted plans of any governti;ental entities? C. An impact upon the qulait. or P p y quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive . recreational opportunities? _� Page 4 YES' .WBE 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 J new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, ar demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? / e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or -� air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?" 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, / paleontological, and/or historical resources? 16. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. 1431 the Proposal have significant results in; - a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential xPa_lrh hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? 1 e. Increase to existing noise levels? f. Exposure of to Potentially' p 1 dangerous � noise levels? Y The creatior.'of objectionable odors? ✓ I h. An increase in light or glare? ;r' Page 5 _ YES '.a13E :Its 11 Aesthetics. Will the proposal have signifficant results in: a. Tho obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view' b; The creation of an a;esthetically offensive site? c, A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? r 12. Utilities and Public Services have . Will the proposal a significant need f_ot' new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural, or packaged gas? c. Communications system;? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? 1{/ g. Solid waste facilities? h. :°ire protection? i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational .facilities? 1//( 1• Maintenance of public fac ilities cilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? J 13, Enerw and Scarce Resources. LTi.: have significant results in: '1 the proposal J 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 YES %AYSE No e. Substantial depletion,of any nonrenewable or scarce'natural'resource? 14. Manda.-ry Findings of Sienificance, a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare.or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period,; of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve ✓✓✓ short.-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, , environmental b ntal goals?s, (A short-term impact-, on the environmer, ._s one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period hf time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future).� I c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, f and probable future projects). J.�! d. Does the project have.environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? IZ, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON`-P9TAL EVALUATION TION ( ,e., of .aff,rmative. answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures), I Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this-Ynitial evaluation: - I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIO`? Vill, 'oe prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will rot be a significant effec__ in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILL BE PREPARED. Ie find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the nvirnment, and an ENVIRO:^sNT' IMPACT PORT is required_ Date � 1 j S ggn uur AA J Tile RESOLUTION NO. ARk A RESOLUTION wOF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMTT NO. 85-32 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMPORARY CHURCH LOCATED WITHIO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 19TH STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 16th day of October, 1985, a complete application was filed by Michael Patton & Karen Patton for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held A public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1 That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 1 3. That the proposed use-complies with each of the . applicable provisions of the Development Code it I SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85-32 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is for temporary church facilities and shall expire,' unless extended by the Planning Commission within twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval, and shall become void upon a change of ownership, or the use ceases. AffA —) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 85-32 CROSS & CROWN LUTHERAN CHURCH November 13, 1985 Page 2 2. The site shall' be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Planning Division, and the conditions contained herein. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner And Building Official. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of occupancy. 4. Any signs proposed for this Conditional Use Permit shall be e�as'rgned in conformance with the Comprehensive sign Ordinaace and shall require review .and approval by the Planning Division prior to installat`,on Df such signs and conform to the approved UnVoYm Sign -Program for the shopping center. 5. No activities shall be permitted which exceed the available parking or cause adverse effects upon surrounding businesses. If the operation of this church causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. 6. Public assembly pr large c, oup meeti.gs (50+ persons), shall net commence until such time as all Uniform Building—Code and state Fire Marshall's Regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 7. The building maybe used for public assembly and group meetings only during the weekend and after 7;30 p.m. on weeknights. °reschools or schools are not permitted by this l permit; however, this shall not preclude nurseries or Sunday School. I 9. Any future expansion or intensification of this use shall require a modification of this Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 85-32 - CROSS & CROWN LUTHERAN CHURCH November 13, 1985 ~ Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985., PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• •Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: - Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, And adopted by the Planning Commission of the City Gf Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 1985 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G�3CAA4 STAFF REPORT a ! r DATE: November 13,%1985 s 0 0 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission i Z FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner 1977 BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CAL-RANCHO (CALMARK) An amendment to the legal description of real property subject to an agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Cal-Rancho, Inc., regarding a senior citizen hoasing project located west of Archibald, at the terminus of Lomita Court. I. BACKGROUND: The City entered into a development agreement with Cal-Rancho, Inc., (Calmark), for the development of the Heritage Park Senior Apartment project. Attached to the agreement, and a part thereof, is a legal description of the property covered by the agreement. The recorded agreement incorrectly identifies the property as Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 7827 This has the effect of including the market rate portion of the project on the north side. Cal-Rancho Inc., has requested that the agreement be amended to amend Exhibit "A" to the agreement to only cov-!r Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 7827, which is the senior portion of the property. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendment and drafted the attached Amendment No. I to the Development Agreement for your review and consideration. This amendment will segregate the senior project parcel from the market rate parcel and does not have an affect upon the terms of the Deve opmel nt Agreement. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review .and forward a recommendation of approval (the attached Amendment No. 1), to the City Council. Respectfu'ly submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB•DC:cv Attachments: City Attorney Memo Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement Development Agreement ITEM N NUMBER ONESIWR'O4N7AjR1 NRMUC JAMES L.MARKMAN FOUR,tf atvoOTP,{ ANDREW V.ARCZYNSKI P-O,B@Xt I MBW RALPH:D,HANSON .BREAD CALIFtRNIM\3E888'-II2SIV O.CRAIG r*OX 'H77Fy19B17YlaBg71{ MARTHA JO GEISLER TELEPHOw.}i/F_ {1A1317 R911-38111 EMORAIJDUM TO: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, City of Ran cho Cuca monga PROM: James L. Markman, City Attorney DATED: October 22, 1935 RE: Amendta,!nt to Cal-Rakcho, Inc. Develalnnemut Agreement lttached hereto please find the above-referanrremj Amendment which I have drafted pe-c our discussions. Ads can see, the amendment is lather zimple and merely anem-ft its legal description of the property to which the Agreemamt applies_ document. Please ca14 if you have any questions on tAe, aa� JLM:sjk Encl. ,F l AMENDMEPHT NO. 1 TO DEVELOP14ENT AGREEMENT ' This First Amendment to that Develop Agreement entered into on February 15, 1984 is entered into by and between. C'=L-RANCHO, INC. and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. A. Recitals. (i) On February 15, 1984, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement concerning a senior citizen housing project (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement"). (i.i) Through inadvertence, the Agreement was m=de applicable to property which is not the subject matter gat the Development Agreement. (iii) It is the purpose of this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to have the Agreement roads applicable only to the proper parcel cf property in question. B. Amendment. 1. The Agreement hereby is amended by amending Exhibit. i "A" to the Agreement to read as follows: Parcel No. 1 of. Parcel Map No. 7827, in the City + of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Book 90, Pages 47 and 48 of Parcel Maps, in the office of County Recorder of said County." 2. Other than as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement and each and every term and provision thereof shall' remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment No. 1-to this Agreement as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such party. CAL-RANCHO, INC. Dated: BY: (Name) Title CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: By: mate6- By; -1� N,..3 STATE OF CALTFORNIA COUNTY OF SAX BRRNARDINO a Not on on aPPeared public in and for �Qg xsms amdl S b sim :calm-aFe Proved to me on_the &ems �' Persons who basis of .. executed this ieVVIV Porat onvely, of tbm the City o��as existing and organic at_ a " 47 California, and acknowledged t ,� ! ' Cucamonga executed it. o m mE Ana~ iitm ataia�l fmur AL STATE OF CALIFORNIA-COUNTY OP SAN 13EPWARDINO ) ss_ a Notar On Y P mblic in and for 29 n �., aPPisfac . a sata sfactory evidence try 3�e a'a-ag ment as web and acknowledged to R-E � Qa� me — mzm it . 'I After re- < ',ng returnIo: :ity Clerk's Office - y of Rancho Cucamonga C P.O, sox 807 - Rancho lucamonga, CA 91730 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 15th day of February, 1984, between CAL RANCHO, INC. (��Property Otmer'") and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts-, 1. Government Code Section 65864-65895.5 authorizes the City to -enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitab:e interests in real property for the development of such property. 2. Under Section 6A65, the City has adopted rules and regulations establishing procedures, requirements and ;administrative; guidelines for consideration of development agreements. 3. Property Owner has requested City to consider entering into a development agree:ant and proceedings and have been taken in accordance with City's rules and regulations. 4. City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan. 5. On February 15, 1984, City adopted Ordinance 217 approving the development agreement with Property Owner and said action was effective on February 15, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: �V 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning: 1% a. "City" is the City of Rancho, Cucamonga. b. "Project" is` the development approved by the City, described further in paragraph 7 hereinbelow. c. "Property Owner" is Cal.-Rancho, Inc. and includes all of its successors in interest and assigns. d. "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraphs 3 hereinbelow. e, "Senior Housing Overlay District" is the zoning category created by City Ordnance 193 adopted April 20, 1983. ti C� f. "Target Tenant" is define,: as individuals who are fifty-five (55) years old or older, or married couples whose head of household is fifty-five (55) years old or older. g. "Affordable Rents" - Rents charged will be affordable to individuals or couples earning equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the current County of San 'Bernardino median income as determined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which rent shall on an annualized basis be equal to or Tess than thirty percent (30%) of the eighty percent (80%) of the current median income. For purposes of this definition, rents zharged for all one (1) bedreom units shall be subject to computation based upon eighty percent (80%) of the median income for a two (2) person household. Rents charged for all two (2) bedroom units shall be subject to computation based upon eighty (80%) of the median income for all households (4 or mire persons). 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of the agreement between the parties and shall be enforced and enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement. 3. Description of Real Property The real property is the ;subject of this Agreement is described more fully in Exhibit "A" ..ached hereto and incorported herein by reference. 4. Interest of Propert Owner. Property Owner represents that it has full legal title to the real property, that is has full legal right to enter into this Agreement, that there is no other person or entity which has any dft other interest in fee ownership to the real property; and that all ether mmy persons and entities who may hold legal or equitable interests inthe property agree to be and are bound by this Agreement. If there are any holders of deeds of trust on the real property which may be senior to the lien of this Development Agreement, the holders of such deeds of trust have assented to the terms of this Development Agreement in writing and agree to be bound by the provisions hereof. S. Binding Effect of Agreement The burdens of this Agreement shall run with the real property end shall bind, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, the successors in interest and assigns of the parties to it. 6. Relationship of Parties It is understou- that the contractual relationship between City and Property Owner is such that Property Owner is an dadependent contractor and is not the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever. 7. City's Approval Proceedings far Project On April 20, 1983, City approved Ordinance 201 creating a Senior Housing Overlay District. On April 20, 1y33, the City adopted a zoning designation of "Senior Housing Overlay District" for the real property. The record of the applications by Property Owner proceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council of City on file in the office of City and all of the files and records in these matters are incorporated herein in full by this reference as though set forth in full. Property Owner proposes to :.struct 233 apartment units, recreational and common area facilities, and 165 parking spaces and other amenities on the subject property, all as are set forth more fully in the site _2_ NCQ r plan for Planned Development 83-01 ("Site Plan") submitted by Property Owner and approved by City, a copy of which is attached hereto as fxhjbjt,"B" and incorporated herein by ,reference, .The Site Plan includes various conditions of approval which are not changed, altered or modified by this Development Agreement unless specifically set forth herein. 8. Changes in Project No substantial change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the Site Plan approved on April 20, 1983, without review and approval by City. 9. Term of Agreement The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date first above :mitten and shall expire twenty (20) years after the occupancy of the first tenant in an apartment unit in the Project, but in no event later than twenty-five (25) years after the commencementof the term of this Agreement, subject to the annual review described in paragraph 13 herei'nbelow. 10. Resti,ictions on Rental Units. Except as set forth herejnbelow, all tenants, occupants, and residents of apartmenc units in the Project shall be Target Tenants. Said apartment units shall not be rented, occupied, leased or subleased to tenants or occupants who are not Target Tenants without the City's prior written consent, except as set forth below. Person or persons not a Target Tenant may occupy an apartment unit if he occupies the apartment unit with a resident occupant who is a Target Tenant and if any of the following conditions are met. Alk a. in an emergency, and for so long as the state of emergency exists; b. on a temporary basis, not to exceed three (3) months out of any calendar year (grandcFildren, blood relatives); and C. medical support personnel or private nurses for resident occupants who arf target Tenants. 11. Rents and Rent Adjustments, s f The Property Owner shall establish and maintain affordable rentor seventy percent (70%) of all apartment !milts in the Project. (Said senventy percent (70%) of the apartment units are hereinafter referred to as "Reserved Units.") .For purposes of this provision, , rent shall include both the amount charged for occupancy of e.� apartment and any utility charges if utilities are not separately metered. If utilities are separately metered, they will not be considered in the affordable rent computation. (It is speciffically agreed that said restriction on rents shall apply only to the Reserved Units, as Property Owner would have not entered into this Agreement or agreed to develop the Project if said rent restriction or any rent restriction applied to more than the Restricted Units.) In the event that rents are increased for Reserved Units, a minimum ,of sixty (60) days written notice of any rent increase shall be provided to all affected tenants in Reserved Units and to the City, -3_ i� —� 12. Maintenance of Apartments as Rentals During the term hereof and such extensions as may be agreed to, all apartment units in the Project shall remain rental units. No apartment unit in the Project shall -be eligible for conversion from rental units'to condominiums, townhouses or any other common interest subdivision in which some fee ownership in the apartment unit would be granted to a person or entity other than the Property Owner or its permitted successor or assignee or in which ownership of the Project would be transferred to a corportic-, ("Co-Op") or other entity which would then sell stock or some other coope ;ive ownership interest to a prospective owner or occupancy of an apartment or dwelling unit, provided that nothing herein contained shall preclude the sale of the entire Project to a single purchaser other than a Co-op. 13. Submission of Materials and Annual Review. a. Prior to the execution hereof, the Property Owner shall submit to the City the following information.. (1) An analysis of the cost of the Project including land cost, construction cost, financing cost, and so forth; (2) Tenant selection procedures which shall detail the rcathods of that Property Owner shali use to advertise the availability of apartments in the Project and screening mechanisms that Property Owner intends to use to limit 'the occupancy of the apartments to the Target Population. b. The Property Owner shall file with City an annual report containing information on ti.- Project specified herein for the preceeding calendar year. Said annual reports shall be filed with the City no later than March 15 following the previous calendar year. The report shall contain such information as City may then require, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) rent schedules then in effect; utility charges (if any); (2) project occupancy profile including age, income characteristics of residents, number of automobiles owned by Project residents (total); (3) listing of substantial physical defects in the Project including a description of any repair or, maintenance work undertaken in the reporting year; and (a) a description of maintenance of the Project including the condition of apartment units, landscaping, walkways, stairs, and recreational areas. City shall be allowed o conduct annual physical inspections of the Project as it shall"deem necessary provided that said inspections do not unreasonably interfere with the normal operations of the Project. The City shall further be allowed to conduct an annual survey of residents in the Project in order to assess their satisfaction with to Project. The survey may Contain, but shall not necessarily be limited to, questions regarding Aft mangement/tenant relations, maintenance or the Project, design features, general attitude toward the Project,-and so forth. -4- 14. Tenant Selection, Contracts and Rules and Reaulatians. On receipt of de application for _occupany in. a Reserved Uni' , Property -Owsner shall determine the eligibility of the occupany under the terms of this Development Agreement. Property Owner shall be entitled to rely on the information ' contained in the application sworn to by the applicant..._ All agreements for rental of all apartment units in the Project shall be in writing. The Proposed rental agreement it lease form for the Reserved Units shall be provided to City for its review and approval, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit "0" and hereby approved. Such rules of conduct and occupancy shall be given to each tenant of an apartment unit prior to such tenants' occupancy. 15. Termination and Eviction of Tenants. A tenancy in a Reserved Unit may be terminate without the termination being deemed an eviction under the following circumstancese a. death of the sole tenant of the unit b. by the tenant at the expiration of a term of occupancy or otherwise, upon thirty (30) days written notice; c, by abandonment of the pr!=mises by the tenant; or d. by failure of tersnt to maintain income eligibility pursuant to the provisions hereof, providing that_Property Owner gives tenant sixty (60) days written notice of such termination, or e. by failure of tenant to exacute or renew a lease. Any termination of a tenancy of a Reserved Unit other than those listed in this sduparagraph shall constitute an eviction. Property Owner shall only evict in compliance with the provisionsof California law and then only for material non-compliance with the terms ofthe rental agreements lease or rules and regulations of the Project. Property Owner shall establish appeal and/or grievance procedures and rules and regulations for use for evictions of tenants of Reserved Units, which shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the occupancy of any Reserved Unit, in the Project. The rules and regulations a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is hereby ` approved. 16. Local Residency. Preference shall be given where possible to applicants to the Project who have been residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This factor, however, thall not be given any priorty over the other elements of tenant selection in paragraph 14 hereof. 17. Hazard Insurance. Property Owner shall kpap the Project and all improvements thereon insured at all times against loss or damage by fire or other risks covered by a standard extended coverage endorsement and such other risks, perils or coverage as Property Owner may determine. During tie term _5 q i hereof, the Project shall be insured to its full insurable value. City shall have the right to review insurance coverage maintained by Property Owner or its successors and assigns and the power to require additional insurance to be carried in amounts-required' by the City at the City's sole discretion so that the provisions of this paragraph are complied with. City's action or inaction hereunder shall not subject it to liability to any third persons or entities. 18. Maintenance Guaranty. In order to in^;ure that maintenance of the Project is performrA in accordance with the main�7enace plan as outlined in the Senior Housing Overlay District administrative guidelines and in this Development Agreement, Property Owner shall either establish a landscape maintenance district pursuant to State law and City ordinace or regulation or, at Property Owner's option, post a maintenace deposit or other legal security reasonably acceptable to the City to be used by the City in the event that Property Owner shall fail to adequately maintain the Project as herein required. The parties hereto agree that a maintenance depost of $12,000 is acceptable, which maintenance depost may be in the form of a letter of credit, certificate of deposit, bond or comparable instrument. 19. S ecc Restrictions on Development of Real Property. The following specific restrictions shall also cover the use of the real property: Project.a. only residential uses of the real property are permitted in the b. maximum density of residential dwelling units in the Project shall never be greater than 38 dwelling units per acre. c. the maximum height for each of the proposed buildin gs feet. shall be 35 d, maximum size for all of the buildings and the proposed square footage for each of .the apartment types located therein is set forth more fully on Exhibit "B" attahed hereto and incorporated herein by reference. e. provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes are contained in the conditions for approval of Parcel !`lap 7827 and are incorporated herein by this reference. 20. Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its ofricers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may ay'-se from the direct or indirect operations of Property Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relate to the Project. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the Project. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damage suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred toin' this Development Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Project, -6_ N_�o 21. Affect of Develooment Ageement on Land Use Regulations l regulations, and official policies Ruses, p governing permitted u:;es of'the real property, the density of""the real property, the design, • improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the real property, ,are those rules, regulations and official policies in force at the time of execution of this agreement. It is understood.that City m;y grant Proer, t; Owner a dwelling unit density bonus, may redv(.e its requirUflerits for on-site parking, may waive its requirement for covered on-site parking and may reduce and/or waive other fees as an incentive for Property Owner to construct the Project and for both parties to enter into this Development Agreement. 22. Development Incentives. Pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Development r--, ementc , theCit y will grant property owner the following , development incentives for development on the subject property: E a. The Beautification Fee levied pursuant to City Council Resolution . 79-1, Section 7.0, will be waived in its entirety. b. The maximum density per acre on the subject property shall be increased to 37.5 dwelling units per acre. c. The maximum number of required off street parking spaces shall be lowered to .7 parking spaces per dwelling unit. d. The requirement for covered parking spaces will be waived in its entirety. e. Payment of both the Drainage Fee and Systems Devel-pMent Fee by the property owner will be deferred and will be payable concuxrantly with the occupancy of the first unit on the subject property. The fees will be based upon the Ordinances and schedules in effect as of the-date'of submittal of the project and will not be effected or increased by any increases taking effect after submittal of the project, "Date of submittal" of the project will mean the time that plans are submitted to the City in order to have the City issue building permits for construction of the improvements.on the subject property. f. The property owner will be reimbursed for certain off-site construction, costs set forth below from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing Set Aside Fund. Those off-site construction costs will include the following: (1) Construction casts for installation of a storm drain line along Archibald Avenue to Base Line Avenue approximately 390 feet; (2) Completion of off-site improvements on the west side of Archibald Avenue including street widening, paving, curb and gutter from Lomita Court to Base Line Road. -7- Property owner will provide for City review bid estimates with such documentation as the City may request in order to evidence costs incurred by property owner for installation of these various off-site improvements. Property owner will and does hereby assign to City any right of reimbursement which it may have, whether by law, or by any approval first granted by City on the subject property, for reimbursement from adjacent property owners for the off-site improvements, the costs of which are being reimbursed to property owner by City in connection with this Development Agreement. Property owner acknowledges and agrees that amounts collected in the future by the City which would have been reimbursedto the property owner at some future date will be retained by the City by reason of this ?ssignment and the City has expedited and accelerated the reimbursement process to the Development Agreement and has ad-anced City monies for reimbursei, which City monies will be reimbursed to City .:y future property owners. 23. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Property Owner, City shall give written notice to Pr,perty Owner (or its successor) at the Project, or by registered or certified mail addressed to Property Owner at the address stated in the Agreement, or to such other address as may have been designated by Property Owner, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within ninety (90) days after such notice is given, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure breach or default cannot be curred within ninety (90da breach or default if said to cure the breach or default must be commenced wi hin said(provided t90) days and must thereafter be delinquently pursued by Owner) then the City may, ;without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, the City may bring any action necessary to enforce the obligations of Property Owner growing out of the operation of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for specific performance of the provisions of this Development Agreement, or for an injunction against any violation by Property Owner of any provision of this Agreement, or for such other relief as may be appropriate, it being agreed by Property Owner that the injury to City arising.from default under any of the terms of this Development Agreemnt would be irreparable and that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation to City to afford adequate relief in light of the purposes and policies advanced and satisfied by approval of the Project and iy this Development Agreement. 24. Event of Default. Property Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the appening of one or more of the rollowing events or conditions• a, if a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner of City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; b. if a finding and determination is made by the City folloving an annual review pursuant to paragraph 13 hereinabove upon the basis of substantial evidence that property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice -and opportunity to cure as described in Paragraph 23 herein;,)ove; G. breach by Property Owner of any of the provisions or terms of this _8_ N-�a- Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in Paragraph 23 hereinabove. 25. Proceedinq Upon Default. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Property Owrl?,if on periodic review City does not modify or terminate this Agreement. Nonperformance by Property Owner shall not be excused because of performance by Property Owner of the obl.gations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or expensive of _because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than the City. A11 other remedies at law or in,equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements are available to the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach thereI or default hereunder. 26. Rights of Lenders Under this Agreement Should Property Owner place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of said encumbr>.rce or lien, including, but not limited to mortgages shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to: a. do any act or thing required of Property Owner under this Agreement, and any such act or thing done and performed by Lender shall be as effective as if done by Property Owner himself; Ask b, realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or ipower of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (herein called the "Trust Deed"), and to: (1) transfer, convey or assign .the title of Property Owner to the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power,of sal- contained in the Trust Deed; (2) acquire and succeed to the interest of Property Owner by . irtua of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuantto a court order or'pursuant to a rower of sale contained in the Trust Deed. 27. Notice to Lender.. City under this Agreement shall give written notice l of any default or breacri'under this Agreement by Property Owner to Lender and afford Lender the opportunity after service of the uotice to: a. cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of 'aid notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money; b. cure the breach of default within ninety (90) days after service of said notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or c. cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within ninety (90) days after said notice, ,g_ provided that C (90) day acts to cure the, breach or default are commenced within Y period after service of said notice of default on are thereafter diligently continued b ninety y Lender. Lender by City and 28. Action By Lender Agreement, a Lenderr'"ma de Notwithstanding any other under the terms of this forestall r event any action b provision of to foreclose y Cr for a breach this commenced may its encumbrance Y Pron the Owner by commencing °r default Y e for foreclosure fen on the Project, g proceedings foreclosure of the the encumbrance b The Proceedings so instrument creatingencumbrance under a Y order of court . however, the encumbrance power of sale containe `'r for Property forestall any such action b °r lien. The d iA the p Y Owner unless. Y the Cit proceedings shall not,y for the default or breach by Of the notice they are r bedmmenced within thirty (30) da hereinabove; ys aster service on Lender II b. they are, after havingbeen commenced manner required by law to r_ umpletion; and diligent'; pursued in the c. Lender keeps and conditions of this Agreement requiringperforms all of the Property Owner until the payment or tertivs, -covenants and discharged by redemption the foreclosure proceedings expenditure of y b satisfac_v;� or are comp let move y 29. Liabilit " ' paKnent, p e or ar terms of this °f Lender. No Lender foreclosure or of un ess it acquires tgtje any liability title to the Projectesub n lieu of to the Project under the Owner as herein provided, foreclosure in which event Ject through subject to the obligaticns of a > it shall hold successor to the Property 30. Rent Control. In consideration for the City agrees that it shall the limitations 'herein action, the effect of which ' during the term of provided,apartment .units located in will be control this Agreement, not take any controls or limitation of rents eon the remainde�et h affect the rents for project. the Parties herein agree that the apartment units in the 31. Attorneys' Fees In an this Development Agreement y proceedings hereunder, the °r because of arisi,,, From the enforcement of attorney fees and incuerred yin the party shall be entitledl leged' breach Y be determined b Proceeding and to ;recover the costs as may such reasonable attorne s' or .Y a Court in any legal .action. 32. Cumulative Remedies. Y fees this. Development Agreement The respective rights and remedies cumulative and the exercise of any law Dr provided be shall not preclude or affect the exercise available in equity shall of any other such rights or remedies for or more °f such rights or remedies breaches or for the same or different f , at the same or at different times, the same or different defaults or or Provision of this Agreement, failures to perform or observe any term _10_ 33. Bindi ng Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and Ank burdens hereof'shall inure to, the respective parties hereto, their legal -representatives, executives, administrators, successors and assigns, ,L however, that if Property Owner sells the Project and ' the purchaser assume.s Property Owner's obligations hereunder accruing after said sale then Property Owner shall have no obligations hereunder after said sale is consummated, 34. Recordation. This Agreement shall, at the expense of Proper,�y Owner, be recorded in the official records of the County of San Bernardino in accordance with provisions of..the Government Code. 35. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall beronstrued in accordance with and governea by the laws of the State of Califorri,�. The provisions of this Development Agreement shall be liberally-consrued to effect its purpose as set forth herein and in thr.. attachments hereto. Whenemer thr context so requires, the singular number includes the plural, the plural includes the singular, masculine gender includes the feminine and/or neuter and the neuter gender includes the masculine and/or feminine.. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures, for adoption of a development agreement. 36. Partial Invalidity. If any ;rovisions of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the day and year first above written regardless of the date of actual e:•-nution hereof. PROPERTYM / BY• 115N.F aasvE WC F 5 Name it e CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA l BY BY: -11- t �1 y { C STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) - ss. COUNTY OF SAN BER NPPDINO ) On , 1984, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State personally ap- peared and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed: this instrument as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation existing and organized under the laws of the State of California, and acknowledged tome that the City of Rancho Cucamonga executed it. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO y ss, On , 1984, before me the undersigned, a Notary P4,b i s s and for said Cc+tnty and State personally a;:peared C(lr fS�na anq pr:,xed to me on the basis of satisfact Vy vid nc to be the persons who executed this ' St e t a and on behalf of 3 , acknowleo t�me that the corporation executed it. OFFICIAL SEAL CAROL RYAW OTARY PUBLIC Notary PutHle-Callfomla LOS ANGELES COUNTY iAj Comm.EXP.Feb..O,i9V i EXHIBIT "a" (Leoal description of the Project) a r: 1 Par^.c d No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 7827, in the City, f Rancho Cuc,,monga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Book5,9—, Pages 74 and 7-5— of Parcel saps, in the office of: County Redorder of said County. t y ! 'ill r _✓ _'�'� COBIT B o > Ia it II 1 T 1 _ > a s > a I. � m m •�) s s n >` r• III� I il� ll IIII1 ► 1'l_IIII�II r v •• G n s a •. m m m It? y �� n _ 1 e i a m '0 i " ! z b _ A.. w r 6Llt11it UI11/ 1 P.\IA �, ii •�ItJU1i2'tSi4�xltiS RANCHO CUCAMONGA �"• `�•`�••'•+ +. ELOEALT A...... NTS. CENENAL CCCUPANCT 3PAPTYENI$ I ALMEVELOp RK O lygEkT ( EXHIBIT :C! FarmY7•Rev-,-1/71, GALMARK REXxy MANAGctMONT, INC. APAATW.i:NT LEASE THIS LEASE,entered Into into _ aY of ,19—,by ana.lnetwton .hereinafter eatlw-owr it-(LESSOR)and • - ,Mnlnsftsr called."Tom Rl•(LESSEE)... That OWNER Ott unto and TENANT rants tram the OWNER,.for rosdentOt use only,the promises known 11 Aoarinwnt at ---- ,1M on Mo my of California,for trio.term of _ comm ,19_i at the trite!of Dolrar+IS , me"'t due ano payable in 8dvahco an the •,each inst �._.� ease at Saw and*vary mORtri durinQ Pala term. The Part["491"of folio-S. 1. OWNER 9tk0ow16d{a6 rs clot frOrr TENANT Of the sum of S AS,,SaCurity ataOstt. Within Iwo!onan CY.OWNER C.9all refund to TENANT the sublmet security Cecolit loss amount$st ate real MC.ItSa ('31 we•ka atthn termination Of t. baymgns Of Merit.to ASCII'damages td CttB ofasnites raUM4 by the TENANTwearand necessary to nmerty TENANTS•oataults In of Inc tgnancY. The iae!,rltY agOOtlt It.riot t0 be utlllfad as rent during in*.te m of this a0 ee ern nt. Should the Security ogpDert,of any poftlo.ti trio df,be utilized to Iegafr da,-14"S ourin9theterm of MIS agrtamant.TENANT ageete to tmmaalately de00att with OWNER a stun sutflclant to bring s. Security aeodst up in in$c,141nal amount.thareof. No Intgrett ll to be geld on suen sotlurlty oe00fit TT.NAHT 414Meef to furnitn to OWNER an drug_"ICM the OWNER rl sy utllits In lOrwarding such security dead%..Of t:Go]sisncg tharopf,to ono TENANT.2. No. "torb'sas Or Uautd filled tumttuta snail b:apow.ra M Or about Hld.oromlgts. 3. TENAN a snail not v'olgtm any goremniental law In tee rn Use Of the Drvltat.berm:l wait*Or nuisance.annoy.rAl&st,or Inserter►with any ate tenant Or Mrgnbor. TENANT%fall obay ana complV with all house cut".It any.as attatsfoo Hereto one tncomorattd herein. Adclitionally.TENA1 6"'10 4t3tC4 by mangos"To raasanaolany e ano apse to All Tan nos ll 4 run•!,••provldtd TENANT It given Thirty dayg'advaixe wDtttn none of oaf rJhanggs,and u 4 Except for as may tea pravldta by taw.no fap.•'r;decorations.Or alterations snail the done without OWNER'S prior writtoln consent. S. TENANT has inspected in*grom,wu tdfnlmings ana tdulOment,If a0utitaofg,ana has 10uno AMC Same to fig 4tlafactOry.Ail Dlumbing.Mat and tleCtrl CJi aODAOIus are OpofiLlW;%ld furniture,it any,a%Inventoried an*&ttaeMtd harttO nag Dean Inso*Ct*d and Isdoomed Satisfactory by TE .ANT,uneetS TENANT has InOtcattd,In writing,.to tilt Contrtry on oltner in*attUned Inventory or upon tots document. b. TENANT egret to keen tin*Premises clean.Sanitary,and In 9000 Order end repair curing the term Of trilt tsnangV.and to r"rnm"')no same like c naittan•soasonabl`Ii wtar and taastaeluotcL 7. TENANT is to Day for trio following utilities onlys: 0.Tlla unite%good TENANTS,whothtr dr not In actual pbasauwn at Meoremisas,era tointY.and sgvora..•mole for all rant.neurrep during IFAlft term Of this Agreement•and for all damage+to the promises caussd Or VOrrn[tti D by TENANTS.their 9. if any it:gal action Or rocaeoin guMit.and ince tae4 o g Da]roller Say sl?"s Dirty to enforce not any Dart of this Agrcair tilt,the Cr""'mil Party Snell reeOver.In addltf to❑1 atho rglaf,rtasOnaOhoedSt3.inefu0fnp attornaY•s trot,wnefMr Dr not tee aCtlon:Oroceapf to IuOpm•nt.IM Tha OWNER(flit ag•nlS,rspre jntattvas•servants,ana/Or*mplDYeas)may enter tilt Premises In Use of an smo,g*ney',t0 make nKefYMY agreed"MAC". tie union trio promises to prDSDeetlre Or actual ourenasart,%+rants..workmen or eDntraetorz. £xCtOl In tY.Case k oneCt$gry wn•r•ot"Zewlsa Impractical to do$o,the OWNER shall V%A TENANT twentyfour(24)MOurl&Cvrncs notice.ano inert enter CASO f emer tnc-, hours nty. 11. .All 044"attached heroto w<ntta COntfln tee house Mutts,apartment Inventory.Ind Carking asslgnmangs.If any,and form.part of snit Agreeing 12_ 'This Loose AMC Papoft attacned htrotO.constitutes trio entire Agretm*nt between the VIrtlas. There era no ragraSantatlona not exorostso nor. 1]. OWNER snail in no way 0*It&010 Its%Mrougn rip fault Of OWNER,trio oramises CanMdt Do Ogtrvet&C u00n COmmanetnh*ntdatta In LMf tvo !:ie .I!.NANT'S rent snail a0ato until said OOsseftlon Ig 9bgn or maa�av elisOiO. la. TENANT Is.grantee..no :gnt t0 use or tntar into any arms rants a to other tenants wltnput thtlf consent.13.. If tee TENANT Mal(note Over after tns txplratlbn of tin*term horoot,wtin trim consent Of the OWNER,axprofsed or'Imptle0.such tiro. snglt be.from mantn•to-mantri only,+n0 noted renewal nergof,ana TENANT agrees to Day rant AMC au other cnarggn of Mrernabovo ar naralnafter e viavid ants also To comply with&Il DfovltlOn66ergp}}Or file titm TENANT haltll.Over.4n SM1e eygnt toot lilt tenanCY CH+I*a DY Lola Agreement 3f C via a Montn•to--nth tenancy Or wmit originally not a mantri•to•rennlh tenancy,shahs MI that tli t IsMa trig created by Of this Agreement 's, montn.lo-montM tenancy may Ds terminated Only by tna giving Of s ttliftY(301 day written ula be In advance under%the PCarty hereto hi tilt Other. 16. Caen ana all provisions naraof SAS(Cs binding upon and In:ifs to trio panofit of the nett.exeEvtorr,atlmingtrators.SueeaSiOrs,or Other. OWNER•and the hmrs.OxOCY%,'rt<and soministrotOrt aI.TENANT.And upon trio isslpns Of TENANT If any Aslgnmoflt has%seer%mad*on" OWNER'S—itten consent. 17. 11 this.Lease Corn-�;,cos other than on ins first Of tit*mOntn..rent sn&li Of Prorated to the fifSt day Of the next T.antt. IS- OWNER that n-.c Dt liable to TENANT In CSmagtS Or Otherwise•for any damage.Inconvenience,or cis wnICR Motu!$from trio aCti Or nr t pnCt 0/co-7gnantf,atnu oecubants at tn*Same building,Or trio.Ownan fir occupant$of SClaesnt Of COIIUSJnus Property,or Otneq,unledg trio pV M ER it Mod&fo=Cnsfola tnererdra by Specific provision Of sew. 19. In trio event trial this,Agreement.grant%unto TENANT the right to use a barking area•such shall be limit$0101Y and oxclu%wly for the part Of 7ulOmdbdes,and sh&II not be used for the Pu?DOsa.of ma117ng any re0alrl 10 such sutomoolles.and tYCWUIve gfe2N aria(W Llv lV for the )St Claaead up ImrMplt;tetY at Ind expense of TENANT of the autpmoolle mutt be O&tkod off tMt Of I $as. oil 20. WaMr by OWNER of any broach sat any term or condition Ot chit Agreemsnt snarl not constitute&waiwgr o/sudsgauont bnacnel. The&a< anC*of rant by OWNER aft*•any tlefauit ortraaen nand%shall not Oe construed to waive any rtgnt Of OWNER..affect any noble*or legal Drocc. Ing tnerttofore given or Commgne*o or w"Icn,by roasdh Of sand a4ull ar breoen,.ths OWNER may Olve of Cbm/:.*net. Moreover,tog legal aide, OWNER of some out not all Of Ire rtntaf tgaerfletl In a Tnrca-OaY N6Gct to Pty Rgnt or rjt snob not bar in%OWNER from eomm�;lun9 an lint flit.Ostam th se pfoc"aing pre01rstod upon tin*notice given for e amount%voeifred In the nollCo loss tee Oartlat bayms 21. The!amt"S mall only bO CCCUPIga by trio undersigned adults and clIficton. 22..Absent OWNER'S prior written eonsont,no Piro.animal,or pet&Mall Dpt or atiOwad in-jr bout.Sala 0r0misaa. DermUitoh n be v,*tnerawn upon 10 daYS aavanco wrrttan notice. a once given 1, DIV TENANT may riot tualet trio."muc3 y 0r sent t his otM*,. In tnN Lase wltnput Ins prior written Consent of tno OWNER. AConsant to WOlattm[t Or atlignmMt mall not fit alemsd a consent to any other, IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the parties have eaacutod this Agroament trio data first above written. �� Tenant —`� Ttnant CALMARK REALTyxaA6jJ�i GEMENT, INC. "CiUSE RULES Aft I. The residents' family and guests shall have due regara for til co�fort oneW. Of a)1.Qther,residents in the apartment community. Your apartment Or from 'interference fro-Management, unless you or your quest disturb other .e^'oymer, Occupants and quests shall y0J ro°'• ire stereo units and maintain order in apartment..at all t1me5. he ersons. . musical Instruments shall not be to ed at evtsians,persons in other apartments. p y a volume that annoys 2. Residents must agree not to change or alter, locks at any time, unless written permission is given from Management. 3. Occupants are limited to one (1) family and n)more than two (2) persons per bedraor 4. Appliances, plumbing, heating and air condi*fonin ypu do not know how to properly operate these items, we will edvise 9� please check with Management—i1 as to get the ultimate performance. Rrsidr;nt Shalt turn off heat and air>when windows and doors are open, You o. details s 5. Please submit maintenance requests to the office phone: (61g) 325.1844, during hu•:iness hours. service, are available after hours for emergencies only; these Ir,:lude fire, sterns ddmage, heat and water damage. 6- Apartment dwellers should have personal Theft 6 Fire Insurance. Oior buildings are covered, but your Personal belongings such as clothes, furniture, etc., art not. 7. Swimming pools and patio area are for all residents and their guests. Sinc-z the Pools are being used by many apartment units the residents MUST BE consJd.,Futa of th rest of the residents in the matter of inviting guests, as the residents living here oust have first consideration as to the use of the pool. It is suggested that the s residents give careful thought to inviting guests during hours that the pool is in ALL UIJESTS should be registered with the Management and "ill not be. allowed in the pool unless accompanied by the resident that has invited them. S. Tits;Clubhouse is for the use of ALL RESIDENTS, during open hours, not for jm. ew to enjoy, Sic also allow for residents to reserve the club for private parties. Thi must be approved through Management and you will be responsible for leaving the room clean and orderly. You are also responsible for any of your guests who may cause damage during the perty. g. All cars are required to have a Heritage Park sticker in the back window. Cars are subject to be Lowed without this sticker. 10. Please D0 NOT park your car by the building if you lesye before 8 ?;.H. Never back into a parking space by the building, as the fumes go into the apartments and cause yourcoma to yore neighbors. Please help us to'keep Nour lots clean. NEVER dump your car ashtray onto the lot. 11. Please, say your "Goodbyes" to your guest inside your apartment if they leave at night. .8e considerate of your neighbors - AT ALL TIMES. 12. Please ask ail visitors to park in outside parking spaces, leaving:the spaces closest. to the buildings for residents. 23. Visitors should not bring PETS with them. If you have a pet visiting, please notify r the office. 14. Smoke Alarm: Steam or smoke will set off the alarm. The noise will not hurt you ar the unit. Turn on the fan above the stove while cooking. this will help to eliminate the steam or smoke. . 15. Management requires that only white backing on curtains be allowed in windows, no colors, prints Or flowers should be hung. Please, if you have plants, iC i5 y responsiblity to put a container underneath to as to catchany r water that my ouourK. You will be held responsible for any damage that water may do to the carpetiang. IF. Hanagement shall have the right to make such other reasonable rules from time t ime as they judge necessary to enchance the Lleanliness and orderliness of the pre and safety and comfort of occupants of the buildings. Notice of any additional es and regulations pill be given to the residents 1n writing. 1 HAVE READ THE ABOVE RULES SET FORTH 8Y THE MANAGEMENT OF H TO ABIDE of THEN AT ALL TIMES. ERITAGE PARK. AND AGREE Fit: tirr Management A' rO Resident a e HOUSE RULES I. Noot tacr% al dt or%trews snsgc.not D•O Mn Into the woodwork,iealls or Floor%ot.YeO 7femieer,nor Tall tMn to env bprl^0 or marrin the woOOwOrr W cigtlarlh q.without the exOr•ta OtfmitAlOh of the apartment manager, LE":EE snail brr I•tponUON.r01 damap• -.Nonao DY�� stem of tma rule.to addition to tag above,LESSEE shalt not install any aerial,change idcka.or Install or Change any Ilgntlnp flxwtu wnnout❑art ling the written ADDrdvsl In advanc'a of the LESSOR,. !. Children arc not to.play or Da unnecessarily In the entrance,stairways,Qr lwimmip.pool area. Z in.COnsl(leratlOn of others,tenants or their 9"%ts aft net to make any distur Dl.—'nolsa at any"TO. Before'9l0O A.1N:.and After 10:30 0 singing.otay.efY at a Musical inatfum4nt or Oograting a television%at.stared Or radio Ia no L DerTlefad.It disturbing to other acw pant%, NO loud sat Ing.YnMcecwry rlolsse Or boisterous Conduct Is pormittsd at any time, �.. The m Ingress harts @ r ss Item t m t ano other pudic Mminvi small not oe obstrUCted by LESSEES or their guests,or vuO by loam far any o[ Purpose Loan loaves to srO-egress Iramtnelr rasdactlw a0artmentL S. Tatgvlpon antennae May not tic plae•O on the roof wltnout prior written consent of the management and must be,nstailed and removed c BY a IlCm"Z television instetlar. VOOn removal Of telerlilGn antennae.LESSEE will be hold 114Dle ter any damage to:the roof, d No ugh, mises.Mmant.notice,COO/Wlste Of at similar device small as 1nscrij)".painted.engryvsO.Of to the SO AflY Dar!of the oYtllp inside of tale Or•mltes. 7. The worn•- the Custodian,Ignitor,Or gma,OYsei Tall not be intsrfgred with. The meeting adpantus.air Conoetloningvooaratut(it amyl,T Controlling apparatus,elevators or any Donlon of OwAcing Tall not be tarnoored with. 1. NO right Of storage Is'giver_DY the rental agtaatriont. Upon toQuast a Iimlted aTOunt of%torsos Waco may W Otavlde0 If avulaou by too rn segment wltnout Charge,at L.ESSER'S rite, 9. LESSEES are to pay:tor broken,damaged ar messing Articles and for damages CAUBSO to tM Du1101ng,!ss lls, Via.tumllun and+durpTenl them,their quads,shdlor aosntt,and/or employ*". 3p. LESSOR will hat be ratoonsiois for tau of property of LESSEES.thtougn theft or a% orwiae.31. Any Grape or curtain red(bracket or track).Or any blind.Wasting.lighting fixture,or any other Item wnst;raver inttalled in w ubdn the.Ore out by LESSEE:attar first having nptaln•d the tenant In writing of LESSOR,cosh become a Dart Of the realty ano%hall not na remowp or ria t SEE unless no*a the written soornvai In advance Of LESSOR. LESSOR reserves the Fight to Instruct LESSEE to remove all er any of tno%hea.n the D,,are mentlOMo and uvan tormin4tion of into Lease,It LESSEE Is so irstrueeed to do,.LESSEE-small aO remove wen arncu or amides area o iM ore miss'batik'n tme same Condition As trey"to offer to Ina IMtahatiOh Or Yid article or aniclat. 1.(WO).nersDY aCknowiodgc recol t Of the above apartment and warrant and rooressmt that.the.unit Is in .Older and.ConoitlOn,seC•Ot as l.. facts wlildn&to loodtleally note*On.tnls.document,. g000- O-M?/Agent Tenant Tenant .. t t 1 i EXHIBIT E ` PRO ror �\ 1. RIS.H = E NE RT?,Z: Upon filing of a written request as provided herein, a complainant shall be entitled to a hearing before the Hearing Panel. 2. pE TNTTTQNR a. OWneg is used meaning owner or his Authorized Agent. b. C_o_mDlain2nt is defined as any resident whose rights, duties, welfare or status are or may be adversely affected by Owner's action or failure to act and who files a grievance or complaint with the Owner with respect to such action or failure to act. c. City as used herein shall mean -the City of Rancho Cucamonga. d. Grif-2Anra = Complain is defined as any dispute with respect to Owner's action or failure to act in accordance with lease requirements, or any Owner's action or failure to act involving interpretation or application of the Owner's regulations, Policies or procedures which affects the rights, duties, welfare or status of the complainant. 3. 22ga Zzj= 2gloB HEARTNd a. Z_av_ Q Lg2ZAr: DM gnMaL i n =!jt b£ :�4 Gon 1]Y FLea'on to the Owner's office or to the management office of the project in which the complainant resides so that the grievance may be informally discussed and settled without a hearing. The grievance or complaint must be signed by the complainant and filed in the office by him or his representative within 5 days of the Owner's action or failure to act which is the basis for the grievance. It may be simply stated, but shall specifiye (1) the particular ground(s) upon which it is based; and (2) the action requested.: A copy of the complaint shall be retained by the complainant and a copy should be filed with the. project manager. All complaints and/or copies must be date stamped at time of receipt by the Owner. b. An anZ in writing 12 each 9=Qlaint, dated and signed by the project manager, or other appropriate o. ficial, shall be delivered or mailed to the complainant within a reasonable time (generally within ten working days): A copy of the answer shall be filed with the complaint in 1_ the appropriate project office. The answer shall specify: " 1. The proposed"disposition of the complaint and the specific reasons therefore; Z. The right of the complainant to a hearing; and 3. The procedure by which a hearing may be obtained. c- If the .C=)ainan I t3; with the proposed disposition of his complaint, as stated in the project manager's or other Owner official's answer, he may submit a written request, to the Owner or project management office, for a hearing. This written request shall be made within a reasonable time of the date of the answer to his complaint (generally ten working days). The written request fora hearing must be date— stamped and filed in the appropriate Owner or project management office along with the complaint and answer. The Hearing Panel shall be advised promptly of the request by the appropriate official; shall schedule the hearing as promptly as possible for a date, time and place reasonably convenient to the complainant; and shall inform the complainant thereof in writing. d. U tha jZDnXL1Ain= slows no X-eq* Gt g -hearing within the time period allowed in Subsection c. above, he waives his right to the hearing, and the Owner's proposed disposition of the grievance will become final. 4. COMPOSSTION Ag BEhECT70N 9Q 2U r + PAS The hearing Panel shall consist of five members; two selected from a list of tenants; two appointed by the Owner; and one impartial and disinterested member (together with an alternate) chosen by the Hearing Panel members. In the event that the foul: Hearing Panel members cannot agree on the fifth impartial` member, then such fifth member shall be appointed by the City. The Chairman of. the Hearing Panel shall be elected by the members of the Panel. Three votes shall be required for any decision by the Panel.- a. BL211 be Le1Hl`iYQ Qf.hhs comolainan on the Panel which hears his complaint; nor shall any officer or employee whose duties and responsibilities involve him in anyway with the grievance at issue, sit as a member of the Hearing Panel for that particular hearing. 5. TFiE LARrpaG a. The part..i.% .shall. ba entitl- 112 .d leis heat,*tea before' the Hearing Panel and may be represented by counsel or anoLlAer person chosen as a representative.e. b. The hearing shall ha briva .e _ �. 2 E c. the ai Pas sses the ar—oMn_tt .Ql rent- or other charges which the Owner claims is dues the complainant shall deposit the amount in dispute in an escrow account Pending settlement of the dispute by the Hearing Panel. if the complainant fails to do so, it shall be determined that the complainant has wat.ved his right to the Hearing. d. 1f'a'Q-Q 2 r = ±,Q P=P-t At.4Ra inz. the Panel may postpone the Hearing for five working days, or may make a determination that the complainant has waived his right to the Hearing. e. At.t.hg hRzXjJ4 1bg burden .Qf proof is on the complainant to prove his case. The complainant may present evidence and arguments in support of his complaint. The Owner may confront and cross-examine all witnesses on whose testimony or information the complaint relies. Hearings conducted by the Hearing Panel shall be informal, and any oral or documentary evidence, shall be limited however to the facts and issues :zaised by the complaint and answer, must be received by the Hearing Panel with regard to whether that evidence would be admissabl e under rules of evidence employed in judicial proceedings. 6. DECISIONS DZ MMr HEARING PUL-Z a. MM decis;pn DI ±J12 Hea -ing panel shall be based solely and exclusively upon facts presented at the hearing. To the extent that the decision is not inconsistent with State law, and to the extent provided in subsection c. below, the decision of the Hearing Panel shall be binding on the Qwner and Complainant. b. 7'he A na E £1 Shdil & Par 1tH wr;ttPn d c;one including a statement of findings and conclusions.; as i well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all material issues raised by the parties. This shall be done within a reasonable time after the date of the hearing. Copies thereof shall be mailed or delivered to the parties and/or their representatives. C. -U ItLL dec;si on 15 -in 1A.Y= sit th+ S'. =lainant, the Owner shall within a reasonable time take all actions necessary to carry out such decision or refrain from any action prohibited by such decision unless the Owner's counsel determines r.nd notifies the complainant in. writing within 30 days that the Hearing Panel his acted arbitrarily or exceeded its authority. Insuch event, the Hearing Panel's decision may be judicially reviewed. 7• Pv.a %i iv VACAT _PRFMISFL; a. If IlLe _ Te nant has ja2Uzatpa on hew .na the proposed eviction and the Hear',ng Panel'by its decision upholds the Owner's or project management's proposal to evict, an . action to regain possession may not.. be commenced until after the'Tenant's right to use and/or occupy the premises has been terminated by lawful notice. Such notice to vacate may not be given prior to the date on .which the Hearing Panel's decision upholding the proposed eviction is delivered or mailed to the Tenant. b- must must be inf o o �:+�-u � n X.3c�e is 9i-V= tS2 � Tenan he • murmed in writing that: ' -(1) 'If he fails to quit the premises within three days, appropriate legal action (dependent on state law), wilK; be brought against him; (2) If suit is !'nought agains... him, he may be required to pay Court costs and attorney fees incurred. Aft 4 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rucnnfo STAFF REPORT Ib9 y`I z F. Z DATE: November 13, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson BY: Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9301 - FORECAST CORPORATION A TiIsion of 5.24 acres of land into 2 parcels in the In ustria Park -istrict (Subarea 6) located south of Arrow Route between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN 209-142-18 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: R. Action Requested: To approve the parcel map B. I Purpose To divide 5.24 acres of land into 2 parcels C. Location: South of Arrow Route between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue D. Parcel Size: Parcel I - 2.24 acres Parcel 2 - 3.00 acres -E. Existin Zoning: Subarea 6 of the Industriai Specific Flan; Tn-dustrial Park F. Existing Land Use: Parcel 1 - vacant Parcel 2 - vacant G. Surrounding Land Use: Nortivacant, Subarea 6 -South Vacant, Subarea 6 i East - Vacant, Subarea 9 West Vacant, Subarea 6 H. Sur rig General Plan and Development Code Designations: n norLn - Rd rria ar South - Industrial Park East Minimum Impact, Heavy Industrial West Industrial Park L. Site Characteristics: Parcel 1 and 2 is vacant and slopes approximately to tFe—south. ITEM 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFr REPEL"' Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9301 November 13, 1985 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting to divide 5.24 acres into 2 - industrial parcels in Subarea 5 of the Industrial Park District. A request for 3 - industrial buildings, 2 on Parcel 1 and 1 on Parcel 2, and a Master Plan for circulation are being prvCosed on tonight's agenda with D.R. 85-26. The installation of off-site improvements shall ;be completed prior to occupancy for each parcel as it develops. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also 'attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. 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 9301. 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. Respectfully submitted, BRH:JS:de Attachments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study i �� ARROV/ ROUTE a ROJECT .. y IT 5 o a i u JERSEY BOULEVARD �z u S i LT. 9 $.F. 0.R.• VICINITY MAP 0zyc+nloY^ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA title;, cParcel MaP 99"I ET'-•INEERING DIVISION > �sn � VICINITY MAP Page (5.3 _ "[[T 1 or. TENTATive PARCEL• MAP NO. 9301 PaWCCT srtc IN THE CITY OP RANC3q CVC"?:l A,CAUFp7a,A . g vc i nr,vw or rwr srr�c sours —c to xf�r[tt v wcn t.nu , u w=sYyas ,,.� rur nar ucacm.toot n v'aaus. ! t.¢cs ol0 t.c•0ati.rar a r[cr ar w.rtu 11 Y� yr[➢Dg6 1ppaW I pr�!N l!�[R R�r saa,rs uTocam rMc�iawrr ps�ws ocaast usaw a♦tsowra we I. • �.._.._ ARROIF .. ROUTE fgatpN Or Ma4l t PARCEL MAP 1993 P138 I71,22 fv�urrl i .I [iuK.elsw.0s�ar`[anm r.m""m x • b Iaof,_—� rawf �t I PARCEL 2. y I= a003 lrWa PARCEL l r.owsc0=:•snctt ..•8 i y rY srattr r[Dcs fR rOJ iMi t.4. _ 1 1 1�1• C[=!r YYl�DY8 IIfRf IRLT OF 16M�a 1.�'.0 a�NK�I�j[,V�1� •S�..O6CD al.aaa0[y� 'X Yu,aunt�.MLLf a]I \i tva+rrlaaxt (1 raut _, cur tucarn i n�.oa' f burr! 3'a.' I ii [ast Dr[4 oa[wry I.� i 11 1] Phi 14591E Phi a iS i 0 a 0!8 •� M1W y �' II &RILEYARO soaai�'�—' �,``�'+• r:'t 91w,5Yt3h,�N '°t u RESCLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CL,'AMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9301 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9301) LOCATED SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AND UTICA AVENUE (APN 209-142-18) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9301, submitted by Forecast Corporation and consisting of 2 parcels, located south of Arrow Route between Haven Avenue: and Utica Avenue being a division of a portion of the south 290 feet of P rcel 2, of Parcel Map 1993 as per map recorded in Book 11 of parcel maps, Page 22, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1985, the. Planning Commission held duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map, FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following f"irioings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2• That t.�a 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. SEC hat is PnvironmentaTl-impacts T and a hNegat ive cDeclaration ise sued t will not crate sig naniNovember adverseifcant 13, 1985. SECTION 3 That Tentative Parcel Map No, 9301 is approved subject to the recommean nde3 Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. i (D s APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST; Bra Bu er, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer,ify 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 Commis:+ on held on the 13th day of November•, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOBS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANG''0 CUCAMONGA RECONMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL F LOCATION: South of Arrow Route between TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP W: 9301 Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue _ LATE FILED: July 3, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Being a division of a SV1MSER OF LOTS: 2 portion of the loath 29O feet of Parcel 2, rROSS ACREAGs: 5.24 Parcel ',ap 1993 ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 209-142-18 ��**�*�*� �•��**�x�•tr*�x�:•k:t:��x�x*a*****max*�t*�r�x �::. r�rx*r��.a,*max I DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINE`_RASUR<rEYOR Forecast Corporation Same Derbish, Guerra &Assoc 9333 Base Line Road 124 East F Street Rancho Cucamnn a, CA Ontario, G4 J Improverent and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cuc_monga include, but may not be limited to, the fir;lowing � A. Je4ix-3tions and Vehicular Access Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the followirl rights-of-way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on '-"— additional feet on Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: _X' 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to al, parcels and joist maintenance of all common roads, drives or parting areas shall be provided by C.C &R.,s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. _1- �� � X -- - 6. All existing easements lying w#thin future right-of-way are to be quitclaimec or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements., X 7. Easements for sidewe!, Tor public use shail be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16 Section 16.J6.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and past security with the City guaranteeing the required constructi n prior to recordation of the map )nd/or building permit issuance. 1. Construct full streec improvements includirg, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavements sidewalk, drive approaches, ,)arkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide ment within _ wid dedicated right-of-way shall p bec ns-tructed afor0 allt half- section streets, X _ 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to building permit issuance for each parcel. Curb Q1 A. i "- Dr ive Street S Street A.C. Medi,=s- treet Name Gutter Pvmt.- Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Isl 9ther Utica Ave. k X X A X X Hav2n Ave X V r X� X X X X *Includes landscaping and irr•;gaticn on meter **Meandering sidewalk X 4, Prior to .eny work Le ng Performed- in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid an an rIc-nachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer'; (P fice, in addition to any other •parmi}s required. X C Street improvement plans shall be repar Civil Engineer and approved by they City Engineer Registered issuance o' an encroachment permit, prior to X 6. Developer shall .00rdinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any Aster poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing ling '',ss thais 66KV frcirti-.g the property shall be undergroun ' x Install aporopri,,'< striping signs, traffic control g CityEnineermaritrny ions and types approved by the I� -2- X 9. Street light locations,. as required, are to be approved. by the Soutt4rn.California Edison Company and the CA of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. X - 10. Landscape and irrigation -plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuF-ace of building persiit. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows sital1 not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall bs installed to City Standards. Sure�, X 1. Sutaty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements_ p:Iior to- builring permit issuance for each parcel. X 2. An in- cash deposit must be executed pricr-to reccrding o the map for the foilokting: one-half median island on Haven Avenue. X 3. Surety shall be poster' and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewa:ering all parcels to the satisfaction of t�,e Building and Safety Divison prior to issuance of building-permit f^T each parer s, D. Drainage and Floe Control X I. Priv,te drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall ,5e delineated or nAticed'on the final map. X 2• Adegnate provisions shall b?'made'for : •ceptance and disposal of _`urface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall br installed to the satisfaction of i:he City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hylrologic 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 Aft -3,- p ) i E. Grading X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be,in accordance wit`i the Uniform 'Bdilding Code, City- Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading be it) substantial conformance with the approved c shal-j oncept al grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall b2a subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to .recordation of the final subdivisic;i map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. 5. Final grading plans for eac;: parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. General ReGu rement_s andigp' ravats X 1. "irmits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for Sa,i Bernardino County Floo_,i Control Cisi:rict X Cucamonga County Water District forsewer and water X San Bernardino County bust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2• A cnpy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&RIS) approved by the Cit , Attorney is required prior to recordation .-o f the map. X 3. Provide all utilI ty services to each let including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and t-lephone prior to street. constructor. X I. Sanitary seb:er and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga Co!mty 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 bean secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that maybe received from them. -4- L>-/o r, X 7. The filing of.the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that. sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When balding permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water DistVict will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is receiv0d in writing. _ 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shay, be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical ctnditions, fencing anb weed control, in accordance with,City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner- prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments 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. G. Special Conditions X 1. Reciprocal access and drainage easeme i.s Tor the parcels to the north shall be recorded concurrent with the map. X 2. Prior to recordation, a No_-;�;a of Intention to form and/or join Landscape and Lighting 11 stricts shall be filed with the City 4 Council. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: o-1J IV a`' t ENVIRON ANTAL REVIEW o _� o APPLICATION 1977 INITUL STUDY--PART I GENERAL For all projects oequiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the,' !elopmeni: Review Committee through the department where the project applicat'iun is-made. Upon •r4ceipt of this application, the Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study and make recommendations to Planning Commission.• The Planning Commisrion will make one of three deterrinations: (1) The ,project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negat'llve Declaration will be filed, (2)project will have a significant environmental The 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:_ July 3, 1985 -Project Title: IIaven TErh Center Applicant's Name, ,Address, Telephone: �ang-Christopher/Architects,, Inc. 9375 ArcbibaTrl Avenue, Bldg 200 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 <,'14) 987=Q909 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning thi5 Project: Joe Carmm Forecast Corporation 9333 Baseline Road, Sui'-e 290' Rancho Cucamonga, C,A 91730 (714) 987.7788 Location of Project: Utica Avenue, between A— P,outQ end Jersey Boulevard Zdest side of Utica Assessor's Parcel Nz.: Bock.209; Page 142; Parcel 18 List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: --- ------------ - . . •-- 'PROJECT DE CRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project. The r P J property is to be used for R/D office, l ht n�fa-�tt�"-n- and industr 1 rt n rki aC-eaS. •'�`��� Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: rro•e(-t area: .141 305 scuare feet 0.24 acres ,. R D office o,;n SF); r-, t manufac O sed buildin s: (12,750 SF) Industrial (19,800 S'F). Describe the environmental 'setting of the project site including information on topography, soil stability, plants (trees), Land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of urrounding Rroperties, and the description of any existing structures and their :se (attach necessary sheets): The project site is uresently vacant of any e3dqt-iricrSUbstrictures and Steal ve etatifln. A low scrub brush and ass covex the entire site. Na historic or col-tural si "ice�s been attached.to •-h._' ro the onl scenic a R� ~ and tialue is a view to the north of the local mowtainc, Animal life on the site is liriited to shall birds and rodents., The topography of cbaracterized by a genie Slone frara r�rt;h to south with a ade'differential of approxil-�ately five xpet across the property -------------- Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of curnulative actions, which although individually small fi environmental impact Th�is_specifi: project may part o°fla laavxee��3�ti�nant howevpz a rest Tan for r g P lie ?�gperties to the north is presently being s1ka tted. i —/3 : y— WILL THIS PROJECT: YES HOAft 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? X 3. Create a 'substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? y 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? X - 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? _ X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives?' X Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets.if necessary): 7. Estimate the amount ofsewage and solid waste materiels this will generate.daily. ns30 Toilets (flush valve) project 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this /project: ..300 auto triQal750 truck trips 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this project,.in cubic yards. 15 000 cu:yards (cut and fill) 10. If the project involves the construction of residential.units, complete the form on, the next page. --- CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be suomitted before an "adequate evaluation can be made by the Planning Division. Date Signature c�uJ Title _ _, I-3 , RESIDENTIAL CDNSTRUCTIOIJ 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 distract for accommodating the increased number of students prior to issuance of building permits. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific'Location of Projects PHA3- I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of sing! family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: AMIk '. Date propused to bagin construction. 4. Earliest date of occupancy; Model and # of Tentative r 5. Bedrooms Price Range I-4 -'�� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rVCAXJr STAFF REPORT 0 Q• ?F� U DATE; November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-26 - FaBECAST The development of an industrial park consisting of 3 buildings totaling 44,452 square feet on 3.4 E.cres of land within a proposed 18 acres Master Site Plan in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located on the south side.of Arrow Highway between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN 209-142-18. (Related File: PM 9301) IF I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A, Action Requested: Approval of Master Flan,Phase I- Haven Avenue Tech Center development that includes site plans elevation and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Sur!^oundinq Land Use and Zoning North - Vacant, Empire Bank, K-Mart Center; Industrial Park District/Haven Avenue Overlay District South - Vacant, gas station, Industrial; Industrial Park District/Haven Avenue Overlay District East - Vacant, Minimum-Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) West. - Vacant, abandoned golf course; Industrial Park District/Haven Avenue Overlay District C. General Plan Designations: I Project Site - Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South Industrial Park East - Minimum-Impact Heavy Industrial West - Industrial Pat: D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant, covered by native grasses and slopes from north to south at approximately two percent grade. The area covered by the Master Plan is under multiple ownership (see Exhibit ("C"). ITEM P PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT November 13, 1985 DR 85-26 - Forecast Page 2 II. ANALYSIS• A. General: 1; Master Plan Pursuant to the Haven Avenue Overlay District requirements, the intent of this master plan is to serve as a guideline for futura development through a^t-biishing driveway access, overall circulation system, drainage patterns and architectural design concept. It is not the intent of the master plan process to cast future developmen'- patterns in stone, rather it is an opportunity to coord nate efforts among the property owners arid discourage piecemeal development. All future developments within the Master Plan boundary would require separate Development/Design Review. A related Parcel Map is also being considered by the Plarning Commission at this meeting. A separate Staff Report has been -included for your review. The overall circulation plan includes an interior loop private driveway that provides access for future development and channels traffic away from major arterials. The Master Plan emphasizes pedestrian amenities and consists of buildings clustered around plaza areas which are linked with pedestrian walkways. The Plaster Plan focuses the office and business building land uses along Haven Avenue transitioning to light industrial uses along Utica. 2. Phase I Development: The Haven Tech Center (Phase is located in the southeast corner of the Master Plan, (see Exhibit 11011). it consists of one R & D office building that hes Haven Avenue exposure, n multi-tenant industrial building "a the midd', and a light manufacturin,'t building that fronts onto Ucica Avenue. Bot„ the light manufacturing and the multi-tenant industrial buildings serve as a buffer from the more intensive future industrial use to the east (Minimum-Impact Heavy Industrial District). The proposed elevations` consist of tilt-up concrete panels with aluminum graphics and frames as well as solar bronze gla,ing, (pee Exhibit "K"). All of the buildings have been provided with enhanced building entrance statemant and architectural Arl. treatments. PLANNING COW ISSION STAFF REPORT November 13, 1985 OR 85-26 Forecast Page 3 AV B. Design Review Committee:: The Design Review Committee• has reviewed the project and found that the Master Plan and the Phase I Haven Tech Center development complies with the Industrial Specific Plan and the Haven Avenue Overlay District in regards to the building orientation, style, architectur:, plaza area and parking. The committee has recommended approval of the Master Plan and the Phase I- Haven Tech Center Development. However, the developer has proposed a 2000 square foot expwasion into the plaza area when revising the site plan to address the Committee concerns. The Committee recommended for full Planning Commission discussion in regards to this issue, (see Exhibit "H"). C. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental CheCKIISt and has found no significant adverse environmentalimpact as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the General Plan, Industrial pecific Plan, and the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The project will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact and in addition the proposed use, ::gilding design site plan for the master plan and Haven Tech Center together with the recommended Conditions of Approval are in co-oliance with the Industrial Speci, ic Plan and Haven Avenue Overlay District and. all other applicable provisions of the City Standards. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission considers all the material input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings, issuance of a Negative , Declaration and approval of Development Review 85-26 including the master p.lan through the adoption of the attached' Resolution and Conditions of Approval would be in order. Respe!:tfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner 9B•NF:das j PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 13, 1985 DR 85-26 - Forecast Page 4 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Lccation Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit """ - Property Ownership Map Exhibit lull - Master Plan Exhibit "E" Master Drainage Plan Exhibit"F" - Conceptual Elevation fnr Master Plan Exhi►:ft "G" - Haven. Tech Center Summary Deve. Table Exhibit "H" - Detailed Site Plan For Haven Tech Center Exhibit "I" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "J" - Conceptual Lan6scape Plan Exhibit "K" - Elevations ` Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions i 2 • Sm FIG.V-1 HAVEN AVENUE ILI OVEALA XT Utben Center .. o.n° 1 , Overlay Dlatrlet TRAILS/ROUTES 0000 Psdestrlan { +r Nc iiJJ7711YMM1�1 ,t 0 r• BICyCIe �r r'Q ional Multi-UsD "-�• Sasclat Streeteeape/ Landscaping Power Line/ UU11ty Eaaeir,,jd .s"�- Casa ha m Chammis ry Bridge r ~ 5 � ...� AeCeaa Pointe 0r 7 �e< wn•I a +e n.: Seth , •YMIY H Fire Station } R5 170 , 4 r L n n• a n• 4th} NORTH � CITY OF num. 0 '� RANCHO 'CUCAMON %. PLANNiI,DIVEM EXMI M._SCALE: ,,•-" s '�.�___✓ 7U1,- 0 11�1 - P genrda P c e o' P' 8 of 9 /( Aff m r"Ab 1 A F � E , `-4 , 1 .4k..r 6"vw V�l MR 14 CITY OF ITEM: - RpNCHO CLTCA MCNGA Triu: �� tJa►i� PLANNING DI` LSIOI�T EXHIBIT= SCALE: a rL3� '.Y i =1.r?:ky,'z, t :Q --c 46 Z r yC •.7SF6 8p '�� }•r ..,nrRw err Y 4 t h ��� K� �`J. a�; - � �.•`' ,� 17 1 r �L AA 5 26 20 AC'.' h_ `. •7Y v�'�3,sv�li.yr,].•r. 1015Qr. r ���tfL'.kr .t �s _ t i. �f42 Airs' .�` •• A d -I. W /+aa:/P� q+a• p * Eio pie CI ' Yre ± ;dro �... w;Y. r2 PoiJ r r , '.r, y .. [ - ?MR.It • P.IR.IE PAk:fi• 0 �, k.10 a s Y Via. • 9 � I I a !Q 0 •;,.�''�r^q y,• o i� .n ai'�a 2:S6AC 1".40AC E�8A4 '1 I _ i�€ r _ t s a ��•�yy `• ' �: `t (2 � 24bAC. 2.�FbA 5 . •�, �,.,Ry y,3 ry+�'`�Id as t 'AG G ;r 2. 5A4 fls+cR. <. J•t aW a Yr• 4r l,>v' .F/4 yia r'l. b {,'. -s•. xa r at W9 M 7Y 3?L - si .L' y- ;• ��R`Z' -a r � 7f. '�`�F�dp, ,�� (�#�P ��: r .. t tr d� c t i ; to lax �y._e I' I � A%7,QC . � �.'F•A�, .. ,�^ �Ct `.ro§7 aci .s25ac � :` i! ~h4� •�"s� _" .�*+. .f.�t tii r � ,. � alf C rtrz ® '��` ky - a i'..F ti•��3 _T 4� -Y���a L � .: .3�� Ff'"i�t�'_�`5Y, K�PARii� _ ,;.a," 3+�' x 'i� .� �n L a 4 wt i'l .1 ,�,gn f., .,�.r �}� \ F, s +,.:rt: � ,;♦'sil,s NORM CITY OF ITEM: R-6--. RAlNMO CUCAMONTGA TITLE: P&AFlf�l,0S aAA) -Mo PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE. em'� kmw AaRe —17 } L r ; I J—Y BWavarj NORTH rl CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CLTCAmONGA TITLE: P PU MM DfVbgON EXHIBIT- SCALE:-- a i �' s I, JeMy BotMvwd . } NORTH CITY OF ITCNII: PLANNkNG DIVLSIChN EXHIBIT: SCALE `� AMIk Alm— Am hw TyRical aver.Avenue Etev�ion NORTH CITY OF ITEM: >�b RANCHO CLTCAIVIC7IiTGA Tllu: �TraV � PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBrr. F SCALE_� PART If UNIFORM APPLICATION' o cb Z NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT _ s SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT TABLE 077 �?MIPP.}IU1R1F Location, 'HeIcaa venue a ween rrow an (Staff se nfy) General Plan Subarea L'o. (6) Development District: Iar? dial Park PROJECT AREA Gross(incl.area to centerline of abutting streets): acres: 3.45 Net(exclusive of dedication for major external and secondary streets): acres: 3.24 AREA DISTRIBUTION IBased on Net Area) ACRESISO.FT. a/o OF NET AREA Building Coverage 1.02/44,452 32% Landscape Coverage .72/31.323 22% Vehicular Area(inci.parking): 1.50/65,530 46% FLOOR AREA DISTRIBUTION 13Y PROPOSE USE(3ased on'Nat Area) Area of Building Pad No.of Stories Gross Floor Area(sq.ft.) Propw ed Us A. 13170 1 13,170 R/D Office B. 1920E 1 19,208 Industrial C. 12074 1 12,074 Light 44,452 Manufacturi g PARKING Type of Use Parking Ratio #of Spaces Required #of Spaces Provided R/D Office 1:350 38 38 Light Manuf. 1:400 31 36 Industrial 1:500 39 40 Total No.of Parking Spaces Required: 108 Total No.of Parking Spaces Provided: 114 - No.of Compact Spaces 23 %of Compact Space to Total Space: 20 i -y PART II UN IFO APPLiCATiOPd IFr A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT - SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT TABLYS 1977 Project Name /Staff ence File No.: Location Use Only) General Plan Development District; PROJECT AREA tx Gross(Incl.area to centerline of abutting streets): acres Net(exclusive of dedication for major external and c dary streets), acres DWELLING UNITS(eased ofi Net Area) r.' NU BER s ';NET.OENSITY Single Family Detached Single Family Attached(Townhouse/Duplex Condominium Apartments Total J AREA WSTRIBUTION(Based on Pot Area) ' .,ACRES1SQ. 05,NtrAREA Building Coverage Landscape Coverage' Vehicular Area(incl.parking) Common Open Space Private Open Space Useable Open Space(common&private) PARKING Np •. -.: i .• r�--'D.L.Bi�'OF AMEI+LET'L #Of Spaces Uncovered Carports Garages Guest Parking Recreation Vehicles Total: Patio(Space/Unit): `I. i �i- .r"pY•� nwawY ! Dwoo ,ATV/M:_.. •. e s p «^.11•.w d �rl r pARCE1.2 a PARCEL 3 r f - 1 pt . tt71 t W r+•. VACANT MUSTRAL PPAK NORTH CITY OF ITEM- RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tom: PL•AMNING DIVA EXHIBIT._.SCALE• - --1:3 1 ! ow lw� rL FP kJ I �~ FF fGi /tl0. 420 MO 40 IFF SOS of S0V. S F fF nit ' . ------------- lot—�.� enaL t NORTH CITY OF ITEM- PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 41 oxumm owl 1c we A1Y ADIO> AAA EL rZ I PARCEL_1._ . ( —..jrr + nonrfwi. lit 11 a.. NORTH CITY OF ITEM. RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: G FL..ANNINU MORON EXHIBIT-, SCALE: ,!'� Pwkb*Lwt AeeMVThw 4kww ee.r _Ca .e.R d cros Udt / PM OMoe II, ,, I ILIi�, NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING Dr NON EXHIBIT=._ i 1. �f�. Y� Imo■ PIT �:' i; 10 Ab _r �( he fF C,� �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRGh,EENTAL CHECKLIST DATE APPLICANT: lnP� ALI �TAS C' LOG NU:ffiER:_1L�1��.ZL PROJECT: ?�EP- �l�17r157�PiAL i3r11Lf,NlW-� "n�iuiy/6 Q� PROJECT LOCATION:E,4S'l ac v '/ ram Zr- A.j JcSE�� �}G�ia I. E:IVIROh^fl:NTAI: FACT (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES `!AYBE NO I. Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruption-- , displacements, compaction or �( burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface v contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or Codification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? _ g. Exposure of people or property: to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, -ground failure, or•similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydroloray. Will the proposal have significant results in: .Page 2 ES uAYBE \0 ` a. Changes in current,, or the course of direction i of flowing ptreams, rivers, or ephemeral stream. channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage or the rate and amount of surface wateratterns, runoff? ._._ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? - d. Change in the amount of surface water in any �( body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or :ray alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or With drarals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- Wise available for public water supplies? f I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiehes? 3. Air Ouality. Will toe proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? f Stationary sources? �L b. Deterioration of ambieut air quality and/ov interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture —: or temperature? ✓ 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results In. a. Change in the characteristics of species, - including diversity, distribu€ion, or number Of any species of plants? f b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare r� i or endangered species of plants? IJ �_ ?age 3 YES `DXBE NO c. introduction of new or disruptive species or plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results ,C in: a. Change in the characte'; stics of species, including diversity, listribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive :species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration of movement of ---`gals? d, Deterioration or removal of existint, fish or wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri Aft - bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will. the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional soca.o-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? `f b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Ja policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of / existing consumptive or non-consumptive V/ recreational opportunities? 2-C) - Rage 4 , YES St4YBE NO AML 8. Transportation. 'dill the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation,of substantial additional vehicular /r 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? J e. Alterations to present patterns of .circula- / tion or movement of peoples and/or goods? ✓ f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?' J 9. Cultural Resources, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, s palentological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health—Safety. and Nui._ Factors. Will the proposal have-signific, nrlts in: a. Creatiote of any health and or potential health hazard? J b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? --_ c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of nn accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogeric organisms ur the exposure of people to such organisms e. Increase in existing noise 14vels? f. Exposure of people to potentially 'dangerous noise levels? � g. The creation.of objectionable odors? _ h. An increase in light or glare? ,/ Page 5 YES NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal: have significant results in: a. The Obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista 'or, :icw? en / b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive v site? C. A conflicr •"' 2 the objective of designated or potence- ;enic corridors? / 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a have need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? V b. Natural or packaged gas? / C. Communications systems? •�// Water supply? Wastewater facilities? / — Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h+ h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? V Z3. _Enere} 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? J d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? - U0~ 2f Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce uataral resource?': 14. Mandatory Findings of Siczificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a.plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or < endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major{ J periods of ` j California history or prehistory? ✓ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to.the disadvantarz of long-term, environmental goats? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oec;irs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will Cndure well into the future). _ c. Does t`-! pro4act have impacts which are individually limited;, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,' / and probable future projects).. J d. Does the project havf- environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse eff�7ts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ IZ. DISCUSSION OF M IROMENTAL VrALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). �6Y ,rjs - Page 7 IIZ. DE1ca7?�.�TIO"I' On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ T:Z7,1 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 sheat have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY ave a s gnificant jMeet r.r envirn=ent, and..an ENVIRON`MN 3: ACT RE? RT_is qured. Date Signature l - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THI RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COAMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIE'h*NO. ,35-26 FOR A MASTER PLAN AND ri:4SE I DEVELOPMENT LOCAli9 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW HWY., BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AN", UTICA AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT AND FlIEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 1st day of August, 1985, a complete application was filed by Forecast Corporation for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 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 caii he met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That tht- proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes c.f 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 the Haven Avenue Overlay District ; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public; health, safety, or welfare,, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicir,'ity. SECTION fr: That this project wil not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 85-26 is approved subject to the following-conditions and attached Standard Conditions: j' � t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION November 13, 1985 85-26 Forecast Corp. Page 2 Planning Division: Master Plan: The Master Plan is -approved in-concept only and future dev(i<.)pmant within the Master Plan boundary shall be subjecs to Development/Design Review approval. Modifications to the Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. - Phase I 'Development: 1. The plaza areas for the R/D office building and the middle industrial building shall be provided with planter seating and attractive landscaping. Details shall be included in the landscape plan and to be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Special landscape treatment including specimen size trees, mounding and rockscape shall be provided along the northern property boundary. 3. Texturized pedestrian crossings shall be provided peer conceptual landscape plan with stamped concrete or brick pavers. 4. Within parking lots canopy trees shall be planted ?t a rate of one 5-gallon size tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50 percent of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. This shall require tree wells in appropriate locations in addition to planter areas shown on conceptual landscape plan. 5. Landscaping shall be provided along the south side of the driveway access leading to Haven Avenue, with Phase I development of Haven Tech Center. Engineering Division: 1. Reciprocalaccess and drainage easements for the parcels to she ner•th shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Phase I development of Haven Tech Center shall include full improvements of half of the driveway access to Haven Avenue for providing a secondary access. t -- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Ncvember 13, 1985 DR 85-26 Forecast Corp. Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS'13TH DAY OF 'NOVEMBER, 1985.- PLANNING 0MMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad. Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning, Commission held on the 13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wits AYES COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT': COMMISSIONERS: I aoe C L Thar� d. NO L�dn{ppp�NNG d`. p.1M� Rq W+Qpp?lp FY �R61 V. y ��.ai n u O y�_u 4 d d~•nv «Q q C.i..L E M a 66 YQ..a L O pT dC R�dQd.G Qy41 b R. D<i R.O< O Q SJ.y.0 Rqq 46Ean L C 44 'y.^ C G.N^'d qaV qyT. G1� y�N 2 u aR.aca �� o aaY y�.'c. auQ.Qa�y dr tiL'�Wv cuv n�'u u. N p Fpydn'Bi'q� e.« soN^� QLr 4e.pQa n^�T n,a cL.� jE.yap oq Qa gVQ.a TtC�6 9a 4y E.G. •'17. QCud A.0 u. Sy^..=: O.CIyd1G'1 ggU N�q^'C n�. d`L Nq Mi 2.-0.�dA[�G�d AeN q'C p~N c+V.� Nygaye•.•. teLe:y. @�qwa br. �w RL .aR q C6.v4. � � •> 'Q6 �Nd•ei ^2 q V L.U0.4 dd. 6dY.roO.Y 6nYYd. CGS w�. � y�Mq7 b. d ad>tG �CCa Q.q�q«. W.�Ltb GN•p"g0 vy Aa •�! M AC d[�N eY 6Y Y..G.q�q�jj.^ NgC•p� �.J�G LNT'�ct. ����t L�v'dN�M sue.. vd�Lno 'L.q OI�¢�:a3e �GYN Ga Ccd y�pu�. 2 ft 6c R+'b_A>•^ p.q V)w O�,G 1r„ ��f4.1.'>^d •+.W9 gy �,q SU �Ri n Q{ Cr O -0��.0 NT.C.ro� N\ee�� 4•LO CN Via/. O d91�, �g46Q u ' aU, d EN O'C ��d@ dd n�a, O •C G ' �c L o e a 'ZaZw u d oa m'o �ii q �m'riS Lam iO:+io G _NK+•N+UT a L'o N Q~ A" lgnbk k.L RS'^ I- bL}.O C u:� 4ui+eVu2 40R® FZ.6L qtt w `\ 144 EO.q g�T w 4 o O uu NY U a RCHq w A C d •�11�1y��•avavaq �"' Y UL RerO>4 aNa w 9 as 0.p{'� b A = m; W a n q < a s > S41ZRnL mow`•-. _ ZZp Ypw Wd cCd4yyd vCL G i Li LG9 go M„ZOt;`.2 �. � 4 q•d+ a �N. O G.W} D •^O. C � A G cC� q 4 C�q C o Ld.W w 4 v '� n r M z N« oyyyy aN•ERG� oa^u `5 Q x b t G Aim it ~ � tpd G Q Q. O p ppDy Q q. .•Ga O �Y • pr•=+ > Q. 6 NY rQ.�'S CP149y .N. N •[a 2: 9 6 h�q 6•r 2.NR.Nt M•r� 1+ W �. M� d. r� a ti N 1•f. � y\ G1 O o. a d y 9 O 6^ �d N cc M d fi y G a d C S ^ _L�. co S qE o G b9aC a^ G G L _ fi yd T O N d� A O p Y y iN p CnUL> t�N N O 2 Vim. b.i uoy ��n E A A W.tY S ^O nL".c �CCu ru q L'^ AOq n1u 96 pO.� n E y Y y.9a 9 A al q ie.•. Z ao odov.-O ui n=«Y.a`a N9 Y =i do V b O v d q N$N Cf. C4 ,`--.o+bA epv "'o �p'p^YVN 41 C., _ bq o. a N L ^ a< bU 9 tC CuC •N uE�>QQM A Y + 01L 'YO�•Oa:SY.dY^ uzz G �x 136 9 o,r.N •�.� q .^ c �E G O d id fii q b� Oda• N .dG O1 Tqn u Ny Ou ^O A,u. • O L O. q� Ot p E'.. d u C E Y•� q O.G p aE.• q N � N••. N LO d b Z.5 '�!-NAN dUgA Lq O S. rdOL N�V.. a N 9 Y 1 d G N.a=p b ]y N•^y p p V a 4 C Y p L C ^a 01 q d O d L A >•(O q} d�'O p p ^ T d 0 9 E Y 9 bN'd 1 =C N G N S F p b C. U O 1 T M C } _ `nEn, v` noo zcYwu 11 1NovY U 1,-1.+ -5 p "41 q >• V — Y5 Poeu c- Q b n uY� .pp NNYSSNNCI Gf 6�NNYeO•�6 W�^E �C .0 LA..pa N6G �I 1�I PI 1 N 1 ��.•a n1 OM C:L yT•n �A A V4 ..--zlog A^...0 --YC.Y d� } C 9 NI •4Obl CYN QY bra oa u«^i ai v o U $ c& `��•'e 'fL �x o �cp�vq rvb. Aya Ai. n Y n� _`9`�•^Y a,.,.iYp v`oN ,/ oOCW .qL.•N d�MN w 6M ' - d �.d Op Ai SL Gu Y� pu {fit u�.�.�f T.b n•.,� C�.o J6 by Ev9q U ZL Y NU4 ..2.5 i r L N 9W b�nb G N C q Y 0= N j9Y y O.r oQ1O J �G ap E aW= .tlp n�.U0 N` O. N.. ou no _ pE a ye n^ uou "a'y„ Ya u Hb oaq''ST cv o. ,ti•c . +' .+A '• GpaA A x O _ I �•, 1O^C 6'. �`d npy Nr V^ WV FTON.q K dG00 C=H00 '. S C L L. d.^ .`- M. �ydq GE,G p—y O Ud 9 A O. +>W U O lL L G L b 9 C A L Ad W.q S qd90 Eu^9 WA^^ «6 QO v y ^Lw a E q 6O q y c Ly E Q.•d^ i� u O 6 u A S -St! N�CM ~ A=JL qC NBC N uy' U 9AgL Vo LV � ONE L.` >•. Ca Eyr NSO MY = b La. U •O N � �.�p= n. O p• \' N p N 9 a C Y u'Y b . q 0 p p W.Mn vC� C Q C ^ a> yq0 p C.:O E dd TY p� t-z p~ d F!.^.Y LfigOL Ta'.9� V` a ^ad LL4 C. G VY.G' y Lpi O.>C E 66 Oq� 9 6 L O a O•m>p Y b L A A O T p 6 d V U Lp bbL ^„ Lru C LYbridd9 U,"yo 6•na 6L 6 6 M L N O`A 4 N a A q Q Y V C Y A M 01 ^ H.•x N C.q H A,q Q q� d O A O c 0 y O U I.O.L L O.5 A L q 0 C L OI C9 TD a oS O~ u0a..YdC 6>d. p N u O t N m. G q c^ G y d c c o L Nd L I OaJ O ^ ^C A r O _ UO NNNAa�"O G47 n. AZL I• �. .00 YO OHO dONO v1. Os Z. A d fi UOq ca N A u r. O L .Ln w U yM^ L.Y� .O _ a N .;0OQ Y.6 C.N OI S� V.A 00 NNN9 Tq �T V Nd u .O O d NLd"x A^ p 4 p� N N.d y c L V T Cr C cc LT I ao aq0 �d UAA Q4dLd dO O j EL' U^� 8 -Q5 b4=E- O.001LO aL O p N �i CNV .9.� ON 1.1 y0 5~ LTL L wN U O�M o� O Up1. 9 E.. _Kf �q q�� ON�n A �dO mt LaOi 5' nuL AV L U u�.N-,-� .. O L p,L d y dq .0 ypa O a A.0 y4W G.. GN Y Y ^' U UdU. U. 6 L•�. O N EN �O. ^NU' nPA Or_0=. y �q YO by 9r^.Eo.` C y CT U u O` 1 oL6 qV CC dA Y At d - N n L uui E N E s L U � u E L u N 1�/1'C^N A N Q N� 6 vni S NCl\F NC 6N V�^O�>C�AN60 4.qM 60 tL.O ApN • L C.V U Ol U L U d.C a O C ..c0-. ^L a W o2.2 No bm� o 'z"n d nii pa aoc o:�0�Yp LOX. A O ML Uu9 B Y 9V �qT.> Ly Nq.L QN�L=N n _ Au A A�'7 d td t� qd,�a, dom y O a• � d aE N ~ ^G. ny E~d� =d C q C N O O Cydr �o AoE A Nd A dp qyu q c U.' d0 N� O A OV Y NU u c na d Nu ctu L TU AU � c E L �O OA �na0 'd N r N b y 0 L y V L A.r E b u O U A C Y a N . t m ^LL 6.O OI j ezn i� b maa A o d` c zvd ec m . � U SY C Y O. d o O > � O Cu 9 6L `. L AEd C Olp OVA uL «O Atl LY dNy� m Odg2. EE O! A LOc NC �T Uy0. a�^. a cuy� O. AWL y V ^E x.0 ®' A q u E U p a u U C,7;.G b O yono.. Lad QY 4uN0 QNnym S 6biN`\I�GN 4u Cb HON+A 4GC GN6N W6 pM Vf a0iy0.. 50 W u:W9 o�ru m°• u• a� <. .. o.C. C GG n O 2 • 2 9 0 M N. = = MFF G E U u O G 6 E FE A O - r 2 Y 2 Np W x + q O1W d L 6p= EU 0...o c Ipi jy.�r SNNLd.�O � EE>u. Rp N W Ad O Ov p �dH ad. 2: q�.0 9�OW • L.�vNi F « OU +.00V �dy + 4-) « cOiq «t u E F d€uG O Yq Od m G L Qj O FeF0 N G U 3 N y A D •O yj.� CUA yr. n _aLc u =d S.p+ «€ G� OT L Ec [.19 .a uC YO V nu .G^taG.'d� NACu E.ad„O• . U a a0E0 96«=ApV LL `+.^«9 E+. q 3 oq A., dYs LL. p, i •- « aoi a a «N .- d d row Op =y V ALO' 6� GO d.A H NWA� OL > d5pNGE m N S Si 61 O. L F EO. > N N _ c �u9 y .i• m Gtic ,EEoy 9Ncu iN.• nL Q}23. C M O.O+ @ Y+ O Od d C dQ A�FCIL N l.✓9A O LNuEA LCd uC` LLNy Ovp O`Ad•� •-• 1•�6 GL 3L�N0 1--iO4 1-Ud 0'JG Qd-- 6.5N A•I � I p N I � I W ~I Aft 1 1 • La �`l� .d 6, T^O Cd0 LO •LM , Ad «01 .i Y'9d - Y yd F m0 d2 MEDd •d c u =vN T. nn 01q p A J N L dy q e E CdL Ap 9 NY L Y EE ee G C p U� 0 G A IC2 .2 .Oda >?C V N •-..N- _ N'e c A m _ FF Atl O p0.0. GN .O..p 2 L p p « d•«.t Y q v�.N C y � C « a Gv u _ _ Y6 EA E.j-Y Y.LLdN 5. iu EYpG ZS YL CO L «0 d 6G«+u L}�a O• C �L L� 3 W p L L O. G paA d N L O py A 9 d C '>+2 N E d AO A Orn� EC p d u u C+ «G V Ld� GLp�0O1 ~« qCJ uG A�' m.E a� q 6 N j +c T> . O� t L d A L t.o.c >• M p G A� EA C•.1�A q d p «N 9 O G O A 9 O d d d dL0 6 t P+ V A G x ..Y.!•d qLL «E 4qO .+ 6 y4.LL •�yL o y2i • �d L CG O uU €.OY OG. 4. t G N A:° EO�OI L+dN >• a0O �dqT d y+ G o l q P T LL L G O r d0 d 01�M d. C d O L Y N•r + E O C L..> c\\\�[]• a' f-A anm' o � WLL. WF'Fx oaiuv C\\\\/ L N 1•f �` LL --31 N.C. > W NC » C d A >C C g Oq0 ' 4 Z. �q..0 SLY-»G _ b•L ON � LYLa d«d �Lb •L 6.Mi' L OOrq E»�.. y� Q O o O `N. Q =:=.,Ob •�^w J.2 w:C� VV0 E6.pV a ON � wd NEOUQ a=ab. m u ^ ^O w M V'c^W O G P N 0• a E 6.in L Z b O b Y= p i Gb Y. zz:.- 60VVO OTC » > 3 L. Yo Cq Ls q.^L— �O V Y Q i qq uZ J --AD ' CiiV. OM C LO•V D V u L LG�u , L9i aTi LOw ». a Q Y e C O�^b q.^.. � A E d J L n � Y..4 O L M1�« • G�`y ...GVwx a c u c �O C a^ L. L gypQ.p y p V -'P Tart- ZS ^ww b dC C •r � V Vy =d ONV� �OO.bV a St— � Q O ub b« N� � q p2 N d0 q p NgOA V»WE Y d �:C O• b'� C L� d. C A' 9.. A C V d d E.< a•E q� T C N a 0 Y n µ �H ~_ V'III N N a O C G �L Q b n pp E A C n O yy CY O• nd L am ' .�.« q—O«p O L V O tea•G u u t .�9 puV� C.b 9Y q ti 6. Hp `L N.OV? �~nOL H» 0 2 _�L L C u q p C•O.L sr y C YQ. Y.9 s= s^C ! ti< V^ »SI. d qd L w ^Q d + bw �2. ^ V O O L rn• n.Y cis p nQ sr ub o,d H„, od 2.¢do d.dd-ate:.O y9 O ,G OC. 'Q Ld Op "Z i.d, % 06.V1 wY ,O. .e•Ls rn tiN V- + m L �b w V `V L ES N E Qd9> N O O T.b=. . y. Z N w Q O i V N Y V V f.•. 6 9 4 C ^�^E l E Ta R np PQy Lo b Q b a y R Y i�w 00 OL 0q: N LddCY S y L W L� ea Mi � a oaaaY .- .t.•au A i d Mi YcL N: L Y q W L . a M L y a Lt S y. nM MF b et A C'M a' a 01 !2 dp�C x W n n q w d GM4vS S N S Cyy LW GGGIIIII Gl, cSa ^b� qu aLq uA da C _ .. •L aW nn`. `qn �..C- M�. Or .t. VM gyrn G yyLV d�_�A T Old • C �+ U_u d'G' �.yA aY O �' ^M Yam' L.M ■ I.OY. a t ll CU LL. LO�G yd- O dL aY ~� .G C NM y. �•S gg •�L6 C e dq gw>0 O qd Ol _ 0. yFG oxiY� Y2a AL LM AA A4 a.C- SS L-' 6 N. - L O S 6� .q b 0 G L a g d. d E M O a A L i •s O,L p q O d S q N 9.2 L 6 L d Ol cGaa nH yq cL a°C'G.Y a x oo.. d Z avYd . •- : _ > q �.v.vo WA.ri O� _Tarn T TL rA Y t4 �4�'c�0 dqL� SuS.L pp A,..W Nn V OM�C C L by qrn MC Y N q d u.dC>.■ N u d V �d p L C N 4W NS 60.+M NO•+•+' ND L `Li\\QU 6:� WiLiN Lti; ]i4 UV 4 ti 1 IQ 1 r o n t n a..o dG .5a gMa w.. g CE O�n O Yod` �d. �/� S �.aq G,-d" «^ av Co u two d4o d E O 1 O G1C�' L E d '.Cv d...G 92 L 0 Y SAN �. Vd y a o ac.an E'c z Tall k.11 V Y Fj 6 Nt•1 OL..O QQL Wj U A.NT6 'G L. U � a, ti urti LC •u CM Ld N u 0 ;ice m d m ..�. NG ai a od.. 1 ry �Y C^ G Mi NC EE O aD.. SwF Vi y y M TO V ^ V •-N L �� �^pL C .D..N T 0=1.-.b a. N '^ L A �L d �� Dy C i U y d gyp) D D� Y dN O`C. w rV u L F` 6 M d d C d9 H 9 w U d N W Z ti 6� d b W 6 .ten dN dE ti. £ CC �Qy O ✓ .C 0- AM c L N L V 9 G� yV GK C w L d y� A p yu TU �A L` lJ O Y yE L1. b. a.D. _ rn E t q y N b y py2y� �� d4 N.NO tC 4�1 CfO• � �.� d �01 D d •C D-OLNG .-..a VD. Q•C �♦(\\7 'G� OWN 6^N QL H.� LJ tDi d. lb o a - dd LYa a d G ATVY OW NQ � T»DT a J cN aN q.L ~ rnw� N ^ ^D d,y uNiw T « V•. dC =. Dy L . c0 Y L� C' A V.q api Q �y D4 O U N�c ar+ r b G EL NA a`o N ccDa a Dc c a ar s D A gab '. •.v. a d �c L—�., Y . `I EE D W Lv C u 2 u n c d i� d2 L A L y. d p G O S ud O t i d F d O D D .•.O .... + f(M\5 Q 6 N �Q N d Sa C,o � � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o�canro,� STAFF REPORT - aJ.I 1977 DATE: November 13, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PEELIMINARY REVIEW 85-66 WOOD ENGINEERING_ I. GENERAL: Wood Engineering has submitted preliminary plans for a phase3 commercial/office development on .72 aores on the north side of Fnothill, west of Turner. This property is currently zoned General Commercial as are the adjacent properties to the east and west. There are existing single-family homes to the north in a low density residential- district. Pursuant,to the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies, the Planning Commission is required to conduct a preliminary review for consistency. The intent of this process is to provide direction to a potential developer early on to avoid undue time delays or financial commitments. II. ANALYSIS: The primary issues concerning the project-relate to master Tannin and strip commercial. As shown on Exhibit B, , eight non-conforming ots exist— eetween Turner Avenue and an approved shopping center (CUP 85-01, northeast corner of Rd-+ona and Foothill). A number of older buildings exist on these luts including Eoui's Restaurant, single-family houses_ commercial buildings, and a gas station. Ideally, new development in this block should provide for master planning of all 8 lets. The Interim Policies state that development on non-conforming lots is only allowed "provided such development is an integral part of a Master Plan development consistent with the Interim Policies for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor and Development Code" Also, Master Planning should provide for consolidation of substandard parcels. If the site was developed as proposed, it would set a precedence for piecemeal, strip commercial development on adjoining lots, and re uirements of the Interim Poliiies and Development Code, such as �ambined driveways, pedestrian orientation, and landscaping may be difficult to achieve. Also, options for integrated development consistent with City Standards on adjoining parcels would be reduced. ITEM Q t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Freliminary Review 85-66 - Wood Eng. November 13, 1995 Page 2 Compatibility The proposed use would be compatible with tIe current and ultimate uses of the surrounding area. There may be some concern with the locating of a two-story building at the rear of the lot adjacent to these single-family homes. A transition of building height should be considered. Architecture and Site Plannin During the. Design/Technical eview process, the project would be revised to comply with standards related to architecture, landscaping, pedestrian orientation, access and streetscape design. 'A final determination of consistency wit,: the InterimPolicies would be required prior to Planning Commissions approval of the project. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P'.. .,4 Commission review the proposed project and make a consistermj determination related to master planning and compatibility. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the j Interim Policies, the applicant should be directed. to work with adjoining property owners and Staff toward development of a master plan, or to delay processing of project pending completion of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. If the Planning Commissic determines that the proposed project is consistent with the policies the applicant should be di rected to file a r ormal application for Development Review. Re ectfu�l/y�s mit±ed Brad Buller City Planner BB:JM:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location/Land Use Map Exhibit "B" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plans Exhibit "D" - Description of Use Foothill Corridor Interim Policies d VIGIN ITY-MAP NO SCALE -N- �: • •° ' •• • f' i • � � ♦ .i rtir•�c•r�• fr•fir ••• •`.�`•' '. : • :• r-r�� y� aC�A I � i`Cyp ° . • iM' 2 NORTH 'h CITE' OF ITEM RANCHO CiI✓Tl_.A1V UNTGA TITLE: Ot,� PAAe PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT. A SCALE-_ n1T-5 /10- Diplo 0 00 0 ❑' 4 ,11,00000Lr cil 4 1 _6 -7 3 2 7 0 3 3 t_I-W-t_u F ZvPGS�� Pvn NCcl IO ALJ'rQr;Pt�vE :�L c-S i -FA�2 LAND I'J [G�w'�NI�NC.� s'rz7�2E AL_ FA�1iLY Cl) TitCV � �, A.tTi7+"0T1VE O W-,�btt?c.N—riAL -APA91-MDyTfv j;plTl,�eL—MO?yiLE HaME Q - gAN-r �? QE'1tlL z LOMMlacL O � S'rPcT1G7rJ NORTH CITY OF ITEN-1: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: tSnLiUVa/'l3 M PLANNINU DIVISION EXHIBIT.- SCALE Q` P .�•. � 10 1,fi � ,.—.i)Rt"_-'ram�,tri—'- 1 90a 47 �3 24 •� ` f t It Pacl ,o ••di �fl^ 49a y s .,�•j � •esac � 7 12=.(•�-`f�. 'S7ACIA. w r� ry#—�I'iTREE�M 'i�°�I�I�LI'—IPcI� 't � Is♦ sihlrll�{'f 6 1 14 ill IS -116 7 77 'a"IC 11j 19 =N 2D J.21 �• s J I � ..Iia losaeu.•. =wce�n �T`R�r�1 t?r nrl, I �•2 I raoE.1,�:.=-..._......__... (�"r�V�At�l77 �-� :;.= sr/t�coxr—RceLz'i%� •£•' GOULEVAIM- NORTH i CITY OF ITEM: Aft RANUH0 CUCAMONGA TITLE: Sf9L vat-.ZA-SKESS- !, mA P PLANNING DIVISK)N EXHIBIT. SCALE. l J I_ Prl- llil ! �� < => l� f� � ILA ♦ ...'- . k ; �. •. N 6v --�— —roes _ ^FOOTHILL BLVp < NORTH CITY OF ITEM. RAIi 0 CUCAMONGA TITLE.- lr� ?c.�i-ry PLrVIINI1\G DIVISION EXHIBIT. C— SCALE W001)Engineering,Inc. SuaiECT SHEET NO OF :Stru;tuml Engineering Z:;oA--y ) _ Joe No r1� 10040 FOOTHILL BoUU-VARD Affik RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CA-81730(714)989-2087 FOR. /t�O4O e52277-!/LG DATE_ DESIGNED SY-- ' - 71WX UX5E OF 7WE �'.2opas � GEv ZJPs✓'�'r1T' Wd�cL e& CC aRAL T/'fE $',eO✓XC7- .10411.L �,� wlsls r 0 F GCE Asvd O"40 rwo -6 7'0,2 �vic os..sG. 7,A#(.—_ /•v r3P"®Ev 1W/4L. eO ^C.0 ®.=67i:�05� �.2Y/CE 6'c!3/.�/6SS�S,, s2.Ea�/L 57DR�'s! .4rvG �4�I y C7;z-'EQ USE ✓�El2iY7/T9 ® !N i4 �E.tdE�i4 CeMMEPGlra4 aiZ T IC T. OE1✓.rLa,�ilyEr'.!T v�✓i�e �E .Gc�.'E' ��v 3 � aES• oxVA&A,-5E .Z- 4rl2EC7 - /!'PP.E'C}X1eo7A7'E4Y H-.4L 0 pF T'vO 37TFc°)✓ 8G1/Ltd/�`JG. PHASE 2Z c APE r 7' ,4Els r9l../QE.2 C.F TYJO 5 7 0 Z Of��3E.� GEr�ot/4N �</'✓"''l�'J� C.•JE S 7"'O�% M'd�OP/ o-R,aA-7E0 6U1401AJ4 .4--oD 40AWa T ".,T" NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CLLCA�IO�TGA TITLE rPrloe, a� U-5 PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:—D SCALE ORDINANCE NO. a14 KFA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MW CUCAMONGA ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 'PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(b) PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE FOOTHILL CORRIDOR A. Recitals (I) The Planning Department of thn City of Rancho Cucamonga has been instructed to conduct and complete the "Foothill Boulevard Corrid,• Study", a study which is intended to'result in a synthesized.specific plan r development for that portion of Foothill Boulevard ranging from the west c,. limits at Grove Avenue to Deer Creek Channel and from the Devord.Freeway to the east City limits at Fast Avenue. A map describing the bound&-es of said study area is attached`hereto, marked as Exhibit "A", and is incorporated herein by this refer ce. Hereinafter, said study area is referred to as "the Foothill Corridor." (11) Pending the completion of the Foothill Corridor study, it is foreseeable tbat development proposalsshall be submitted for property within the Foothill Corridor. Moreover, it is foreseeable that st^_h development proposals would not conform to the ultimate specific plan of development for that study area and would, contradict, the specific purpose of the unified specific plan. (III) This, Council is concerned. about the creation of an orderly and balanoed development within tho ;:hill Corridor area. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the ultimate specific plan, and to assure the continued development stability of those properties within 'he study area, this Council finds that it is necessary to establish interim zoning policies to allow the Planning staff the time necessary to investigate and formulateAft the specific plan of development for the Foothill Corridor. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ZITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS FOLLONSi SECTION 1: In all respects as sett forth in the Recitals, ?art A, of this Ordinance. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is presently developing a specific plan of development for the Foothill Corridor area. The ultimate goal of this plan is to provide-a balanced and unified plan of developmen: within the Foothill Corridor a-:d will ultizately upgrade the economic, soci=_l and cultural welfare of persons and properties both within and surrounding:ha Foothill Corridor; b. Pending the completion of the Specific Plan, it ;s foreseeable that applications for development involving the Foothill Corridor will be received that may contradict the ultimate goals and objectives of:n� specific plan; and, C. The approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, and any other applicable entitlements for use pertaining to property within the Foothill Corridor could result in an immediate threat to public health, saf^tF or _plfare of those persons ani properties within and surrounding the Foothill 04-ridor. AnL v i Ordinance No. 274 Page 2 SECTION 3i The following interim Zoning• regulations are hereby adopted:, Pending the completion and implementation of the Foothill Corridor study, all de"I Pment within the Foothill Corridor shall be conducted in accordance wit:. the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies which .are attached hereto and incorporated in this Ordinance as exhibit "B". Any application for development within the Foothill Corridor which is incon,'Istant with the interim policies adopted herein is hereby prohibited. SECTION :1 This Ordinance is enacted under the authority of California Government Code Section 65858(b) and shall be cf no further force and effect forty-five (45) days from the date of the, adoption of this Ordinance unless the City Council has extended this Ordinans in the manner as providzd in said Section 65858(b). SECTION 5z This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure pursuanto the terms of California Government Code Section 65858 and 36937 (b) and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 6: Mayor shall sign this Oi�dinanoe 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 oP Ontario, California, and Ciro,-!',ted in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 'r - PASSED, APPROVED, and,ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 1985. AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikels, Dahl,King NOES: None ABSENT: None n D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK,of the City o£"Rancho- ..camorga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing,Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting rf the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of Cctobee� 1;185, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the -j of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October, 485. Executed this 3rd day of October, 1985 at'Rancho Cucamonga, California. Beverly uthelet, City Clerk Ordinance No. ?i Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" iF �:'::• h 4C; . n- .■ rr Y p M. X. ``•'.' _ .;.:gip::;;;;:?� :e•::•:;;•:;•:;�'•`•�•`•c ,f' .•:•}:::i:•::ti�� �}:�:V is CITY OF ITEN(e_ Foothill Corridor Interim Pol i Aft 1,Y.�I-NS,F,.O"CLCA` O GA TITLE. Study Area Boundary PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- A. SCALE ----- Ordinance Na. 274 Fage 4 d } Nam!►AYE. � JF �Y f ji !�'\ A& e+�a 4 t. Arrow Hwy. a b NORTH CITE'OF ETE.tt: Foothill Corridor Interim policies R VNCHO CUCA-MONG-k TITLE- Study Area.Boundary PLANNING DIVN N E'iH113rr. A-2 SCALE- - - CrdL•,:nce No. 27, 2 ge�a EXHIBIT 'B" FOOTHILL coRmlom Immim POLICIES INTRODIICTIOm The following Goal Statement and Interim Policies are provided to Vide the decision making process during preparation of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study. The policies address basic land use and urban design issues unique to the Foothill Corridor, and are in*ended to be rpplied in conjunction with the Development Code, whichever Is more restricti'va, unless specifically addressed by these policies. The boundaries of the Study Area include canmervial, office, and residential properties along Foothill Boulevard, ranging fron the west city limit at Grove Avenue to Deems Creek Channel, and from the Devore Freeway to the east city limit at East Avenue (Exhibits A-I, A-2). GOAL STATEMENT` Goals define community aspirations and intentions. The following Goal for Foothill Boulevard attempts to synthesize a complex set of is_aes dealing with land use, ur'ban design, traffic and circulation, and economic viability into comprehensive, understandable and achievable statement. To establih a high quality, attractive, and unifying design image ref -vtive of community heritage, and provide a viable setting for a balanced mixture of residential and com;fi:'J ai activities with safe and efficient traffic circulation and :access. Based on this goal, the following Interim Policies are provided to address development related issues during preparation of the Foothill Corridor ,tudy. EXHIBIT 3 Ordinance ao. 274 Page 6 INTERIM POLICIES A. General Requirements: Preliminary Review A.1 Prior to processing Development/Design Revie+i applications within the study area, the Planning Coamaision shall conduct a Preliminary Review to determine consistency with the Interim Goal and Policies contained herein. The. intent is to pruvide direction to the applicant and staff early in the review process and avoid undue time delays or expenditures. A.2 submittal requirements for a Preliminary Review shall include a Site Utilization Map showing the relationship of the site to surrounding property and improvements, a conceptual Site Plan, and a description of the proposed use. Additional information may br requested as deemed necessary by the C'ty Planner. Time Limits/Extensions A.3 Approval of development proposals, except subdivision maps, shall lapse eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. The intent is to allow early re-evaluation of projects not, yet constructed for consistency with the adopted Foothill Corridor Study or other then current City standards. A.4 Tiny] extensions for any development proposal within the study area subject to a lapse of approval may be granted, In twelve (12) month increments and not to exceed a total of four (4) years from the original date of approval, subject to any inconsistent prcvision of State law, aid the following findings: a. The proposed land use, project design, and conditions of approva` comply with all applicable orovisions of the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies; b. The project is consistent with the polities, standards, and requirements in effect at the ;time of the extension. Ordinance No. r7S .Page 7 c. The granting of said time extension will '-1t be detrimental to the publtc health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious too p )perties or improvements in the. vicinity. d. Current economic, ,;..Keting, and inventory conditions have made it unreasonable to develop the project prior to this time. Compatibility: A.5 All land uie and deveiopment proposals s ili be compatible with ultimate uses or surrounding propertie_t.particularly -P�idential uses, and mitigate potential conflicts to tie extent practical. Mitigation measures may typically include, but are not limited to, Master Planning, transition of building height, architectural form and density, landscape buffers, sound attenuation, reduction of wind turbulence, visual barriers and/or Aft grading conditions to disrupt ne-of-IIIIIM concerns, and alternative" j circulation and accdss. B. Land Ilse: The intent of the following policies is to provide a viable setting for a l-alanced mixture of resi-42ntial, commercial, office, and other activities of ,ow,,unity wide significance compatible with surrounding land uses. General Plan Amendments B.1 Applications for General Plan Land use Amendments are discouraged. Prior to approval of any such amendment, however, the Planning Commission shall make the followiig findings: a. The proposed amendment is clearly. consistent with the intent and purpose of the interim policies for the Foothill Boulevard corridor. b. The proposed land use is c(Kopatibie with ultimate uses on surrounding property. i c. The proposed land use will not create significant traffic or circulation impacts,. Ordinance No, 274 page.8. d,_ The proposed land use will not be detrimental to .properties or. improvements in the vicinity. ` Development Districts Amendments 8.2 Development District Amendments boundaries may be considered if consistent with the General Plan Land !se Element and Interim Policies, and where necessary to achieve,more logical 1 and efficient land use and •site planning patterns. _ The intent is to allow flexibility during the Master Planning process and provide a tool to achieve the oirjectives of the Interim Policies. Land Use B.3 Current Land Use regulations within the Study Area shall remain in effect, except that the following limitations shall apply during preparation of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Plan. The purpose is to avoid land uses which array r have adverse eesthetic impacts, until such time as design guidelines and technical standar:;s are }stablished to leal with specific areas of concern. A AM toic."lete list if permitted and conditionally permitted uses is provided on the attached Interim Use Regulations for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. Existing or previously t approved businesses and buildings shall be allowed to continue un<_,,r Current V'. regulatory provisions of the City. t- The following new land uses shall net be established imt the Office/Professional and General Commercial Districts within the Study Area. Expansion of existing uses identified below shall be allowed subjz:t to the provisions of the Interim Policies for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor and Development Code Standards. Animal Care Facility with exterior kennels, pens, or runs - Cemeteries Contractors Yards 4,. Ordinance 10.. Page,9. - Equipment Rental Yards - Ice Machines (oetdoor) Mini-storage for public use Recreation Vehicle Storage Yard Vehicular Storage Yards The foi#owing new land uses may be established in the Office/Professional or General Cummercial Districts within the. Study Area (see attached Interim Use Regulations subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Carpenter Shop or Cabinet Shop D:vg Stores and Pharmacies (CUP in OP District of-ly) - Nurseries &Garden Supply Stores Plumbing Shop and Supplies - Second Rand Stores and Pawn Shops - Spiritualists C. Master Pianned Development: The purpose of this section is to provide for integrated development at the earliest possible time in the review process. Master planning of defined areas will avoid development of single parcels of land in a manner which prevents or precludes future development of adjacent parcels in the best ;lay feasible. The specific intent is to recognize and solve problems before they occur and tcke advantage of ooportunities while they exist. Master Plans Required CA A -.onceptual Master Plan shall be required for Plan-,ing Commission review in conjunction with development proposals wherever necessary tr, assure a integrated development, enhance harmonious and orderly development, mitigate site constraints on adjoining. property and macimize land potential. Boundaries/City Benefit C.2 the area of Master Plans shall not be confined by individual lot lines, but determined by logical planning { boundaries and site conditions as required by the Planning Commission or City Planner. Master Planning beyond Ordinance. No. 274 - Page 10 the boundaries of specific project sites is intended to benefit the City by coordinating lard use and site planning to enhance opportunities for quality development consistent with the standards for foothill Boulevard, de- emphasize "strip-commercial- by creating organized groups of structures ' and uses, and provide for efficient utilization of land. Content C.3 At a minimum, Master Plans shall indicate conceptual building locations and or',htation,; overall circulation, points �,' ingress and egress, parking lot layouts, tr.nsit stops, landscaped areas,, and pedestrian- nodes, and circulation. In addition, the City Planner may require other information as deemed necessary to assure consistency with the intent of these policies. 0, New Development The intent of the following policies is to establish a high quality, attractive and unifying design image which promotes a sense of identity and AOL reflects community heritage and to provide for safe and efficient traffic flow and optimum vehicular and pedestrian access within the corridor. Architecture 0.1 The architecture of new construction shall be sensitive to the heritage of Rancho Cucamonga and relate to nearby structures of community significance. Design elements may include, but are not limited to, river rock/fieldstone walls,. exposed beamwork,'vine arbors, curved parapet walls, and covered • walkways or arcades. 0.2- All applications for new development within the study area shall include a written statement of architectural intent indicating how the project, is sensitive to the heritage of Rancho Cucamonga. Pedestrian Orientation 0.3 Site planning, including 'building orientation and parking lot configuration, shall enhance pedestrian Connections on- and off-site, a continuous pedestrian system `s required in all new projects w .4 ildings, park:�g connections between bu Ordinance Na, Fage it AOL areas, street adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. Amenities shall be provided such as;.lazac, shaded seating alcoves, expanded walkways%'th s4-face treatment, texturtzed pavement across drive aisles, raised planters, trash receptacles, and drinking fountains. In addition, outdoor eating areas are encouraged. Combined Access 0.4 Through the master planning process, driveways onto Foothili Boulevard shall be coordinated for cansisceney with existing City access policies {i.e., 300' driveway separation) to the' .Atent Practical, regardless of parcel width. Public Transit 0.5 Public transit facilit;es shall be considered within all master plans. Convenient pedestrian access shall b- provided from designated transit, facilities, such as bus 'stops. Streetscape Design 0.6 Streetscape design elements for all new projects shall he coordinated for Consistency with the guidelines for Foothill Boulevard in effect at th, time of development, including intensified landscaping with specimen size trees, berming, and ;,eandering sidewalks, In addition, street furniture and alluvial rockscape and I monument signs may be required where appropriate. Landscaping D.7 Landscaping shall be designed to create visual interest and variety to the streetscape, enhance building architecture, buffer views of automobiles, screen utilities and service areas, and distinguish pedestrian spaces from vehicular areas. E. Non-Conforming lots/Structures: The purpose of this section is to allow-continuance of ,existing uses and buildings under current,conditions, and promote consistency of design and te,:hnioal standards throughout the study area at the time of development, conversion, or redesign. Master Planning E.T New development and/or conversion of existing residential buildings to a new use is permitted on non-conforming lots, provided such development is an Ordinance No. 274 - Page 12 Ask Im W.egral part of a Master Plan development consistent with the Interim Policies for the Foothill Boulevard Corrido, and Development Code standards. The boundaries of such a Master Plan shall.be determined by the City Planner per policy C.2 above, and t should provide for consolidation of substandard par els. Landscaping E.2 -Regardless of parcel depth, all new development shall provide a minimum 45, building setback and ave,zge streetscape landscaping (measured from the ultimate curb face location) on Foothill Boulevard. E.3 Streetscape landscaping and irrigation shall be required to the extent practical in conjunction with substantial reconstruction, renovation or exterior remodeling of existing structures along Foothill Boulevard involving the issuance of a building permit. I 0 -19 Ordinance \o. ^- Page' _:. Aevo IDen Code Inted, Use$citulatiorts- 1t00 2.loutrd eve idor 8tuft Area Uses listed in this Table shall be allowable in one or more of the commercial districts as indicated In the columns beneath each commercial district. Where indicated with the letter"Pn,the use shall be a aarmitted use in th-t district Where indicated with the letter "C",the use shall be a conditional use subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. in the event:there is difficulty in categorizing s given use in one of the districts,the procedure outlined in Section 17.02.040 shall be followed. 11MRIN USE REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCLAU0pFICE DISTRICTS USE OP NC GC A. Offices and Related Uses r 1. Administrative and executive offices. P p P 2. Artist and photographic studios, net P p p including the sale of equipment or supplies. 3. Clerical and professional offices. p p P 4. Financial services and institutions. p p P 5. Medical, dental and related health P P p services (non-animal related) including laboratories and clinics; only the sale of articles clearly incidental to the services provided shall be permitted. 6. Prescription pharmacies, (also when P p P located within a'buiiding containing the offices of 5 or more medical practitioners) P P Q T. Public buildings (library,city and county buildings, special districts and post office). 8. Public utility service offices. P p P 9. Public safety facility (police, fire, C C C ambulance and paramedics). 0 :20 Ordinance No. 274 - - Page 14 INTERIM USE REGULATIONS USE pP NC GC 10. Related commercial uses (blueprinting, P P P stationary, quick copy, etc.) when incidental to an offlc� building or complex. B. General Commercial Uses' 1. Antique shops - P P 2. Adult business (see special requirements - - C per Fiction 17.10.030) 3. Animal Care Facility (animal hospital, veterinarian,_ commercial kennel, grooming). a. Excluding extericr kennel,pens,or C P P runs. b. Including exterior kennel,pens, or - - -* runs. 4. Apparel stores. P P �i 6. Art, music_and photographic studios and C P P supply stores. 6. Appliance stores and repair. - C P 7. Arcades (see special requirements per - C C Section 17.10.030 F.) 8. Athle<(c and Health Club, gyms and P P P weight reducing clinics. 9. Automotive services (including motorcycles,boats,trailer and camper) a. sales(may have repairs as ancilary, C - C use) b. rentals - _ C c. repairs(major engine work,muffler _ _ C shops, painting, body work and upholstery) d. Coin-op washing C C C e. Automatic washing C C C * Denotes change from Table 17.10.030 of the Development Code Q-2� Ordinance No. ?age 13 INTERIM 11SE RECULAT USE Oe NC CC (fl Serv:;e or gasoline dispensing C C P stations (including minor repair such as tune-ups,brakes,batteries, tires,mufflers) (g2 Parts and supplies - P P 10. Bakeries(retail only). - P P 11. Barber and beauty shops. P P P 12. Bicycle shops. - P P 13. Blueprint and photocopy services P P P 14. Boat and camper sales and services. - _ C 15. Book, gift and s' tionary stores (other C P P than adult related material). 16. Candy stores and confectionaries. _ P P 17. Catering establishments. 18. Clea,iing and pressing establishments. C P i 19. Carpenter shop or cabinet shop. 20. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge, tavern) including related entertainment. (a) Operated independent of a C C restaurant (b) accessory to a restaurant C C C 21. Commercial recreation facilities. (a) Indoor uses such as bowling, C C P theaters,billards, (b) Outdoor uses such as golf, tennis, C C C basketball, baseball, trampolines, etc. 22. Contractor yards (screening of outdoor - Storage required). 23. Dairy product stores._. _ P P Q-22 Ord=nance No. 274 Pag4-»6 A. Ie ERIN USE NEGUl.4TIC USE OP NC GC 24. Department stores. _ _ P 25. Drive-in businesses,including theaters. - C C (other than fast food restaurants) 1 26. Drug stores ano pharmacies. C+ P, p t 27. Equipment rental yards. 28. Flist-food restaurants. C C P 29. 'reed/Tack stores C P 30. Florist shops. P P p 31. Food stores and supermarkets. p p 32. Furniture stores,repair and upholstery. P p 33. Gener!t1 retail stores. - P p 34. Hardware stores. - P P 35. He m improvement centers. Aft (a) Material stored and sold within - P p enclosed buildings (b) Outdoor storage of material such as - C lumber,do building materials 36. Hotels and Motels. C - P 37. Ice Machines(outdoor). - -` 38. Janitoralservices and supplies. C P P 39. Jewelry stores. P 40. Laundry-self-service. - p 41. Liquor stores. - p P 42. Kiosks for key shops, film drops, etc.in - C C parking lots. 43. Locksmith shop. ' - P P 44. Mitii-storage for public use (no outdoor - _. storage). Ordinance So. 274 - Page 17 Alkk MTER14 USE BEGUCATiC USE OP NC GC 45. Mortuaries C r 46. Motorcycle sales and service. - - C 47. Newspaper and magazine store:-, printing C P oral puolishing. 48. Nurseries and garden supply stores; - )„. C Provided, in the NC district, all equipment,supplies and material are kept within an enclosed area. 49. Office and business machine stores. C P P 5G. Parking facU;:!.s(commercial)where fees C P are charged. 51. Political or philanthropic headquarters. C C P 52. Petshop. - P P 53. Plumbing shop and supplies. 54. Photocopy P P 55. Printing shops. _ P 56. P.estaurants(other than fast food). (a) With entertainment and/or serving C C P or alcoholic beverages (b) Incidental serving of beer ane wine P p P - but without a cocktail lounge,bar, entertainment or dancing 57. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. 58. Shoe stores,sales and repair. _ p Ff 59. Second-hand stores and pawn shops. - C 60. Shcp;.ing Center subject to provisions in - C C Section 17.10.03'o•F.S. 61. Spiritu'Aist readings or astrology _ _ forecasting. C 62. Sporting goods stores. - P P 63. Stamp and coin shops. - P P Ordinance yo; 274 Page 16 INTERIM USF.REGULRTIC USE OP HC GC 64.: Swimming pool supplies. _ P P ES. Tailor. _ P P i 66. Taxidermists. - C P ` 67. Television,radio sal.+.^,and service. _ P P 63. Tire sales and service. _ C 69. Toy stores. P P 70. Towing service(without vehicular storage)• - C 71. Travel agencies. P P P 72: Transportation facilities (train and bus, C C C taxi depots). 73. Truck and trailer rental,sales and service. - - C 74. Variety stores P P D. Sublic and semi-public uses I. Day Care Facilities C C C 2. Convalescent facilities and hospitals. C - C 3. Private and paoile clubs and lodges, C C C including YMCA,YWCA and similar youth group uses. A. Educational institutions,parochial,private C C C (including colleges and universities). S. Libraries&museu 4s,pubiic or private. C C C 6. Parks and recreation facilities, public or C C, C private. 7. Public utility installations. C C C 8. Vocational or business trade schools., C C C 9. Churches,convents,monasteries and other C C reliessous institution.. w ,Ii c%finance No. M 'age 19 iNTEM.4 OSE 4EeuLA USE OP He CC A. Accessory Uses 1. Acessory structures end uses customarily p p incidental to a permitted use and P contained an the same site. 2. Accessary structures and uses customarily C C incid�-tal to a conditional use and C contain;d an the sane site, y, Caretakers residence C C p 4. Amusement Devices, per Section p p 17.10.0$O�F. E. Temacrary Uses I. temporary uses as prescribed in Section p p P IT44.070 and subject to those provisions. i 2. Temoorary office modules, subject to C C C provisions in Section l i page 20 REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN:FOLLOWING ADOPTION .. OF ORDINANCE NO. 274 P.�rsuant to the requirements of Califoraia Government Cods Section 55858Cd), and at the expressed direction of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. the folluwiag constitute$ a written: report o the City Council concerning those measures taken to allcviate the condition which led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 274. BAcrG_ROOMO 1. On October 2. 1985s the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted 4te ordinance No. 274 entitled: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Adopting an Tnterir Zoning Ordinance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858(b) Pertaining to the Establishment of Interim Development. Standards for the foothill Corridor." " Said Ordinacce No. 274 adopted interim stoning regulations, effective for no longer than forty-five (45) days, prohibiting any application for development ,;thin the Foothill Bculevard Corridor Study except as consistent with the i:.teria zoning policies adopted by said Ordinance No. 274 for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study area. Pursuant to the requirements of said !iection 65558, Ordioan=e No. 274 was adopted by the City Council upon its fiaditj that. additional appr.-.,als of development applications within the study area, other than pursuant to the intaria policies. would rer.lt in an immediate threat to public hcatb, o_fety or welfare. 2. Pursuant to California Government Coua Section 65858(d), ten(10) days prior to the expiration of ray interim ordinance. or any extension thereof' adopted pursuant to the term) cf raid section, the City Council shall issue a �,Yitten report describing the %,2asurea taken to alleviate the condition which lad to the adoption of such interim zoning ordinance. 3. On October 16. 1985, the regulav meeting of the City Council of the City o' Rancho Cucamonga, ..a lity Council was presented a written staff repast concerning the measurca taken relativo to the Foothill Corridor Area folltving the adoption of said Ordinance No. 274. At said meeting of October 16, ^985, the 4ity Council, by minute action, authorized and directed the f` Community Devclo� int Director to prepare, pursuant to the requirements of said i4 Gover•aneat Code Section 65858(d), a written report concerning the actions taken following. and relative to, the,adoption of Ordinance No, 274. Moreover, at raid meeting of October 16, 1985, the "ity Council directed the City Clerk to file and redain such vrlt�a' ^apoL^ along with Ordinance No, 274, ACTtGNS S M Following the adopton of Ordinance No. 274, the following actions F. have been taken relative to the interim zoning regulations pertaining to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study Area-, 1. At the 1pres■ request and direction of the City Council, the planning.Daparteent of the Cityof Rancho Cucamonga has been continuing in its efforts to conduct and complete the"Foothill Corridor Study" to develop a plan to result in a unified at. balaaced specific plan of development for that port_oa of the City of Rancho Cucamonga encompassed within the. study. The Foothill Corridor Study is an ongoing process which viil eventually result to the establishment of permanent and comprehensive zoning policies For the zcn;c; area. Dated., October 16, 1985. iAjL&- Jack Lam, Community Developcant Director c_ — CITY 4F RANCHO CUCtIaVIONGA c ICA STAFF REPORT s O � p 15:? DATE: November 13, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner dY: John Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 85-03 COLE/SCHAEF-cR AMMILANCE SE5,V!CE I. :.;CKGROUND: Mr. Michael Leight, attorney for Cole/Schaef°ir Ambulance Company, has requested on their behalf, a Use Determination whether a:, am�,ulance service can be considered a "medic;,'/health c, _;a service", as defined by the Indi:strial Spec'.ric Plan (ISP). Cosh/Schaefer Ambulance Service is located in the Rancho Cucamonga Busness nark which is designated as Indu;trial Fork (Subarea 7). AM 11. ANALYSIS: The ISP defines medical/healt3,. care service in terms of "treatment" of individuals by professionals such as doctors and dentists. In addition: is provides for medical testing and analysis, and lists such uses as medical and family planning clinics and health care facilities including hospitals, as follows. Medical/Health Care Services: Activities typically include, but are not limited to therapuetic, preventative, or correctional personal treatment by physicians, dentists, and other practitioners, as well as the provision of medical tasting and analysis services. Health care uses typically include those r-formed by: Medical Clinics - Family Planring Clinics In-Patient Health Care Facilities, including hospitals. Subarea 7, is classified as industrial "arks and is in ended for light industrial uses, office and administration facilities, research and ddvelopnient, limited warehousing, as well as support businesses and commercial service uses. Attaci.ad is a list of the permitted and condit';onally permitted uses- within Subarea 7, ,(Exhibit "8"). � ITEM R PLANNING COMPISSION STAFF REPORT November 13' 1985 Use Determination 85-03 Cole"Schaefer Page 2 An ambulance service as classified by the 1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual is a local passenger transportation (4119) Recently, the Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 84-24 for Canyon Medical Ambulance Service under the definition of "Public Safety and Utility Service`. Typically an ambulance ser,!ice consists of a dispatch office with a parking area for ambulances. Because most ambulance services run '.4 + hour shifts the dispatch office ust+ally includes sleeping quarters and kitchen facilities. The sleeping and kitchen facilities have similar features to a caretaker's quarters which requires a Conditional use Permit in all s0areas. An ambulance service is closely related to uses permitted under the medical/health care designation, such as hospitals and clinics, and would be compatible with most light industrial or office uses. An ambulance service also has similar characteristics to that of a police or fire station. The Industrial Specific Plan is being revised by Staff to prnvide a full definition of Public Safety & Utility Service (see - '.-i)it Adak "C") ihich is recommended to include ambulance services. III. FACTS FOR FINDING: Tha following findings are requir, ,r a Use Determination. 1. The use in question is of a similar intensity to other permitted or conditionally permited uses. in the same district. 2. The use in quesl.-*sn ijeets the purpose and i intent of the district n which it is proposed. 3. The use ire ues`cion meets and conforms to tht applicah,e goals and objectives of the General Plan. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission rEview all input and -elements of this project to make a Use Determinatior. If the Planning Commission determines th'it thi's use is consistp-1 W4th tho-a uses de:ined as Medical & health Cade Faci1it` . ,on of the attached Resolution and an, of the `cific Plan would be appropriate. If, however, the Ca,-- amines this use to be consister.t with those uses to by 1'ic Safety & Utility Services, then the applicant shoa.j irected to submit a format application for a Conditirmal Use eermit. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 13, 1.985 Use D^termination 85-03 - Cole Schaefer Page Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:JRM:cv Attachments: Lxhib4 "A" - Locatiw Map Exhibit "B Subzr•ea 7 Reg. Exhibit "C" DefinItion of Public Safety & Utility Services Resolution of Approval I i , > i V ' 4 b w �6 � p 1 SUBAREA 7 General. Plan Designation Industrial Park Primary Function Subarea 7 occupies an area directly south of Foothill Boulevard which represents an important land use edge between the. City's industrial Area and community oriented non-industrial area and is a gateway to :he City. There are :few Existing uses in Subare 7. A major industrial, office, and .com- mercial revelopment on approximately 300 acres is currently undergoing phased construction. Within th;s area is a planned Civic Center which will in- clude future San Bernardino County and City offices. Permitted Uses Custom Manufacturing Light Manufacturing Light Wholesale, Storage, Distribution Administrative and Office Building Maintenance Services Business Supply Retail Sales and Services Business Support Services Communication Services Eating and Drinking Establishments' Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services Hotel/Motel Medical/Health Care Sc v zes Professional Services Administrative Civic Services Conditional Uses Automoti-e Rental Automotive/Light Truck Repair-M'inor Automotive Sales Automotive Service Station Bnild'rng Supplies and Sales Convenience Sales and Services Entertainment Fast Food Food'and Beverage Sales Perscnai Services Recreation Facilities Cultural Public Assembly Public Safety and Utility Services Religious Assembly it k ciTY or RANCHO CuAMONGA 1TEi�I TITLE:�S �'t bA�?•k'�.. -7 !t?,e-,-S . PLANNING DIVISI V EXHIBIT SCALE_ Adft Public Safety and Utilit �y Services: Activities typically include,. but are not limited to, the maintenance and operation of the followiFFq installations. Communications equipment installations and exchanges, except telephone exchange and switching facilties. Electrical substations; Gas substations; - Ambulance services- - Police stations and fire stations- - Post offices l., but excluding major mail- ing centers; and, - Publicly operated off-street parting Tots and garages available to the general public either without charge or on a fee basis, Re?igious Assembly; Activities typically include, but are not limited to those erformed at church p es temple-s,synagogues asd other places of worship CITY%"-JNF RAI�TCHO CLTCAMOJNGA TITLE�• '' PLANNING DIVISION �`�-� EXHIBIT:—[ SCALE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPR1,1uINC USE DETERMINATION NO. 85-03 THAT WHETHER AN AMBULANCE SERVICE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A MEDICAL/PSALTH CARE SERVICE AS DEFINED BY; THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, on the 9th day of October,1985, an application was filed by Michael Leight for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a hearing tc consider the above-described project.. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission' resolved as SECTION 1: The Rancho wucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: L The use iii, question is of a similar intensity to ether permitted or cinditionally permitted uses in t,ie same district. P. The use in question meets the Purpose and intent of she district in which it is proposed. 3. The use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. , APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Rulle-, Depury Secretary r• PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION November 13, 1985-` Use Determination 85-03 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the_13th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS- ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I `I 'A\ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIITONGA STAFF REPORT �MQti� . f) O O Z U �> DATE: . . is�:.—� November 13, 1985 TO: Chairmar'and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullar, City Planner BY: John.R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION 85-18 MUMA'W A proposal to build a 8 foot block and fence wall along rear property line at 9869 Candlewood Street. I. BACKGROUND: The intent of a Minor Exception is to allow a wall to be increae-.d a maximum of two (2) feet, where the topography or sloping sites or a difference in grade between ad;iaining sites warrants such increase in height to maintain a level of privacy, or to maintain effectiveness of screening, as generally provided by such fence, wail, hedge or screening in similar circumstances. ak On October 4, 1985, the Planning Division approved "':nor Exception 85-18, to allow tine construction of a 619" wall above the average grace (see Exhibit "C"). The approval was based on the elimination of a potential fire hazard area created by the two fences (see Exhibit "B"). The purpose of the new wall is to allow the applicant more use- of his rear yard area. T,e appellant, Sylvia Martinez Minet, lives directly south of Mr. Mumaw. Her concerns are three fold; 1) she feels the applicant has misrepresented the type of wall being constructed; 2) the retaining wall will cause erosion; and 3) Mr. Mumaw bought the house' in its present condition rand it's his responsibility to clear the growth to prevent any hazard to fire. II. ANC'.YSIS: Mr. Mumaw has proposed a construction of a 2-1/2 foot blocs retaining wall with a 5-1/2 foot block post and wood fence atop (see Exhibit "C"). Construction of the wall will require a building permit. Therefore, a City building inspector will make the required inspection, thus insuring the wall will be built as approved. Construction of a retaining wall will not cau�;a any additional erosion and under normal Circumstances lessens it. When approving this Minor Exception, staff felt the relocating of the fence would allow Mr. Mumaw better use of his yard without being a detriment to surrounding property owners. The relocation of the fence will remove the "dead" space, which cart be a safety mft 14W ' ITEM S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT_ r; ME 85-18 - MUMA41 1= ROVe06nr• 13, 1985 Rage 2 Mh problem or fire hazard, without ruining the view of the mountains. The City has approves many similar Minor Exceptions including trno in the same block on Candlewood. Ili. FINDINGS: The approval of Minor Exception 85-le is supported by Ue following facts: I. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the General Plan and intent of the Deve'opment Code and prevented full utilization of the property. 2. That the .trade differential presents an exceptional circumstance or condition applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 3. That strict or literal interpretation ,end enforcement ofAIM the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same district that is the full utilization and privacy of the property. 4. That the granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Cormnission review and consider all—imput and elements of this project. If the Commission concurs with the facts for finding, then the approval of should be upheld and the appeal denied. PP Minor Exception Respectfully submitted, � I Brad Buller City Planner 33:JM:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site.Plan Exhibit "C" - Wail Cross Section Exhibit 9" Photographs L et'ter of A e o Appeal, Datd October 8' 1985 y �'SEuN� GM�1fJG+�JC:7A r G1.1 t12L-1� �L 35 ` tt�, 2 � t i 22 21• � 8 7a 1 CA - --i --- - TR---S c-•-"cz—�---- agar• accr y - G=.JTv {, 44/r Js' 9 3J' 516I.f iIl� �`TGa tjf�0 S�POY .. 7' ice..: `y-�r.ar xxsr'. 7yia fiia ram.B; 75 -c.�n�s9 - s us, 36 36 37 38 se' 39 3s 4qs b 41 4� q3 O ff 44 fl7 l4:.77 + l33.68. C 33 o `p Iry t RES. Cf �" b C � 28 `J. "'cod.•,, � v°` � �E�7 �'� '46,,,� O � .. G 44 10 3sc✓J 0.a F, i .r• Pcr.Lot • �is7 s6 n'� Q �' fss oo f3 �; 2T,arc:as NORTH CITY OF - TENN-4: RANG-HQ CUCAMONGA TITLE: arro>,t MAP PLANNING DIVOON EXHIBM. r� SCALE: �tBE>q... G�ktJs7�W�p c Ph i by �LL i �II . i r �J NUR°T'H CITY OF, ITEM. RAN CUCAMU\TGA TITLE:I I E: sl -- PLANNING,DIVISIQN EXHIBIT: 8 SCALE h 864 cAnlDt.�,ti'��oD � Mt�M,'4t.J �rflErt t�cu'rnttr �E . r V 7605 L I t i C NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMO\'GA rrrll: PLANNING DIVISICXN EXHIVIT- SCALE- (' T .... 12 -------------- PROM ice:'««.....:fit. •���\� III 1 r = �- - -M- .. Y-. � , In'ORTH CITE' Or, ITG�t: Fs.'�NCHO CUCANIONGA TI'a'LE PL.ANNIRU MOON E�HI[3rr: - SCALE- iR—40 l 07 I o °-$5 �`' � i t d c Jy.�tr"�,3'k^> ) T,r�"fv'r l� 4i'�1 Sj «9• �� �k !f` ,,� R el�T/'s`J� tt,y�+�y`�+ aG.`�rS�Y"•?�x4t��l. � )Sw�� � x � d •,�,'M MUIR ago I-Mm 4�, 1 �-•ram«- . u fx R n� t � r � a s',y '�q� � v •. �+NI� *� ��f*� x'•fir, �a 'c J. � Y a� �t� � �,�..�� �. :':p t f .r •c 5f. t*.+1; M wZ ce f7 i",f r}11ct 1. �a,�r 3'r����• �S�4 n e-4 �'. ����� Sy" X•2ad �� "�.�'"r •�)!'7 ram{ � ��. �r }t i � 1"�. `f.``'^�� �y� ,'A ,S�ja%�",tjti �•�°F ..h• �<<; '�' 1,t•,'1� 1 ��f 9 S .��i s t J,c•.i"�lr��,k1 ,iiJa'�; .,C•tF4�'x�, �i{a{`i'a fop�t �r� � t, H: �. .Y tS: 8 �. �� �• 1n. �� 1. w r m i y C Y.�1. v'"�rofl3t4 t . � �c"�7' 3s TN•s� �' Iilt MIN t t m •ajJtt :. 'r i h r October 8, 1985 Dear Mr. Coleman, This is my appeal as to the wall, 'Ir. Gary 5Aumaw, of 9869 Candlevnod, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730, wants to put up. I do not want said wall to go up. For one thing Mr. Mumaw misrepresented to what kind of wall was going up. {+hats•�o say he has not misrepresented what kind of wall will go up. He said he was going to put up a wall just like his neighbor on the west side of him,, yet the drawings you Junior Planner stowed me were canpletely different. Second, all the water held back-by the retainer wall all drains onto my yard which will cause erosion and exposure of footing. Causing an unsitely site on my side. Third, and very important, property was bought knowing space was between property line. Because of Mr.. Muniaw disinclination of exertion of weeds my family has to lose the view of the mountains. The fire hazard was created by Mr. Mumaw inability to plant on said area. Let it be known, Mr. Coleman,ttiat if' sa.id wall goes up, it goes up without my concent, Sylvia Minet, 7605 Pasito," ",mncho Cucamonga, 91730. And that I do not want any part of said wall on my property. And if any one should ge": hurt or any property damage occur, that the liability will lie on your shoul(lers and that of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Mumaw. Copy sent to by you is being kept for my records as to your aecEV.ance and liability for said wall. Misrepresenting of wall, eroison, and your liability are added to my appeal from my first appeal. Just all this states the same thing, no to havL,tig said wall go up. S' cerely, A �PaM nez.Minet Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 cc Gilbert Gutierrez, Attorney O cr pOP q Q� NN,NQ CIJ e OIVi310�04CA ocr1 ,w��lksyI-01q, j PIN 1 September 11 1985 Dever Ms Meyer In reply to your letter of September 9. 1985? regprdinR the minor evicentd ion of Mr Gary Mumpw Pt 9869-CpndteWood, I wish to pxorere-mv exraotion to having such a tall: writ going up next to my eronerty._ (1) His prooerty is Above my property; if spiA wp11 warp to ,9 in the c?otl' would make us feel on if we were in p oenpl institutio4'. , (7) We still cpn see the mountains out of our ncrth windows, if Ppid wptl were to go up thin would impede.my Fpmily'r view. (3) There has not been a surveyor out to :ascertain what ir his land'and my property. Or even to say how close itaid wpil will come to the property line. (4) The bsnk between our two properties in aoo,:yximsately-3 feet 8 inches vertical: Subseeuently an 8 foot wall would leave him with p fence on his ' side 4 feet 4 inches, Hence, loss of_orivacy having a wall that anyone could look over, (5) We have many family gatherings and our backyard and ft's b-:osty is important to us. (6) What kind of wall? 23s retpiner wall and 5�; fence doesn't say much- Materiel? Footing? On property line? If not how far back? Etc etc???? Can look into our backyard, No ascertaining of pronerty line. Big lops, of privacy, Material-of. wait. Obetrution of view of mountains, The bottom line is T.;DON'T want such a wall. to go up next to my nrooerty. Sincezely. 7605 Ppcito Rancho Gucpmongp California. :19710 a. y, via Martinez Minet [ Alta Loma School District. } 3 cc One sent to Gilbert Gutierrez, Attorney. 151 W Bonita Ave,1 San Dimsms , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GvCAAMO, STAFF REPORT - O ' O Z v > DATE: November 13, 1985 1977 TO: Ch,:',3.�an and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE 'PERMIT 83-13 - LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE - A two-year review of the Moose Lodge meeting hall in an existing 1550 square foot industrial unit in the General Industrial Area (Subarea 4), located at 9375 Archibald Avenue APN 210-071-48 I. BACKGROUND: On October 9, 1985, the Planning Commission granted the Moose Lodge organization thirty (30) days to show good intent in meeting the requirements of the Foothill Fire district. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: According to Susan Wolff of the Foothill Fire District, the Moose Lodge representatives have contacted her and indicated that they are 'planning to reduce the occupancy load to 49 persons or less. Due to this reduction in the i occupant load, the Fire Code requiremeM,.s were reduced to the following: posting exit signs, provide fire extinguishers, change front door swing direction, and provide electrical instillation. As of November 5, 1985, the fire District has yet . to be called for an approval inspection. Staff expects a status report on the Moose Lodge facility from the Fire District after the completion of this written report and before this November 13, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, staff will present the above information and any additional .information discovered at this Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 1985. y` III. RECOMMENDATION: The. Planning Commission should 'determine if additional time is needed to complete the Foothill Fire District's requirements, based on showing, Significant progress, or consider revocation. ITEM T PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 83-13 - LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE November 13, 1985 Page 2 Res ectfu11 submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DP:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit 118° - Site Plan October 9, 1985 Staff Report . . .............. -Cox, 6 Pit 3 `i• 03 K ,KCJ Al.e itlac 21 . MOSACNA 23 +u.c. e, a. I t Poct XVACWL 'i -� ,f .q ACwt; 1. ® C M Ae V7 me f wr vw•ea.to ata I g • S70ACS �9 PoeZ. ¢ Q+soae� NORTH CITY OF ITEIM RANCHO CUcA OI GA TITa _ IC I N 1T a P PLANNI\G DIVLSIOQ`+1 EXHIBIT. '� SCALEe ►rrs _ 800 , mo --------- 600Tf I I. 1. JLLWI I Ii j • .. K AR �. NORTH CITY OF ITEM: UQ S3_ _ RANCHO CLTCANIC� 'GA r TITLE: S PLANNING DIVISICkN EXHIBIT.-- _SCALD.U—r-�_,' -- CI'TY OF RANCHO CUCACONGA 11canr0 , STAFF REPORT �`,oc t2-7. ci o Z. UL > I DATE: October 9 1985 1977 i TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT '83-13 - LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE - A two-year review of the Moose Lodge meeting hall in an existing 1,550 square foot, industrial unit in the General Industrial area (Subarea 4). located at 9375 Archibald Avenue - APN 210--071-48. I. BACKGROUND: On September 14, 1983, the' Planning Commissior approved Conditional Use Permit 83-13, with a 24 month review period. The Planning Commission required that the use be monitored for 24 months to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the Conditions of Approval and applicable City codes. II. ANALYSIS A. General: The Moose Lodge membership has increased from 60 to 90-100 persGas however, the normal attendance at any one function is approximately 35 to 40 people, according to Mr. j Sonny Schilling (Moose Lodge representative). Most of the Lodge's activities take place primarily on weekends, with an occasional meeting during a week day evening. Upon sneaking.. with the surrounding business owners, it was discovered that the..operation of the Moose Lodge Lnd its activities has not caused any conflicts. The original Conditions of Approval 'or CUP 83-13, require j ...The compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the State Fire Marshall's regulations. According to Susan Wolfe of the i Foothill Fire District following the fire Districts requirements have yet to be met: 1) fire extinguisher installation, 2) exit signs, 3) illuminate exit ways ant other minor items (see attached Foothill Fire District pie., check report). i �— S PLANNING COMMISSION SIC REPORT CUP 83-13 October 9, 1985 Page 2 III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ` require full compliance of the foothill Fire District's requirements within 90 days. If not completed, the CUP will be brought back for consideration of revocation. Respectfully ubmitted, Jack Lam, AICP Community Development Department JL:DP:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit, O B Site Plan Foothi`il Fire District Plan Check Report September 14, 1983 Stuff Report Resolution of Approval (83-11) and Minutes CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�ICA STAFF REPORT E Z > 1977 DATE: November 13, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ORDINANCE TO ADD A SECTION TO THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE PROCESSING OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations for the processing of vesting tentative maps which are required by State law to be in effect by January 1, 1986. in order to have the ordinance in effect by the January 1, 1986 deadline, it was necessary to submit the ordinance to the City Council on November 6, for the first reading, November 20 for the second reading, therefore providing the required 30 day period prior to iv effective date. Briefly, a vesting tentative map gives a subdivider the right to develop a residential subdivision in accordance with the City regulations in effect at the time that the vesting tentative map was approved and no new or changed requirements can be imposed by the City during the approval period. In addition, that same right extends for one year after recordation of the final map. The ordinance essential',, restates the required State law, Where the City was given options, the - ._c restrictive option was chosen. A listing of those options referenced t„ the ordinance section number is as follows: 16.49.060 (b) All descretionary items shall be filed with the vesting tentative mapversus at a later date as allowed by the State law. 16.49.080 The vesting tentative map initial approval shall expire in two years, versus the three year options allowed by State law. 16.49.090 (d) (1) An approval period of 12 months versus the 24 months allowed was chosen. ITEM U PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 13, 1985 Page 2. In addition to the ordinance, attached for your reference . s a list of common questions and related answers developed ')y the League of C4jifornia Cities.. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approves the ordinance as, is by minute action in order to meet the January 1, 1986 deadline. If any substantive changes are required, they should be made by a revised ordinance. Respectfully submitted, &vly.? ,j SRH:de Attachments i 1 a• ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING CHAPTER 49 TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, TITLE 16 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 49, to be read, in words and figures, as follows: "Chapter 16-.49 "VESTING TINTATIVE MAPS "Sections: 16.49.010 Citation and authority. 16.49.020 Purpose and intent. 16.49.030 Application of, chapter. 16.49.040 Definitions. 16.49.050 Consistency with city regulations. 16.49.060 Filing and processing. 16.49.070 Fees. 16.49.080 Expiration. 16.49.090 Rights granted on approval of map. 16.49.100 Inconsistency with Zoning - Conditional approval. 16.49.110 Applications inconsistent with current policies. "16.49.010. Citation and authority. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 66498.1) of the California Government Code (herein- after referred to as the Vesting Tentative Map Statute), and may be cited. as the 'vesting tentative map ordinance. ' 1116.49.020. Purpose and intent. It is the purpose of this. chapter to establish procedures necessary for the implementation of the Vesting Tentative Map Statute. Except as otherwise set forth in the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this subdivision ordinance shall apply to t pp y he vesting tentative map ordinance. I -1- Ordinance No. Page 2 "16.49.030. Application of chapter. " ai This chapter shall apply only to residential develop- ments. Whenever a prevision of the Subdivision Map Act, as implemented and supplemented by the subdivision ordinance, requires the filing of a tentative map or tentative parcel map fo> a residential development, a vesting tentative map may instead be filed in accordance with the provisions herein. "(b) If a subdivider does not seek the rights correrred by this chapter, the otherwise applicable provisions of the suhdavision ordinance shall apply. '16.49.040. Definitions. istai A Ivesting tentative map' -hall mean a 'tentative map' for a residential subdivision, as defined in the subdivision ordinance, and which i.�i thereafter processed in accordancewith the Provisions of this chapter. "(b) Except as specifically set forth in this chapterall definitions in the subdivision ordinance will be applicable uerein. 1116.49.050. Consistency with city re ulations- No land shall be subdivided and developed pursuant to a vesting tentative map for any purpose which is inconsistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan or community plan and which is not permitted by the development .ode or other applicable Provision of this code. "16.49.060. Filing and EZ2cessiiE. A vesting tentative map shall be filed in the same form and have the same contents, accompanying data and reports and shall be processed in the same manner as set forth in the subdivision ordinance for a tentative map except as hereinafter P_oOvidedd ."*(a) At the time a vesting tentative map is filed it shall ,lave printed conspicuously on its face the words 'vesting tentative map.' "(b) Simultaneous with, or prior to, the time a vesting tentative map is filed, a subdivider shall supply completed JApplications for all discretionar,l use entitlements necessary for the project, including, but not limited to, use permits, development/design review, amendments to the general plan or any applicable specific plan or community plan, zone changes, -2- U Ah Ordinance No. Page 3 amendments to the development code, etc. , together with all complete information necessary to process, as applicable, a negative declaration or draft environemntal impact report pursuant to the terms of the California Environr,.ental Quality Act. "(c) P subdivider may submit a complete application for a building permit at the time of filing as provided is this section; however, under no circumstances shall such permit, if issued, grant vesting rights as s ocified in this chapter. "1,i.49.070. Zees. Upon filing a vesting tentative map, the subdivider shall pay the fees rear.-ired by that resolution of the city council for the filing and procassing of a tentative map. "16.49.080. Expiration. Phe approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map shall expire two (2) years from the date of its auoption by resolution. Extentions of a vesting tentative map shall be subject to those procedures in the subdivision ordinance applicable to the .extention of tentative AdrA maps. "16.49.090. Rights granted on approval of map. " (a) The approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map shall confer a vested right to process a final map and proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards described in Government Code Section 66474.2. "However, if Section 66474.2 of the Government Code is repealed, the approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map shall confer a vested right to process a final map and proceed with development in substantial compliance with the land useordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved. "(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) , a per;r. , approval, extension, or entitlement may be made conditional G_ denied if any of the following are determined; "(1) A failure to do so would place the residents oL a subdivision or the immediate community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. s ` -3- E Ordinance No. Page 4 "(2) The condition or denial is required, in order to comply with state or,federal law. "(c) The right- referred to in this section shall accrue only if, and at the time, a final map is approved for the project. Such rights referred to herein shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in Section 16.49.080. "(d) If the final mar 's approved, these rights shall. remain, vested for the following periods of time: "(1) An initial time period of twelve (12) months. Where several final map are recorded on various phases of' a project covered by a single vesting tentative neap, this initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. Auk "(2) The initial time period set forth in (d) (1) shall be automatically extended by any time used for processing a complete application for a grading permit or for design or architectural nevi-ew, if such processing exceeds 30 days, from the date a complete application is filed. "(3) A subdivider may apply to the City council for a one-year extension at any time before the initial time period set forth in (d) (lr expires. "(4) If the subdivider submits a cc-iplete applica- tion for a building permit during the periods of time specified subsections (d) (l)-(3), above, the rights referred to herein shall continue until the expiration of that permit, or any extension of +hat permit. "16.49.100. Inconsistency with Zoning —Conditional approval. ''(a) Whenever a subdivider files a vesting ten_ative map for a subdivision whose intended development is inconsistent with the development code in existence at that time, that inconsistency shall be noted on the map. The City shall deny such a vesting tentative mapor approve it conditioned on the subdivider, or his or her desig nee, obtaining the necessary. -4- U_ I Ordinance No. Page 5 change in the development node to eliminate the inconsistency. If the change in the development code is obtained, the approved or conditionally approved vesting tentative map shall notwithstanding Section 16.49.090(a) , confer the vested right to process a final map and proceed -with the development in sub- stantial compliance with the change in the development code and the asap, as approved. "(b) The rights conferred by this section shall be for the time periods set forth in Sections 6.49.090(d). "16.49.110. Applications inconsistent with current Polioies. Notwitnstanding any provision o: this chapter, a prDperty owner or his or her designee may seek approvals or Pei mits for development which depart from the ordinances, policies, and standards described in Cactions. 16.49.090(a) and 16.49.100 and local agFoncies-may grant these approvals or issue. these permits to the extent that the departures are authorized under applicable law. SECTION 2: The provisions of Chapter 49 of Title 16 shall become operative a:. of January 1, 1986. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of t hi.s ordinance shall remain• in full force and effect. SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this 'Orda.naance and shall cause the same to be published within fiZteen (15) days after its adoption at least oncein The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published n the City of Ontario, and circulated in the City of Rancho r Cucamon4a. PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1985. Mayor -5- .. Ordinance No. Page '6 ` t, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, City Clerk of the C ty of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of ';J7e City Council of the City of Rancho Cucar - held on the day of , 1985, and was finally- �,:; _ .t a regular meeting of the City Council of the Citv of Raneno ;... Amonga held on the day of _ , 1985, by the followinq vote. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga League or Caffornia Cities .1 14MII K Street Sauamoento 95814.(916)4"•5790 ea:�to�n-'c:::as. IWoM Togemer �1+' IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION ON SB 1660(Montoya) THE"VESTED RIGHTS"BILL, Chap. 1113, 1984 Statutes February 1985 Senate Bill 1660 (Montova),Chapter 1113 of the 1984 Statutes, was enacted by the Legislature in 19 4, and :,comes ei ective January 1, 1986. The bill creates a new form of tentative subdivision snap, called a "vesting tentative map," whit'), when approved, guarantees a developer that he or she will be able to proceed with development in accordance with that approval. This paper addresses the most common questions of local officials about SB 1660. All references ar! to the California Government Code unless otherwise noted. The bill amends Sections 664?4.5, 66428, 66452, 66452.6 and 66463.5, and adds Sections 66418.1 and 66498.1 through 66493.8. 1, I.IESTION:TO WHAT KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS DOES THE"VESTING TENTATIVE MAP" LAW APPLY? ANSWER: Residential developments only(Government Code Sec. 66498.7). 2. 2ESTION: BY WHAT DATE MUST WE COMPLY WITH THIS NEW LAW? ANC"k:R: You must comply with this law by January 1, 1996, but you may do so soofs2rT5ec. 66498.8 and ncodified Sec. 10 of the bill). MAPSL3. WHAT IS A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP," AND DOES ONE OF THESE ON OK ANY DIFFERENT FROM AN ORDINARY TENTATIVE MAP? ANSWER: A "vesting tentative map" Is basically the same as an ordinary tentative map. The only difference the state law requires is that when one of these "vesting" maps is filed with the city or `ounty. the map must have conspicuously printed on its face the words "vesting tentative map"(Secs. 66424.5 and 66452U. 4. UESTION: HOW DOES THIS BILL AFFECT CITIES' AND COUNTIES' POWERS REGULATE SUBDIVISIONS? ANSWER: Not at a119 up to the time the map is approved or denied. What the bill limits is the ability to change conditions after that point. 5.OUESTION: DO THE CHANGE,-'!MADE BY SB 1660 AFFECT ORDINARY TENTATIVE MAPS? ANSWER: No. It is an alternative proce�c use. 6. UESTION: IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE PROCESSING OF THESE MAPS AND ORDINARY TENTATIVE MAPS? ANSWER: That depends on your local ordinances. Government Code Section 66411, whit tth b 1 does not amend, vests control of the design and improvement of subdivisions in councils and boards of supervisors. Sec.66452, as amended by the bill, provides that "v mapen are to same as tentative maps,except as otherwise provided by state law or local ordinance. processed the 7. UEST:ON: PRIOR TO APPROVING A "VESTING" MAP, CAN WE REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO SUPPLY THE CITY WITH MORE DETAILS ON A DEVELOPMENT THAN WE DO ON AN ORDINARY MAP? ANSWER: Yes, if your local ordinance so ' requires or permits. 25 Cl FR 8. QUESTION: WHAT DETAILS MIGHT I CONSIDER REQUIRING THE DEVELOP SUPPLY PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A "VESTING' MAP? ANSWER: Because the rights conferred by this process last foe a lengthy period of time, and because subsequent approvals must be consistent with the map as approved, you may wish to change the I timing of the processing, so that most or all discretionary approvals occur before or ion simultaneously with map approval. Consequently,you may wish to consider requiring the developer to supply with the map information that your city or county needs to determine the impact of the project on your city or county over a period of years,such -height,size,and location of buildings sewer,water,storm drain and road details -information on the uses to which the buildings will be put -detailed grading plans -geological studies -flood control information -architectural plans -any other studies your city has normally deferred to the building permit stage. 14 9. UESTION: WHEN SHOULD DESIGN REVIEW OCCUR FOR A "VESTING" MAP ,OJECT? ANSWER: You may wish to consider doing design review simultaneously with or prior to review of the map. Your city or county should,probably review the order in which this and other discretionary approvals occur,and change the order so that some an discretionary approvals are processed wi.m th,or prior to,the map so that when the ma i approved,the details of the project ae own. ps 10. 2ESTION: WHAT RIGHTS DOES THIS BILL GIVE A DEVELOPER THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT HAVE UNDER CURREN. LAW? ANSWER: Undar the bill, once the "vesting" map is approved, the developer may generally proceed with r development in srbstantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the developer filed a complete_application with the city or county. Exceptions,are made where proceeding with the development would (a) endanger public health or safety, or (b) violate state or federal law (Government Code Secs. 66474.2, 66498.1,66498.6). 11. UESTION: IF THE CITY OR COUNTY APPROVED A "VESTING' MAP, IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE COUNTY OR CITY DENY A FINAL MAP OR A BUILDING PERMIT? ANSWER: Only when it must do so to protect public health or safety or to comply with state or federal law(Secs.66498.1,66498.6). lt. UESTION: CAN A CITY OR COUNTY DENY APPROVAL 'NESTING" MAP SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE MAP IS A "VESTING"MAP? ANSWER: Probably not. ` I UESTION: HOW LONG DOES THE"VESTING'CONTINUE ONCE THE TENTATIVE 3. MAP 15 APPROVED? ANSWER: The"vesting" rights last until a final map is recorded, Plus one to three years p us the life of the building permit. Depending on local ordinances, extensions, and processing time, this means 3-1/2 to 10 years(plus any time during which moratoria are in effect or lawsuit are pending), based on the following schedules: i, ^� 26 (A_j ID i Alk a)`All tentative maps, including'"vec ing" maps last from two to six years,dependirig on local ordinances and extensir ;s(Sep.66452.6);plus b) depending on local ordinances, the developer has either one or two years after the final map is recorded to apply for a building permit, and the county ar city may extend that for one more year to a total of three years,(Sec.66452.6(g));and c) if the developer has filed a complete application for a building permit, the right continues through the life of the building permit(usually six mcnths),plus any extensions j the city gives on the building permit, plus processing time for architectural review or i grading permits, if the time for processing those permits exceeds 30 days (Sec. 66452.6(h)). 14. UESTION: WHAT HAPPENS IF A DEVELOPER LETS ONE OF THESE TIME PERIODS EXPIRE? ANSWER: The developer is then treated the same as if he or she were an ordinary applica'nt without the rights given by the"vesting"map(Sec.6he or 15.Q UESTION: HOW DO THE TIhIF.PERIODS DESCRIBED IN QUESTION 13 APPLY TO `i PHASED DEVELOPMENTS? ANSWER: The time periods that run after a final map is i recorded commence on each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded (Sec. 66452.6(g)). 16. UESTIO[N: SECTION 66498.3 PROVIDES THAT A COUNCIL OR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A "VESTING" MAP THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL ZONING, AND MAKE THE MAP APPROVAL MW CONTINGENT UPON THE REZONING OCCURRING. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR CURRENT PRACTICES? ANSWER: Probably not at all. A few jurisdictions process maps that are inconsistent--wRW zoning, conditioning approval of the map on a later rezoning. This provision-was inserted to accommodate those jurisdictions. 17._QUESTION: OUR CITY r'OUNCIL OR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS DELEGAT!-D APPR­0—v­A­L-0-`F MAPS TO GSR PLANNING COMMISSION (OR SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE), BUT ZONING ORDINANCES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OR COUNCIL. WILL THIS BILL REQUIRE US TC CHANGE THAT PROCEDURE? ANSWER. Na. But since you may be using a different procedure to process"vesting"maps,you may wish to consider whether the council or board wishes to not delegate approval of"vesting"maps. IS.QUISTION: HOW DOES THIS LAW RELATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT'AGREEMENT LAW? ANSWER: This bill was conceives'as an alternative to development agreements, prima ily for smaller projects. Because it is not a contract, local agencies will have less discretion to deny applications or extract concessions from developers. Also,unlike a development agreement,a vesting map'is not referendable. 19. UESTION: CAN WE REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT +�B AGREEMENT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A "VESTING" MAP? ANSWER: ,Probably not. 20. 0UESTION: WE HAVE HAD TO CHANGE OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES IN STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. IF WE HAVE TO D able to require redesign, or you may need to stop the pr THIS IF (Secs. 66458:1O and 66498.6(b)). 0 21. QUESTION: THIS IS A STATE-MANDATED COST. HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT? to e ANSWER: New Sec. 66498.8, and uncodified Sec. 11 of the bill specifically authorize cities and counties to charge developers who file"vesting" maps an amount sufficient to cover the cost of enacting a local ordinance, so you r.*.y wish to determine those costs, and to work out reimbursement either with your local builders' association or with the first several builders who apply for"vesting'maps. 1 22. UESTION: UNDER CURRENT LAW (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65925 and, 65940 et seq.) OUR COUNTY OR CITY MUST SUPPLY DEVELOPERS WITH INFORMATION DESCRIBING WHAT IS NEE DED TO FILE A COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND MUST INFORM A DEVELOPER WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER AN APPLICATION IS FILED WHETHER THAT APPLICATION IS COMPLETE. HOW DOES THIS BILL AFFECT THAT LAW? ANSWER: It does not, but you may need to update your local lists if you require more information for "vesting map u 23. UESTION: NEW GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66452.6(g) and (h) PROVIDE THAT A DEVELOPER KEEPS THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY A "VESTING' MAP IF HE OR SHE FILES A "COMPLETE" APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD AFTER THE FINAL MAP W APPROVED, AND THE DEVELOPERS RIGHTS REMAIN FIXED WHILE THAT PERMIT IS BEING PRE,`HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHETHER AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING; PERMIT IS "COMPLETE"? ANSWER: State law does not usually require counties or cities to list =�S what is required for r a puiiding permit to be complete. You may wish to review your city s or county s current building permit application requirements and prepare a list of the requirements,to be used for reference by both your staff and by applicants. 24. UESTION: SECTIONS 66498.2 and 66498.4 AUTHORIZE A DEVELOPER TO APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A "VESTING" MAP BEFORE THE "VESTING" RIGHTS EXPIRE, AND AUTHORIZE A LOCAL AGENCY TO GRANT OR DENY THOSE CHANGES. WHAT CONDITIONS MAY WE ATTACH TO SUCH AN APPLICATION? ANSWER: You may wish to provide local standards and procedures for processing such applications, perhaps distinguishing between substantial and insubstantial changes, and +�9 specifying whether such changes lengthen or do not lengthen the vesting period. 25.QUESTION- THE FEES WE CHARGE DEVELOPERS CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME, BOTH 1N NATURE AND AMOUNT. CAN WE APPROVE THE MAP IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW -US TO CHANGE THE FEES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME A BUILDING PERMIT 1S ISSUED, RATHER THAN WHEN THE MAP 1S APPROVED? ANSWER: That depends. With regard to the amount of a particular fee, the map approval can probably contain a condition that the amcunt of the fee is to be determined at the building permit. stage. However,new fees probably cannot be added at the building permit stage except for public health or safety reasons or to comply with state or federal law (Secs. 66498.1(c)and 66498.6). t 28 jW a. u�r -