Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/11/27 - Agenda Packet 0 �QIQ � Q85, daackto Page ' ' .: n -- mc�" arl tea' vND m Z n �3 t0 3 ` CA H. tn( N H O 9 i t C ;. Jet Ge ILA-R �? 9e CITY OF RANCHO' CLCAV \G A,aF PLAViGCO.V Iz�IISSIOT z 'AGENDA' 1977 WEDNESDAY November 27,1985 7:00 p.m. L LIONS PARK COMMUNTITY CENTER 9161 BAUIE LINE RANCHO CUCA1;dUNCA,CALIFORNIA I. Wedge of_Allegianee H. Rtd1 Call Commissioner Barker X 'Comini�ioner'Rempel X Commissioner Chitiea X C„,;nmissioner Stout .X - Commissioner McNiel arrived 7:10 111. Review of propose-4 M. Announeemmts City hall elevations adaed. IV. Approval of Minutes .Planning Commission workshop to follow :2-19 DRC meeting. September 11,1985 "Shopping Center at NE Corner Df Haven E Base Line V. Consent Calendar (CUP 85-26) tj be discussed. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will.be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. if anyone hass concern over a ty item, it should be removed forn'tscussiom 'A. Approved 4-0-1 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-34 - TOKAI SCDTPTO -The construction of a 144,774,square foot industrial manufacturing facility on 11.19 acres of land located:at the northwest`corner of Toronto Avenue an 7th Street in Subarea 10 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan-APN`209-401-7,8,9. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT t' REVIEW .85-24 �,,USK BUSINESS PARK -The dagelopment of three speculative industrial buildings consisting of 15;500 square feet, 9500 .square feet, and 9600 square feet, respectively, on 2.17-acres of land in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea;"6)' locates] on the north side'of Trademark and west of A4ven Avenue-APN 210-381-2,3,4.. VI. Public Hearings Commissioner NcNiel The following items are public hearings in which, concerned arrived 7 10 p-e,r individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission j by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be It limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. C. Approved 5-0 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9350- WILLIAM LYON COMPANY-A division of 103.34-net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Manned Com unity,located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenue APN 227-081-06. (Continued from the November 13,1985 meeting) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE 11,'D. Denied 5-0 PERMIT 85-30 - WOLFE A proposal to operate a.2716 square foot image beauty salon to be located l.*1 an existing industrial park located on the west side of F en Avenue, south of 7th, within the Haven Avenue Over, , District - APN 209-262-17. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE E. Approved 5-0 PERMIT 85-31-HILL-A proposal to build a 600 square foot residential caretaker's quarters attached to the garage on two c and one-half acres of land in the Very Low Residential r district located north of Hillside on Deer'Creek Lane,at the r end of the cul-de-sac-APN 201-243-12. F. Approved 5-0 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9416- ' DIVERSIFIED - A division of 17.34 acres of lend into 10 parcels in the Neighborhood Commercial District,located on the east side of Have'a Avenue,between Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue-APN 201-271-58. G. Set public hearing for G. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION FOR CONDITIONAL o.consi`derat'"son of Revocation USE PERMIT 85-08 - VERNACI A proposal to locate P z-i2-96 single trailer fora caretaker's facilityin a wholesale nursery located in'the Edison right-of-way�n the north side of Base Line,east of Rochester-APN 227-091-41. `ii. Approved 5-0 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Additional language to be CODE AMENDMENT 85-04 - CITY OF RANCHO drafted regarding windrows CUCAMONGA -An amendment to the Development Cade of The` City of Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance 211, to r^,vise Sections 17.08.040 F and 17.08.040 1, pertaining to . landscaping and slope planting,respectively.' 1. Conti'med to 12-11-85 I, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE:AME'DMENT 85-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An amendment to Title 17,Section 17.02.070 B revisions/— modifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code by adding language to further define the review process for major revisions to an approved project. ` J Approved 5-0 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An anendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add research acid development/office use to Haven Avenue Over..'iy District. r KC. Approved 5-.0 YL .ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.AND PARCEL MAP 9359- `WESTREND DEVELOPMENT- A_division of 12.6..aeres of ` land into 7 parcels ir. the General.Industrial category(Subarea 8), located on the ast side of Rochester Avenue, north of Arrow Route-APN 29-021-34,36. Related Filer DR 86-35. L. Approved Conceptual L. ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION PROJEC',' Phan 5-0 Regarding the proposed stiaet improvements along E rclmi,ld Avenue betwer-n. sin Street and the Foothill Freei,iay. Improvements will include entry monumentation, sidewlks, theme walls,and landscaping within the public right-of-way. VIL New Business e M. Approved 5-0 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND .DEVELOPMENT CBuilding colors to be toned REVIEW 85-35-WESTREND DEVELOPMENT To develop a down and tc--xture changes to be master plan for seven industrial buildings comprising 143,207 ' incorporated into the elevations.. square feet on 10.43 acres and.site specific approval of bu idis,gs 1 and 2 compi4sing•25,700 and 23,700 square feet, respectively ion an 1 43-mere pared-hand 2.24:acre-parcel) located at the northeast corner of Rochester and Arrow Route in the Industrial Area Specific Pla ;Subarea 8) APN 229-021-036. N. Withdrawn by applicant. N. PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR MDR 85-21 CIRCLE K -A proposal to remodel the exterior of a 2,675 square foot F commercial convenience store at 12854 Foothill Boulevard, west of Etiwanda !#vaue, located in a Convenience i Commercial District si, the Etiwanda Specific Plan - APN 227-221-25. Review of proposed City Hall Elevations Conseasus of Commission that a modernistic architecture should be-used. "Suggested that the ,.City Council consider,appointing Planning Commission to work with architect on the development of appropriate design elevation. { i 4 � VM. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda r DL Adjon°nment 1 o:1 o p.m. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment-time. If items go beyo^d that time,they shall be heard only with.the consent of M6,Commtssion. The Planning Commission will adjoum,to�a:workshogx to be held on December 2, 1985, 6:00- p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arro;r :Highway, #£zoom 4, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose,of the voekshop•will tie for discussion regarding Industrial Specific Plan.=.mendments. c 4 � I I J , - •«w«mow..._.—•««_�t � • � ri • 4� t L l4lrtl• /Nle:d• �-�^" CMAFDEY•YGIYNB{.PARR• , CNAFFET L�•j ! BM�•n COLLEGE ; •;?t } •�„ .' , • W ��. . ■ _ VkiwIT ia _ • LI- Tsii ; .......... IONS PARR "` :G IT ee�N y • N F-1 y � D R .e• IT 7 ' Ft• CUCAMONGA-GUASTI COUNTY REOION—L PAgR i 3 ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT' C. GITY OF RAtlCHp Ci}CAA C��cns;0� CITY OF CI r RANCHO CCG%iVIO_\urn, 0 0 PLANNING CO1vLvjjsSIONI U AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY November 27,1985 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY'CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CAJAPORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Chitiea_ Commissioner Stout-, Commissioner McNiel M. Announcements IV Approval of Minutes September 11,1985 V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAh ASSESSt."ENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-34 - TOKAI/SCRiPTO The construction of a 194774 square foot industrial manufacturing faeility'an 11.19 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Toronto Avenue an 7th Street in Subarea 10 of the industrial Area Specific Plan APN209-401-7,8,9. B. ENVIRONMENTAL `ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-24 - LUSK BUSINESS PARK -The development of.three speculative industrial buildings consisting of 15,600 square feet, 9500 square feet, and 9600 square feet, respectively, on 2.17•acres of land in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 6) located on the north side'of Trademark and west of Haven Avenue-APN 210-391-21 3,4. VL Pubhe Hearings The following' items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion o the related Y P f a ed project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name' and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each,pioject. C. ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSME NT AND PARCEL MAP 9350 - 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 ,y Avenue - APN 227-081-06. (Continued from the November 13,1985 meeting) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-30 proposal to operate a 2716 square foot image beauty salon to be located in an existing industrial park located on the west side of Haven Avenue, south. of 7th, within the Haven Avenue Overlay District APN 09-262-17: E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-31-HILL -A proposal to build a 600 square foot residential caretaker's quarters attached to the garage on two and one-half acres of lend in the Very Low Residential district located north of Hillside on Deer Creek Lane,at the end of the cul-de-sac APN 201-243-12. � r F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9416- D 1 DIVERSIFIED - A di'vision vi ono 17.34 acrEr "� land into 10 parcels in the Neighborhood Commercial District,-located on the east side of Haven Avenue,between Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue APN 201-271-58. O. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-08 - VERNACI - A proposal to locate a single trailer for a caretaker's facility in a wholesale nursery located in the Edison right-of-way on the north side of Base Line,east of licichester-APN 227-091-41. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An amendment to the Development Code of the "City of Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance 211, to revise Sections 17.08.040 F and 17.08.040 1, pertaining to landscaping and slope planting,respectively. I.' 'VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN ELOPMENT CO ENDMENT 85-05' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- amen to Title 17,Section 17.02.070 _ B revisions odifi � of the Rancho Cucamonga DEvelopment a by adding a to`further define the revie cess for major revisions to an roject. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL A EAV SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT. 85-05 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the Industrial; Area Specific Plan to add research and development/office use'to Haven Avenue Overlay'I,'p;str let„ K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9359- WESTREND DEVELOPMENT - A division of 12.6 ,acres of land into 7 parcels in the Geiieral Industrial categorg(Subarea 8), located on the egst side of Rochester Avenue, north of Arrow Route APN 1?,9-921-34,36. Related.File: DR 85-?5. f1me ARCHIBALD AVENTi`E BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT - Regarding the proposed street improvements along Archibald Avenue between 4th Street and the Foothill FreevDy; Improvements will Include entry monumentation, sidewalks, theme walls,and landscaping within the puitie right-of-way. w Business ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-35 -,WES TREND DEVELOPMENT-To develop a master plan for,seven industrial buildings comprising 143,207 square feet on 10.43 acres and site specific approval of buildings 1 and 2 comprising 25,700 and 33,700 square feet, respectively (on an 1.53 acre parcel and 2.24 acre parcel) located at the northeast, corner of Rochester and Arrow Route in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 8) APN 229-021-036. , W. PREL?[yFFRT REVIEW FOR MDR 85-21 - ' pro@@��osal to remodel t e e7[Ce ' _,675 square foot comm convenience st ,1285 Boulevard, f , west of Etiwan vnue, located in a Con ce Commerci rice of the Etiwanda Specific Plan - AP 22 - - 5. �Y VI!I. Publie Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. ".. I%. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted AdministratYv=,,Regulations that set a: 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyonii that P time, they shall beoheard only with the consent•of the Commission. The Planning Commission will adjourn to a workshop to be held on December 2, 1985, 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9291 Arrow Highway, Room 4, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the workshop wll:be for discussion regarding Industrial Soeet?ie Plan amendments. r ; ! 1 ■ A ��� NiRaiM O E -CMAFFEY RtGW11ALlAWt• MAP - -- -- + W. ;'•'.t 7 t -- - 1 Wnn1 COCLCOE 1 �� ;�.1iiY.4 `•. ■� I I ■ E E V�www«♦wwN.G CNA PRY 4-Z pv ,1 LION a ClT7:RALl I� •- • ■ .... ■� puny. 4 ■ F- A— ... - e. 1 - o■ ... t • _ .gE zi a _ CUCAMONGA•GGAStf COUMlY REGIONAL ] AY - ONIARIO I■fERRAf10NAl AIAPORI CFY OF RANCHO CtiCAF CWaA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 27, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning-.ommission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Dr•tid Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel (1trrived at 7:10 p.m.). Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, F, -aior Planner, Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; James Markman, City Attorney; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Laura Psomas, 'Landscape Designer; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer h ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff would conduct a workshop with the Planning Commission '' discuss the shopping center proposed at the �. northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. He advised that the workshop would I$ follow the regularly-scheduled December 19th. Design Review Committee meeting held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, located at 9791 Arrow Highway, Room 4, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. Mr. Buller additionally announced that the Planning Commission would have an, opportunity to comment on alternative architectural concepts for the Civic Center at the conclusion of this agenda. i APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to approve the September 11, 1985' Planning Commission Minutes. `s o CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESE;vNT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-34 - TOKAI/SCRIPTO - The construction of a 194,774 square foot industrial manufacturing facility on 11.19 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Toronto Avenue an 7th Street in Subarea 10 of the Induatrial Area Specific Plan - APN 209-401-7,8,9. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-24 - LUSK BUSINESS PARK - The development of three speculative industrial buildings consisting of 15,600 square feet 00 9 , 95 square feet, and. 9600 square feet, respectively, on 2.17 acres of land in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 6) located on the north side of Trademark and west of Haven Avenue --APN 210- 381-2, 3, 4. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Consent Calendar. *lotion carried by the following voter AYES: COMMM IONERS: CHILIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Chairman Stout commented that the Tokai/Scripto project was excellently design and that he was happy that they were a part of this community. �t � t �ta Commissioner McNiel arrived at 7:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ,ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9359 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY A division of 103.24 net acres into 4 parcels in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line between. Milliken and Roahester Avenue - APN 227-081-06. (Continued from the November 13, 1985 meeting) Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, stated concurrence with the findings of the staff -Rport and related Resolution of approval. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 27, 1985 There were no further comments, therofore the public hearing was closed. Motion: moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Rnvironmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9350. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USY FEFMIT 85-30 - WOLFE - A proposal to operate a 2716 square foot image (beauty) salon to be located in an existing industrial park located on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of 7th, within the Haven Avenue Overlay District - AIN 209-262-17. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewer; the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Greg Wolfe, applicant, stated that only recently was he advised that there was a concern with the number of parking spaces available for this proposal. Mr. Wolfe indicated that he bad surveyed a number of neighboring cities which require approximately 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and felt that Rancho Cucamragats requirements were excessive. Mr. Wolfe also stated that the broker for this industrial park informed him approximately two months ago that an executive health club also had leased space within the complex. Chairman Stout asked the applicant what number of parking spaces would be adequate to meet the requirements of his business. C, Mr. Wolfe replied that approximately 20 spaces would be adequate because he would be contracting with a limosine service to pick up and drop off club members. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that the reason for the inadequate parking situation is that the businesses which ,ar-, leasing space k+thin this industrial park are commercial and not office uses as originally intended. Chairman Stout agreed and further abated that the brokerage fire which is leasing the spaces within this complex should be made aware that it is not a commercial center. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that .taff had met with the property owrar to discuss lease commitments for the existing office spaces. Planning Commission Minutes -3 November 27, 1985 Commissioner Barker stated that based on the parking situation, he would have to agree-with staff's recommendation io deny the project. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would have to agree and that unfortunately for the applicant, the crux of the problem really goes bealc to the developer because the center is apparently being marketed for commercial uses. Motion:: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to deny Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-30. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, HEMPEL, STOUT ;TOES: COMMISSIONERS: , IONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout directed that staff prepare correspondence to the developer advising them of the parking concerns and that more appropriate u-es should be solicited to lease vacant space within the complex. * +eaal � E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PER1IIT 85-31 - HILL - A proposal to build a 600 square foot residential caretaker's quarter attached to the garage on two and one-half acres of land in the Very Low Residential district located north of Hillside sZ Deer Creek Lane, at the end of the cul-de-sac - APN 201-243-12. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, rt,:awed-the,staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, tborefore the public hearing was closed'. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-31, Hill. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO&MISSIONERS: NONE -carried ■ tt � a � r Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 27, 1985 { F. ENVIRONMENTAL GSSESSMEN' AND PARCEL MAP 9416 - DIVERSIFIED - A division of 17:34 acres of land into 10 parcels in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located an the east side of Haven Avenue, between Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN 201-�271-58. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gary Madison, 10550 Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern that this project may turn out like the existing center on Lemon Avenue which has not completed construction. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was cle:.zd. Commissioner Rempel state,t that t:is project would be a complete shopping center, unlike the center Mr. Madison referred to which is located at Lemon and Haven. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9614, Diversi"Yed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. CONSIDERATION CT OCATION FOR CONDITIONxL USE PERMIT 85-08 - VERNACI - A proposal to lc.. aingle tr-iler for a caretaker's facility in a wholesale nursery --ad in the Edison rig:±t-of-way on 6.ae north side of Base Line, east of Aoo.sester - APN 227-091-41. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that it would be necessary for the Planning Commission to set the public hearing for consideration of the revocationfor this conditional use permit. He further advised that the applicant had contacted staff and indicated that they hoped to complete the required conditions of approval by January 1986. Therefore, staff recommended that February 12, 1986 be set as the public hearing date. Motion: _ i�ved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to set the public hearing for consideration of revocation for Conditional Use Permit 85-08, Vernaci, on February ,2, 1986. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ,f ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 27, 1985 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-04 CITY OF RT Ctf":CUO CUCAMON3A An amendment to the 'Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance 211, to revise Sections 17.08.040 F and 17.08.040 I, pertaining to landscaping and slope rlanting, respectively. Bruce Cook, b"ociate Planner, reviewed the staff report. r`-J rman Stuuu opened the public hearirq. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea advised that the study area should be expanded to include public as :Fell as private areas. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the ordinance include language requiring an inspection by qualified personnel testifying to the appropriateness of tree size and health prior to planting. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that this amendment be processed and staff be directed to research other cities with regard to Commissioner Ecapel's request. He explained that staff could return with information and possible amending language at a future meeting. Commissioner Barker agreed that it would be more appropriate to research the feasibility and manner in which to implement tree inspection. Chairman Stout stated that the Etiwanda. Specific Plan contained language relative to planting new trees to perpetuate a windbreak system and suggested that this language be included in the Developrsnt Code amendment. Commissioner Rempel asked what the maintenance and liability responsibility would be to the City with regard to planting trees along the rear property line of hnmea. James Markman, City Attorney, advised that if attention was not given to the care and maintenance of trees, the City would be liable and could face law suits in the future. Chairman Stout suggested that the City Council be advised of this issue during their reriew of the amendment, Motions Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Ordinance approving Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 85-04 to the Cicy Council. Motion carried by the following vote: I Planning Commission Minutes -Ei- November 27, 1985, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: .-STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL„ R':MPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Staff was dire3ted to draft language relative to the inspection of trees for the Commission's consideration at a future meeting. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Title 17, Section 17.02.070 B revisions/modifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code by adding language to further define the review process for major revisions io an approved project. Brad Buller, City Plar_ner, advi'aed that staff was requesting a continuation of this item to the December 1 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to meet with the City Attirnoy on language modifications. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no romwents. Motion: Movcd by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 85-03 to the December 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85-05 - CITY OF RANCHO,CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add research and development/office use to Haven Avenue Overlay District Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, revieiW, the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if the reference to R&D/Light Manufacturing in the Resolution was in error. Ms. Fong replied that it was. Chairman Stout opened the -public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 27, 1985 Motion: Moved by Rempel, .seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Ordinance approving Environmental Assessment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 85-05, with an amendment to strike the -reference to R&D/Light Manufacturing. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HEMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE carri-zd, Chairman Stout announced that Item I'M" was related to the following project, therefore would be heard out of order. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL ,MAP 9359 - WESTREND EVELOPMENT A division of 12.6 anres of land into 7 parcels in the General Industrial category (Subarea 8), located on the east side of Rochester Avenue, north of Arrow Route - APN 229-021-34, 36. Related File: DR 85-35. - M. EriVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-35 - WESTREND DEVELOPMENT - To develop a master plan for seven industrial buildings comprising 143,207 square feet on 10.43 acres and site specific approval of buildings 1 and 2 comprising 25,700 and 33,700 square feet, respectively (on an 1..53 acre parcel and 2.24 acre parcel) located at the northeast corner of Rochester and Arrow Route in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 8) APN 229-021-036. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Doug Mayes, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of approval. , There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like to advise the applicant of his concern with the use of trees in an effort to hide buildings. He further stated that staff and the Commission hoped to establish a policy which would address this concern in the near future. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was not against the use of the color band and would not like to see it totally eliminated. She was concerned with the accent color and suggested that the color be toned down, and additionally suggested that the texture changes be incorporated into the elevations. Planning Commission Miiutes _ November 27! 1985 f Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded, by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel,Map, 9359 and Envi.,onmental Assessment and Development Review 85-35, with an omerdment to the Develop-ment Review Resolution to state that the building col,5rs are to be toned down and texture changes are to be incorporated into the elevations. Motion carried ''>y the following vote: AYES, COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER,'REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 7:55 p.m. a Planning Commission Recessed 8:10 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present L. ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT - Regarding the proposed street improvements along Archibald-Avenue between 4th Street and the Foothill Freeway. Improvements will include entry monumentation, sidewalks, theme walls, and landscaping wittUn the public right-of-way. Laura. Psomas, Landscape Designer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman =9tout opened the public bearing, Rick Gomez, Forma Planning Consultants, gave an overview of the conceptual design. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea asked which areas would be addresssed first under the phasing plan. Lloyd 3ubbs, City Engineer, replied that staff and the consultant would first begin working on the final design stages for review and approval b'r the City Council. He explained that after approval by the City-Council, ;itaff'would retur!a to the Planning Commission with a phasing rslan. He advised that the first phase would more than likely involve, the entry clement at 4th Street and Arc-tlbald and then focus on problem areas such ?..i sidewalk and parkway landscaping treatment south of Church Street and the area in front of Central School. Chairman Stout asked if staff had received a copy of the letter from Jack 'Tarr in which he expressed, concern with respect to the monument sign in front of the;Stop IN Go Market on Archibald and Base Line. planning Commission Minutes -9- November 27, 1985 Mr. Hubbs replied that he had received a copy of the letter and that staff would involve the business community in the planning ,stages of-the project. Commissioner Rempel suggested that benches should be installed in various locations. for ise by people waiting for buses. Mr. Hubbs replied that Omni-Trans has very particular ideas about what they will allow with regard to passenger waiting areas and that this would be an issue staff would have to discuss with them.' Chairman Stout suggested that a standard type and color be used for irrigation equipment in the landscaped areas. Mr. Hubbs stated that Ms. Psomas recently been hired as the Cicy*s landscape designer and that one of her responsibilities was to establish standards for partway irrigation equipment. Motion: Moved by hempel, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend approval of the conceptual design for the Archibald Beautification Project to the City. Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE parried NEW BUSINESS N. PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR MDR 85-21 - CIRCLE K - A proposal to remodel the exterior of a 2,675 square foot commercial convenience° store at 12854 Foothill Boulevard, west of Etiwanda Avnue,- located in a Convenience Commercial District of the Etiwanda Specifwe Plan - APN 227-221-25. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the applicant for this item had withdrawn tha request for preliminary review. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER Duke Oslriey, Architect for the Civic Center, presented an overview of the architectural elements for three design alternatives. Chairman Stout stated that with the direction the City is moving in regard to development on Haven Avenue, a more modernistic, high tech look would be> preferrable He suggested that heritage elements cculd'be incorporated in other ways. Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 27, 1985 Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the appearance that entry of the building was on Haven Avenue, when-in reality the entry would be to the rear where the parking lot is located. He suggested that ,he portion of the building 'which faces Haven should be designed wi,n a r aza area rather than with stairs. He was also concern with that approximately 30 to 35 square feet of building area in the basement level was not being utilized and suggested that that space be excavated for use. He agreed that a modernistic approach to architecture would be the more appropriate design. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with the modernistic architecture and further 5 stated that clean lines and a high tech look should be achieved. She suggested that the architect expand the window areas and not use the small windows shown on the elevations presented. She questioned the parking area on Haven Avenue, and pointed out that no other project has been allowed to front' parking lots on that street. Mr. Oakley stated that both Community Development Director Jack Lam and City Manager Lauren Wasserman had advised that the building should front on Haven Avenue so that it would have a Haven Avenue address-, He pointed out that the reasoning behind this was to make City Hall easier for aeople to find in that it would be accessible from a freeway exit on I-10. i Commissioner Chitiea stated that it ° iuld be helpful if the architect could provide an overlay of what the elevation viould look like when .the building wings are added on. Commissioner McNiel agreed that a contemporary, modern architecture would be appropriate. Ae stated, however, that none of the elevations presented were, acceptable v-thout a great deal of upgrading in terms of aesthetics. Commissioner Barker stated that the Civic Center should be a contemporary design which is compatible with the direction the 'City is going on Haven Avenue„ He was concerned with the modern architecture elevation presented because it was too boxy and without windows. He was also concerned with the eronrous entry -n Haven Avenue and stated that Commissioner Rempel°s suggestion regarding a plaza in that area may be more appropriate. The Commission also discussed the use of concrete on the building and reached the consensus that concrete should not be rejected as a possible building material. The Commission additionally suggested that the City Council sonsider directing the Planning Commission to work with the architect on the details of an appropriate elevation design. There were no further comments. Motion: Moved by Remepl, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn, Planning, Commission Minutes -11- November 27, 1985 The P12 n adjourned t a workshop t Planning Commission ad3 u ned o w o be held on December 2 � P e 1985, -6:00 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga leighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Hi Tia - Room 4 Rancho Cucamonga, California. "The purpose -of-the workshc' gh Yo y B , P P_ P will be for discussion regarding Industrial Specific Plan amendments. 10:05 p.m. Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary ill Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 27, 1985 "s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING.COKMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting ~ October 23, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Coiii,4ission to order at 7:00 'p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community, Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout ABSEN( David.Barker STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civ;' Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; .Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Jim Markman, City Attorney; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Janice RJynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Community Development Directo,, introduced Brad Buller to the Planning Commission and explained that Mr. Buller would begin the position as the City Planner on November 4th. Mr. Lan— additionally announced that the November 4th Planning Commission workshop had been cancelled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mo*ion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to approve the Minutes ,ust 28, 1985, with an amendment to page 5 to reflect "dash coat stucco". '4oved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, carried, to approve the Minutes of Sk,..'.� -,er 25, 1985 as presented. r k PUBLIC HEARINGS A: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHELBOURNE-- A total residential subdivision and design review for 49 singe family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 5001. feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-21, 22. (Continued from October 9th meeting.) Chairman Stout_announced that the Commission was in receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting continuance of this item to the December 11, 1985 meeting. He then.opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved, by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract to December 11, 1985. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-27 - CONTINENTAL CARE e development of a psyc is ric hospital facility consisting of 7TT6,5 squaFa feet cn 6.1 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 7) District located on the southeast corner of White Oak and Elm Avenue APN 208-351-15. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, %resented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Fred Jackson, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the type of care this facility would provide. Frank Valese, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project architecture. The following individuals addressed the Commission in support of the project: Pat Cearheart, Rancho Cucamonga resident; Jim Barton, Rancho Cucamonga resident; Jack Corrigan, Newport Beach. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that there is no doubt there is a Pied in the community for this type of facility. He stated this design is compatible with the surrounding structures and fits very well. He was concerned that a design feature be addressed in the project entryway. -lie felt that the inclusion of some type of water element would be desirable to attenuate street noise. Commissioner Chitiea appreciated how the applicant`s representatives had worked with the Design Review Committee to come up with a much better project. i Planning Commission Minutes -2 October 23, 1985 Commissioner McNiel stated this was a very nice project and welcomed it to the community. Chairman Stout agreed and stated this facility would be an asp t'. to the community. He pointed out that the comments made at the second ►'_si:gn Review had not been incorporated in the Resolution and suggested that t s be done. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-27 with modifications to the Resolution to include the Design Review Committee comments, the inclusion in the Landscape Plan of an outdoor area with outdoor seating, and the inclusion of a design feature in we entryway. These conditions are to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES* COMMISSIONERS STOUT, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9481 - GOLDEN WEST EQUITY- The Consolidation of 27.28Z acres ot landinto 2 parcels within a eneral Industrial Area (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 7th Street - APN 209-171-7, 20, 36 and 49 through 56. Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Bruce MacDonald, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request and concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further lowiments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rzmpei,, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving. Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9481, Goldei West. Motion carried by the following vote AYES COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -3 October 23, 1985 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 - BARMAKIAN - The development o -unitapartments on 3.17 acres of landin the Me High Residontial District (14-24 du/ac) located at the north slde ,ar_d end of Lomita Court APN 202-151-34.' Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, representing the applicant, asked for discussion relative to open space and roofing material. He explained that in response to Design Review Committee comets, the plans now show that the emergency access lane to the south will be constructed to function as a large open lawn area. Regarding the cluserting of units into 12 or 16 plex units, Mr.- Pitassi advised Vat the architects had worked on various designs and determiners that. this design is the best solution for occupants of the units,in terms of interior design and providng open space. Mr. Pitassi presented slides which displayed the use of fiberglass shingles used on various projects, and explained that they achieved the clean lines desired by the applicant. Chairman Stout asked if a metal seam roof was considered as an alternate. Mr. Pitassi advised that t", s type of roo- would be cost prohibitive for this type of unit. There were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. I Commissioner McNiel stated that he thought the original design had a nice basic layout, which this design.destroi,s. He thought that a great deal had been lost and was not pleased. He felt that more open space should be achieved, even if it meant losing a unit or two. Commissioner Chitiea ag,aed and stated that the original site plan was more desirable. She was concerned that there appeared to be no overhang at the ends of the building and felt they looked incomplete. She did ;not care for _=e roofing treatment in the proposal. i Commissioner Rempel agreed t-�at the open space in the original plan far exceeds this one and that this complex does not accomplish the open space the Commission had hoped fur. He was concerned with the fibreglass roofing and stated that they would not be a deterrent if a fire started in the complex. He added that this kind of roofing material really begins to look bad in 10 to 15 years. He felt that the open space needs improvement. Chairman Stout stated that he was not willing to compromise on the roofing issue. He understood the architectural concern, but there is a practical need for the original roofing material, as pointed out by Commissioner Rempel. He was initially concerned with the open space, but now that he had looked at it, it seemed to be a reasonable amount of usable space. He preferred to see more, but the project is under the density range for that area and if it had Planning Commission Minutes -4 October 23, 1985 been maxed out to 24 units the only way you could achieve the open space would be possibly three story units. -He couln't think of an alternative to provide open spacewithout'reducing density way below what is required. Chairman Stout advised that the general consensus awing the. Commissioners seemed to be that the project needed more work. He e'' ' J the applicant was willing to continue consideration in order to work on these concerns. Mr. Pitassi replied that the project had been to design review twice, and that he was not overjoyed with a continuance, however he world agree.. Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing in order to continue the project. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded ', McNie), unaniously carried, to continue discussion of Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-33 to the November 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to Chapters 11.08 and 19.Oa of the anc o ucamnnga Municipal Code pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. or. Alden Kelley, Tree Arborist, gave an extensive presentation to the Planning Commission relative to the to the hazsrds of preserving the Blue Gum Eucalyptus. He pointed out that they are very costly to maintain and the liability to the City for property damage and injury to humans is very great. He suppor}ed replacement of the Blue Gum Eucalyptus with either Spotted o Red Gum varieties. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.. Chairman Stout stated that on the appeal procedure, he would like to have it spelled out who the decision is appealable too -- either the City Council or Planning Commission. He felt that merely referring to a Section within the Code was confusing to the layman. On the tree replacement, he thought that 15 gallon size trees should be used consistently as opposed to requiring 5 gallon in one instance and 15 gallon in another. He requested more specificity on the location of historical trees to avoid confusion on just which ones are designed historical. He additionally stated that the tima has come that they City needs to come up with a policy on tree preservation. He liked the Blue Gums as long as they are not in a residential area, but felt once urbanization Planning Commission N nutes -5- October 23, 1985 begins they are a hazard. Instead of preserving, he felt they needed to 1) replaced and recommended that the preservation language in the ordinance needs to be eliminated. He. stated that if this language conflicts wity the Etiwatiaa Specific Plan, an amendment should b`e made to that Plan stating that yes the City wants windrsms, but no it does not want Blue Gum windrows. Commissioner Rempel agreed and stated that a lot of people say they love those windrows, bu' add as long as they are not on their property. He felt that the i branch and fire hazard far'outweighs the "beauty" of the Eucalyptus. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and thanked Dr. Kelley for his cvritributioa to the Cosy on the development of this ordinance. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the safety hazard of the trees and stated that he would like to see all of the Blue Gum Eucalyptus eliminated and replaced with a safer tree. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to reccgmend adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance to the City Council with the following _­_a;asted amendments: Standard tree replacement size of 15 gallon, inspection or trcies prior to planting, reference in the ordinance with regard to staking standards, clarification of language relative to which body an appeai is filed, and removal of the preservation language. Additionally, staff was directed to proceed with an amendment to the Et1wanda Specific Plan with regard to tree preservation. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS STOUT, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS': NONE ABSEI.T; COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried NEW BUSINESS F. AREA DEVFLOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH- A conceptual development plan for South Victoria Vineyards age, a 117.4 acre portion of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the: north side of Base Line Road, between tiilliken-and Rochester, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks - APN 227-081-6. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Bailey; representing the applicant, asked clarification Condition A-2 relative tc streets and asked that where the requirement is to build more than half of a street which is also frontage of property not owned by William Lyon would they be reimbursed. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 23, 1985 Barrya Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this applicant would enter intu a Reimbursement Agreement insuring such reimhursement. Mr. Bailey referred to Condition B-1 and advised that the storm drain was being. designed by the City's consultant, therefore the City-should be responsible to going to Flood Control for approval'. Mr. Hanson replied that the intent of this condition is that if the William Lyon Company contacts with a flood control facility, they would deal directly with the Flood Control District. If they do not, the condition does not apply. Mr. Bailey referred to Condition B-3 and asked that the language be clarified to require conceptal design and explained that the final facility would oe easigned at the time of the development plan. Steven Ford, representing William Lyon Company, explained that the concern was that they didn't want to complete final designs of an interim measure prior to bring final plans before the Commission. Mr. Hanson 'agreed to the substitution of "conceptual" for "interim'. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Stout, to adopt the Resoution approving the Area Development Plan for Victoria Vineyards South, with amendments to include clarification of language relative to storm drain master plan, and amendment to Condition B-3 to reflect conceptual drainage protection. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, STOUT, MCNIEL REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:, BARKER carried` DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-09 - A-1 SHELL - A request for relief from landscape and irr ga ion improvemen s m conjunction with the construction 1 of a 450 square foot storage room on an existing gas/service station located on the north side of Foothill, west of Klusman - APN 208-151-19.. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chr,irman Stout invited public comment. Paul Kiehl representing the applicant, gave:an overview of the request. Planning Commission Minutes -7 October 23, I9B5 ,t� R Chairman Stout asked if there were long range plans for this facility. AAk Mr. Kiehl replied that he was rdally not in a position to say; however, would speculate that in approximately five years Shell would come before the Planning Commission with a request to demolish this facility and reconstruct a new one. Chairman Stout stated that he could not see why the Shell Company would want to invest this money now, if the station was to be removed and reconstruction in that short length of time. Mr. Kiehl advised that the company had budgeted $5,000 to improve the storage area for this service station, However, when advised by City staff of the amount of landscaping which would be required, it far outweighed the cost of the storage area, which is the reason, for the appeal. Chairin Stout advised that the City is in the process of upgrading Foothill Boulevard and would be dev ;oping considerable changes as to Foothill's image and landscape requirements. For this reason, until .1e policies are established, the -City is discouraging people frr- ,ng any type of improvements at this time. Mr. Kiehl stated that the problem is that he dues not have storage for supplies and was recently cited by the. City for storing items outside of the service station. He further advised that he has been burgularized many times and needed a secured area for his storage area. He further stated that the crosswalk runs into the planter area and felt children would walk all cjer the plants. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Rempel _skated that unless Shell would give a commitment or bond that in some period of time they would redo this station to meet the Foothill' standards, he :ionld not be in favor of allowing the request. Commissioner McNiel felt sympathy for the station owner; but by same token, some extensive planning .has gone into foothill Boulevard and this is an opportunity to act upon this. Commissioner Ch;ti ea stated she also felt a great deal of sympathy for the station owner,and the situation he is in. However, she felt that approving this appeal would be inconsistent with the Commission's past decisions and its commitment to the Foothill policies. Chainaan Stout agreed and felt that there was another consideration which was that this repair facility probably should be relocated to a larger area. In order to be consistent with past decisions, he felt that the Commission could not approve this request. Planning Comiission Minutes -8 October 23, 1985 L ,r:r, s Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to deny Minor Development Review Alk 85-09, -Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: - COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER carried H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-27 BARMAKIAM - A review of wall design, along ucamonga ree. Channel for an approved multi-tenant industrial park located at the southwest corner of Arow and Vineyard: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Pete Pitassi, representing the applicant, asked for clarification of the wall design along Cucamonga Creek Channel. Chairman Stout asked if it would be possible to have a combination of a retaining wall witiv pilasters and wrought iron to make the total on the trail side of 6 feet. Mr. Pitassi stated that he would be willing to consider this option. Chairman Stout felt this could come back as a consent item at Design Review. He felt this would be a compromise that would not destroy aesthetics for the property, yet pr vide a safety element for the trails. ec.,-gissioner Rempei suggested the possibility of a 3 foot retaining wall then putting concrete rail 2 or 3 feet above it. C. Chairman Stout stated that his thoughtwas that the pilasters would br: of the i same block used on the retaining wall. Mr. Pitassi stated that he would prefer the use of wrought iron. Further, he would like to explore these two options and bring them before the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to refer this item to Desig'i Review Committee for review and approval. 4 Ask Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 23, 1985 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Remp el,. seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn. -- 11;30 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 23, 1985 CITY OF RANCHO._000AMONGA PLANNING'COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 11, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City.of Rancho Cucamonga Planning'Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Herman Rempel (Arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Dennis Stout ABSENT; Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman. Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Howard Fie:as, Assistant Planner; Me-icy Fong, Assistant Plannev; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; James Markman„ City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Joe Stofa, Senior Civil Engineer CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL 'MAP 821Q - GOLDEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES, INC. Located on the north side of 7th Street, east side of-Hellman Avenue - APN 209-171-49 through 56. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10088 NICOSIA A residential subdivision of 82 acr<<s into 3 single family Tots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac), located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Carrara Street - APN 201-071-14, 37, 45. Motion: Moved by Barker, �_Conded by Chitiea, to adopt the consent calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL,>REMPEL PUBLIC AEARINGS (Commissioner Rempel arrived: 7:10 p.m.) Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-02 - ISHII The development of a one-story church of 14,740 square feet and an associated small stora9e building of 216 square feet, on 3.88 acres of land in_the Very Low Residential 'District "located on the northwest corner of Haven and Hillside - APN '201-101-027. , (Continued from August 28, 1505 meeting. Related file: PM 9064) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9064 - CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY AINTS - A division of 4.24 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 du/ac) located on the nnrthwest corner of Haven and Hillside - APN 201-101-027. (Continued from August 28, 1985 meeting. Related file: CUP 85-02) Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public Tearing. Ron Ishii, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the Resolution and recommended conditions of approval. John Tarrent, 10475 Vivienda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that this design was an improvement over the original submittal but was still concerned with the overall height of the building. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the redesign was a tremendous improvement over the original. design and that the roof line had been broken up. Commissioner Barker stated that he appreciated the changes made by the applicant and that the redesign was more appropriate. He stated that he empathisized with the property owner to the north, but the roof height as now proposed would-be no higher '�*Itan what would be allowed.with construction of a 2-story house. He advised that the applicant had mitigated all the concerns and that he could think of Nothing else to require the applicant to do. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September'11, 1985 i Commissioner Rempel stated that the applicant had put in a lot of work on this project in an attempt to address the concerns of the Commission and adjacent property*owners. •He stated that he too sympathized with the Mr. Tarrent in the loss of his view, but the applicant had made every attempt to mitigate that issue. :'►airman Stout agreed that the redesign was an improvement over the original submittal and that the!. applicant had come up with an amiable solution. He was, concerned with the proposed fencing for the equestrian trail, and stated that it should be consistent with the trails already constructed along Haven and Hillside. Motion: Moved by 'Barker, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-02, with the added condition that the equestrian trail fencing be consistent with the existing fencing along Haven and Hillside. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 906-- Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried E. TENTATIVE TRACT 12642 K & B - A residential subdivision of 470 lots on 5 acres of land, which is part of Caryp. Planned Community, located between the extension of Banyan Avenue and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and, Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN 225-141-08, 12-19, 21-28. The. Commission will review proposed modifications to the previously approved single family project, including dwelling unit sizes, and elevations. (Continued from August 28, 1985 meeting.) Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r Planning Commission Minutes -3 September 11,' 1985 Fran,° Scardina, representing Kaufman and Broad, addressed the issues r?*sed by the Planning Commi"ssion at their August 28th meeting. Regarding the roofing material, Mr. 'Scardina advised that the applicant would be agreeable.to the, condition requiring tile roofs and was also willing to limit the number of single family homes proposed to be constructed in the 830 to 900 sn"Ara foot series. Chairman Stout questioned the use of_plus or minus with regard to the number of units to be constructed at the larger square footage. Mr. Scardina replied that no less than 45 and 32 would be constructed in the 1477 and 1690 square foot series, respectively. There wera no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated- that ,a had no problem with the distribution as presented. Commissioner Barker stated that he was still not overjoyed with this change and he did not believe that any homes should be constructed at the 834 square foot size. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that !!ha did not think that homes under 900 square feet should be built in the City. She felt that under the circumstances this would be acceptable given that the smaller units were proposed at 6.8% and the larger units increased to 20.4%. Chairman Stout suggested that the reference to plus or minus be removed and replaced with "no less than" for the 1477 and 1690 square foot units. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to approve the proposes! modification for Tract 12642, with conditions that tile roofing material is -used, that the 1477 and 1690 square foot units to be constructed at no less than 45 and 32, respectively, and that the 830 and 900 square foole units not exceed 16 and 31 units, respectively. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIE1 carried Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 11, 1985 F. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12642 - KAUFMAN & BROAD - A request to amend the conditions of; approval for Tentative Tract 12642 by modifying_the landscaping standards for slope areas for a residential subdivision of 47d lots on 115 acres of land, which is part of a larger master planned community, located tetween the extension of Banyan Avenue and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenueson the east and west - APN 225-141-08, 12-19, 21-28. G. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12643 - MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT - A request to amend the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract; 12643 by modifying the landscaping standards for slope areas for a reside!Itial subdivision of 463 single family lots on 104 acres of land in the Carsm !planned Community (Phase I1), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of Banyan Avenue, west side of Rochester Avenue, east of Milliken Avenue APN 225-141-08, 12-16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 225-151-3, 7, 11, 13. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if landscape standards were a part of the Development Agreement for this project. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, replied that by reference condition, of the map were made a part of the Development Agreement. Chairman Stout asked if the Agreement would have to be modified if this amendment was approved. Mr. Kroutil replied that the Planning Commission can modify the landscaping standards; however, the City Council would have to amend the actual Agreement. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Paul Byrnes, Marlborough Development, stated that this issue was being reviewed by the Commission as a quality issue and would not affect the terms of the Development Agreement. Florian Martinez, landscape architect, stated that the applice ; wished to i discuss the feasibility of tree planting at one per 250 square feet versus one per 150 square feet. He stated that the desired outcome would be to open up the views which might ',: blocked when the trees mature if plantcl at the lesser ratio. He'stateu that many times trees are planted too densly and are removed by the homeowner. He suggested that the trees might be made available to property owners to place in another location on the site. He advised that the planting would be a mixture of evergreen aisd deciduous trees. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the proposed amendment. Joe DiIorio, property owner, stated that the condition was that the backyard slopes would follow city ordinance; therefore, these questions are really directed towards the ordinance. He suggested a review of the ordinance to see Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 11, 1985 if changes are necessary, He added that it was important to point out that applicant is not trying to save money since trees would be made available to property owners for.use in other areas on-their property.. Mr. Byrnes agreed that this issue might be an ordinance issue in the long run; however, in order to record tracts, the timing involved in waiting for an ordinance change might be awkward. Further, if the Commission looked favorably on the proposed alternatives, this condition might be 'approved and the ordinance review could follow or possibly allow the tract to proceed with bonding for landscaping. He pointed out that the condition quotes to ordinance, therefore it would have to be changed separately. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated that he could not picture what was being proposed in terms of plaiting •ratios and was not prepared to make a decision without more information. He agreed that if the standards established aren't feasible, the ordinance should be changed. With respect to this project, he stated that if the amendment proposed changing a few trees around, it would seem rather minor as to how accomplish this. Commissioner Chitiea concurred and stated that the standards sh,y;,sd be adhered to with the provision for some flexibility until the ordinance is reviewed to see if changes are necessary. James Markman, City Attorney, stated that the development agreement requires that changes to the conditions arQ accomplished through a development agreement amendment, which is processed like a zone change with a 90-120 day time line attached to it. Further, that all parties should be in agreement to the amendment. He advised that there is plenty of time to amend this condition if questions are still unresolved in that the changes could be processed while this project develops since the landscaping is one of the last things that has to be accomplished. Further, that the amendment would be a public hearing to amend the development agreement which may also may lead to the conclusion that the Development Code should be amended since this agreement parallels the Code. He additionally aalised that all parties to the development agreement must be in agreement th-t an amendment is warranted. Chairman Stout asked if the changes could be made to the development agreement which are in violation of the Development Code, without actually amending the Code. Mr. Markman replied that this could be done since thn development agreement is contract zoning and as to this particular property is is the Development Code. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the Resolutions provided to the Commission did not contain conditions which would normally be required of a tract map in that does not require the approval of landscape and irrigation plans prior to issuance of building permits. If timing is critical to the developer, he advised that the Commission might considering directing staff to Planning Commission Minutes ' -6- September 11, 1985 Y,, work out a solution on the landscaping and allow permits to be issued and construction to commence with the understanding that-the technical details of how many trees will be worked out and brought back to Commi570 :'ith renderings and photographs to show how it would actually look. Mr. Markman advised that if the amendment is not processed by the time the development gets to the landscaping stages, the terms of the Development Agreement will control and whatever is then in the Agreement will have to be done. Commissioner Barker stated further information was necessary. Commissioner Rempel referred to the planting a o7q Carnelian and stated islat if the Ordinance requires this type of planting, ho, would agree that it does need to be looked at because that area is over planter Chairman Stout stated that there might be some flexibility in the types of trees planted and with respect to the number of trees necessary. He advised that the rigid standard was developed to insure quality; if that is not being accomplished he stated there may be other planting methods which --uld still insure quality. Mr. bS-nes stated that within a week the landscape architect would provide photographs and examples of the proposal. Mr. Markman advised that amendments to the Development Agreement cannot be made unless approved by all parties to the agreement. He advised that whatever comes before Commission should have concerted group behind it. Mr. Byrnes advised that he may have to start off as conditioned in the D(•ielopment Agreement as it now stands and proceed with the change during future phases. Mr. Markman stated that when the package is agreed upon, it will require a 10- day notification of public hearing before the Planning Commission can cnnsider suggesting an ordinance which amends the Development Agreem.snt. Further, that a similarly noticed hearing will have to follow before the City Council for an Ordinance which amends the Development Agreement and that requires two �I meetings and a 30-day waiting period, assuming no referendum. He advised that the applicant would realistically have a 90-120 day time line. The consensus of the Commission was to take no action at this time. The applicant 13 to p-ovide additional information for the Commission's review and staff was directed to provide the Commission with a status report in two weeks. 8:20 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:35 p.m. - Planning Commisrion Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -7-- September V, 1985 C H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-13 - SHAW A proposal to locate a caretaker's trailer on a Christmas tree farm located on 12.8 ac,,es on the south side of Base Line, east of Rochester in a utility corridor - APN 227-161-33. John Me!/er, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff repos-t. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Robert Shaw, 228 Albright, Upland, California, stated that the Edison Company had advised him that the conditions being required by the City were unreasonable since his lease could be revoked at any time, Mr. Shaw stated that he and his wife operate the Christmas tree farm and it is only open for business from November to December. He objected to the landscaping and parking lot requirements. Chairman Stout asked what requirements were being objected to by the Edison Company. Mr. Shaw replied that the Edison Company's objections were with regards to the modular units and landscaping, aiul that they were also concerned with flood control. Dan Coleman, Senior Planttier, advised that the conditions for this applicant are the same as those which have been approved for other zpplicants within the Utility Corridors. Further, that staff had been in contact with the Edison Company and had not been infon:ed of any objections they had wits regard to conditions for this application. Chairman Stout stated that paved parking is not required of this project as in other areas of City and that all other projects in the City are being reuired to install landscaping. He suggested that the item be continued to allow the applicant to submit a site plan for the Commission's review and for staff to contact Edison Company. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-13 to the October 9, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried * * * * Planning Commission Minutes -8 September 11, 1985 i I. ENVI":MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11928 - SALVATI - A resicential sub-division. and- Design Review for townhouse units op 5.85 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/:ic) located on the north side of Highland Avenue, ± 800 feet east of Archibald Avenue APN 201-252-32. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested that the Commission consider a condition that the elm trees be preserved or relocated on the site but that the Eucalptus be replaced with a more appropriate variety. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Dominic Salvatti, applicant, concurred with the Resolution and recommended' conditions of approval. Chairman Stout asked if the Department of Transportation, Flood Control and Airports had provided the applicant with direction as to what type of wall design would be acceptable adjacent to the flood control channel, es n w p � 9 Mr. Salvatti replied that dec%rative block wrought iron on the top had been suggested. He advised that he v;ou;ld be willing to work With the DPA and staff to resolve the issue. Chairman Stout suggested a condition to bring the wall solution back before the Design Review Committee. Joel Phares, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that he was not opposed to the project but was concerned with the security gate, and inadequate guest parking which might result in parking along Hlghland Avenue. H^ suggested that no parking be posted on Highland Avenue. There were no further comments, therefore the pbblic hearing was closed. Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding the security gate. Ms. Fong replied that the security gate was proposed by the residents at a neighborhood meeting. Staff advised that the condition should reflect that if a security gate is installed, it will have to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Stout stated that he felt the long expanse of wall along the channel was aesthetically offensive and suggested a condition that a solution to the wall be Worked out by staff, the Flood Control District and the applicant. He further advised that the solution should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 11, 1985 Commissioner Rempol addressed the guest parking and stated that }'7is project provides more than the required number of guest parking spaces which should address the concern of parking along Highland. James Markman, City Attorney advised that preclusion of parking along the street is not something that the Commission can condition, but is controlled by the City Council and Vehicle Code. He advised that the Commission would address this issue by assuring that adequate on-site guest parking is prvided for a project. Chairman Stout asked if a condition had been proposed r: 3arding the alternates for the retaining wall. Mr. Markman stated that the conditions did not reflect this and recommended ` wording that required the applicant to provide a common wall with the adjoining westerly property owner. Motion: Moved by Jhitiea, seconded by Rempel, to issue an Negative Declaration and adop_, the Resolution approving Environmental Assesswjnt and Tentative Tract 11428, with the following amendmei. ..,: the Elm trees are to be relocated and the Eucalptus trees are to be replaced; the wall design is required to be submitted to the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits; and, the applicant is to work with the adjacent property owner on a common wall on the west property line. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CH'TIEA, ni'. I., BARKER, STOUT NO,-S: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Mr. M •-kman ad:._i ,:hat if traffic or parking along Highland become a problem for the residents in the area, they should bring it to the attention of the City's Traffic Department and City Council. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-20 - HOYT LUMBER COMPANY 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 Professional District, located at 7110 Archibald, northwest corner of Archibald and Lomita Court APN 202-151-33. Nano Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Y g> R Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 11, 1985 i Rick Nelson, representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and recommended Conditions of Approval Chairman Stout questioned the need for the roll-up door located on the south elevation. Mr. Nelson advised that this area would be used us access .for deliveries. Chairman Stout was concerned that the roll-up doors would be difficult to hide. Mr. Nelson sta`.ed that trees were going to he p'.anted on the south side of the doors, which he felt would buffer the view from Lomita Court. Chairman Stout asked if there would be a parking lot located adjacent to Lomita Court. Ar. Nelson replied that the parking lot was not being proposed at this time, it was merely placed on the master plan. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel commended the applicant in his efforts to improve the appearance of the building. He felt that the expansion of the business was appropriate to serve the needs of the City. Commissioner Barker was concerned with using landscaping vo try to hide things; he pointed out that this has been tried in the industrial area and doesn't seem to do the job. He wanted more assurance that it was not going to be blantantly visible. Commissioner Chitiea stated that additional landscaping had peen discussed along the south and north elevations with more trees along the Front a. the building. ° Commissioner Rempel stated that the final landscape plans have to go back before staff for review, at which time this concern could be addressed. Further, that a motorist driving up Archibald would really have to lnak to see the roll-up doors on the south side. Chairman Stout felt there needed to be a little more. work done on tha elevations to further enhance the building. He suggested that the roll-up doors located on the south elevation are unnecessary and suggested that some type of side loading dock could be located in the back. further, that the elevations should be brought back to the Design Review`Conalttee. Commissioner Rempel stated that it would be difficult to eliminate the doors on the south side of the building Because they are necessary to facilitate people trying to get materials out or the building. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 11, 1985 Commissioner Barker agreed that the building needed to be upgraded further and , it should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. ha was also concerned with the :landscaping proposed and :suggested that it also be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that there might be a better solution to mitigate the concerns regarding the roll-up doors and landscaping; therefore, agreed, that the project needed further refinement. Chairman Stout advised that the consensus seemed to be that the building needs to be further up-graded and the roll-up doors on the south elevation need looked at along with the landscaping. He asked if the applicant would be willing to continue the public hearing to al'sow further work on the elevations and review by the Design Review Committe. Mr. Nelson replied that he would like to have a continuance in order to address these concerns. ' Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, to continue the public .hearing for Conditional Use Permit 85-20 to the October 9, 1985 Planning Commission meetir, to allow the applicant to further refine the building elevatiuns and address the issue of the roll-up doors on the south elevatio,, and the landscaping concern. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-14 - MULL'ER The development of three office buildings totaling 53,226 square feet, and four industrial buildings totaling 155,704 square feet within an existing industrial site that has an existing 148,000 square foot manufacturing building on 18:42 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue APN 209-021-16, 17, 5. Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner,'reviewed the staff report. Ms. Fong suggested that Planning Division condition 7 be amended to delete "removed" and replace with "screenEd" in reference to storage tanks. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steve Muller, applicant, concurred with the Resolution and recommended conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes _12- September 11,, 1985 Buster Filpi, adjacent property owner, stated that he did not oppose the project but was concerned with the drainage problem which currrently exists on 9th Street and Archibald. He stated that E;s property is flooded during heavy rainfall. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he was not aware of the flooding problem on 9th Street. He suggested that this project could be conditioned to complete a hydrology study prior to the issuance of building permits. -Commissioner Rempel suggested Engineering condition 6 could be amended to . state that a final hydrology study is to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. James Markman, City Attorney, recommended that the location of 9th Street and Archibald be included in the condition and that it should be based on review and approval by the City Engineer. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-14, with an amendment to Planning Division condition 7 that "removed" be replaced with "screened" with reference to storage tanks and Engineering Condition 6 to require submi.tal of a hydrology study on 9th Street and Archibald to the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL • -carried .z 9:45 p,m. Planning Commission Recessed 10:05 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission: L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND Pi1`tCEL MAP 9498 - REITER-RINKER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A division of Wfacras into 5 parcels ir: the Industrial Par District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street - APN 210-081-1, 2, 3, and 16. (Related file: DR 85-31) Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 11, 1985 y�, M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-31 - REITERAINKER The development of a master,plan for a 4 acres.off ice business p.ar and the—first phas consisting of 3-office buildings totaling 88;900 square feet on 6.5 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue. Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Haven Avenue - APN 210-081-1, 2, 3, 16. (Related File: Parcel Map 9498) Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Development Review staff report. Barrye Hanson reviewed the Parcel Map staff report. Mr. Hanson raised concerns with the texturized pavement 'proposed for the project entrance, and the median break at 4th and Utica. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tim Beadle, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Beadle highlighted comments made in a letter distributed to the Commission. He requested that the final dei. ;ils of the number of trees designated for preservation and relocation be defined with the first phase development plan. Regarding the fencing around the trees, he suggested-the.specifics for that condition be determined with the tree lncation plan. Mr. Beadle addressed the concern regarding the traffic access and median design along 4th Street. He requested that no condition be imposed at this time and that the Cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga meet with the property owners of the adja^ent land to determine the most effective sf*reet cross section design. Regarding the total cash contribution for the landscape median on Haven Avenue, he requested that a lien agreement be used as a substitution. Mr. Beedle presented a brochure and sample of the pavement blocks proposed for the project entrances and advised that it is a durable product which has been used extensively by other developments. Chairman Stout asked if there Wore a way that "Raricho Cucamonga" could be incorporated in the monument sign. Mr. Beedle replied that the applicant would be willing to 'look at this possibility. Jim Barton, 8409 Utiod, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the project and commended the applicant for their work in the community. Bruce Strickland, representing Vanguard Development, supported the project, however, was concerned with the northand south street proposed between Utica and Haven. He asked.for a modification to eliminate the street connecting from Trademark in the center of the project to the north or with a provision, that it is not necessarily mandatory or required that this street connect i through the property to the north. Planning Commission Miinutes -14- September 11, 1985 Jim Frost, Etiwanda resident, stated that he agreed with engineering staff's input regarding.the pavement ,crossings, .but they should be put in as proposed by the developer anyway.` There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he couldn't , agree with most of staff's concerns relative to the pavement crossing; the only cr,cern he would have would bp placing a cross walk in the middle of an expanse of street and suggested that some type of alternative for warning devices or placement should be explored. Commissioner Rempel agreed and stated crossing problems are gong to occur, but felt that the texturized ppavement itself would serve as a signal to motorist that pedestrians would be crossing at that location. t Commissioner Chitiea stated that the pavement was aesthetically pleasing and an overall upgrade to any project. Chairman Stout stated that the texturized pavement is a good example of the quality of this development and is very attractive. Jim Markman, City Attorney, asked whether a traffic engineer had opined to the applicant that this would be a reasonably safe material to use as a pedestrian paving and the applicant had then proceeded on that basis, and the applicant would represent that to the Commission. Mr. Beedle replied that a structural detail had not been done by a traffic engineer, but the history had been reviewed which represented a qualification of what this particular project does, He advised that at a point prior to construction a structural engineer would provide detailed designs that would be referred to City engineering staff for review. t Mr. Markman aivised that he would like to have the applicant agree to provide a traffic engineering opinion to the effect that this is a reasonable use of this material. Mr. Beedle replied that he would not have a-problem with such a condition; however, would prefer that traffic engineer be substituted With a stru.Stural engineer or civil engineer who designs road sections. Mr. Markman clarified that the engineer could be anyone who is willing to take on the safety factors that were listed by the. engineering staff relative to pedestrian safety. Commissioner Rempel stated that when oil is on pavement it will create skidding when wet, whereas experience with texturized pavement has shown that the oil will be absorbed. Further, that -a painted stripe on pavement will. also cause skidding. He felt the safety factors will be enhanced by the use of this product. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 11, 1985 J Mr. Markman suggest that condition 7 and G-1 of the Resolution be modified to read that the applicant will submit an engineering opinon to the satisfaction of the City Attorney as to the safety of use of texturized pavement prior to its usage as a pedestrian walkway. Albert Brunsweiger, representing the applicant was concerned with this requirement if the intent was to Rave an engineer assume all responsibility for any future accidents that could occur . Mr. Markman stated that the City engineering staff has specified what they perceive are safety problems with this pavement. He advised that the City is entitled to design immunity when it accepts any material pertaining to public streets so long as the design is accepted based on a reasonable engineering opinion; however, the only opinion available is one in which City engineering staff states that the material is unsafe. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9498, with the City Attu-ney's amending language to condition 7 and G-1 pertaining to the required engineering report; a lien agreement permitted in lieu of a cash deposit for the median on Haven; the median in 4th Street and Utica removed from the conditions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Motion: Moved by ';hitiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration- and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 85-31, with amendments to the Resolution reflecting the language proposed by the City Attorney relative to the engineering st-Wy and modification consistent with the median requirements. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL carried N. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-17 - EQUI A consistency determination between the foothill Corridor Interim Policies and an exterior remodel to Equi's restaurant, located at 10006 Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077-621-26. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 11, 1985 Mr. Markman stated he uas not necessary as concerned with autos as he was concerned about the potential slipping of pedestrians. Chairman Stout asked for dicussion on the median and stated that he didn't think a decision should be made at this 'time on the median on 4th Street, but felt it should be decided if and whey. the median becomes for of a reality. This was the consensus of the Commission. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the north/south street between Utica and Haven. He stated "hat the street had always been shown conceptually and could see nc reason to delete it at this time. Further, that at some point in time a master plan should be developed by the landowners in that area so that the Commission could. make_a decision on what happens to that street farther i north, based on some type of intelligent information. Commissioner Barker stated that the street is not going to be an immediate impact on this preect; if it becomes and issue it could be addressed separately. It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the north/south street connection. Mr. Beedle asked for discussion regarding the lien'agreement in lieu of the cash deposit and the chainlink fences proposed for around trees. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, concurred with the applicant regardia. the tree fencing and advised that this could be handled as a part of the relocation plan which would address the care and maintenance of trees while they are waiting to be transplanted. Commissioner Barker stated that the fences are intended to remind people not to knock them over; therefore, the concern was with regard to saving the trees. Chairman Stout stated that an agreeable solution could be worked out with staff. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the lien agreement. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the preferrence is_ a cash deposit; however, a lien agreement is acceptable. He advised that the normal case would be for the applicant to construct the median, then as property is developed across the street the applicant would be, reimbursed. Commissioner Rempal supported the proposal for a lien agreement and stated that the fact that the agreement can be called in gives adequate protection. Further, that the median really needs to be constructed at one time therefore, its necessary to know what the final design will be. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 11, 1985 Bob Equi, applicant, addressed the Ms advising that he wished to upgrade and improve the exterior af'hs business. Chairman Stout advised that the City was currently in the process of studying Foothill Boulevard in an effort to improve the area. Further, that the staff tiad been directed to submit projects to the 'Planning Commission for a determination as to whether they are consistent with the Interim PoK i$;s for Foothill Boulevard. He pointed out that the Commission requires this review in an effort to save the applicant from investing a lot of money into a project that may not be consistent with the Interim Policies. Tom Davis, project architect: stated that he would prefer to continue discussion of this project to the Commission's next meeting to allow for the prese tation of appropriate renderings. Chairman Stout suggested that if more time is necessary, the applicant might compare this proposal with the Interim Policies to see if modifications can be made or explain why they cannot be made. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the access should be reviewed by the Engineering staff. Commissioner Chitiea stated that enough information was not available, and wo;ild agree that it was necessary in order to make a decision. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue discussion of Minor Development Review 85-17, Equi, to the October 9, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-15 ASSURED MINI - STORAGE - Construction of a mini-storage development, with office totaling 45,000 square feet on 1.17 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) District located on the north side of 4th Street and east of Turner Avenue - APN 210-371-03. Howard fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Charles Wear, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the revisions the project. Allan Tibbetts, adjacent property owner, opposed the project and was concerned with height and length of the proposed buildings. He also opposed the project based on its incompatibility with the adjacent Haven Avenue Overlay District. Planning Commission Minutes -is- September 11, 1985 k There were no further comments. Commissioner Barker stated his maneir concern with this project has always been the height of the wall and the length of the building. Further, that even Y; though attempts have been made to .mitigate those concerns, they did not quite Commissioner Rempel stated that a mini-storage in this location is not the appropriate use. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated her previous statement that she did not think this was appropriate ualess she could absolutely be convinced that a mini storage could be so beautifully designed that it would work in that location. She further stated Viat she realized that more work has been put into the design of the project', but the height and length of the building concerns had not adequately been mitigated. Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised that the Resolution provided by staff was one of approval and suggested that the Resolution could be amended to change "approving" to "denying", Section 1 amended to read that the following cannot be met, Strike conditions 1 and 4, and removal of the conditions relative to the project. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempei, to deny Development Re'A ew as- 18. Motion carried by the following vote 4' AYES: COMMISSIOMERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL DIRECTOR'S REPORTS P. TREE ORDINANCE REVISIONS Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. He advised that the purpose tonight would be an introduction of the Ordinance to allow Planning t Commission input prior to the public hearing which would be scheduled in October. Commissioner Barker suggested that he would like to have the testimony which was made by Alden Kelly at a recent City Council available for the Commission's information during review of this ordina�.ce. Further, that replacement should be a specific directive agreed upcn for consistency purposes. Planning Commission Minutes -Za- September 11, 1985 Vic Cherbak, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated support of the tree repiacement policy. Jim Frost, Rancho Cucamonga resident, supported the ordinance and asked that if a decision regarding the tree removal or replacement 'is altered after approval, it should be communicated back to the community. Further, that reference should be made that .istoric 'landmark alterations would have to be referred to ;he City Council for approval. He suggested that the reference to the Fire Department of Rancho Cucamonga should be changed. Chairman Stow- suggested that the $500 violation ;penalty be increased to $1000. Further, that the ordinance be referred to the Historic Preservation and Citizens Advisory Commissions for their input prior to the public hearing. Q. DESIGN REVIEW DUAL COMMITTEES Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded ty Rempel, carried, to appoint the following Commissioners to the dual Design review Committees. First Rotation (Present to January 1, 1986) Commissioners Stout and Chitiea - Commercial/Office Professional Design Review Committee. Commissioners Rempel and Barker - Residential Design Review Committee C:mamissionez McNel is to serve as the alternate for both committees. Second Rotation (January 1, 1986 - June 3:1, 1986) Commissioners Chitiea and Rempel Commercial/Office Professional Design Review Committee. Commissioner. McNiel and Barker - Residential Review Committee. Chairman Ftout will serve as alternate for both Committees. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REPPEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS': NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Ptanning Commission Minutes -20- September 11, 1985 ADJOUVINMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:20 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Cc4A scion Minutes -21- September 11, 1985 � ,l` CIT"z OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�ca"aoti STAFF REPORT O F � Z U 1977 DATE: November 27, 1985' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL• ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-34 - TOKAI/SCRIPTO For the construction of a 194,774 square foondustrTal manufacturing facility on 11.19 acres of land, located at the northeast corner of T ,onto Avenge _ and 7th Street, in Subarea 10- of the Ir.,ustrial Area Specific Plan - APN 209-401-7, 8, 9. I. PROJECT AND SITE OESCRI',trON: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration S. Purpose: To construct 194,714 square foot industrial manufacturing facility C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing warehouse facility South Existing warehouse facility East - Existing manufacturing facility West Existing Tokai/Scripto facility D. Gener..: Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial/Rail Served North - General Industrial/Rail Served South - General �'ndustrial/Rail Served East - General Industrial/Rail Served West - General Industrial/Rail Served E. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant :with indiaenous shrubs and grasses sloping at 3% from norto to south. The site has no significant landforms or cultural aspects and currently has all street improvements in place ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 27, 1985 DR 85-34 Tokai/Scripto Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project proposal represents the international headquarters of Tokai/Scripto, and Will consist of a 194,774 square foot manufacturing facility housing : factory, office, and automated warehouse (Exhibit "C°). The project will be fully integrated with the existing Tokai facility in terms of rec,procal driveway 4ccess, parking, architecture, and overall site plan. D'urinn review of the project, Staff noted a. 25' average landscaping deficiency along Toronto and lack of pedestrian orie-atation along both 7th and Toronto Street. In order to reet ?these development requil,ements, the applicant revised his site plan hereby deleting 20 parking spaces from 490 required spaces, and filing for a Minor Exception permit. - Staff feels that such an -0jostment will be compatible with adjoining uses and will noti ;mpact the necessary parking for the proposed use. The project is consistent with the Industrial Specific ?Ian and conforms with the intent of the General Plan. B. En0 ronmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been complet yf a 1p— p-Mant. Staff has completed Part II of the environnxntal checklist and found no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with saiFt findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration wo,0 - be in order. III. RECOMMENDATION: S__>f recmaends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully ubmitt , Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF` as Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhioit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit 'Dt-" - Building Elevations Exhibit "Ell - handscape Plan. Exhibit OF" - Grading Plan Injtiai Study, Part (I 1 FC r (p op."Ban" Inumm"R7 Future WKY 12 Hail - t FC 1 1Q I.S.P. I.S.rP. r INDWTR PE IPIG PLAN }IS.P � E " GtT t.. IYs NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMUNGA i ITLE: ��.�",�a� M h'ee PLANNING'DIVLSON EXHIBIT. �_SCALE' a.d....0 ' .. -. :.r...•r.- •_.a 9 is '•.:�•.,e r ., � 9MIMA ASSOCIATES o - }� -- _ _7101CA15?�TU ) (�] uwnrn,c•a=..c•.neon ;j UYICA AVENUE rii I i i t i±i I ••�_�� I I i i E - rz -9-t i i, >a -� ltz � I 1199� i- tORO TO AYEN:E 14 FII �Z E ® � KAJIMA ASSOCL4TES camsuas . -. {� rrac46 1`. �• L r,XMIMNI'0 (5_.I! i411�11 Illliflll `I 111 N [! ` tl2' IY _ �11 �� It116)I II i IIWNI(I�YI 2 1 n � _ .�N vis x� �v� •-� ,.:. ', rf..a.�'.�� g,q"�'��ad��'s,,��ji' .s`.''t`�7R '`:�`�y ,��. � e M - ;..'�^ -:.f ur�scsr�.-:�. r t;:. �S ?�+�' ::+}y. s ;t": , .: �: ? • ':�C.'1a3�M: lff 4i N i LE LLL l ®'annM,► AMOCIIATEE • aw6w reoa.aoe w� '�.+ i..+. �'t�' �c�• s gw t :,��q�.ti'c. <wit .:':- 1'+'_ 7•�'�,;i4�42'��.i-.� c 1 i i n $14 ei s i ix � "t K'.�� ''�,i•'Ya a: t� +4e+r.���h H -.� i. n ti�,.���aid: r '"rep �'1��� a �4'- ,.rG1# --+ •-''` -n o 3.g,�xs.Y 2'• .. '"�. r -. `•}i.,'-�7#� ��� y'l�ii�T .fel �. <7.+1� xl::-•r r;, .x » .. s�_,l I .. ! I:. kt•• . � :',>k Y Y KAJIMA ASSOCIATU � �4., R�l.. .fTISIa�+cwlaem•�eN..er.e,.ce - — -- —.:.. _ i. if ... rl;�...• `}.:.:'..r..•'i r.':ii . N , tln �11 y f swig F.a - C i 3/ �� • :['of _.,-- ��: .�I _A 6 C�x'ta:•fi3-. .. � ..itTvn ... ). .N:S tILEk:aC.:v H* 'AW9+t 6bd Aiv ji , l a F / Sol sail fill 1, 1 �) t1 •, t 1 \l'�l �� ; y , r}. 'g - a t ��.. Y sue~ ♦.. : � 1�-•. ! !�-.!oCNn[Ttf.fuaan:.a cylyq=. _ _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ank PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CFECh.LIST DATE: 2 APPLICA1,T: /-2,FILING DATE: �u�(,CST�' J ,!�'�j�j OG NUMBER:_ PR'J;fECT: /QC-11 — 7�f�ULii PROTECT LOCATION: O 'Q jl/T0 RUB'd ;7fv I. E*rLIRO\MENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES K!,YBE NO 1. Soils and Geologv' Will the proi�osal have signiricant results in: AMk a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in / geologic relationships? i b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? • C. -Change in topography crground ..surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off- site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground faildre, or`similar hazards? h•. An 'increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? �. 'Hydrolocv. Will the proposal have significant - results in: ! Page 1 YES 0 a. Changes in currents, or•the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels.? / b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, t/ or the rate and amount of surYace water runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of f'locd waters? d. Change In the amount of surface water in anv body of water?' u. Discharge into surface waters, or any alte':ation of su;race water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, _ either through direct additions or with- " drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? - Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? ✓ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will, tha proposal have signiPacant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? e/ Stationary sources? -- b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or intr_£erence with the attainm jit of applicable ai- qualit; standards? c/ c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movemen`, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in tKa'characteristics cf species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? a b. Reduction or the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of�ylants)? F; _1/7 /. l 3 YES `IMYBE -0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? Ask d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural, production? / Fauna. Will the proposal•have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics or species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare v + or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barr_er 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 ia: a. Will the proposal alter the location, 'istri- bucion, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? f b-• Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, Las rate, and property values? _— b. Will project costs be equitably distributed v' 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, cbjectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental / entities? C. An Impact upon the qulaity or gitantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive / recreational opportunl ssi?, I_/ Page L YES NO 8. Transoortation. Will the proposal have signi icart results it: a. Generation of substantial addit ion ei'vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street corstruction? ✓ C. E Teets on existing parking facilities, or / demand for naw parking? ✓ d. Substantial impact upon existing tra p-orta- �✓ tion systems? yI 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-,Lorne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? +/ g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians: 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal na're f significant results in: ; a. A disturbance to the integrity ^f archaeological, . paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the � - proposal have significant rr,ults in:, a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health / hazard? ✓ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A ri,.k 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 i organisms cr the expos-.ze of people to such organisms? / e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous .noise levels? IV S. The creation of objectionable odcjrs', .t h. An increase in light or glare? YES No 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in:. a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The cre,.ri-.% of an aesthetically offensive (/ site? c. A conflict with the obJective of. designated (/ or potential scenic corridors? _ 12. Utilities andPublic Services. Will the rroposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric poser? b. Natural or packaged gas? G� c- Commuiicatiuns systems? -/ d. Water supply? «! e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protr:,;tion? i- Police protect-on? 3• School--? k. Parks or ether recreational facilities? I. Maintenance of pubT'h facilities, including roads and flood control facilities m- Other governmental servi-es? 13, Znerqv and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal hava significant. results in: a. Use o 2 f substantia; _ excessive fcel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upc, existing sources of energy? _ c. An increase F In t;:e demand ..or development'of new sources of energy? .7w d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumptic- - of %on-renewable forms of energy, Then feasible `y. rena,.able nources of energy are available? �- 07`01�Q 0 1 .�- 7- 5 P Aend"a Packet .o �a e o 4 Page 6 YES M-AYBE NO e. Substantial depletion.of._any nonrenewable or C scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish jr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to Eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the 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). 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 c:A3red in connection with the effects of past pro•',zcts, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have envir-4nmental.'effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on hus n being:, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION of MUROMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 116 /19GT/(�%/L�s AA Q,.rle h0�051, li�UrGG, S<cLTi.Jo7 .9 e, 57-*"zr� /2fCN- o ��r'''��`� (��=�IT�rJw.a �.�s�r�� �.s�,� Ce,•✓sT�cT;�, �-F 9ta/7�Oot/l�G./�s�6L/�iyf �L/TES , i Pace IIL 'TEk?f1TIp.1 On 7thebis of this initial evaluation: the proposed-project COULD NOT have a r significant _f.ect on the enviroInent, and a fiEGATIVE DECL:u2aTI0y will be prepared. Z 'f,ind 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. I find the, proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an EM'IRO LENT s fPAGT REPORT is required. Date. P� 4LSignat re -i^le — I r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F GUCAM'0 C STAFF REPORT �� ¢ n U a DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plar+ning Commission FROM: Brad huller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-24 LUSK BUSINESS PARK - Development of 3 industria buildings consisting of 15,600 square feet, 9,500 square felt, and 9,600 square feet, respectively, on 2.17 acres a- land in the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 6). located on the north side of Trademark, west of Haven Avenue & 4th Street APN 210-381-2, 3, 4. _ I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a NegL ie Declaration B. Purpose: To construct 3 industrial buildings C. Surrounding Land Use and Znaing: North - 'Vacant, Industrial Park (Subarea 6) South - Existing Industrial Facility, Industrial Park (Subarea 6) East Vacant, Industrial Park Subarea 6) West - Vacant, Industrial Park Subarea 6) D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South Industrial Park East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park E. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and relatively flat, sloping from north to south at 2% grade. The site has no significant land forms or cultural aspects and is part cf the Lusk Business Park (Parcel Map #5157). ITEM B J, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 85-24 -, Lusk November 27, 1985' Pagae #2 II. ANALYSIS; A. General: The project proposal consists of 3 concrete tilt-up buildings within the master planned Lusk Business Center (Exhibit "C"). Building areas will comprise'15,500 square feet and 9,500 square feet for the remaining two buildings, respectively. The proposed manufacturing/warehouse use is a permitted activity within Subarea 6 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The street improvements are currently in place and the project proposed will not substantially alter existing drainage patte!ns. _The site plan indicates more than adequate on-site parking to accomr.:odate the proposed use. B. Impacts: The 'development of the project proposed will generate additional traffic and-incrEase the amount of surface run-off from subject site. However, these increases are not significant and will not exceed the capacity of existing streets and drainage facilities. III. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the site analysis and the Initial t�this project will not cause significant ad terse impacts to the environment. SL-.ff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City M,nn_r BB:HF•cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - :4ce 'Utilization Exhibit "C" - 300' Radius Map Exhibit I'D" Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Elevation Exhibit ' ''•- Grading Plan Initial Study, Part II Aft r� Future City VE AH 1�� 4 rrNlYl.•'.Ya11il. �� 1� �-, ,' •• Immlilur Jnllw n�la : ��a" Illtttnml ��� IYYn1YM rli •. �f■r11N IYIWIt +.1111�[EYYIf•. e 'Yts'.z I•�Y 1 4"tIMTi t14111I1�-_ ` Its G 1 ' 1 s• 2• � t- j v ASWA at .. ... •� 'i � t �d .�` cif psi; dlrlw Eg 1 1 9ANCN0 .PARK �_wu+...rsw.a ..Fina.e lmxun�-112RT M Cg CUCAMdNGiA&USINESS vpceie y:,13 a is k i IB i1,4" Lt , 1 g��ca.wsuar crusrt oerr q 8: 1 y a it Maw a i INY£N.tYiAtr 13 /' ro y MAI allit 5 — 3 x :4 y 2, y. 4 �pp o 0 0 ,�'I'Win.asiey�►.�IF a.w�.w.rrou4 Ur-Omes Rn_.c J (r R • � mow. T a u • �wen.wl.rwwnr..w�mM=fu 7ra.ra s�n�cnc vsnar�ri��� cr�� aid za-�svai�wv��xv r p I — F 3 4 b p a � Z a Z W W U — 9 e L r r I MON • �, `M�1rOV+rJfTS oMJM�� i�Qtpd'YFo�M'�q a.. Y o a � Y e i i F 0 a� E 1 ABYd.SS3N7SQH VONONYona 6H3Ntltl. — ` a r 40 ll .. — ^ Ail! P } �Z,�-7^ .a♦ '"•'n,� �d' — �a n JIi E•�p ; �A M �� I ^i' ��..s II� 1 � Y �7 t q s tn4lS;.t 14 4+ R i 11 �ii C Amok CITY OF RANCHO CUCAXONGA PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY EWI1t0\21ENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:—.geCe!MSS— APPLICANT: LttS/C 13uci�vE f�i4rz/C �S.�sR.,�i<,� FILING DATE: LOG T�,JIffiER: r�/L �$'-2 e PROJECT: THOLE La^) .Sl�oCi�rGpTyS .Zit/�[GSi�. a 'u/GD/�vG S PROJECT LOCATIOYs yetiTycfl T C'o&'V'ar. -0 �t/,qvAE�'l d tfra 47- I. EEIRON:fENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation o; all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES M4YB NO I. Soils and Geolo¢v. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in / 6 geologic relationships? ✓ b. Disruptions,. displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in eopography 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? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, grou-id failure, or-similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: Page 2 YES MAYBE \0 a. Qgnges in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream Channels? b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sq;face water run-)ff? e c• Alterations to the course or flow of flood graters? - d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surfM,ce 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? t h. The reduction in the amount of seater other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? . Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or tens-:erature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal. have significant results In: a. Change in the characteristics of species, inclual-%g diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? y/ b. Reduction of th:i numbers of any unique, rare f •or endangered species of plants? ✓ Page'3 YES ?!',YE_ Sp c.• Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reductica in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results ir.: 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? r/ c. Introduction of new or disruprive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier / to the migration or movement of animals? r d. Deterioratior nr removal of existing fish or wildlife habi.at? 5. Population. Will the rroposal have significant �l results in: a. Will the proposal alter the locat'.on, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect exi.eing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? i 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results 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 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 designatins, 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? r ?age /, YES LAyst NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results inAOL a: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? / C: Effects.•onexisting parking.facilities, or 1/ demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta - tion systems? e. Alterations to Pr:;sent patverns of circula- tion or movement of people ondjor 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, bicyclisrs or pedeatrians? 9. Cultural Rees, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safetv Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have art results in: a. Creation of any, ,_,11th hazard or hazard? potential healtr / b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? V C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous •. substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals v or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such o"c�anisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? £. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? / f g. The,creation of objectionable odors? a/ h. An increase in light or glare? �j Page 5 YES �4Y3E NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Tha obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? L.. A confl2.ct with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? J 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal v have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? V/ c. Communications systems? I 'I i— d. Water supply? r / e. Wastewater facilities? V f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? / II. Fire protection? �✓ i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including / roads and flood control facilities? _ r M. Other governmental sakvices? . __.. . 1.3. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in deman4l 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 . i>f non-renewable forms 'of energy, when feasible / renewable sources of energy are available? �/ - Page 6 YES `SAYBE Np e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findinxs Of Sienificance. a• Does the project have the ial to the, quality of the environment,1tsubstantiallye reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife pcpulation to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict tue range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the majorperiods of California history or prehistory? b '-- . Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, envirormental gop.. s? U short-term impact on the environment is one which 'occurs in a relatively . brief, defirxtive 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, f and probable future projects). ✓ d. Does the project have environiental effects Which will cause substantial as .Rrse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? IZ. DISCUSSION OF EMrIR0:7 *TTAL EVALUATION the above questive answers tions Plus a discussion o=`Proposed mitii.e of gation measures).o r'6 s'.Sr.� `td464EU.E2. 44L l�/1Air'A�,E d/iGG 8 N.4/� � criaaEcT�v To ;•yE f�e P2 tlTeC7-w;e- ,3 E s'L�ptt/2Go a�0 �v20r/t/O�C e 4 14 ®s4/PX/Oj ST9LG'S AlE/f ,ZS . y� 42E�i/6f/t�i�?rt..R-Tf-o • Page 7 III. DETEIR-14INTATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find-the proposed project CODU NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NECA7,I1'E DECLARATION will be prepared. LiI 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 at.-ached sheet have been added to the project.. LE(;LARATION WILL BE PREPARED. EDI find the proposed project :LAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMT IMPACT REPORT is required, Date / — � e Signature Asps>XV7 Title CITY OF RANCHO CUC.AMONGA c��o STAFF REPORT J' I j DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Planning,Commission FROM: Barrye 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 103.1 net acres into 3 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: r A. Action Requested Approval )f Parcel Map B. Purpose: To divide 103.1 net acres into 3 parcels in the Victoria Plann•�d Community C. Locatiol North side of Base Line Road between Milliken and Rochester Avenue 0 D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - 44.9 acres Parcel 2 - 24.0 acres Parcel 3 - 34.2 acres E. Ex•,stinq Zoning: Residtintial F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use: Piorth - Vacant, Victoria Planned Community '3outh - Vacant, Terra ,Vista Planned Community East - Lumber Yard ;Jest - Vacant, Terra Vista Planned Community H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Residential, proposed school/park site South - Residential with Neighborhood Commercial ,on i G,W.C. Milliken and Base Line East - - dsidential West - Proposed park site ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 93,0 November 27, 1985 Page 2 ddIK I. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes approximately 2.5% to the south. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting to divide 103.1 net acres into parcels in the Victoria`Planned Community_for future development of residential projects, (Exhibit "C") The parcels of phis parcel map corresponds to the subareas shown on the Victoria Vineyards South Area Plan, which was approved by the Commissions on October 23, 1985, (refer to Exhibit "B"). The off-site improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy for each parcel as it develop8. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is 'Part I of the Init.'.0 Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental- checklist, and h.s 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 9350. 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 ul W j a a a � lu r k a � z NiGh4L.6 0 av�_ ATMCEER CREEK PROJi�CT tiCIFjC RJR- 6A .LJNe DVE. VICINITY MAP M T.5.. s LtiCAA{p .�° 1�� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAl*vIONGA title; cc Parcel Mao 9350 ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP N 2 �m p2gei�lb7"�A° C winsaazY7d La Ban ISM �yJ ` lttt tf�t •, 3 ,c p } U-7-+ Y W W Q J f CL.E t r N ¢ II I+ CIO -�•oov � i.r, t• 1 I U = w rw. p. ? �75.." ' w w . w = �.Jr=t• It C O ; I u a m ix to d ci � - - �- a Q � < z o y a � 0 �t ~ z W ;. O OR ✓� ao^om:z v� o ?:o - N < ,® 2U NN CO a Sq tZj1 33 LU� ct Wcr CITY Or, 1TG\[ �/ RANCHO CUCry. =I©\GA ,TITLE: �,,, PLANNING DIVISION EX!ili31T= -�SC:Li: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIi W APPLICATION o) "� �`1977 INITIAL STUDY - PtRT I GENERAL r For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must ba completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this applicaticl, the Planning Division staff will prepare P43rt II of the Initial Study and make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will may,e one of three determinations: (1) The project will have no sio.,tficant environmental impact and a Negative Devi",aration 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: Jund 25, 1985 Project Title: Victoria Vineyards South Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: The William Lyon Company, 8540 Archibald Ave. Ste B. Rancho Cucamonga, 91730 (714) 980-2244 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: Steven Ford at address and phone number above. Location of Projec'ae No rih cid ^-f Baseline toad South of the SPRRI between �I Milliken and Ric;> ster Ave.. Assessor's Parcel No.: APN 227-081-06 List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: None Adak E T-1 C- PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project: Division of land into three legal pa•.cel.s coneis n "with the approved Vineyards South Area Development Plan Acreage of project,area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: in-1.1 pe a es Describe the environmental settina of the project site including information on topography, soil stability; plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets): Vacant undeveloped land — Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which althoug't.individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact Part of the approved Victoria community plan I-2 r� r WILL THIS PROJECT: . Y'S NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours-? x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce 1 vibration or glare? _ x 3. Create a substantial change in,demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? _ x 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? x S. Remove any existing trees? How 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 soliu waste materials this project will generate.daily: None 8. E'_-timate the number of -luto and truck trips generated daily by thin _— project: None 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this roject,•in cubic yards: None 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next pa,e, NOT APPLICABLE. 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, tatements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my k wledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may fiqNrlequired to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made b t 1 planning -� Division. Date: 11-21-85 +ti Signature steven Ford ✓/ Title Protect Manager I-3 G r RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the Crt,y ;jr- Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid the school district in assessing their ab-lity to accommodate the proposed residential development. Developers are required to secure letters from the schoo'i district fnr accommodating the increased number of students prior to issuance of building permits. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3. PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Numb it of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to beoin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Modell and i# of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Raage I-4 G—CI _ I j RESOLUTION NO. Auk A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY -OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL-FORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9350 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9350) LOCATED NORTH SIDE BASE LINE ROAD BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND ROCHEST:R AVENUE I WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9350, submitted by William Lyon Company and consisting of 3 ,parcels, located north side Base Line Road betweFn Milliken and Ft;shester Avenue, being 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 i WHEREAS, on November 27, 1985, the Planning Commi'ssi n held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS _ - I SECTION 1: That the follow•;ng findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improaement of the proposed subdivision is j consistent with the General Plan. 3. Thit the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. i 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause sibstantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project rill not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on November 27, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9350 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND LDOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1966. i PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i BY: Dennis L. Stout., Chairman I I ATTEST: Brad Bu _er, Deputy.Secretary' 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Ranchu 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 27th day of November, 2985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSc ABSENT: CCMMISSIONERS a a L yip CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAMONGA RECOMMEHOED 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: 3 Section 31, Township 1 north, Range 7 West GROSS ACREAGE: 111.38 S.B. Meridian ASSESSOR PARCEL NO:_M-081-06 DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR William Lyon Comp.any Same Morse Consultivig Group 8540 Archibald Avenue 4860 Irvine Blvd Rancho Cucamonga, CA Irvine, GA 92714 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance ­;th Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: AM 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 cn Milliken Ave from centerline of street _ 54 total feet on Rochester Ave from centerline of street 60 total feet on Base Line Road from centerline 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. 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. _1_ X 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. X 7. Easements ?or sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. Street ImDrovepments Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipaq 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 development of the first tract. X 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. X 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement wit-rin a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half section streets: X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pymt. Walk Appr. Trees L Qhts Overlay Island* k1ther Milliken Ave X X **X X X X Base. Line Rd. X Y, **X X X X Rochester Ave X X **X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter **Meandering , zdewalk X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to aiy 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. 'I X 7.. Existing lines of less than 66KV fronting the property shall be undergrounded.' X' &: Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. -2 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 an decorative poles, with underground service. X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitte to and approved by the Planning Division prior to, the issuance of building permit. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. C. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satis faction o,r the City Engineer and.. City Attorney,. guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recording of the first tract map. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following:_ X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guar„nteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering al parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to recording of the first tract map. 0. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas, 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. X 4. P-M or to recordation of the first tract map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to th • City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff Ask -3- -1 1 E. Grading X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City'Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the -approved conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualisied engineer licensed by the State of California toperform 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 ez.h parcel are to be submitted to the _ Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows; CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water �X' San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of,the. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved, by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map.' X 3. Provide all utility service, to each lot including sewerage, - water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems mall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from allutilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final tract map will be subject to any requirements that may,be received from them. -4- X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, cjhysical conditions, fencing od weed control, in accordance w'.'th 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 %f recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or = showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. G. Special Conditions Streets X 1. Two means of access shall be provided for each individual project as it develops. The access shall have a minimum 26' AC paved width within 40' wide dedicated right-of-way. X 2. For Milliken Avenue and Base- Line Road construct full improvements for the rc3dbed adjacent to the project area, full median, 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 individual projects will be. determined on a project by project basis and will be dependent upon the establishment of transitions to meet existing iavement median opening, etc. The cost of one half of the median island and the additinal 181 of pavement in the adjacent roadbed shall be subject to reimbursement from the adjacent property owner upon that properties developments -5- C �4 X 3. The Rochester Avenue typical section shall be modified as follows: a: 'The curb shall be placed at 72' from the existing curb on the east side of the street (40' from 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 st:^eets at the intersections of Milliken and Rochester Avenues Leith Base Line Road. final' dedication ylrements shall be determined prior to recordation of the Final Map. X 5. Prior to recordation, a 'Notice of Intention to form and/or join Landscape and fighting Districts shall be filed with the City Council. X 6. Existing overhead utilti'es fronting the project will he required to be underground unless specifically waived by the Planning Commission as a part .of the review process.. undergrounding can be a lengthy process and if not coordinated at.the earliest date may delay your project, Drainage X 1. A ,evised storm drain master plan for the entire area shall be completed by the developer's engineer and approved ti,- City Engineer prior to the scheduling of the first project for Planning 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. X 3. lfa'.arim drainage protection measures for flows from the area to ise north shall be conceptually aesigned and approved prior to scheduling of the first projact for Planning Commission approval. KM X 4. If development proceeds prior to the improvement of Day Creek Channel, a retention basin may be required to reduce the peak runoff from the. development. CITY OF RANCHO CUC'hMMA _ LLOYD B. HUBBS, C T.-Y ENGINEER by • I i �J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM 0 O _.E- ^Q Z: DATE: November 22, 1985 U i3 a 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-30 - WOLFE Approval to operate a 2;716 square foot image salon to be located in an existing industrial park located on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of 7th within thk Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 209-262-17 The staff report for this item will be delivered on Monday. We are sorry for the inconvenience. BB:ko Amok ' ITEM D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cV OA. STAFF REPORT z��� �9� . - C 1` ram_^ ' cL •n O O a F Z U > DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner 4 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL JSE PERMIT 85-30 WOLFE: Approval to operate a 2,716 square foot image salon to be located in an existing industrial park locatedon the west side of Haven Avenue, south of 7th within the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 2-09-262-17. i. PROJECT AND. SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Conditional Use Permit B. Purpose: To locate an image salon (beauty salon) in an industrial park. C. Parcel Size: 4.09 acres. D. 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 Desi nations: Project Site - Industrial Park, North - Industrial Park. South Industrial Park. East Industrial Park. West Industrial Park. F. Site Characteristics* This site is Phase 1 of Haven Plaza, a t 50,000 industrial park, located on 4 acres of land. i II. ANALYSIS: Mr. Greg. Wolfe has proposed to locate his image salon within one (1) unit of the three (3) existing buildings in Haven Plaza. This use is defined as personal service in the Industrial Specific Plan. The image salon will incorporate professional d I personal services for both men and women. These services begin with a image buildiq consultation which will determine the service each client will undeNo. Such additional services for completion l ITEM D r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-30 - WOLFE November 27, 1985 Page 2 of the client profile will be hairstyling, make-up, pedicure, image workshops, attitude dressing, tanning, facials and massage. The salon will have between 16 and 18 full-time employees. Prnposed hours of operation are Tuesday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m, and two evenings a week until 9:00 p.m. In addition, once a month, the salon will host molasses for approximately twenty people. Similar to most non-construction conditional use permits, the main issue surrounding this application is the coroatibility of this use with other uses within Haven Plaza. A. Environmental Assessme:it: Part I of the Initial Study hs been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has determined that there is inadequate on-site parking for the proposed use. This use, similar to a beauty parlor, requires three (3) spaces per work station. Based on the floor -plan submitted, staff has determined that the nineteen (19) stations would require fifty- seven (57) parking spaces. The same floor plan area under the original site plan approval for multi-tenant use was allotted only eight (8) spaces. The proposed use will create a forty- nine (49) parking space deficit. Staff does not believe this can be mitigated by locating additional parking elsewhere, based on the distance between any additional parking and the use. III. F.'rTS F0' FINDINGS: This project has been determined not to: A. Be :n accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, Industrial Specific Plan and purposes of the district in which this 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. D. Provide the required amount of parking spaces for the proposed image salon at the Haven Plaza location. t 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 faet of the project site. i V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the, Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit request. l PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-30 - WOLFE November 27, 1985 Page 3 Be�1G� itt � Brad Buller City Planner BB:JM:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" Floor Plan Letter of Explanation Resolution of Denial 1 ARROW . aso'so`=cam-a .ae.os��` i r' o F ol 7 jet e •� ►usnbe�s � , SIfE o� subarea 51 a'® 's' s • m c a • • f 1f • i V NORTH d i . CITY OF RANCHO CLTCAMOINGA TITLE:—4�2rr� PLANNING DIVLSIaN EXli1rIT: k SCALE: SEVENTH STREET a g l ` 5' �2oJtZT !aC•�'t'IOf� -- z 'NUR\T\HV�1 I _ I C FY OF ITEWI: RAI\CHO CUCAMONGA a ITLE:_SrrE R-41q PLANNING DIVISIrIN EXHIBIT: SCALE. Al X 5HEM5 z�T (.•Ll ..F 1 L ry }��MI��IM l� �1 i /l�'L�'�ff�(/ 1 • d i , ',t f # i5 w� t •� I �.Ji It 1�1 1,I .:i i • t rr 1 OQ�Cr� ! — r; j .4 J II ^ Ap VIA A( i rtl'�aV , t It is 4�CV!$�1 t9 L i l l i = i td •� F tt o 11 Ltf F• ,ILLVE r LET111L / DI PLAY, eZjxe;vP , J is ZS FF77JJ t 7ay1�1^ i k[CF%�fni�r ;1' •! t tjt Ll� j ��;1. r• k r •f 4� �j�a '' z;F ��// ILt L �CQ/�T;III/ylC.�ridl (� pp i`j. `• • i : �i i a' � lhM.s �`,; i ' 1 ipP(!GX' � °'Oin�'dri `,•1 AM 7i819f]OfllF � ! ► U E* 1% p is o i CITY OF ITEM:_ a RANCHO CLTCAMO.NTGA TITLE: r 2 PLANNINU Divistm E}!`I![3tT: ----._SCALE _ October 16, 198S Che Ritz" 1 Greg and Shellie Wolfe SS45 Serrano Court Rancho Cucamonga; CA. 91730 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 r Sear Sirs; The Ritz CA Visable Difference] is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a professional image center located at Haven Plaza within arr over. ay district designated by Rancho Cucamonga along Haven Avenue. The proprietesrs will be offering a variety of services to the $ ' general public, beginning with Image Development Workshops where customers are first orientated to the benefits, of projecting a visual image that anhanc" their level of professionalism, measu;-e of sophistication ar-cl perception of success. Alter the introduction to our method of operation, each patron s total image will be the primary emphasis as licensed cosmetologists render hairstyling, manicure, pedicure, make-up, .message, tanning, color analysis and ' wardrobe consulting services. A salon eordination manager hired specifically to maintain customer satisfaction will oversee both the ladies and separate mans area of the facility. The Ritz will^have between sixteen and eighteen employees who will likely be working most business hours of operation, which will be Tuesday through Saturdays, Sam to Spm, and two evenings a week un- til 9pm. Once every other month, on Tuesday evening, there will be a "forum series promotion" for some twenty invited guests of The Ritz. This will be ran affair dedicated to improved lifestyles and other noteworthy .topics of interest to our customers. The Haven Plaza has been selected as the site of this valley's first orafessional image center for one reason. rho close proximity of thins location to the "intensive, high quality gateway" to Rancho CkIc"Imonga will be an excellent: feature for customers seeking pro Fessional personal services near their work place, in an atmosherre befitting their discerning patronage,. The Ritz has designed a = s marketing plan that targets the business, administrative, manager- iel, and professional community as it s customer 'base. �148 will to 6 . Providing those icividuals working along HaCn Avenue a welcome change From the usual hair and beauty salon found in most com- mercLally zoned shopping centers. Ask Anyone who desires to refine their total image in search of a - success will find the'key at The Ritz [A Visable Difference]. Thank you for 'your consideration ir- this matter. do hope our application will most with your approval. Sincerely, Gre o ,e Shellie Wolfe �l. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-30 FOR AN IMAGE SALON LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AND 7TH IN THE HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 16th day of October, 1985, a complete application was filed by Greg Holfe for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 27th day of November, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described' project. WHEREAS, there is insufficient parking available which will create-a substantial conflict between tenants at-Havei, "1 aza. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission resolved as t• follows• SECTION is 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 ' 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 impr ,ements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use compl-:s with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. - 4. That the require] anioung of parking has been provided for the proposed image salon at the Haven Plaza center. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. r Dennis L. Stout, Chairman �a ATTEST• Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 85-30 WOLFE November 27, 1985 Page 2 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreqoing 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 27th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I f i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wCAMgl, STAFF REPORT ��° Vol 2 t c a / O Z DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-31 - HILL - A proposal to construct a 600 square foot car ets-Tcer's residence on a 2.14 acre parcel in the Very Low Residential District (0-2 du/ac), located at the end of Deer Creek Lane, north of Hillside and east of Haven APN 201-243-12. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS A. Applicable regulations: Section 17.08.030-C(3) of the Development Code permits the establishment of a caretaker's residence in the Very Low Residential District subject to the granting of a Cunditional Use Permit. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant; Very Low Residential (0-2 du/ac) South - Single Family Residential, Deer Creek; Very Low Residential 1.0-2 du/ac) East - Single Family Residential, beer Creek; Very Low Residential (0-2 du/ac) West Single Family Residential, Deer Greek; Very Low Residential (04 du/ac) - C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) North Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) South - Very Low Residential (Less than_2 du/ac) East - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) West - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) D. Site Characteristics: A 'vacant 2.14 acre parcel already platted for develoFment for single-family use within the Deer Creek subdivision, :nrth of Chaffey College, and east of Haven Avenue. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-31 - Hill November 27, 1985 Page #2 II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The Development Code distinguishes between three types of accessory residential uses as follows: 1. Caretakers Residence - A dwelling unit accessory to a principal use on a site intended for occupancy on the same site, as a caretaker, security guard, servant, nr similar position generally requiring residence on the site. 2. Guest HGu.e - An accessory 'wilding not exceeding 640 square feet containing a lodging unit without kitchen facilities, and used to house occasional visitors or non-paving guests of the occupants of a dwelling unit on the same site. 3. Second Dwelling Unit - A detached or attached dwelling unit which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel or parcels as the primary unit is situated. i This proposal is to establish a caretaker's residence on a single-family lot within the Dear Creek neighborhood. The applicant states that the purpose of the caretaker's residence is to house a caretaker whose necessary presence is perform P Y to the drily maintenance responsbilityes-for the 2+acres included in the project site, such as, horse stables and landscaping. A caretaker's residence is a permitted use, subject to the granting Conditional Use Permit, and the proposed site develo;3ment plan conforms to all applicable regulations, and standards. g. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the app icaFt. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts to the environment as a result of the project. A copy of Part II of the Environmental Checklist is attached for your review and consideration. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Development "Code and General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or taus^ 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 Development Code Alk and City Standards, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-31 - Hill November 27, 1985 Page #3 IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in fhe Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Facts fiir Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative -�tlaration would be in order. Respectfully submitted, 3rad Buller City Planner Ask BB:BC:cV Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B"-- Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Part II, Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions CC=3 z Lii ED �,- E �li � Y■R a' �11 �. p♦I ♦ .y� : r :a • .E • ..) • .1 ....�, R• IRn � H �.. - •`z`i�•P' �Ir � pry"•, - "D I Figure III- LAND USE PLAN RESIDENTIAL C]VERFL0W<2waaC ct.��� ��. ./.- F =.LOW 2• MftAC. '////r1%f/l%// e ,1 /�� h C7 LOW-MEDIUM s•pww,- /'/'�/' I_p MEDIUM.ow w.PA,q MZOIUW-HIGH wzaol,rap ®HIGH 24•20w•aC 0 MASTER PLAN REOUIRED COMMERCLAUOFFICE MIX COMMERCIAL u s /�y }/• �/ >>• O COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ♦Pn -'/ i ' w war L7 NEIGHBORHOOD COMLL. 9=1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL s OFFICE f •i E _ S F, INDUSTRIAL - , 1• 2 x 2 r-'INDUSTRIAL.PARK r<GENERAL INDUSTRIAL • }�. am G.-NS V.NDUSTRLU.: RAIL: ERVED am HE(lYINDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE • C]HLLSIDE R iSfDENTI L, O OPEN SPACE ' FLOOD C01.nOL14: Y COR: _ !SPECLAL,BOULEVARD - PUBLIC FACILITIES M EXISTING SCHOOLS =- PROPOSED SCHOOLS` C_.PARKS'Ie2 sn.-n►alga p�q =CIVIL•COMMU YITY CITY OF nANCH.+CUC"ONGA GsNERAL PLAN CITY Or JTENI: _ RANCHO CL,'CANIr'.�NGA TITLE PLPANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT-. °i �I SCr1LE-_�_ lI CAM BMW • ✓ v NORTH CITY j or, ITM: 4 1_ RANCHO CUCAi ONGA TITLE. E PLANNINU DIVISION EXHIBIT. �I IQ SCt1LE= - t EE 4 4— �°",�-_-- "' ���--�.,�e�I�.•J' ' `� '�-mac-Tki- NORTH Icy or r : ITEM- '2 ATCH® CTC AI ANGA TITLE. a Le1NNING MOON E.'�HIBIT: °` tt 'SCALE �� _ -----�--------- ..ter....•,.rye„ ,� k.,,ra, RP Lz-- 1VORTH ;CITY Or rrON I: ��• I ANCHO CUCATMONGA TITLE: ... - II PLANMN(r DIVOION EXHIBIT: ' f 1 SCAI.E:�._, CITY OF RPvCxO CXA.`tONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRON:YBNTAL CHECKLIST DATE: kle."I I C1 ax 1 APPLICANT: FILING DATE: O f L00 NUMBER. PROJECT; PROJECT LOCATION: I. ENVIRO`HENT'A? IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES YaYSE NO 1. Soils and GeolZ. ;fill the proposal have signMicant suits in: a. Unstable ground conditions C in changes in geologic relations�-1ps? b. Disruptions, displacements, camps Jan or burial of the soil? c. .Change in topography or grouna surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or moa,Gicatidn Of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e• Any Potential increase, in Wind or water ero-iun of soils, affecting either on or off site conditor._2' f. Changes '•_a 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 rfneral resource? gnw 2. Hydrolocv. Will the proposal have significant results in Page YES MAYBE ti0 a. Changes in currents.-or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral=streaw channels? ' b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of .surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flaw of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of zurta:,e water in an- body of water? Y -+ e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of ?l groundwoter characteristics. g. Change in the quantity c± groundwaters, either '.hough direzt additions or with- drawl<s, or through interference with a-a aquifer? Quality? Quantity? Y :►. The reduction in the amount ,f water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding cr ?eiches? e 3. Air Quality, Will the prop,;zal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? z� Stationary sources? -! b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or l interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? C.. Biota Flora. Will the proposal hi-re 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 endangerpd spec -s of plants? °a_ } YES �LkYBE N0 c. Introduction of raw or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in'the potent-..-] fcr agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant result 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 animal,? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a ba.c_ier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? yy 7� 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 izea? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create-a demand for additional housing? " 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have �* significant results a. 'Mange in local or region,' sot o-eccr mic chrarac�eristics, including econom+-- a, commercial diversity, tax rate, a9.4 property values? b. Will prod2c� costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or pruv.ect users? 'T. Lane Use and Planning Considerat•±ons. Will the proposal have ,ign:fican.z results in? a. A substanti. . the rr_sent or planned land us r . A conflict with any objectives, policies, or adopted pla.•a 4_ governmental entities? zr. c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing zonsumptive or non-cors,umptivu recreational opportunities? c� Page L YES 'MAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial aditional vehicular moveLlant? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Ef'ects 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 mcvement of people and/or goods? f Alterati{;ns to or effects on present and potenti..l %. - r-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. T.ncreases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?' Aft Q 'sltural Resources Will the proposal have .ignificant results in; a. A disturtance to the integrity of archaeological, pal,eontoloical, and/or historical resources? _ IU. Kealth, .Mwr_viand Nuisance Factars. Will the proposal have zcigni icant results in; a. Cretitlon of a-iy health hazard or notenc=i=il i:­alth hazard,? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazarL c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? i, - d. An increase in the number of individuals ~- 1 or species ,of vector or pathenogenic L organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? C. Increase 7.n existing noise levels? f• Exposure of people to potentially dangerous d noise 'r.vels7 '{ S. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An i,nsrease in light or glare? v C. �f Page 5 YES MYEE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction cr 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 alteration to the following: a. Electric power? Y b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water supply?' e. Wastewater facilities? f. Floo, control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Palace protection? Z. Schools'? v ?c. Parks or other recreational facilities? �( 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or eAcessive fuel or energy? b. Sutstantal increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? j I 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? r Page b YES MAYBE NO e. 'Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of-SiQai£icance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the en7ironnent, substodtially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popul`tion to drop below self pustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co=unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time While long- i term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively AMk considerable? (Cumulatively considerable glans that the incremental effects of an individual project ere considerable v'ien viewed in connection wi::h the effects oic ast pr jects, 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 EWIRON!LNTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). C-13 Page 7 III. DETMMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: AM I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION vill be prepared. 1 � I find that although the proposed project could have s significant !i effect On the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this rase because the mitigation measures described on an attached ;sheet have been added to the project. A'NEGATIVE DECI.&RATION,WILL BE PniPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project "MY have a significant effect on the , envirnment,, and an &NVIRON':g:VT 11HPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Title 1 I J i r - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-31 FOR A CARETAKER'S' i2ESIDENCE LOCATED ON A 2.14 ACRE PARCEL AT THE END OF DEER CREEK LANE, NORTH OF HILLSIDE AND EAST OK HAVEN, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (0-2 DU/AC) 2PH 201-243-12 WHEREAS, on the 16th day of October, 1985, a complete application was filed by Clydell and Helen mill for review of the above-described project.; and WHEREAS, on the 27th 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: t ' 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of tNe Development Code, and AM the purposes of the distr`,ct in which the site is I located. A 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. i 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the 1 applicable provisinn� of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is 'issued an November 27, 1985. SECTION 3: That Ccoiditional Use Permit No. Lo-31 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: 1. This Conditional Use -Permit shall be for the. establishment of an accessory dwelling unit as a caretaker';. residence only. No other use of this accez=:jry structur other than as a caretaker's residence small be oaemed approved with the granting of this permit. r ` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Conditional Use Permit 85-31 November 27, 1985 Page #2 Alak 2. To transform or change to 'a use other than as a caretaker's residence will require the application for a new Conditional Use Permit. (The caretaker's residence cannot be used as a guest house or second dwelling unit.) APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST• .Brad Buller, Deputy Secre tar y 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 27th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G� o� STAFF REPORT z l 'r O 46 z U a DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9416 - DIVERSIFIED - A division of 17.34 acres of land into 10 parcels in the neighborhood commercial designation, located on the east side of Haven Avenue between Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN 201-271-58 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of parcel map B. Purpose: To divide 17.34 acres into 10 parcels for the development of a shopping center C. Location: East side of Haven Avenue between Highland Avenue and rem-or,Avenue D. Parcel Size Parcel 1 - 3.93 acres Parcel 2 - 2.01 acres Parcel 3 - 0.41 acres Parcel 4 - 0.69 acres Parcel 5 - 0.55 acres Parcel 6 - 0.69 acres Parcel 7 - 2.20 acres Parcel 8 - 0.55 acres Parcel 9 - 3.33,acres Parcel 10 2.97 acres E. Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surroundinq Land Use: North - ResiNn-ti aT South - Vacant East - Vacant Test Neighborhood Commercial/Vacant ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment.and Parcel Map 9416 November 27, 1985 Page 2 H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Dosignations: North Residential South Residential East - Reidential West- Neighborhood Commercial/Residential I I. Site Characteristics: "his site is vacant and slopes approximately 6"' to the south. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting to divide 17.34 -acres of land into 0-parcels in the neighborhood commercial designation. On April 24, 1985, the Planning Commission approved CUP 84-31, the development o an integrated shopping center on this site. I The parcel map submitted tonight is far finance purposes. The installation of off-site improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Im tial 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 subdivisi x4.. 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 9416. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the •.doptiom 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 4; 10 � • ei 1. r: 111.1 • liNIN ail � ♦ s t � 3GLEr 1"a GO' svEEr L a i SV' ,D ivlede :tCH��`1477VC !»TMrG,y of R�/,n G'veeiHLfify�sr of trJr�dfa nNrF�lim H �lsFSrof l�+lrnA. sif eauA"10,i..cs..I¢;..rFMM�A�ry:er o�WiaF J 1. t_ LSs7��srdii,a�aamyc .4uRiers7f.�fsi� DIYf P 1/F/[D.14YR'Ay GLI?(,pl. �•zo � �• -� TRY NC yR2t! MGJA6/Js-bf r � LEMOA/ AYENVB F)9 FN •ZAPS ft f RR.w 16 4 rrELB Ferrol 5 A&W'm i Ssrea LC• 91-k A I f t• � (;u rT Rn ........ w.r`TP W mr• v1�j�, � -LA+�`� tOYJLR!'I .I.rr—� v ( � a;m si II ga'_ n.eraRrx. ssuu• S.C. She at 2 GYL1c•N59L 2xi state.1'-so' sNe,r a of�a`wcer`s' rROA CEL MAP No. 9416 In the G1y W R-ambs Cuc md1rgs, LArarlyvf SenR�rrxrr�iao Efele of CaIrf0/ni' i Zee s/rsc# 1 .1 Azwl a I rnAMME till L TtLll ern weal Ow ���K o7smu`?Y w+rrrc P`fmtiT' I'MP CHI.x d?C�R � !ec�iJG���Q�T MLBT N1K fLN/J6R �7� _ ciC1Tt./85R��. f�) T1"J75 i PROJECT DESCRIPT I ON DESCRIPTI(oN OF PROJECT: Neiahbo-_hood shopping Center ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND.SOJARE FOOTAGE OF iXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF' ANY: 15 acres total - 10.95 acres to be deveIoped as Pha:e.T with 118,988. Sgs ft. of Proposed buildable rea. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES`), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, F.ISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR ITSE iATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) Zne propert}r is currently undeveloped with several large eucalyptus trees. _Surrounding property is also vacant with the exception of the sinaie -familyha:as to the immediate north of our PiLoperty on Lemon. Is the protect part of a larger rpratect, ono of a series Of cumu ative actions, which although ind vidue- y small, may as a whole have significant environmen al impact? No 1-2 f _- Q701 o �14 -8 �P Agenc a Packed o Pala a WILL THIS PROJECT'-. YES NO 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? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? approx. 16 X: 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or expir,%;ives? AMk Explanation or any YES answers above: 1) To alleviate impact on residential to ::he Vorth we propose to excavate 22'-0" down c._the , th end and to halance•remaining site which slopes currently 601�-01 from onr_ end to the other. in the course of excavation, we i_l have to remove-any_.existing trees. —y IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construc.ion of residential uni•,.s, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attaEhed exhibits present the data and information required for tbis. 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 made by the Development Review Committee. DIVERSIFIED PROERTIES COY2ANY III, by its general partner DIVE OPERTIES CO'TANY II Date � �� signature ' 4•c�e S eara, :Uaeral Partner Title 1-3 F- -7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF Ttc CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL'IFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9416 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9416) LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE 'BETWEEN HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUE b WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9416, sutxnitted by Diversified Properties :and consisting of 10 parcels, located east oT Haven Avenue between Highland and Lemon Avenue being a division of a portion of Parcel 1 0 Parcel Map 7264 as recorded in Book 81, pages 62 and 63 of parcel maps, Sa Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THt:EFORE, 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 physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have.adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not=create significant adverse environment—a impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on November 27, • 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9416 is approved subject to the recommen a onditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAT OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Dennis L. out, Chairman s ATTEST: _ BraU Buller.,- Deputy Secretary I, Brad Butler, 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 27th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-t� git: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSs ABSENT: CuMMISSIONERS: r CITY OF RANCHO COCAMGNGA RECOMMENDER CONDITIONS OF APrROVAL LOCATION: East side of Haven Avenue between TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9416 Highland and Lemon Avenue DATE FILED: August 30, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of NUMSER OF LOTS 10 Parcel Map 7264 GROSS ACREAGE: 17.34 ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 201-271-58 ***:tit***tr*�x**�r�t***��t�•*�:rt�x��****�t�r***x**:r�•�r*ter***mot*�r�r�r DEVELOPER OWNER. ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Diversified Properties Same Anaca' Engineers, Co. 2910 Red Hili Avenue 1900 E. La Palma Avenue — Costa Mesa, CA 926.26 Anaheim, CA 92803 1aprovement and dedication requirements in accardance r!ith Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but mvy not be lim?Pzed 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. P X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the following street: (measured from centeriine) 37 total feet on Lemon Avenue _ X 3. Corner property line radius will be re ired per City Standards. ` 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: X 5. Reciprocal access easements ^d 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. i, r X 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. Agh 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 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. ' 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive ap;roaches, parkway trees and street lights, on all interior streets, 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvemtits: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street StreeT A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* either Lemon Ave. X X X X X X Haven Ave. X X **X X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter **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 Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of ,any power poles or ether 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, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. �` -2- 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 ano irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved, by the Planning Division prior to the issuance ;of building permit. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not• cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 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 recording of parcel map-. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the mad* for the following: X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage faclites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of building hermit for each parcel. D. 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. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be ,rude for accep•`ance 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 (refero Special Conditions, No. 3). X 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- F- �3 E. Grading X 1. Grading of the.subject pruperty shall be in accordance with theAM - Uniform' Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practi�vis. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. 9 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 be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdiv'sion map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and. Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. General Requir,,gents and Approvals X 1. Permits from other,agencies will be required as follows: X CalTrans for Highland Avenue San Bernardino County FloodControl ControlDistrict Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other X 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. 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. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them'. -4 X _7. The filing of the tentativc map or approval of saga does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are' requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity; Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit issuance for 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. 11. Notice of intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape District shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation of the Final Map. G. Special Conditions X 1. Prior to recordation, a Notice of Intention to form and/or join Landscape and. Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Council The engineering costs involved in district formation shall be borne by the developer. X 2. Existing overhead utilities fronting the project will be required to be underground unless specificat.,v waived by the Planning Commission as a part of the review process. Undergrounding can be a lengthy process and if not coordinated at the earliest date may delay your project. X. 3. Drainage; a. A portion uf,Master Plan Storm Drain Line 3-H, located to the north of tp:Q site, shall be constructed with sufficient inlet capacity to accept a minimum of flow from the north within Haven Avenue to offset the..increased flow generated by the development. Construction of this line shall replace the proposed retention basin. -5_ b. Increased drainage from the first phase shall not be directed to Highland Avenue, there crossing onto the private property to the south. It is acceptable to direct _- .o, tinage to Haven Avenue by use of an interim earth berm or di�ch, assuming line-3-H is in place. Subsequent phases of the development of the development shall be designed to direct all flows from the site to future Master Plan, 4-N located to the east. Line 44 shall be constructed with any future phases: X 4. v-affic znd Access: a. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of Haven and Lemon Avenues, with the first phase. Cost of the design and construction shall be credited to Systems Development Fees. b. The pavement width of Lemon Avenue shall be as stated in the project Traffic Report, c. The interim access roadway connection to Highlind AveFLte shall be approved by Cal Trans. — d. No development 'shall occur on Parcel 9 until Cal ',Tans confirms the final parcel size of Parcel 10, the future freeway corridor. X_ 5. Grading Alk a. Prior to approval of the rough grading plan, the applicant- shall coordinate grading plans with the adjacent apartment project to the east to provide- a compatible grading solution which eliminates any unnecessary -etaining walls and/or slopes. b. Reconfigure grading to prevent runoff from entering handicap ramps. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY 'ENGINEER by _6_ - 1b CITY OF RANCHO' tVCAMONGA INITIAL S';UDY PART I - PROJEC{n INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this forsri 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 I1 of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the proje z is to be heard. The Committee will make one of thre- determinations: 1) , The pro- act will have no signi- 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 by the applicant giving further info:ma- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Diversified Properties Company IIX. 210 So. Bristol St.. Suite 201, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 957•-2651_ NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Janet L. Petersen, Vice President, of Construction & Design Diversified Properties Carmanv III 270 So _ Bristol St., Suite 201, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 957-2651 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREttT ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_) NEC Haven & Highland- Rancho Cucamnga CA P- 4701-971-53 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM.LOCAL, REGIONAL, SV2E AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMIT.-; -- At PntnrP eintd finilding I-1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA °vCAnro STAFF REPORT a 1 c O O F Z U Y 1977 DATE: November 27, 1985 TO: Chairman and Member of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad. Buller, City Plainer BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ".EVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-08 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A consideration of the revocation of Conditional Use Permit 85-08 - Vernaci - A permit to locate a single trailer for a caretaker's facility for a wholesale nursery in the Edison right-of-way on the north side of Base Line, east of Rochester - APN 227-09-141 I. ABSTRACT: On Augu.yt 7, 1985, the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the May 2, 1985 Planning Commission's decision to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-08, with 4 Planning Division conditions. Condition No. 1 stated that all nonconforming structures and trailers stsall be removed within a 30-day per -a„ That 30-Jay period ended September 7, 1986, without compliance. II. ANALYSIS: The Condition of Approval granted a thirty day period Tor the applicant to remove all the existing trailers and sheds, and terminate all retail sales of equipment, supplies and plant stock. The nursery has been closed, since the Planning Commission's May 2nd decision. To date the applicant has failed to remove any of the non-conforming structures. Between September 6, 1985, and October 14, 1985, the City's Code Enforcement Officer was unable to reach the`applicant. The Planning commission may periodically review any Conditional Use Permit try ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious-to properties in the �licinity. If, after review, the Commission deems that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination then a public hearing date shall be set to consider, revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85-08 - City of Rancho Cucamonga November 27, 1985 Page 2 III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission `determine tat there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination and set a public hearing for January 8, 1986. Respectfully itted Brad Buller City Planner BB:JM:cv Attachments: Resolution 85-75 Letter to Applicant dated August 14, 1985 d -G�o cJ�Mp,1,cy < ,. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM ONGA O h o m y..Jon D.blikels U > CharlesJ.Btrw.,`II Jeffrey King 1977 Richard bL bahl Pamela J.Wright August 14, 1985 . George and Sharon Vernaci 9355 Lemon Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 85-08 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Vernaci: -At the August 7, 1985 meeting, the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, upheld the Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 85-08. Therefore, the time periods established Ly the conditions of approval start from the date of the City Councils action as follows: 1. The removal of all non-conforming structures and trailers by September 6, 1985. (Condition #1). 2. If a modular trailer is installed, it shall be upgraded by February 7, 1986. (Condition #2). 3. The installation of landscaping and irri ation along Base Line Road, by February 7, 1986. (Condition #31. 4. Immediate termination of all retail sales. Wholesale of plants grown on-site is permitted (Condition #4). All conditions must be met by their assigned deadlines in order to operate your wholesale nursery. Inspections will be conducted to determine compliance with these conditions of approval. 1p 9320 BASELINE ROAD,SUITE C •POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CALIFORNIA 91730•(714)989.1851 Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, CrColeman LOPMENT DEPARTMENT P N DS DC:JM:cv cc: Gary Richards, Code Enforcement Officer San0y.Matlock, Business License Inspector Attachment: Resolution 85-75 C� '7" RESOLUTION NO. 85-75 <+ A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE'PERMI•T NO.- 85-08 FOR VINCENTS GARDEN CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF BASELINE, EAST OF ROCHESTER, IN THE UTILITY CORR100R DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the.10thi day of March, 1985, a complete applicatiot was filed by Sharon Vernaci for review,of the above-described project; and -WHEREAS, on the 22nd day''af,;May, '1985, .the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho i.jcamonga .Planning Commission resolved as follows: .SECTION 1: That the f,. iawinq find.ings'can be met: 1. That the proposed use is infaccord with the*General Plan, 11�e objectives bf the Developmen.: Code,'and the put,.oses of the district' in which tf,a site is located. r 2. That the proposed use, together withthe+conditionalAftk 7 applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed �. - complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit -No. 8 -08 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The removal of all non-conforming structurEs and trailers within.30 days of this arprovai. 2. . If a ;.dular trailer is installed,' it shall be upgraded with decking, arbors, trellises and landscaping within six (6) months of installation. Approval of trailer location shall be obtained from Southern California Edison. 3. Landscape and irrigation. along Base Line per Victoria landscape standards shall be installed' within six (6) months from approval date. C?y'3 ncau1ub4U11. nu. Conditional Use Perk 85-08 VERNACI , . Page 2 4. Retail Sales of nurseily stock will not be allowed. Further, sales_ shall be •limited to wholesale of ple.r;ts grown on-site. Sale of fertilizers, tools, pots and other non-plant items is not permitted. ENGINEERING 1. That the• trailer be protected from flooding b1V raising the itrai`ters' pad and or constructing a di'verston:wall or dike up stream. A design fur t►,.� flood protection measure must be approved by the City Engineer. 2. All materials, including the trailer, to be store;'.' on the site shall be secured to prevent floatation .and possi4le damage to downstream property.. . ROVED AND ADOPTED THYS 22NO DAY OF MAY, 1985. PLANN NG COM ISSION-OF THE CT Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t Oenm t S mot, Chairman ATTEST: j/Ri Gor •eputy Secretary' I, RiW; Gomez, Depu.;y secretary of the Planning Com-issi,m of the City of RanchorCucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and reguia'`ly introduced, pawed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE j LLL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC, STAFF REPORT a � � 0 0 F 1� Z U i� >> DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: "iairman and Members of the Planning Commission kum urad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT& DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85- 94 - CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA A proposal to amend Sections .08. .0- , pertaining to "Landscaping", and 17.08.040-I, pertain,`ng to "Slope Planting", or the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance No. 211 t ANALYSIS: Table 17.08.040-F of the Development Code establishes minimums for both the numbers and sizes of trees to be included within, the landscaping for residential projects. Over the past several months as staff has conducted several field inspections at various project locations, it has come to our attention that the Development Code requirements per this table do not appear to be producing the desired results of softening the impact of the built form, to integrate adjacent structures into cohesive units, and to enhance the visual image and quality )f the environment. The primary problem attributable to the current landscaping standards responsible for this is the-predominance of numbers of trees required in relation to the sizes of the trees required. The currant standard requires greater numbers of trees to be planted, _ but at 'smaller sizes. This has resulted in projects being so densely planted that landscapers are losing the flexibility to strategically locate plants to achieve the desired functions of beauty, shading, wind protection, buffering, etc. Also, due to the predominance of the current standard towards smaller size trees, the landscaping provided at the initial stage of development is unable to provide the dramatic statement needed to enhance the visual image of the environment that is desired. As a solution, staff is proposing a revised Landscaping Standards Table (see Resolution) that ,%ifts the relationships towards requiring more larger-sized trees at the time of project development with the trade-off being fewer numbers of trees planted. Staff believes that with this revision there will be a more equitable distribution between numbers of trees as compared to sizes of trees resulting in an overall landscaping program that will be more effective in its design and will be more consistent with the goals and policies as established by the General Plan. ITEM H ATA Staff has also presented to the Planning Commission a proposed revision co the Slope Planting Standard (see Exhibit "B"). The purpose of this amendment is to bring Development Code Standards into conformance with established City policy and pro edures for grading. Slope planting requirements have a two-fold purpose: ' erosion control and for aesthetics to soften-the visual impact of the slope plane. The current standard addresses the aesthetic concerns of slope planting on steeper and more pronounced slopes;_ the revised standard also incorporates the need for erosion control on less steep, but still potentially erodible slopes, into the Development Code Standard. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, mate tb: findings required pursuant to Division 1", Chapter' 6, Section r1ua66 of the Public Resources Code that would not require subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. This finding is based upon the fact that the Development Code impiements the .xist ng goals and policies of the General Plan which were fully analyzed with regard to environmental impacts during the. General Plan EIR. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before approving this Development Code Amen ment, e Commi thssion must determine that the amendment will not be detrimental for individuals and for property, or will not cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, this project must be consistent with the intent of the General Plan. J IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This Development Code amendment has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commmission review all elements and input regarding this proposal. If the Commission determines that this Development Code Amendment is- consistent with the Facts for Finding, then issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the attached resolution would be in order. Respectfully su itted Brad Buller City Planner BB•BC:ko 'f PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-04 November 27, 1985 Page 3 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Landscaping Standard Current & Proposed - Exhibit 'B" Scope Planting Standard- Current &' Proposed Resolution I� I >. Landscj2jn&,.Trees ?erform many essential functions for the community: beauty, shading, wind protcctior:; screen'ng,'noise buffering and air filter.ng. Plant Aft material should be selected to achieve these purposes, while tolerant to faotbrs such m wind;heat and low water. All trees used must be consistent with adopted tree palette pursuant to the General Plan, The following table, Ta,Ie 17.08.040-F, sets forth minimum standards for the numbar and size of treer,,both on-alid off-site,as required in Tables 17.08.040-B and C;however,does no,,., apply to single family detached or duplex dwellings. DISTRICT'TABLE 17.08.040-F LAN . APE STANDARDS FEATURE LIM M MH H #trees/gross acre 40 50 60 70 2. %box trees 10 20 30 30 3. %15-gallon trees 80 70 60 70 4. %5-gallon trees 10 10' 10 0 "F. _La�ndsca Ana, Trees perform many essential funct;ons `�fihe community: beauty, shading, wind protection; screening, noise buffering and, air filtering. Plant material should be selected to achieve th%se purposes, while tolerant to factors such as wind, heat and low water. All trees used must be consistent with adopted tree pallette pursuant to the General Plan. The following table, Table 17.080.040-F, sets forth minimum standards for the number and size of trees both on- and off-site, as required in Tables 17.08.040-6 and C; however, At does apply to single family detached or duplex dwellings. TABLE 17.08.040-F LANDSCAPE STANDARDS DISMICT FEATURE LM M MH H 1. # trees/gross acre 40 45 50 50 2. % 48" box or larger trees 0 0 c 10 3. % 36" box trees 0 10 5 10 4. % 2411 box trees 10 10 20 10 5. % 15 gallon trees 90 80 70 70 Box size trees shall be primarily concentrated along exterior streetscapes and at entry nodes as accent treatment"; and 1i 01 C17 RANCHO CLrCAMONGA TITLE: y PLANNING DIVISICXN EXHIBIT. o is SCALE ' I. Slope Planting. Slope banks in excess of five(5)feet in vertical height End of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and soften their aapearance as follows; one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft. of slope area,one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft.of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition,slope banks in excess of eight(8) feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greaterslope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and �.ary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shaL'include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. viaintenande by a Homeowners Association may be require>d by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis. "I. Slope Planting. -Slope banks fi%z (5) feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control. Slope banks five (5) feet or-greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15 gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1 gallon or larger size shrub for each 100 square. feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. In addition, slope banks in excess of eight (8) feet in vertical and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also incluoa one 15 gallon or larger size tree per each 250 square feet of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permament irrigation syster,, to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Maintenance by a Homeowners Association may be required by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis."''' CITY O� ITEM:I•_ `�/�j� o' RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: � PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT-- SCALE-_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENPIROM ENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICANT:— 0 FILING DATE: t�a/ 12 4L9� LOG WMMER: PROJECT: A.w16CtJ�MttarlTn 'S °r+��c rya ,}_ *�F1T PROTECT LOCATION:_ i4A, I. MIRON:TENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1, Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have Alk significant results in: a: Unstable_ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Dirxuptions," displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. ,Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modificationof any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water ero,�ion of soi:%s, affecting either on or off site conditons: f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? r 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. Hydroloev; 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. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, �- or the rate and amount .of surface water runoff? e c, lterations to the course or flow of flood esters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? �— e. Discharge, into surface waters., or any alteration of surface water quality? £. 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? Y h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? - ' I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air 4_11ality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality .and/or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number Of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered specil,a of plants? Paze 3 YES MAYBE SO 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 in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? e , c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals int> an area, or result in a barrier to the mi„ration or movement of animals? d. DeterioraV or or removal of existing fish or wildlife lirfoitae? 5. Pooulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the locatior„ distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will tie proposal affect existing housing, or create u demand for additional housing? b. 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? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 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? >L 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? t� p Page 4 YES ?!AY9E No 8. Transoortation. 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 p;,rking 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? Z. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? S. Increases in tr3'>•fic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestria.,as? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, I, paleontological, and/or historical resources? �. 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposv.� have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hscard? 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 increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic C 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? 19 Page 5 YES MAYBE N0 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 . significant need far new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. ' Communications systems? CC d. azzr 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. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governme:-zal services? 13. E'nereti 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 o.f AOL 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 Findings of Sistzificance. 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 i 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? (.4 short-term impact on the environment is one which occu+- in a relatively brief, defin£`ive period, of time while long- j term impacts will endure well Z-to the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually liaited, but cumulatively $ considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incr_aental: eifects 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? X IT. DISCUSSION OF EWIRMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation, measures). V:LUJ_`f A's A �(Z� Llrm -%b -tv�p�q t►•nv�1-r�►L 60A�'qL G,44 r_T�'. 21 t G G m� -UAW C IAA. Page 7 III. DETER"i�ION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environaent, and a h•EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed prof"._ ;.vuld have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ba'a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HILL BE PREPARED. I fin d the ro proposed P project :L4Y have a Ill : significant nt aff e on theenvirnment andan ENTRO:'�,1iT IMPACT REPORT is required. { Date 1/•Zz•g3s-' Sign cure r � III ea- Title� Al 1Z RESOLUTION NO. Aft qW A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-04 AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.040-F, ' PERTAINING TO "LANDSCAPING", AND M08.040-I, PERTAINING TO "SLOPE PLANTING", Ur` THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ORDINANCE NO. 211 WHEREAS, on the 27th day of November, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section- 65854 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds it necessary to clarify and revise the Development Code requirements pertaining to landscaping and slope planting standards. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following f7�ings. 1. That the amendment is warranted in order tc� bring current standards for landscaping and slope planting into conformance with established City policies and procedures and 2. That the proposed Development Code Amendment would not have significant impact on the environment; and 3. That the proposed Development Code Amendment is in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan_, SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create signifIcant adverse impact-on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on November 27, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1.. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 27th day of November, 1985, Development •Code Amendment 85-04 amending r Section 17.08.040-F as follows: Seetion 17.08.040-F to read: "F. tandsca ining Trees perform many essential functions for the community: beauty, shading, wind protection, screening, noise buffering and Ask air filtering. Plant material should be selected qW to achieve these purposes, while tolt;rant to PLANNIL. nMMISSION RESOLUTION DCA 85-04 November 27, 1985 Page 2 factors such a, wind, heat and low water. All trees used must be consistent with adopted tree pallette pursuait to the General Plan. The following table, Table 17.080.040-F, sets forth minimum standards for the number and size of trees both on- avid off-site, as required in Tables 17.08.040-8 acid C; however, it does apply to single family detached or duplex dwellings TABLE 17.08.040-F LANDSCAPE STANDARDS DISTRICT FEATURE LM M MH H 1. # trees/gross acre 40 45 50 50 2. % 48" box or larger trees 0 0 5 10 3. % 3611 box trees 0 10 5 10 4. % 24" box trees 10 10 20 10 5. % 15 gallon trees 90 80 70 70" Box size trees shall be primarily concentrated along exterior streetscapes and at entry nodes as accent treatment"; and Amending Section 17.'08.040-1 as follows: AOL Section 17.08.040-I to read: "I. Slope_Planting. Slope banks five (5) feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall he, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control. Slope banks five (5) feet or greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or gtaater slope shall be landscaped and irrigoted for erosion control andto soften their appearanne as follows: one 15 gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1 gallon or larger size shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. In addition, slope banks in excess of eight (8) feet in vertical and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 15 gallon or larger size tree per each 250 square fee. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permament irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Maintenance by a Homeowners Association may be required by the Planning Commission cn a case-by-case basis." 2. Ths Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Development Code Fmendment 85-04, as stated herein. PLANNINS COMMISSION RESOLUTIONDCA 185-34 November 27, 1985 Page 3 3_ That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy ecretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission ut 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 27th day of November, 1985, by t1te following vote-to-wit: AML AYES: COMMISSIONERS: j NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs h: Ask CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGt GUca.n7o,,, MEMORANDUM :1,C 7(jp, O 23 F "� _. z DATE: November 25, L95 1977 a TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT' DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 REGARDING REVISIONS AND MOOLFICATIONS SECTION .0 0.0708 Staff is requesting continuation of this item to December 11, 1985 regular meeting in order to further discuss the language-changes with the City Attorney. BB:NF:k° 1 I, i ITEM I r CECY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CAnro MEMORANDUM. 0 f 0 F Q, z` DATE: November`22, 1985 U > 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commis< on FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 CITY OF RANCHO 'CUCAMONGA An amendment to Title 17, Section 7.02.0706 Revisions Modifications of the Rancho' Cucamonga Development Cod, by adding language to further define the review process for majoa revisions to an approved project. The staff report for this item will b' delivered on Monday. We are sorry for the inconvenience. BB:ko r ITEM I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��cnn�oN STAFF REPORT <Zo s c90 O O a (}. Z U DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA An amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Research and Development/Office use to Haven Avenue Overlay District. I. BACKGROUND: Last August 21, 1985, the. City Council amended the _ Industrial Specific Plan to define Research and Development/Office and Research and Development/Light Manufacturing uses (see Exhibit "A" 8 "B"). Based on such an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan, both Research and Development/Office and Research and Development/Light Manufacturing uses are permitted in Subarea 6. This amendment created an inconsistency witR the . Haven Avenue Overlay District where the two uses are not listed as permitted. To eliminate such inconsistency, staff is proposing an amendment to the Haven Avenue Overlay District to permit Research and Development/Office and Research and Development/Light Manufacturing uses. Attached for your review is a proposed ordinance amending the Haven Avenue Overlay District to add such uses. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff recommends .that the Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code that would not required subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report and recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration. This finding is Lased upon the fact that an environmental impact report was fully analyzed during the Industrial Specific Plan process. Further, a Negative. Declaration had bern issued during the adoption of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. III. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report 'newspaper, IV'. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan and the Haven Avenue Overlay District through adoption of the attached resolution recommending approval of the proposed amendment and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council would be appropriate. ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISP AMENDMENT 85-05 November 27,, 1985 Page c `Respect€ully su "tted, X ;�f Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Table III - I Summary of Land Use by Subarea' Exhibit"B" Definition of Research and Development Uses Exhibit 11V - Haven Avenue Overlay District - Land Use Types Initial Study Part II ; Resolution Ordinance I I I: TABLE 111•i SUMMARY LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA PERMITTED USE ❑CONWONALLY PERMITTED USE'., USETYPES SUBAREAS II '•. 1 2 MA 5 6:: 7 B 9 10 11112113 14 15116 - MANUFAMR'.NG Custom • • o • • a •• ® • • oo • Heavi _ ® •. .� t11t#: •z`:•+�?>9�1��f #�iG:�:lUi�a�Ffil�3::�`'�'iE L. :: - -- .:.. .'�f:�r:•i�.. . ... 1, �'�� i WHOLESALE,STORAGE;DISTRIBUTION - Hea ❑� o '❑ ❑ ❑ '❑. • 1 COMMERCIAL I41'LStI'3�IVB>3Liij.(��..'� -.. AgricultuFal Sw!pplles and Services e • ® a e • e Irsiala� Automotive Fleet Storage :,: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ AutomotiveUhtTruck Repair-Minor • 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0. 4 G 0 o - ❑ Il Automotive Sales ❑ o �iiersx�• .. •.•- Building Contractor's Office and Yards a ❑ o ❑ ❑ o • • o ifidfuigC o t"`tc o�s_rorage _. �- Building Maintenance Services o • q o e • •; a a ~0 • 817!'ltll[Ig:.�l7p��I,leS2Li(0c:.a_eS3 •� ®. > tIM • Business Supply Retail Sales and Services ® • • s ® ® 0 0 • • •, �, �. ,�'LBtSIE1ES5._$Up(� rp�c....s..- - .r.�- -_ .d ram•'.•.ice ..•' •® � :'� ..•. � �.� :r- � O• Communication Services o • a •• e • o ' • 0 a • p • � reiueirce:SaTes ac> Setvrces Eating and Chinking Establishments +: ® a ® • • a 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • • a md0 Im 2 pact Commercial ❑ 1 _ M. Financial,Insurance and Real Estate Services ❑ ❑ ❑ •1 0 ❑ ❑ • • o d;aixl;Beve;age;5�es��'" �-.-• ;t7+ ��I••�. Funeral and Crematory Services ❑ . ❑ t El;File—I Equ�t rnairt_Sales and'I3e` s :.s u, .1-M M •_.Z L3 m. ..•gym Hote11MoteI • o o • kiL'armdry5eiin s :7s:'? , d : IEEE -4'®:- 6 _� _i.M.Szm Medical/Health Care Services a Q o a ❑ o • E3 7 • ft- wiial Servces rs k x7 _y. ❑_ B:ae M tp , 1a Petroleum Products Storage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ "iProfes'slori3l:Se.4YIce's.v�='r. •s.:CCL'��''`='''�-..S'�-.c�?: :. •• • .'i�u�cz r:;-o' -�';." 'a:..��., Recreational Facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ o ❑ • o e • parServiasrX ? `��.' ii i! ®.'C] x7 • �s f ® • O •' • • CJ �i�j Scra C ration CNIC Ndministrative Cmo Servces ref sv' ® r o • o o • ; «•• • • • o aCultural ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Elpa i5dereW1 cttfl(ityASc-uif .„, '°,; CT _ CJ Public Assembly ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ O ❑' a 0 0 ❑ ;Public Safety and Utilitj Servces *a Q t? o ❑ Ctjbr p 1?:T3 Q ❑ U t7 ❑ Aeli ious Assembl ...O. $ _` O ❑ ❑ O 0 ❑ NOTE Non•nrarked uses not permitted ORDINANCE NO. 272 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDR.ENT 85-02, AMENDING THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING PARKING STANDARDS. FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT AND DELINEATING INTERIOR BUILDING AREAS THAT CAN BE DEDUCTED FROM PARv1NG REQUIREMENTS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission-held a dull/ advertised public hearing on July 24, 1985, :in order to consider amending the industrial Area. li Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS,. the. Planning Commission did recommend amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan to provide for a parking ratio for research and dev-zlopment uses and deductible areas from parking requiremeR,s; and .. WHEREAS, the City Council ,held a duly advertised. public hearing to order to consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby .amend the Industrial.Area Specific. Plan as Ili .follows:. SECTION t: That Park III, Table II:-? (Page III-6), Land Use Types °tnitione, be amended to define Research and. Dev-lopment and subcategories: _ 1. Research and Development, Uses engaged in the-research,. • design, analysis, development, and/or testing of a.product. 2. Research & Development/Office: activities typically include, but not limited to; building/use types resembling office more than research and development facilities, such as labs, acoustical chambers, microwave testing chamber, wind tunnels, circuit boa,,-d assembly rooms, lean rooms", and computer facilities. Such uses are typically less intense than pure office, but more intense than'traditional industrial space. The uses do not produce odors, noise,. vibration, or particulates which would adversely affect uses: in the same structure or on the same site. Where 24 hours- on site surveillance is necessary, a caretaker's `p residence ma, be permitted when approved by a Conditional. use Permit. 3. Research & Development/Light Manufacturing: Activities typically include, but not limited to: "high-')ch" - production and.assembly operations which include song &-D _ and office apace, ".product assembly rooms, and' other facilities associated with high: technology manufacturing. uses do notproduce -odors,. noise, vibration, or ;,.�';iculate which would adversely affect uses in the.sae.j. structure or on the same site. Where 24 hours on-site surveillance is necessary, a caretaker's residence may be Permitted when approved by a Conditional Use Permit.. - ^r._ ra - Table IT-1 :page --- miry _ ;pe by Subarea, be amendedT to include research and development; uses '_. .ne Industrial Park and General Industr al categories as follows. R & D/Offlce, ted ,ubareas 5'tind 7. 12.. -6 Condit_onal Use Subareas - 1, 3, 4, 8, ',1. 13,. ;4 - - - R & D/Light ,Manufacturing Permitted Subareas - 1-8, 10-14.. and 16 �!1 Ordinance No. 272 Page 2 SECTION 3s That Section E.3 Parking Spaces Required (pages IIi-29) be amended tq add Subsection e, as follows: _ e. Research &Development: 1 space per 350 Square Feet SECTION 4: That Section E.3, Parking Spaces Required (page TIT--2g) be amended to add Subsection f as follows: f. Following, interior building areas can be deducted from the overall parking requirements: electrical/mechanical roots,. elevator shafts,stairwells, and multi-story lobbies. BE IT FURTRER RESOLVED, that the City Council finds that this amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the environment ant issAes a Negative Declaration for this amendment. SECTION 5: The'Kagor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to`be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, &newspaper or general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED,. APPROVED, and ADOPTED:this z-th day of September, 1985. • AYES: Nright, Buquet, 41.kels,.Dahl, Xing. _ NOES: None ' ABSENTS Nona ` ion -1. -11ictis. Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City k r I, BEVERLY A. AUTRELET, CITY CLERK or `•h(' 'City of Rancho Cuca=ate, California, Co hereby certify that the foregoing Orcinatl9e was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City Q� Rancho Cucamonga held on the 21st day of August, 1985, and was finally passed at a regular meeting r£ the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the nth day of S pt-=ber, 1985. Executed this 5th day of September, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga. California. - i • ` ORDINANCE No. 249 _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL' OF THE CITY ^: RANCHO CUCAXONCA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PART II1 V OF T42 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH A F.a7ES AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF HAV F aVEN4_ BETIO—Mi FOOTH_EI BOULEVARD AND 4TH SIRE=—, The City Council of the City Of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows. SECTION t: The following section is hereby added to Part III, Development SLdacards and Guidelines- f' V.. HAVEa7�AVENT -O'1 a Av 7:SCRIC: Purpose The purposo or the Overlay District is to establish developmect standards which address the unique setti!;g and ctmracter of the Haven Avenue corridor. Me Haven Avenue Overlay District is located on both the east and west sides. of Haven Avenue extending from Foothill Boulevard south to uth Street, as shown in Figure V-1. Applicability The Overlay. District a to be applied Id conJ�-ictlon with the Specifta Plan.for S,3carea1 b and 7 and provides more specific, and/or restrictive development policies., design standards and land use regulations for both Subareas 6 and 7. Topia not specifically covered by the Haven Avenue Overlay District will continue to be governed by the regulations of the Specific Plan.. Development adjacent to the Ha Avenue Overlay District shall censi Cc=;a_ibility and inez3ratioa with the District trro ?recess ugn the Master ?lan Overlay . Setting Haven Avenue is located near the phic center of the City and will be tithe ?most. significant gateway into Rancho Cuca--cnga. Another important aspect is the distinctiveness. of theHar4n Avenue corridor in relation to other major arterials designated as "Special, Boulevards". Haven Avenue is the major :ravel route for the City and has the potential for high end Office development with a unique combination of direct access to the airport and the Interstate 10 freeway. This provides the.City a rare opportunity to enhance its Image by encouraging intensive, hign quality office and professional development along the Haven Avenue Relation to corridor. General Plan The General Plan affirms that travel routes are predominate elm na Tf the _ .'s i_9e rd ayd9 the d i n"a8 dig r_et9 and. roadway cor darn. In adC n. the General Plan states that a consistent des- theme is necessary to reinforce the Image or perception of a.route. The Specific Ply: states that the Haven Avenue car 1G.rand the InC: Paris category should be designed to serial *campus like: Project a P image for firs seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment with a high prestige value". - 7:Y—4e i f Ordinance No. 249 Page 2 A. Goal Statement Coals are: statements that define the CCmunity'q aspiration and intentions. The goal fcr the Haven Avenue corridor has evolved from sessions with the industrial and business Cd=unities and with tho City's elected and appointed officials. This g:al represents the Current conception. of and future aspirations for the best interest of the City for the Haven Avenue corridor. o Encourage long-range caster planc;d • development along the Haven Avenue corridor _which. cabannes Ranebo Cucaaonga's image by providing an intensive, high quality gateway into the City and by prceoting a distiMCtive, attractive, and pleasant offioo. park atacaphere in. a campus like setting:with.high Kestige Identity. B. Land Us. Types The intent or the following policies is to _ encourage land uses and develc;ment consistent wit- the design 9731 for the Haven Avenue • ccrrider as.an intensive, high quality gatewoy . into the c:=unity.. B.I. The pri=ary land .use function along _ Haven Avenue is intended to be of an a—nts ative/prcresslonal. and Office. nature. Hevever, on the parcels directly a d'acec"to the a lma„ the Planning Co:=fission may coist3er additional uses perytted in Subarea 6, sub ect to the issuance of a Conditional Use Per-_it, and a finding that such ,j use will be consistent with. the statet design goal for Haven Avenue and all other provisions of the Overlay District. B.2. Select ancillarycccaercial and business support service us's shall not exceed r 201 of the floor area in any Mb=ter l' Planned develc;hent. Concentration of such:uses in: any building or.aleng the street frontage is not permitted. B.3. The following land use types are PerI!tted. or .conditionally. per-_.fitted within the Haven Avenue Overlap District. eZ1 cthe. uses. ^'aal1 rrTni_-.._. be Per'_.ec Jses Adonis^sci:•e and Office Financial, insurance S. .Real Fatate Services Cc=unlcation Services, Pecical, 'a:t-""ru Services Professional Services Adtlnistrative Civic Services Cultural Business Supply Retail Sales.S Services* Business Support Services Eating and Drinking �-stabl13h=ent3 Drdir.ar.ce Sv. Tug Page 3 Conditional Used Convenience Sales S_ervice31 Enldrtdinment Food and Heveraoe Sales Fast Food Sales Hotel/Motel Personal Services` Recreation Facilities Public Assembly Public Safety 4 Utility Se.^vices Religious assembly *Ancillary Uses Limited to 201 or the floor area per B.Z. H.,4 east food services are spec "ical_y excluaed as a primary u a, This would Preclude the development cr t,pical free standing fast road restaurants, most or which t1equire drive-through facilitles. In the Overlay District. However, fast food could be permitted as an ancillary or secondary use, subject to a Conditional Use Perm4t, as a part of a larger project, provided, hevever, such. use not be located directly adyacent tl-� Haven Avenue.. C. Master Planned Deve!^ The intent of this section is to provide for integrated development at the earliest possible time in the review process. TY_••ou-h thr Master Plsn process "here is opportu • to Coordinate the. eff its of single . multiple pr ^ty owners and disc_urage ` piecemeal dew .-p_ent. Finally, raster planning or defined areas will avoid development of single aarcels or land in a manner which would prevent or preclude future development of adjacent parcels 1.1 the best way feasible. It is not the intention of the caster. planning process to cast ruture development patterns in stone. Rather, it is an attempt to discover problems before they . { \ develop, to dealwith issues while they can be solved, and to take advantage of opportunities while they exist,.. The. standards and 9aldcltz= uhilch follow are intended to apply to all projects and should not be constrained by Farce! ._.es .. ectfic ite. boundaries. C.1. A conceptual.. Master Plan .shall be submitted for Planning CCr=tssicn approval, together with any develc;;=—ent prcpcsii. Incl.--in' a 3ub33 --- Plan shall address relationships +to other parcels within the Master Flan area. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART IL - INITIAL STUDY ENVIROLMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT:— rily FILING DATE: // y� LOG NUMBER: PROJECT:�Y��� PROJECT LOCATION: I. ENVIROSMNTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES KAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal "..ave significant results in: a.. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? Lb. Dis-uptions, ' s�,iacements, compaction or buiial-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 4 site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? , r 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 r--source? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: 0 J-� Pa$e 2 YES W_.-BE No a. Changes ?.n cuixent!•, or the course of direction Of flowinS streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of s runoff? urface water c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood wateas? d•- Change in, the amount of surface water in any r 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- drawalsu or through interference with an aquifer?' Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amr.unt of water other- vise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air-0ual3ty. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? �s Stationary sources? -- b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with ;he attainment of applicable air quality standards? C c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture ' or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significan'c results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, AOL including diversity, distribution, or number of a!ny species :�f plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ` J )G __ ` ?age 3 YES `AYBE \0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential fo't agricultural production? sauna. 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 aricals? 1! c. Introduction of new or disi•tptive 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? r` 5. Pooulation. Will t:ie 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 Pastors. 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 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 alteratiox, of the present ur planned land use of an area? b. A conflict witty any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? A>r c, An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES MA`BE NO S. Transoortation. 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. Substantiat impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tior or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present .and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or 6 - air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyc?ists 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 the ��ee 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 .',bscances in the event of an accident? _ d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenc: enic organisms or the exposure of ptaple to'such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? . Alk g. The creation, of objectionable odors? h. A rease in light or glare? Page YES :44Y nE 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 offerisive a [/ 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? r V C. Communications systems? r ` d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? b. Fire protection? I. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? I. Maintenance of public facilities, including / roads and flood control facilities? �f m. Other governmental services? 13. Enerey :nd Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results ina a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or.energy? b. 'Substantial increase in demand uponexisting sources of energy? ' c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? V d. An increase or perpetuation>of the consumption of nan-renewable forms of energy, vl:en feasible renewable sours,es of energy are available? J —1'� Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resourge? lp f 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade thli 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 rsmber 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). c. Doe. the' project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively conside rable means that.the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed NW In connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which -gill cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Ih DISCUSSION OF EMITRONI-ENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). Page 7 III. DETERMI`ATIOV Agh On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find Zhe proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATTON 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. I find the proposed project SLAY have a significant, effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRO: ENT IMPACT REPORT is required., Date ��g a (Title Aft 1 ' IESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCCAMONGA,- CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT' 85-05 AMENDING THE HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS,, the Planning Ccmission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 85-05. SECTID? 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Commission hereby makes the. following findings: A. The Amendment is consistentvith the policies of the General Plan, Industrial Specific Plan and Haven Avenue Overlay District. B. The Amendment is warranted to eliminate inconsistency between Industrial Specific Plan ; Subarea 6 Land Uses and Haven Avenue Overlay District Land Uses. C. The Amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2: That the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found this amendment will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on November 27, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt IndustrialSpecific Plan Amendment 85-05 to add Research and Development/Office and Research and Development/Light Manufacturing to the Haven Avenue Overlay District. 2. That a certified copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION IASP AMENDMENT 85-05 November 27, 1985 Page 2 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 27th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: iCOMMISSIONERSt NOES: JMM ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: - I . I I 1 ORDINANCE NO. 249A AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 85-05 IN ADDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT/OFFICE AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT/LIGHT MANUFACTURING USES TO THE HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 249 The City Council of the City of Rancht. Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Part III, Development Standards and Guidelines is hereby amended to re as follows: V. HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT B.3. The following land use types are permitted or conditionally permitted within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. All other uses shall be prohibited. Administrative and Office Financial, Insurance & Real Estate Services Communication Servic, s Medical/Health Care 4ervices Professional Services Administrative Civic Services Cultural Business Supply Retail Sales & Services Business Support Services Eating and Drinking Establis:iments Research and Development/Office Research and Development/Light Manufacturing The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in TO Da�ily�Report, a newspaper of general :circulation published in the City' ntar�io, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PAKED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 1985. AYES:' NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mies, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. R49A ;SPA 85-05 November 27,1985 Page 2 ATTEST: _ Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk I, -BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby cert,if� that the foregoing Ordinance was introJuced at a regular (special, adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the * Vey of *, 19**, and was finally passed at a regular meeting if the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the * day of j Executed this * day of *,, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Be.+erly A %,&filet, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOI\, 0; STAFF REPORT t MC?9f E Ii 1Z FDATE: November 27, 1985 51 > 19777 TO: Planning Commiss'on FROM: Barrye R. Hanson,, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9359 WESTREND DEVELOPMENT - A division of 12.6 acres of land into I parcels in t e enera Industrial designation (Sutarea 8). located on the east side of Rochester Avenue and north of Arrow Route APN 229-021-34,36 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of parcel map = B. Purpose: To divide 12.6 acres into 7 parcels for development of i'nustrial buildings. C. Location: East side of Rochester Avenue and north of Arrow Route D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 1.5 acres Parcel 2 2.3 acres Parcel 3 - 1.0 acres Parcel 4 - 1.0 acres Parcel 5 - 1.3 acres Parcel 6 - 1.5 acres Parcel 7 1.8 acres E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial' (Subarea 8) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use: Nort�cant, u�area 8 Soutti - Vacant, Subarea 9 East - Vacant, Subarea 8 West - Vacant, Subarea 8 H. Surroundin. General Plan and Development Code Designations: North-General Inaustrial Socth - M r!imum Impact Heavy industrial East - General industrial West - General Industrial 1 ITEM K ,S PLANNINa COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Ma 9359 November 27, 1985 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes approximately 3% to the sout . F II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting to divide 12.6 acres into 7 industrial parcels in Subarea 8 of the Industrial Park District. A request for conceptual approval of 7 buildings including final approval on 2 of the industrial buildings are on tonights agenda as D.R. 85-35. 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 consit'eration 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 'nvestigation. Upon completion and revie% of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse it acts o6. 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 inpu—t-7-nU elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9359. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attac','ad Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, BRH:JS•de Attachments: Vicinity Mai Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions o;r Approval Initial Study E Pict. [.VD. S/TE-y Aft deg f�T�. sr v � 3 o VICINiTY r1AY IN N. 'r 5. c.�°��� -trO��� CITY GF RANCI-I0 ( UCAVI0i`1GA title; P.M. 9359 cc ENGINEERING DIVISION s " '' VICINITY MAP �T 9n 1 � page TENTATIVE PARCEL (SAP NO. 9359 IN THE CITY.0-F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Imna w waa t a=m a.a mmw Imm* mA® g.Zoao,aAs Wm® • 1 �� aLi n7 a[z�an !is al W W IYaI ta/ ]IN Ma■V It', 'W24 4 ' ((itt111 . wteaa ttfwtaaaa ' m G ilaiW At•r IAN La [aW n11c3 sl6 41tai all 1►.197!'_lt taalata star N tafaflfrll a�pN 71a •a'Ys4i AaII.tY tia tan. hil aa�.v.a fes LA.naI� alit L T iqW IYa IAA t1m) {OLRartfet tRftR'i 'JIT/ Arm MFIta afe®a a aM•fat WO zGr.y IRra.Lea nvW fa La NNaMp la W L.Zm hty,V.iaf.a. t�� •. Qlat>•>sIOi.aarm fa0tlaL^ �. ••—•�•a.a YiitOa C3CC 'al►1C!•0lCAafOn4A ,6L.,.CG6&vf `. ,.dR.gai•.�IS1taV .q.fLCVf... T ti.�•a1OlfiKaM CYi7�t19'HOf1 n . Na•almNfwi9i CAAll Yrai► iL 2. y •I `--------4AC FT ----''I __��_� --�� 1•+AQl, I• :1 I rw i7wz•.� - �4 flit f. ��.— ` It za••�7� 'PARCEL A zvvus arAtI i!I f�^ PARCEL @ 23 Tmz I It -.a Awns k � s Y a awr%sra-- . .-•PARGLI 5 � - b '�il daaA.r y i.VMCIEL h ,S ACMB IX ACIt\-A y s Iil � PARCEL 2 �PRF+^, L tl I La L.µK Tay II I:uAr.,� _�` I Ewrwsta J I VACAW II I — Uzi �.Ei.a[.1+W •'I It Y. Yi �Ji I i` �ww .r-wrvntiu �-- � fi----- - -7r _ V9„AM• I f F t WANT i wifYh:AN7Mktg / k- Eli.1 CVCA, ' Goo� VI �NREVIEW� A TAL APPLICATION o o. � . 1977 INI AL STIMY PART I GENERAL For ell projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and suLnitted 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 :t of the initial Stcdy and make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will maka one of three determinati.ins: (1) The project will hav_- no significant nnvironme-taT impact and. a Negative Declaration will he filed, (2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: Project Title: Westrend Industrial Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone;McMahon Jones Ray Partnershi 202C, East First Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 973-099-' — (suite—S'a'T Namst Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: Keith D. Ray 2020 East First Street, Ste. an a a, 92 705 �------ Location of Project_ Rochester. and Arr_•-- Route Assessors tdreel No. List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: Local: Btlild:.ng Permits -- ea 1 T_T PROJECT DESCRIPTION .Proposed use or-proposed project:- Light Manufacturing seven buildings ranging in size from twenty five -co thirty thcausand square-feet. { Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: 10.43 Net lc. No _existing structures 143,207.00 sq. ft. of new structures. 5escribe the environmental setting of the project site including information on topography; soil stability; plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, historica'. or scenic aspects, ' land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets;: The project is Joe -ed in an undeveloped part of the city_ . Adjacent to an Edison aase=ent and west of the freeway. The `t000graAhv is basically flat with the soil stability good.. There are only native brush and weeds o,i the site now and _ small rodants. Lund use industr:_al with some commercial and a flood control corridor to the east. Is the project part of a larger project, cne of a Series of cumulative actions, which although individually small., may as a whole have significant env4ronmental impact NO I-2 WY�L VIS PROJECT: YES. N0 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.) 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? K 5. Remove any existing trees? How many?� � E. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materiais such as toxic substances, flammables or 'explosives? x Expmanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7. Estimate the amount of sevrage and solid waste ma•:.e.rials this project will generate daily: Jnkrown 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project. K 9, Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this I project,.in cubic yareS: Balance i 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units j the form on the next page, complete CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date 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 -informatiun may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Planning Division. Date:_August 12, 1485 Signature eith D.. ay, I Title, Partner — -7 I-3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9359 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9359) LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND NORT'l SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE (AP'1 229-021-34,36) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9359 submitted by Westrend Development and consisting of 7 parcels, located on the east side of Rochester Avenue and north side of Arnow Route, being a division of Lots 105 and 10, of map of Rochester, as recorded in Book 9 of maps, page 20, San BernardinoCounty, California; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing ;-or the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS . SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdi,ision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivisioi: and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTIOW 2. That this project will not create significant adverse environments 'impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on November 27, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9359 is approved;subject to the recommen�ed—Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY O RANCHO CUCAMONGAa BY: ` Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bulger, Dep+icy Secretary I, Brad Buller„ Depute Secretory of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do heieby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commiss:on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, gat a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONER° NOES: COMMISSIONERS:;, ABSENT: COMMISSIONER'S: 1 Cin' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: East side Rochester Avenue and TENTATIVEeARCEL MAP N0: 935.,a north side Arrow Route DATE FILED: August 14, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 105 and 106 NUMBER OF LOTS: 7 of map of Rochester in the County of _ GROSS ACREAGE: 12.6 acres San Bernardino, California ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 229-021-34,36 ***********it*****k******t*****k*ie*it*?z**********•k****k****ie*****ik***k*��ie*kirk*** DEVELOPER 04NER ENGINEERISURVEYOR Westrend Development Walter & Hazel Long L.n. King, Inc._ 337 N. Vineyard, Ste.431 1574 Iris Way 2151 E. °D" - Ontario, CA 91764 _Upland, CA 91786 Ontario, CA 91764 ; Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in6lude, but may not be limited to, the following: A. M dications 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 fallowing streets: (measured from street centerline) 50 to"cal feet on Arrow Route 50 total- feet on Rochester Avenue additional fee o� n 3. Corner property Tine radius will be required per City Standards. t. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated L as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easem�ants and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcoi;s and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking a--as shall be provided by C.C.&R.S and shall ba recorded concurr-,nt with the map. t U _1_ r X 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of'-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. Street Ymprovenerats Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement acid post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. Y -1. Construct full street:-improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets.' X 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvertents: Prior to building permit issuance for et.;h parcel. ur i e- Drive Street Street A.C. Me ian` Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other Rochester X X **X X X X X Arrow Rt. X X **X X X X X *Includes land^taping and irrigation on meter **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 Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement _plans shall be prepared by a Regi.tered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Enginee• 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 Tines of Tess than 66KV fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install apiropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping 7,nd markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. _2- jl X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved-by the S-outhern California Edison Com7any"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. X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. C. Surma 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 for Bach parcel.: 2. A lien agreemeW- must be executed prior to recording of tho map for the following: X 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 City E,.,,,oeer prior to issuance of building permit for each parcel., 0— Drainage and Flood Control L Private drainage easements for ,cross-lot drainage shall be a required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal i of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. X _ 3. The hollowinq storm drain shall be installed to the sat� sfaciion 0 the City Engineer (see Special Conditions Item 2), X 4. Prior to recordation' of the map, a hydrologic and drainage f study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed tc detain increased runoff AMA -3- t< H. &radina X I. GradAig .of the subject property shah be-in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading prlctices. 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 k:he 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 shalt be subject to review and approval by tf!e Gr,adina Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F� General Recpjirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for _ San Bernardino County Flood Control District X. Cucamonga County Water District for sewerand utter X"San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved_ by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. y 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. - X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agarcies involved. Approval of the final map will ba subject to any requirements that may be received from them. -4- X 7. The filing of tha tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be avaiiable-at the time building permits are requested. When building permits- are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity, Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. -A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed. control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for ardor prior to building permit iss, ince for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Dietrict 82-1 a;°nng 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 marls - referenced: S. Special Conditions X 1. All structural building shall be waterproofed per City Ordinance No. 240 as addressed in theFlood Report for Parcel Map 9359 dated October 18, 1985. X 2. Provisions for a storm drain connection to the City's Master Plan Storm Drain' on Arrow Route shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation. X 3. Prior to record4tion, a Notice of Intention to form and/or join Landscape and (;fighting Districts shall be filed with t°e City f Council. The >ngineering costs involved in district formation shall be farmed by the developer. X " 4. Existing overhead utilities fronting the project will be required to be underground unless specifically waived by the Planning Commissir i as a part of the review process. Undergrounding car, be a IL-ngthy process and is not coordinated ti at the earliest date may delay your project. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ° LLOYD B. H11BBS, CITY ENGINEER by: ° t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cgC.A kto, STAFF REPORT v�9^ • F' ?'Z DATE: November 27, 1985 197 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Laura Psoma;, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ABSTRACT: The Archibald Avenue Conceptual Design is being submitted by the Engineering Di�rision for review and acceptance of the plans and requests the Planning Commission to give direction to proceed to City Council. BACKGROUND: The scope of improvements shall extend along the east and west si e�Archibald Avenue from 4th Street to the south to the Foothill Freeway on the north. ARh Conceptual designs attached deal with major gateway treatments, secondary identity elements at major street crossings and several treatments of common frontage situations (see Exhibits 1 through 6). The design concepts inorporate an extensive use of stone, reflecting the historic character of th_> Methodist Church. The major gateway walls reflect the mission cap treatment used at the Jack. Tarr Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue. The stone theme shall also be seen in the residential areas in the form of rack pilaster colum4s linked by open tubular fencing. To the greatest degree possible, existing landscape treatments will be retained. Supplemental tree planting at existing developed sites will serve to integrate those projects into the overall design theme. The selected street tree is the Sycamore. Accent trees at designated areas are the Crape:. Myrtle, Evergreen Pear and Pepper. Gateway trees are the Jelecote Pine and the Sweet Gum. Funding for this project has been obtained through the City Beautification fund. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report and notices were sent to all property owners whose land borders -U,e P-r—ai-e-cr area. Notices were also sent informing property owners of a public workshop regarding the proposed beautification. Supplemental notices were also posted along Archibald Avenue within the proposed scope of work. J ITEM L I ._ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Archibald Avenue Beautification Project November 27, 1985 Pa.- 2 Aft RECOMMENDATION- Staff recomm(-,,ds that the: Planning .Commission review and approve the Archibald Beautification concept and recommend approval to Ciy Council. Respectfully submitted, LBH•eaa L Attachments: 1. Landscape Site Plan - Conceptual Design2. Identity - Conceptual Design 3. School -Frontage Cun;estual Design esign 4. Parkwayu 3 - Conceataa� Design _ 5. Grade - Conceptual Design 6. Retro: Residential - Conceptual Design S. FUTURE �q0 a MAJOR GATEWAY VERTICAL COLUMNAR TREES �Mru5 N.+++f;P.E45PS �G6i�ratAgL$!'YFkwC144 loth ST: STREET TREE THEME rye �+F:an'ewwems.� BASEUNE.RD. k� ACCENT FLANGING CHURCFf ST. SECONDARY INTERSECTION i IDENTIFICATION J FOOTHILL BL SECONDARY INTERSECTION uuTow RT. IDENTIFICATION �--� AC'GNT PLANTING cm Wd Gth ST. MAJOR GATEWAY 4tb ST. �'�• C� � � OPTE p �I, o �� )EZR ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEALITIFICATION It TY OF RAINTCHO nr TCA.N.CONGA - ' L-3 � D 0 1 � 7 - 5" 8 ' C Age na Pck o� Pge of - . ACCENT SHRUBS ACCENT GROUND COVER VERTICAL.. • COLUMNAR. TREES TURF •, STREET REES PLAN SCALE 1':20' /X .�W. � VERTICAL CONCRETE CAP C.=WNAR TREES.\ CITY LOGO(METAL S �3 PLATE OR TILE) LOW PLANTER WALL ROCK IDENTITY WALL y ELEVATION MAJOR GATEWAY VERTICAL COLUAYUR TREES. BUS STOP/SENCH !OCfC IDENTITY WALL ZVERTICAL , SA4VAR �J SHRUB COLOR •. o GROIRdp .• ";ryy�".r. 1CONCRETE PANEL COVER • ' va E�Mefciw c STREET NAMES �i 'C CAP 1. PLAN. SCALE 1':10' ELEVATION Ls .. SECONDARY:IDENTITY SCALE 1'.3' �DC�f�14II C�OI�C��p`�C��1 DC�IIC�I ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION CITY 03 � RANCHO CUCAli1IONGA .KEORj THEME I-- SIRE T •� PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Y' N s SHRUB I HEDGE • RESTRIPED. I �_S� EXISTING PARI(IHG ARCHISALD AVENUE ""'III ��• PING �a �. PARALLEL SECTION ADJAM1 P;IRIIINO I"' SCALE V 4- CONCRETE I WALK •• \ RELOCATE \\ PReLWG TO PLAN VIEW SCALE �CInIOO 01� 1�C�01��Cc�C COMCISIPTUA( D EOa(M ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION fiCITY Or ]RANCHO CUCAMONGA . . L 5 EXISTING STRUCTURES EXISTING LANDSCAPING EXISTING TREES • / TO REMAIN REMOVE • CONCETE. REPLACE EXISTING EXISTING TREES WALK GROUND COVER WITHIN R.O.W, �! •--•.� NEW STREET ( `TREES t p C p l • • L • • Y t p Y ■ EXISTING COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL - DEVELOPMENT SCALE:I':W AM GROUND COVER VACANT LOT TO R.O.W. OPTIONAL SHOVEL CUT EDGE SIDEWALK w ryTREE R :W • • C M 1 • • L • A V ■ Y ■ UNDEVELOPED LAND SCALE:T:..61 DLL ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION LA CITY Oli - r� RAN CHO CUC�IQNG� p>roV■. .YpYlq �,� . •.ILI¢La STUCCO/PAINT WALL ROCK PILASTERS INTERMITTENTL'. PLANT EXISTING SLOPE SHRUB/GROUND COVER M EXISTNfl ' vo RESIDENTIAL - A CUT EXISTING SLOPE AND ADD ROCK SEAT WALL. PARKWAY WITH STREET TREE AND TURF 'I EXISTING SLOPE SHRUB/GROUND COVER SECTION - AND VINES STUCCO EXISTING WALL ADD ROCK PILASTER WITH CONCRETE CAP OCK.SEAT WALL. ELEVATION. SCALE 1':3' - EXOSTING SLOPE AND WALL AT PARKWAY • ROCK PILASTER WITH CONCRETE CA;- AND METAL FENCE p a T SHRUBS/GROUND COVER 7,- ROCK SEAT WALL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STREET TREE WITH.GROUND.COVE+i BELOW ADD ROCK PILASTER SECTION WITH CONCRETE CAP METAL FENCE S4RUSIGROUND COVER ROCK SEAT WALL I I I 0.EVATION SCALE t:3 RETRO WALL AND GRADING AT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ` p ° 1ECn ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION ECITY OF lk) RANT CHO C.TC AlVIONGA ,,,�. • STREET TREES METAL.FENCAsk QATE- ORlt.eygY _ y 4 STONE PILASTER I I GROUND f I COVER I' 1 FRONT YARO•! RA PLAN • r. n • / / ♦ • o • r ■ . q ■ •SCALE.1':10' ROCK METAL GATE AT META;FENCE ROCK MASONRY PILASTER APPROACH WALK PILASTER WALL WITH CONCRETE CAP ORWEWAY * °'t I ELEVATION i SCALE 1'•4' FENCE AND PILASTER AT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL tlll� L1 �Vn LC11��11©1�11\.t t1 �in1L�s aim ARCHIBALD AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION CITY Or, :. R.ANCIO CCJCAMON CsA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G,yCnA STAFF REPORT - O . . 0 F_ Z U > DATE: November 27, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-35 - WE TR ND DEVELOPMENT- To develop a master plan for seven industrial buildings comprising 143,207 square feet on 10.43 acres and site specific approval of buildings 1 & 2 comprising 25,700 and 33,700 square feet, respectively !in 1.53 acre parcel and 2.24 acre parcel) located at the northeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 8) APN 229 021-036. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the master plan, site specific approval on buildings 1 and 2, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, General Industrial' South - Vacant, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial East Vacant, General Industrial West - Vacant, General Industrial C. General Plan Desi nations: Project— ite - General Industrial North - Industrial Park .South - Heavy Industry East - Flood Control Corridor West - General Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant sloping 3% from north to south with indigenous weeds and shrubs. There are no significant landforms or cultural aspects attributed to this site.. The site is occasionally subjected to surface runoff and flows from the easterly Day Creek Channel. Alk vp s ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 85-35 - Westrend Development November 27, 1985 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The developers are proposing a 1043 acre master- planned industrial complex consisting of seven concrete tilt-up buildings comprising 143,207 sq. ft. The master plan is fully integrated in terms of design, access- and pedestrian considerations and meets City standards and regulations. The entire site will be serviced by a dedicated 44 foot right-of- way (see Exhibit ?'C" for detail data). The applicants are also seeking site specific approval for Buildings l and 2 comprising 25,700 sq. ft. and 33,700 sq. ft., respectively. Both buildings exhibit similar design features and elevations such as recessed entries, reflective glass curtain walls, accent color, and reveal details (see Exhibit "D"). Other development features include indoor/outdoor employee luncheon areas, building cavities for specialized landscape statement (building 2), and texturized pedestrian connections. B. uezign Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the design elevations and expressed concern over views 7rom the 'I-15 freeway, specifically, the bland east elevation of building 1. To address the Committee's concerns, the applicant has provided 5 feet of landscape planter area and specimen-size trees 25' on center. The project site is_subject to Special Boulevard streetscape and landscape requirements along Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue, such as mounding, meandering sidewalks and specimen-size trees. In addition, the Committee requested the applicant to increase the number of landscaped fingers within the parking lot areas. Both aspects are incorporated as conditions on the attached resolution. C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed and approved the master plan concept subject to fire hydrant flow tests, adequate turning radius for fire-fighting vehicles, .and placement of Knox boxes within 10 feet of the front entrances. The Engineering Division will require a hydrology study to ensure that the entire project will be protected against periodic flooding. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the environmental checklist and found no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with said findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OR 85-35 Westrend Development Novriber 27, 1985 Page 3 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause s,ingificant 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. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support the Facts for Findings, then approval of DR 85-35 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and .issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate, Respectfully s muted Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Utilization Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit ''D" Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 'F" Grading Plan Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval N u y ED p ■ � . . _ - # P,C, f } -op �► p �� IMEMMME ®® •_ ° g Gc ®® uc 13 o. d - -- - - - -- o dd .QO SITE j 1 1 1 a I e NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Apew;rlo PLANNING DIVISION FXHIBIT- �� SCALE-��� 1 � J4 sa m m s �R I CD a it is s t37 1 y I IJ a pp JT1, i •� qq ¢¢ 1 I ' w A.ELI- 1 N a I ' — # �' + 1 �I 3 s I 1 i • a a 1 n ! Xt-12�-t Ir r, gj Asa �� ut P� Q sin Vol. gas ■■■� ":1�. 1 ._ey,.� J"{NKona ►FZVL�"..:.� 7 T Komi i PRIT', kr� ,A 1 \r` 4 i IrYWii`r � • ■�nq�4 ,, I ■w , MARS ME Klima M � ti I k^w T l C13 i A , �r ' m i - - i \ w ■R■■ : I�ill�!it • a ■■ Ism>N■ Moon ' ■■� .. 1 �1�i 1 ■■■°�Z M■o■ ■�■ ■■■� • r ■ ��d�ti'�=wig i-�r� �'7'rr ��� ar "i�' �It_�'►.•.�..i*..�.ur���W;�°�"� i36Fr .! V (k�OsT tho -,■,tsirsu..�u�1 F¢�..►�`tiu�u�.nv Idd .,r.-..mot�"���J � {fY fy�J— tl i "r,f41� It ....... �S 1>� -- 2Z— A •; I .e 'JAY r i � sSSS —• �� '.�.`�>�- -61 t v Q FI_ `i i ��flh , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:—/2 � APPLICAN''T:� FILIY; DATE: Jr¢�'" /�, /f&S► LOG NUMBER: PROJECT: Seel,al/ �i?��'Ci+STiiQi.O C. T u 4 set f 3na�, / J---...�.� PROJECT LOCATION: Alxe, 4'� J� Si 2 et oq/�+�®GtJ I. ENVT'tON`;NTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes'" and "maybe" answers are requi-red ot, attached sheets). YES XkYBE 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, coi;paction or burial of the soil? C. ,Change in topography or ground surface contour, intervals? d, The destruct:";on, covering t'C modification / of any unique geologic or physical features? Y a. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting hither on or off / site conditons? ✓—/ f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of p-op1Q or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes,, landslides, mud- slides, ground fai?,ure, or'similar hazards? ^4/ h. An increase in-the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology: Will the proposal have significant results in: E Pa$e ` YES u4YBE No a. Ch "nges in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral 1 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 floc ✓ ` waters? _ Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? / f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters„ either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity.? 1 h. The reduction in the amount of water other- ✓ wise available for public water supplies? i- Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air o_ u_ ality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile i or indirect sources? v' 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 conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or'temperature? 4. Biota _ Flora. Still the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Aft t including diversity, distribution, or number �✓ of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? / Nl_ r - -'age 3 YES `L4YBE ti0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants;into an area? d. Reduction' in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal;,iave significant tesults in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or 'numbers of any species of ani_als? 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, cr result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? t/ d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat, y� 5. -Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal altar the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. WL11 the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have ~— significant results in: s. Change to 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 [fse and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant re_wlts in" a.,, A substantial alteration of the present or p._ ned land use of an area? C - b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, AK poUcies, or adopted plans of any governmental / entities? t/ c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? , S— Page 4 YES. ;LaY9E N0 8, Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Gene ;tion of substantial additional vehicular moverent? b, Effects on existing streets, or demand for / new street construction? yyy/// / C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or / demand for new parking? 1/ 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 _o or effects on present and potential wader-borne, rail, mass transit or _ air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? f 9.. .Cultural Resources,. Will the proposal have significant results in: Aft 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? t/ C. A risk o£ explosion or release of hazardous substances in +.,he event of an accident? d.. ft increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or tie 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? rv\—IQ Page s YES "_4Y3c NO ll. 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? l 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. Gommunicctions systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? E. Flood control structures? g. SrAd waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i.. Police protection? ✓ J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintanance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? ✓ m. Other g;,vernmental services? 13. _Enerey and Scarce Resources, Will the proposal have significant results in: / a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? t/ c. An increase in the demand for development ofAMk f new sources of energy? __ f d. An incr,nase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? M-17 2 I ` Page 6 I YES SL4YSZ O e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? y 14. Mandatory Findings of Sieaific.ance. a, Does the project have thr potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, s cause , fish or wildlife population to drop below scif sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co=untty, 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 :;e 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). )/ C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively conside ale? (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? U. DISCUSSION OF EAII?IRON?SE.TAL EVALUMO 1 (i.e., of a,ffirz ative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures), Ile. - G'�A•;vf d�G7%ri sacs 6cJ.GG 2Esictr'i•� +yh�� Burei.2 L .6+U%W.r. s ('G/L�/�iivs J w.GC ags- J!?.pD.ivf C3om��3"PE� Z.J'. �i��c1 G'oNST/2utTios� AA,eZ /2ES0c.47- l pJ NC2E�S� c f r ��26'irw f Srl2�R�Es. <jCG �i.1�v CTs off'.")Iq ld�-4 g�•el ��o>FarQ2ofras.¢G W�GC /1EsacGT snJ iYEW 57ozE6 G'.cie/S�rz�ct7'.o.i �sfivr gv'seC � 2�F�ec.a7� fo ��E e.rry, AGsa /�ttJ P�vuGi vj cols w�c c . �6-.�ssa G t75rS o f.,�,1, /R9Z M-Ib' Page III. DETERMINATION' On the basis ofthis initial evaluation: Y find-the proposed�project COULD NOT have a significant effect the environment, and a \-EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. L 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. I find the proposed project *L4Y have a signifi.cant effect on the envirnment, and an SNVIR0NHENENT DIPACT REPORT is required. p Date Sig�n,.a�cu�r� (/Title — i w. ,1 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85-35 LOCATED 300 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCHESTER AVENUE.AND ARROW ROUTE IN INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA-8) WHEREAS, on the 12th day of September, 1985, a complete applicrtion was filed by Keith Ray for review of the above-described project; anl, WHEREAS, on the 27th 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 follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the _ objectives of the General Plan; and : 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and. the pu°poses 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 in -rious 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 27, 1985. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 85-35 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: DESIGN REVIEW 1. Provide enlarged details of the indoor/outdoor Employee areas to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Submit material sample board to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance of building permits.. Resolution No. DR 85-35 - Westrend Development Page 2 3. Provide specimen size trees along east elevation building 1 at a rate of 1 tree every 25 feet on center. 4. Provide additional "landscaped fingers throughout pE.-king areas, subject to City Planner approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Recess the windows at the corners (i.e., east elevation, building 1), subject to Design Review Committee approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Provide alternative definition or texture in building elevations in lieu of multi-color scheme. Elevations will be reviewed by Design Review Committee, prior to issuance; of building permits. 7. Provide special landscaping treatment within building #2 recess, subject to Design Review Committee approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 8. Future development of Phase II shall be consistent with the approved master plan and elevations for OR 85-35. Modifications shall require reapplication for Development/Design Review approval. 9. Where required by Grading Ordinance, provide ground cover and irrigation for erosion control on graded pads. ENGINEERING 1. Existing overhead utilities fronting the project will be required to be underground unless specifically waived by the Planning Commission as a part of the review process. APPROVED AND AG9PTED THIS 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985. PLANNING GOMMIS`'ION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: •Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST• _ Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary Resolution No. OR 85-55 - Westrend Development Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamorga, 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 greeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of November, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERSa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,,5 a �� • W N M r Yf1 O O ? 1 C S n :1N1 r'p 1 O 6 n n m n g O n O fY.O .O./w• 3 '�W p n a ad, n � e o'D r cai i V• ^ q M10 � Y..• ..� N ��� 1 O� V �. C� m • O 3�ieD O �p � O � N � I T p r N o { y C 03r�r n.Cl�. 6 m•• r N O • S �6� • 10^P l?.O ANON O^ OG� � �� N rr n 1 ON' rQ•CS�S�`v 6 � n 1 q P N O 0 N m c\ A V• a W �• \�q w A P Clot CE! Kv O,v Y.•�0.,+ 9 a tca-/ O �ZSt Znq r.9 nN l'f.Nw Q=�O OYm p r_ �\.� S6 C on Nuq m H — D,^ - "— r od G• —'- b P p 1 0 �S = N p 3 m A ^ b h . 0 p r q.A R A e 1 h m a s 3 �•3^r^Q cwtom ^3.'gM ?O.7 PC.�.A bra^N ID .n.. r pg �� m.�D ��•"C6,N r ' u�3•CN< AaAA r� e'r bw.�vr c. r,n emv w ..vp .eo9.� O PBE� ITp. q�^ P n 3 3 T~d O n N n OHO n 6l ol N P C 3�►O O P d q Q A �' O `m.•d~ bS.+ Y r '6 O •C+� " 3r N � f'M ' Oq nq m'p.�0 b� 9 105 10 n.�,�am r m orrO RAY nrr ei A� �� m �'^^ gip: u3i�0 nS r � O nOpb<• r. 6p 1 L 6N •a p pR� R ffO,!`Cq V OOn � ym1^ 61 HP, .y�gM1.... W SPNIp O�N- , nrrw.� �NS01^^Ntt9 n.^. �.. Ip n 10 • O'i^i n 12 O 1 I I I•C I� I� IF I& N 3 bSmaaC5. nD V, <y?l N a O p ry C•< p 3 � b N P S-_i. 2 o.T j O .. p3S la Y - b ... l. p0.O7,o. 1 r Ny C mp Q6. y N� rt .roc w z N ni^3 •'e.a. i a��o n �O ^4. 3n bD� �9j 33 ...N NO.mli Cf1 v^. S1 Cb m r 'SN 696 y T9.K. O m�3 �O O N a� O� ��p•C �`l C •j N O O Cy�� •.,�0,� �� �57�?6»� 6 rtp PAC 6 0 0 • N .7 D C D m rt m. I.Wv in S. mDan Grt R • � D^ DO Ao n —� 3.T2 DnN. r _p. 0.3� ��o6y'�� C i•C 3b3 oOp OSrt G1 �R�' r9^ '•a tOtC' r D 6. n .n.•.� =n•C A R u.C.A 3 V •f t0 p - IV tf comI� a�'D c... p 6D m 0 ma•c R Emt. d �.� 3 O Ndi Oa i l C O G a 0 ^•O A^ S N p D D •C CS <K �•. O D '•Gpp .7. N J O. N. i'� 0,.� C �.pOJ 'r 3DNyz N � C •G. �4 .'oD v� NDc N 6 O,� g N C� 3r • Sr A� O� D3 L D O.C_ A.06 it w� .ytoR �N•� v Za =s � �. vN•c N Nn o D b�3c N 'O y N •C�;� � D m� 'A p O a 6 N v3 s • °'. mz�°.p Pin 3.�m N. eo 00 ooe� `i'. �rt Y C rfl. m±•CO 4C.Ja.r' •1 �.^i30 7 ZO In b 00 {10�d aSm r O T .^.. S OS� D ���tpG bO off. CO3J f »»D ( p D o n O^b Z J Rd C10.j� e''• N .wN fP03�N OSO •.N� 03 mlPp o rt n 7 A O O �•O^O ADD is D y 2 V G 3 S S 1 t1 i N p 0'• Sp C N � rt3 tOp 1t�.3n 6 . NN 4N.6�Nrl • ^�.,�(•w'C.�<'!�'G A•C 6� �GA6.< - {/� n rn ut p u� ro, v $tim �N v�b•a � � m m �.... « a sr q Olr ronCY =C qb b �. 7 TN m `C N F' ai MR C C 'O Y n rN 6� r•d >>r � OnC tp 6 C C n A. G • N C b C orOi q broro Zn r ^roO 0 N n, 0. C ro N p^O p.Crb.. n�K qq NON n1 • 6r•. �p ro nSN CCT 7�C Y� Ofr � '.0 ^p ro � p C C�r ��•�. rC 6+ _� 1e•N 4 N 3 W 0. N ro ro N �.C.. Cgpr e•o. pprom• SG • '� N ro. 2L y c: fv q o �1R rb O N 6 ti n6 T� no • •Ct� C�� {pb aflN 1 'f if u� 6CN rom•' W 1 oT nr.�in ` n c C �b i.r ro �g �3•. n ro O Ci,C t N t qa � S o.ry = N�dj, aCr roS O.4 .•41 e• '.may �T�. • • A'.N n�j �N Sro�N jY A CN O�d.3 �YtC rosbe O.. �Z pOL N ?� 5� 2 a > ro N� � � r ro.� rn� S en•3 dr,.' Z �Y a •G `ro ro. Nd iZ A O Gn � S C ro O r ro C ^� N j •. p C A q. C ...• O C a O1 a o ro Cp? ro V WRO l0 3b C f5 ro q T � ce _ fi rom irxn� ''a >>voin s_.': r xi zap..-• � I 41.2A n-1 y rn7f' r.R� \� e+f1roNY (a 1 Z 3b A G 3� 6 n O W �.� Z y.. RO 3.'O AA J..O O O� =2 n Off.gg A O' , ^d.0 �ONin NT c�;3 T'a Da IO o.�K 'dC O N_ ZOO 7 O n 3 n O=r n O �N D•A Nn qn r.ZT � 6 R.. R n�.An N? a m S 'i O _ O.�• .n.. O �3 a O' d �w �n 3 G _ o N TnNOi� n Ob ..'f NN.N 03 i� ,C SO a AGO 136 n� eYy n , FN o. N tOi.00 +n Ny. R.�N n3 a06� n� 'a ap6i • �3 � O. O'O< �� OS3 O. ^ O N n O�` S Gn vn y Q�n n e 3 O o 00 3 Au e eNi O• N n A O' y� ® . O A - Rio. C A s T I'IC .1 T yCl SiU�'t. '�1 ryi 3 O ,� SOS+ G; O17 A4 or np .CZAn A d e nn r.0 099� R � p- SN. y Su Obi O� lRT O 5366 N.0 b p0.".Z 55, e.p S., nti1 p, F.3.N O C T A 013 'a 3C O ={ ..a wn rh. N n yo NO Nn Z. Nam. m%i T e T^ n no 3Y mo fic V ztO N i e i as a m e n ` My p 3 n3 ••1' ' ! IF N 2 SO N% MEMO OW A M2 F y0 C O+ u•C O• 0.A.a G p Z,i N W c n 0 9 b 0 � r�t 3 .n+ �Z N u•C T' � p O C at N l O O Q b Z H p N Z G.ON K O T� 6 C 9� p�. 7.N O O g b.p 'r '„ �a I law • aOQ6ais O 1N bl R.S OV u6�0 O. N d. O 36K S 21 DO r. -O.� ... • l a' W�:o br C-� T 9 p T6N 1101 1 o n y �.n q ry n b yb,. a}N a l 3 p.1 r r Y. N S.0..q O' l H m a p G GO r Q4"FIE' I O •G a10 b0. GQ R � O O p 0^ O N ro W O' R n j W 00. vnpi M.n 3 t O� A •=OdfSD b5 tall, N OFF'', ry r6 11 ^ nS O� O. ySq'� S C 66 Cld ya Ory 7r. G rK t Ne ^O 3 RO �S IRA c. 9a rn'. n 'a c d ? .1 � N �< w r = S 4 li � LJ,^Y O 0O. .ya. O 6 a'a x 'n 3 a N 6^ y y Y fin.. �.O pf •t.6r� tie' aI R A 'C gag b Z WE r m Usur so TF ET ME 0 ZR :a (� nWKa S m3 �NN 0. oO 5O N n0 1 •/� Ofl C b O r At0 11 mn •M mo Q - ~ Elv cp riCTO'� '{ y.6j 3 •C AO �p yni S.p eO+Q ' rd O O v e�O. N 3 �O i^ y x gat .3 n p.^ no D air r n e. zl V y 3 r ,c W N � O:� 4 Y •C 1 3 C 6 10. � • pOd C i AP Or =g. �S. Y� o p3 R C 1. X LN r ��OGn On 03 b i 39 eo v �o '^ 3 a A � n� 6 o - �•c �3fl ` • 9m �� •Cw6gV� +.1 or•tR w s ry �u ro _ ^ RY.� CN 3' r oaa i � ate' 00 3'o yd a Y r <• ^.AO O�G� •t O 9.t 3� V A n O • O. y C 3 fnt p g F.I o 1. O 3 3 C O u O N� O �. O. O• `G N ;d 6N ii Aso sa Y Y n Y Y 3 •C O•. 3 _ w 9 O ro n G 6 R. T 2= Y r a uox.. n. . c c 3� � c orosa e s ZN Dm r 99 rp C C— _15w p. O N S 16 w ? - i O O FZ R Y c x � ��. a ... � •''. n.9^ � ers snvo... n ? amen n ow di •G R-t's.�o W ro A (pNNOf S D. T 63N �O O.00 O w m. rn � !. lob ►� Im I� Iq I� �. I I I. o m �. n m.�a _. i �. p^o. g n a 3ry:6 Sp.O A mup m� �`0c ep `C ON No mw l ^ f0 A o 3 ?Q y a ^P lw N �Seow " o -w •c�Rio � -pr' � n o o o V a u ro\ IN N \ h lnri. ra S N r •<<a En �n "N a10 J ydj0"w Ip O S 4 ry O A tt A .gyp.0 S 3 O x p O P P tl x N mg Np, l9 d; G p< y O �N � c n MdO y R 3.+ e10 p do. s n HN 'c m. pa N N N6 tv O N 1 �� o o m i �u n. �'p upm zn CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA agWooM STAFF DEPORT c O O E}- Z U it� Y DATE: November 27, 1985 _ L977 TO; Chairman and Members of the Planning ;.ommission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-21 - CIRCLE K MARKET REMODEL I. GENERAL: Circle K has submitted a Minor development Review to remodel the exterior of their building at 12854 Foothill Boulevard, west r-f Etiwanda Avenue. this property is currently zoned Commercial as are the adjacent 'properties to the east and west. The vacant land adjacent to the north is zoned Medium Density Residential. 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 for financial Commitments. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Circle K has submitted for a Minor Development Review of a exterior facade remodel (see Exhibit "E"). The exterior beam over hang which measures approximately 13 feet would be removed and a new color band 'treatment installed. The existing Circle K -ite is inconsistent with City standards in areas of landscaping, architecture, circulation, and lot size. A. Architecture: The Interim Policies state that the architecture shall be sensitive to the heritage of Rancho Cucamonga and relate to nearby structures of community significance. Design elements should include, but are not limited to, river rock walls, exposed beam work, vine arbors, curved parapet walls, covered walkways or arcades. The proposed remodel does not incorporate any of the: features. In addition, this site is also located within the Etiwanda Specific Plan which establishes detailed architectural guidelines. The impact of the Foothill Corridor Study upon these guidelines is unknown. B. Landscaping: Currently, there is no landscaping on the site. The Interim Policies require installation of streetscape landscaping to the extent practical in conjunction. with exterior remodeling of existing buildings. Foothill Boulevard, as a "special boulevard" would normally require a 45 foot landscape setback from curb face. ITEM N PLANNING COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT MDR 85-21 - CIRCLE K MARKET November 27, 1985 Page 2 C. Master Planninq: The Circle K market is located on one of four substandards parcels—along Foothill Boulevard (see :Exhibit "B") Ideally, this area should be master planned and provide for consolidation of the substandard' parcels. However, since no new buileings are proposed, a master plan is not automatically required. Significant alterations to the site plan, building_architecture and landscaping may begin to bring the project site into ' compliance with some of the Interim Policies of the Foothill Corridor. However, these changes would' not further the policy to master plan and consolidate substandard parcels. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff's review has determined that this project is inconsistent with the standards of Interim Policies in the areas of architecture and landscaping. Based on the Planning Commission's past decisions (Equi's and Mood Engineering), Staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to 1) either continue to process this project and work with Staff to meet the standards of the Interim Policies or 2) discontinue this project until the Foothill Corridor Studys completed. Respectfully submitted, a-ell 6 �r Brad Buller City Planner Development Director l BB:JM:ko Il Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map j Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit "D" Typical Existing Circle K Markets Exhibit "E" - Proposed Circle K Remodel Exhibit "F" - Foothill Study Interim Policies 4 V / � r v mvd tnu t� NORTH CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAmo. GA TrrLE: sl-rE PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:---�L_SCAGE- /V 113 - � Q i i _ E h i n q.e7 AC � t �f 2.T? A l . l LL- --- Q i � •tLe,�. # raw. �tFi�T r p:. NORTH CITY OF ITc�r: & RANCHO N n / U CAMO \ TITLE: UrlLl%)erIC PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:--5—SCALE- not c"-3 I..trJR-FE►1GE p t H:w.imtcaPPeo t'.. - -!- --- ExIenI tG� r 3EW Cot a wt7 LING 111 SFFtT C tub• F_'F�IOVE i FxtSTlWA CooFAn, K�Q.G"• - y: ci't{.E`oGk I.Ihc.L. SEE pt carte fi.AW.. . I It i r "LAN _ ', c •t 1 1=00 HI + �. �•� t � ai+, n Sri= p NORTH CITY O ITrr\4 RANCHO CICC.ANi IQ\TGA TITLE= E LAM PLANNING DIVISO-11 EXHIM r. SCALE' h1 rM,x d `<*(454`G., Y,:+f 1•>q't'�y t'7:ayti'4�wi�� :""`A'4''��i�` ';''. y r,.,,i..h��,�. iy Z n k t l of t! t y r l `! t. 7'.z„J s r:i�� as 4 .' � - . F s• Y i a? n >>x.Sa .`,t 'ti A r �` •r L rKs t x' r;'..,,,� A x� '- � a �� G.y.,� � .a.� :ry ,.T�}'.144.�� tfi .r Cn� r,�ti.♦s'�y S 1 1 �}y �' ''°''� �r rti4 �tt•.f�9�+1.n{'�'�y�.,�4t net'��r��.�t�'i?`{h�'.: ti�4•ya��r�1•.�� l�� cr x+xra r�.r.1� v�"��4a a 1 rrt n a <s«,-§xk•.�.+�A� e. .� s+ z.S a k` �. .rA, { `KZTs t.l Ts;, -:•y.tt * y � - n.:tr''7a` x� i��* i {�[�'�rj.+i„�'� ?.i. Ce��r a„y�t� � "'r`r��;: 'h�' Y „tt� '�• ty.'T! `��b a� rr+s'� �AF C•,xr�i� x r li�{�.�{,;t,�};��? an � e �, n 5 �' � yT�w�-"v t `' ''i r��3;�f ix�i��`*l;�%`�r�� t��_�.�gA,�.vEw,�4 � �� hAi._7'�a "� ``r"'�y�,��r'x' 'F''. °k�.w�•� �t�gh� "" �� 'Y.1b H�.17nA�ta'�"1{�.�,r2 n3'�,. f� .G :• �w� Z t'..�5<vT�c'�""l+.yo'�'•j 1� r y�.�'`,fit hY�•��`(Q,�Yr�: >,� ,��'��+.�z'�?^AS.,�`�v �j�e 3��.x.vv��. oy e Y ,�r .yes�• a��M�''..rc���.���a''ii��'����'•M1�}�.' .".y'!nr'c„axi..-'`��+w:.=`t'!' ,.::'"�> ,•k A"".k�.. �•'i*��t'�tsq+raA,.•� :43�� •`.�J,� +t•: �: •� !.{x*�S»wlr st�w�� .�t>�.�i�+rd'F`�r,�y.V f^:.x���. `a„��t+'f`sa. ntK aE'"'h : ��ti�.r'.?'�•5� �' r Yi _r .�� .H �' T. �_'.•�,�"Z _ > a�,r ��ti i�T„�x; : ,wi .�.c 1-:�'vl `'.w l.�S .,,r,L.t'r �* 4a.. � Fr•ea.�^.i�{�`�yu`�y.�"�t•�-*'��.s.�r �,,,♦ y.�n 5�.4.L4� .5;�� .sra.dT' S�S'ay st`,. „_x.T a �G �U ,.2'wk..- -�.•... d�.s'! a x N+:., kF�ie° VI ,�, xs..:A x '4�A•'e . �' ♦7 -wi'-, n.. . L' 4s..4•ir: • J 1 f � i i c1i1'ti.5 dLL.A. Yo1�.���Y.>noY'¢i«MfaRS�Y�'i9�jV' TR ac. r tv 5 i xi,' �R d•Y' - Yabfn.+'ii •�"' A ...d^WPGi•r R'' tlet, i`A ,,,, e.�r.f � •may.� �Zp ,�+r� •P,�<}..� e �� _ UW.fx�9x�1 ?Mfw!TNa+.wx�, '�u*'ahnw.f uTv •t" C .tLie Vs v5'3..+i .xli`P"'1?•'1C.Y'A f�M'Cx•1'! ��.` sue,- 5y�» .f�ST«f ♦q a ",q,,��.,., - T3,.t-. Y4�t M`,7��� d2J+ ;4t 5 lh� �lY�7�f�J\"1 1�'+Yrvt�P��.L�•\13M+.1�,4�R �t7J�St 31'.t'� T��f.u.•T M i"'h,,t h4�jIS+H�+:'i Y c' �`.a;<z 1�,t�n�T+� S - s e +`k. a. }'�r+t i Sys' tT-, t *G•;� 1r"+ 1 �. s k � A . • ORDINANCE NO. 274 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMMI ADOPTING AN IHTBM ZONING ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERMENT CODE SECTION 6$858(b) PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHHENT OF INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS dVR THE FOOTHILL CORRIDOR A. Recitals (i) The Planning Departaeut of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been instructed to conduct and complete the "Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study■, a study which is intended to result in a synthesized specific plan or development for that portion of Foothill Boulevard ranging from the West city limits at Grova Avenue to Deer Creek Gunnel and frsa that Devore Freeway to the east City limits at East Avenue. A map describing the boundaries of said' study area is attached heretc marked as Lchibit "AR, and a incorporated herein by this reference. Hereinafter, said study area in referred to as "the Foothill Corridor." (ii) Pending the completion of the Foothill Corridor Study, it is foreseeable that dsvelopment proposals sball be submitted for property within the Foothill Corridcr. Moreover, it is foreseeable that such development Proposals would Oct conform to the ultimate speaifia plan of development for that study area and would contradict the speaifia Purpose or the unified specific plan. (III) This Council is concerned about the creation of an orderly cud balanced development within toe Foothill Corridor area, Accordingly, to Protect the integrliy of the ultimate Opeeifie plan and to aeaure the continued development Stability of those properties within the study area, this Council finds that it is necessary to establish interim zoning policies to allow the Planning start the time necossary to SnVestigate and formuia:eAfiLkL the speeifio plan of development for the Foothill Corridor. (iv) All legal prerequisites` pr3oc to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. 'Y E. Ordinance NOW, THEREFOR£', IT IS HEREBY OEDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH£'CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA AS FOLLONSt SECTION!t In all roapeets as set forth in the Reaitala, Part A. of this.Ocdinance. SECTION 2s finds as The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga h+reby follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is presently developing a pl specific an of 4-.velopmeat for the Foothill Corridor area. The ultimate gcal of this plan is to provide a balanced and unifieo plan of developmen: within the Foothill Corridor and will ultimately upgrade the economic, soeia, and cultural welfare of persons and properties both within and surrounding tt Foothill Corridor= b. Pending the completion Of the Specific Plan, it is forotasable that applications for development involving the Foothill Corridor wilt be received that may contradict the ultimate goals and cbJectives of:h- specific plan;and, a. She approval of additional subdivisions, use p.rxits, variances, building permits, and any other applicable entitlements .)r Use pertaining to property within the Foothill Corridor could result in an Immediate threat to public health, saf+ty or welfare of those persons and properties within and surrounding the Foothill Corridor. lVz- Ordinance No. 274 Page 2 SECTION 3i The rollowing interim, Zoning regulations are hereby allopteds . Pending,the completion and implementation of the Foothill Corridor study, all development within the Foothill Corridor shall be conducted in accordance with 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 inconsistant with the interim policies adopted herein is hereby prohibited. SECTION 41 This Ordinance is enacted under the authority of California Government Code Section 65858(b),and Plall be of no.further force and effect forty-five (45) days from the date-of the adoption of tbis Ordinance :.aleas the City Counail has extended t 3s Ordinance in the r-=or as provided in paid Section 65858(b). SECTION 5s This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency _ measure-purso the terms of California Government Code Section 65858 and 36937 (b) and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon ite adoption. SECTION 6: Mayor shall sign this or Inane and the City Clerk shall cause :he sane to be published within fifteec, (15) days after its p-:gaage at least once in The Daily Report, a.newapapr--.of, general circulation published. in t;ce city of Ontario, California, and —rculated in the City of ltncho Cucamorga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 1S85. AYES: Wright, Buquet, Hikels, Dahl, King NOESL None ABSENT: None ¢D. MIKels, mayor Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk I, BEVERLY A. AOTHELET, CYT!! CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the and day of Cetober# 1985, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day.of Ootober. 1985, Executed this 3rd day of October, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. I P Beverly At. Authelet,"city cleric '� ` 9 . - Ordinance So..-274 -: Page 3 i EXHIBIT "A" AA N. . .. .�........ ::::...: ..g r �{. ':'cam::.': ;,+.,e"�•,::;'i:�::i" ;;:' . AdMk f t;��.-'. •;aig;r., .� .;fee, .;,:Ka sad? .yv r '"�°'°a t ••:>r:iir:<r' '$ e .:::.... :•>: d9: afoo` r.s f s � rR o: :•:•::::.xj : :•:¢; _:+• .' : :•,'���eKii�`�.•:•�.•:'•:•:•,:: •:� :�:' chi :•.''"�. ,: .:x::;• - ff k - -- CITY OF ^ ^ "ITF%12 Foothill Carridor Interim Dole MONG RANCHO CLC A TITLE: Study Area Boundary a ELn:"`I G DID 1SIOV EXHIBIT. __A' ,StiALE: - - o _ 1-IC' 1 1 +W , E er 4" • OrdLrmnce No.. 274 Page 5 .., EXHIBIT -B». FOOTHILL CORRIDOR INTERIM POLICIES INIRODUCiIOR The following Goal Statement and Interim Policies are provided to- guide the decision making process during preparation of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study. The policies address basic land use a �-urban design issues unique to the Foothill Corridor, and are intended to be ,.;)lied in conjunction with the Development code,whichever is more restrictive, unless specifically addressed by these policies. The boundaries of the Study Area include commercial, office, and residential properties along Foothill Boulevard, ranging from,the west city limit at Grove Avenue to Geer Creek Channel, and from the Devore Freeway to the east city limit at East Avenue (Exhibits A-1, A-2). GOAL STATEMENT Goals define commmnity aspirations and intentions. The following Goal for Foothill Boulevard attempts to synthesize a complex set of issues dealing with land use, urban design, traffic and circulation, and economic viability into comprehensive, understandable and achievable statement. To establish a high quality, attractive, and unifying design image reflective of community heritage, and provide a viable .setting for a balanced mixture of residential and commercial activities with safe and efficient 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 Study. EXHIBIT, 8 ordinance.No. 274 Page b Amok INTERIM PM.ICIES A. General Requirements: Preliminary Review A.1 Prior to processing Development/Design Review applications within the stud' area the Planning Commission shal. conduct a Preliminary Review to determine consistency with the Interim Goal and Policies contained herein. The intent is to provide direction to the applicant and staff early in the review process and avoid undue time delays or expenditures. A.2 Submittal requirements for a Preliminary Review shall include &Site d utilization Map showing the E relationship of the site to surrounding property and improvements, a conceptual Site Plan, and a description cF the prrjposed use. Additioncl'information may be requested as deemed necessary by Adft thi City 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-evalCttion ofprojects not yet constructed for consistency with the zdoptet Foothill Corridor Study 'or other then current City standards. A.4 Time 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 provision of State law, and the following findings: a. The proposed land use, project design, and conditions of approval comply with all applicable provisions of the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies; b. The project is consistent with'the policies, standards, and requirements in effect at the time of the extension. o Ordinance::o. Page 7 C. The;ranting of said time extension aiil not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious too Properties or improvements in the vicinity. -d. Current 'economic, marketing, and inventory conditions have made it unreasonable to develop the project prior,to this time. Compatibility: A.5 All land use and development proposals shalt be compatible with ultimate uses on surrounding properties,particularly residential uses, and mitigate _Potential conflicts to the extent Practical. Mitigation measures may typically include, but are not limited to, Master Planning, transition of building height, architectural form and density, landscape buffers, sound attenuation, reduction- of wind turbulence, visual barriers and/ grading conditions to disrupt line-o sight concerns, and alternative circulation and access. B. Land Use The intent of the following policies is to provide a viable setting for a balanced mixture of residential, commercial, office, and other activities of community wide significance compatible with surrounding land uses. Generdl Plan'Amendments 8.1 Applications for General Plan land Use I Amendments are discouraged. Pri3r to approval V1 any such amendment, however, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings: a. The proposed amendment ,s clearly consistent with the' intent and Purpose of the interim policies for the Foothill Boulevard corridor. b. The proposed land use is compatible with ultimate uses on surrounding property. c. The proposed land use will not create significant traffic or circulation impacts, ordinance No.. 274 - Page 8 AAIL d. The proposed land use will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity. heveloprient Districts Amendments 8.2 Development District Amendments boundaries may be considered if consi,tent k:th the General Plan Land Use Element and Interim Policies, and where necessary to achieve more logical and efficient land use and site planning patterns. The intent is to allow flexibility during the. Master Planning process and provide a tool to achieve the objectives of the Interim ' Policies. Land:Use 8.3 Current Land Use regulations within the Study Area shall' remain in effect, except that the foi''owing limitations shalt apply during preparation of the Foothill. Boulevard Corridor Plan, The purpose is to avoid land uses which may have adverse aesthetic im)acts, until such time as design guidelines and technical standards are established to deal wit!t specific areas o?concern. A complete list of permitted -id conditionally permitted uses, is provided on the attached Interim Use Regulations for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. Existirg or previously approved businesses end Nildings shall be allowed to continue under current regulatory provisions of the City. - The following new land uses shall not be- e_tablished in the Office/Professional -and General Commercial Districts within the 'S'ady Area. Expansion of existing uses' identified below shall be allowed. subject 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 Ordinance No, Lt: .,. .Page 9 . - Equipment Rental Yards - Ice Machines (outdoor)' Mini-storage for public use Recreation Vehicle Storage Yard - Vehicular Storage Yards The following new land uses may be established in the Office/Professional or General Conmercial Districts within the Study Area (see attached Interim Use Regulations), subject to the approval of a,Conditional Use Permit. ' Carpenter Shop or Cabinet Shop - Drug Stores.and Pharmacies (CUP in DP District only) Nurseries&Garden Supply Stores Plumbing Shop and Supplies Second Hand Stores and Pax Shop Spiritualists C. Master Planned 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 partals of land in a manner which prevents or precludes future development of adjacent parcels in the best way feasible. The specific intent is to recmnize and solve problems before they occur and take advantage of opportunities while they exist. Master Plans Required C.1 A conceptual Master Plaa shall be required for Planning Commission review in conjunction with development proposals wherever necessary to assure integrated development, enhare harmonious and orderly development, mitigate site constraints on adjoining property and maximize 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 'he City by coordinating land us4 `ind site planning to enhance oppoitup1ties for quality-development consistent with the standards for Foothill Boulevard, de emphasizie "strip-commercial- by treating organized groups of structures and uses, and provide for efficient utilization of land. Content C.3 At a minimum, Mister Plans shall indicate conceptual building locations and orientation, overall circulation, points of ingress and egress,'parking lot layouts, transit stops, landscaped areas, and pedestrian .nodes, and circulation. In addition, the City Planner may require other information as deemed necessary to assurB consistency with the intent of these policies. D. 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 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 arbars, curved- parapet walls, and covered walkways or arcades. 02 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 +ing orientation and parking it { configuration, shall enhance pedt_ r. connections on- and off-site. ' a continuous pedestrian system cs required in all new projects ,with Connections between buildings, parking Ordinance Na. 274. Page 11 areas, street adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. Amenities ;hall be provided such as plazas, shaded seating alcoves, expanded walkways with surface treatment, texturized 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 Foothill Boulevard shall be coordinated for consistency with existing City access policies (i.e., 3031 driveway separation) to the extent practical, regardless of'parcel.width. Public Transit 0.5 Public transit facilities shall be considered within all master plans. Convenient pedestrian access shall be provided from designated transit facilities, such as bus stops. Streetscape Design D.6 Streetscape design elements for all new pro3ects shall be coordinated for consistency with the guidelines for Foothill Boulevard in eff.ilit at the time of development, including intensified landscaping with specimen size trees. berming, and meanderin sidewalks. In addition, stree furniture and alluvial rockscape and monument signs may be required where appropriate.. Landscaping 0.7 Landscaping shall be designed to create viwai interest and variety to the stresSscape, enhance building architectove, buffer views of automobiles, screen utilities and service arras, and distinguish pedestrian, spaces from vehicular areas. E. Non-Conforming Lots/Structuresc The purpose of this section is to allow continuance of exis g uses at-, buildings under current conditions, and promote consistency or design and technical staAdards throughout the study area at the time of development, conversion, or redesign. Master Planning E.1 New, development aniJor conversion of existing residential buildings to a new use is permitted on non-conforming lots, provided such development is an <V�w f a Ordinance No. 274 . Page 12 AMk integral part of a Master Plan development consistent with the Interim Policies for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor tad Development Code standards. The boundaries of such a Master Plan shall be determined by the City Planner per policy C.2 above, and should provide for consolidation C! substandar(i parcels. - Landscaping E,2 Regardless of'parcel depth, all new development shall provide a minimum 45' building setback and avrrage streetscape landscaping (measured from the ulti.-iate curb face location) on Foothill Boulevard. .J Streetscape landscaping and irrigation shall be required to the extent practical in conjunction with substantial reconstruction', ranovation or exterior remodeling o{ existing structures along Foothill Boulevard involving the issuance of a building permit. A .ordinance.no, 21..5 Page U DeveIcument Code Interim Use Atgulations- Footlull Boulavcrci Comdor Study Arra Uses listed in,thin 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"P" the use shall be a permitted use in that 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 a given use in one of the districts,the procedure outlined in Section 17.02.040 shall be followed.. 11MRIM,USE REGULATIONS'joR CoHMgECI UOPFiCB DlSq'RICTS USE OP NC GC A. Offices and Relatod Uses I, Administrative and executive offices. P p p 2. Artist and photo^raphic studios, no' P P p including the sale of equipment or supplies. 3. Clerical and professional offices, o 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 service-- provided shall be permitted. 0. Prescription pharmacies, (also ' when p p p located within a building containing the offices of 5 or more medical practitioners) i . t' ? P P 7. Public buildings(hbrary,city and county buildings, special districts and post office). S. public utility service offices. P p P 9. Public safety facillty (police, fre, C C C. ambulance and paramedics). V� ' 4rdinaa^.e No. 274 page" 11 INTERIA USE REGULATIONS USE OP KC GC 10. Related commercial uses (blueprinting, p P P stationary, quick copy, etc.) when incidental to an office building or complex. 6• General Commercial Uses 1. Antique shops - P P 3. adult business (see special requirements - C per Section 17.10.030) 3. Animal Care Facility (animal hospital, veterinarian, commercial kennel; grooming). a. Excluding exterior ke;'.nel,pens,or C p P runs. b. Including exterior kennel, pens, or, rum. 4. Apparel stores. _ P p S. Art, music and photo;raphic audios 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.) il. Athletic and Health Clue, gyms and P p P weight reducing clinics. S. Automotive services (including motorcycles,boats,trailer and camper) a. Sales(may have repairs as ancilary C C use) b. rentals C 1 - repairs(major engine work,muffler C shops, painting, body work and upholstery) d. Coin-op washing C G C e. Automatic washing C C C * Denotes change from Table 0.10.030 of the Development Code Ordinance No 274 Fage 15 INTERIM USE REMJLAT USE OP NC cc- (f) Service or gasoline dispensing C C P stations (including minor repaip such as tune-ups,brakes,batteries, tires,mufflers) (g) Parts and supplies - P P W. Bakeries(retail only). - P P 11. Bart-r and beauty shops. P P F 12. bicycle shops. - P P 13. 1✓iueprint and photocopy services P p P 14. Boat and camper sales and services. _ C 1S. Book, gift and +w4ijnary stores (other C P p than adult related material) 16. Candy stores and cone'-;tionaries. _ p 17. Catering establIsMitats. _ 18. Cleaning and preying establishments. C p P I.S. Caepentsrshop at cabinet shop. - - r+ 20. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge, tavern) Including relay,enteL Wnment. (a) Operated Independent of a C - C .:taurant V,;) Accessoey to a restaurant C C 21. Comme. 'sl recreation facilities. (a) indonr uses such as bowling, C C P theaters,biltards, (b) Outdoor uses such as golf, tennis, C C C basketball, etc. baseball, erampoIInrs, 1 22. Contractor yards (screenirg of outdoor _t storage required). 23. Dairy product stores. _ P p Ordinance No..274 Page 15 AML TNTERIN USE REGUOII USE OP NC GC 24. Department stores. - P. 25. Drive-in businesses,including theaters. - C C (other than fast food-estaursnes) 26. Drug stores and pharmacies. C' P, P 27. EgWpment rental yards. 28. Fast-food restaurants. C C' P M Feed/Tack stores C p 30. Florist shops. p c p 31. Food stores and supermarkets, p p 32. Furniture stores,repaie and upholstery. p p 31 General retail stores. p P 34, Hardware stores. p p 55. Home improvement centers. (a) Material stored and sold within - p enclosed buildings (b) Outdoor storage of material such as - C lumt;Er&nl�ilding materials 36. Hotel;and Hotels. C - P 37. rce Machines(outdoor). _# - 38. ,'s:.nitorai services and supplies. C p p 39. Jewelry 4tores. ' P 43. Launlry-selt-sery S 41. Liquor stores. _ p F 42. Kiosks for key shops, film drips, etc. 1-1 C C parking lots. 43. Locksmith shop. p P 44. Mini-storage fcr public use (no outdoor storage). t ft Otdtnance No.,x)4: Page 17 IITERTR USE REGULATP i9SE or try cc 45. Mortuaries C C C 46. Motorcycle sales and service. - C 47. Newspaper and magazine stores, printing C and puolishing. P 48. Nurseries and garden supply stores; _ O t provided, in the NC district, all equipment,supplies and materW are k,,rot within or.enclosed area. 49. Office and business machine stores. C P p SO. Parking facilities(Comwercial)where fees C P are charged. _ 51. PoUtical or philanthropic headquac:3rs, C C P 62. Pet shop. - P P 53. Plumbing shop anc SU;;ilies. 54. Photocopy P P 55. Printing shop! _ _ P 56. r Restaurant' -,)an fast focd). (a) Witic entertainment and/or serving C C P of alcoholic beverages (b) Incidental serving of beer aa:d wine P P P but without a cocktail lounge,bar, c itettainment or dancing. 57. Recredtionel Vehicle Storage Yard. _ 68. Si-oe stores,sales and repair. P P 59. Second-hand stores and pawn shops. 60. Shopping Center subject to prcvisiow in - C Section 17.10.030-F.& C 61. Spiritualist readings or astrology _ forecasting. C:+ 62. Sporting goods stores. 63. Stamp and coin shrps. P P t I� Ordinance No. 274 Page 16 4NTERIN USE REGULATI— USE OP NC CC 64. Swimming pool supplies. P P 45. Tailor, 66. Taxidermis,.y Cr p 67, Tel,'Asion,radio sales and se vice. - P p 68. Tice sales and service. 69. Toy stores. - P p 70. Towing service(without vel� g iculV storage) i _ C 71. Travel agencies. P p p I 72. Trrasportation 7acilities (train and bus, C taxi depots). C ' 73. Truck and trailer rental,sales and service. _ C 74. variety stores P P n. Public xnd se ni-public uses — 1. Day Care Frcirt;es C C C 2. Convalescent facilities and hospitals. C _ G 3. Private and public clubs and lodges, C C Including YNICA,YMCA and similar youth C group uses. 4. Educat `rial ipstitutioos,parochial,private C C Onelud6tg colleges and universities). G 5. Libra, museums,public or private. C C • C 6. Parks and recreation facilities, public or C C private. C 7. Public i+tItity installations. C C C 8, Vocational or business trade schools, C C C 9. Churches,convents,monasteries and other religious institutions; 'C. C' C.. _ ordinance so. 27: pagjF'19 INTER14 USE AEGUU USE _ OP MC CC— D. Accessary Uses 1. Acessory structures and uses customarily p p incidental to -1 Permitted use and p contained an.the same site. 2. Accessory structures cnd uses customarily C incidental to a conditional use and C contained on the same site. 3. Caretakers residence C C p 4. Amusement . Devices, per Seeticn P p 1T.10.030-F. E. Temoorary Uses 1. Temporary uses as prescribed in Section P P p 17.04.070 and subject to those provisions. 2. Temporary office nodules, subject to C C C Provisions in Section I7.10.030-F.4. L: II L L I r 4'J Page..20 _ REPORT ON ACTIONS.TAKEN FOLLOWING ADOPTION 'OF ORDINANCE NO. 274 AM Pursuant to the req�,_cements of California Government Code Section.65858(d), sad at the expressed 'diraction of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the following constitutes a written report of the City Council concerning those measures takea to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of.Ordinance ho.214. BL��TGBOOND 1. On Oet,pber 2, 1985, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted its Ordinance go. 274 entitled: "Aa Ordinance of the City Council of the City a,! Rancho Cucamonga Adapting an Interim Zoning Ordinanse Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858(b) Pertaining to tte Rstabliabment of laiterim Development Standards for the Foothill Corridor." Said Ordinance No. 1174 adopted interim zoning regulations, effective for no longer than forty-fivo(45) days, prohibiting any, application for development within the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study except as consistent with the interim.zoniag policies :adopted by said. Ordinance No. 274 for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study area. Pursuant to the repuirementrof: said. Section 65858, Ordinance No.274 was •dopted by the City Council upon its finding that additional approvala of development applications within the study area, other than puruuant to the interim policies, would result in an immediate threat to public healta, safety or welfare. 2. Pursuant to California Oovexawat Code Section 65858(d), ten(10) days prior to the expiration of any interim ordinance, or any extension*thereof adopted pursuant to the terms of paid.section, the City Council shall issue.a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate tLe coad-;tion which led to the adoption of such interim zoning ordinance. 3. GO October 16, 1985, at the regular neetiga of the City.Council of ANk the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City Council was presented a written staff report coat—inn the 'measures taken relative to the Foothill Corridor Area follwir- the adoption of said Ordinance No. 274. At said meeting of October 16, :985, the City,Council, by minute action, authorized and directed the Co-amity Development Directcr to prepare, pursuant to the requirements of said ,;overnment Code Section 65958(d), a written report concerning the actions taken - following, and relative to, the adoption of Ordinance No. 274. Moreover, at said meeting of October 16, 1985, the City Council directed the City Clerk to ..file and retain such writua report along with Ordinance No. 274. ACTIONS TAK Following the adoption �-f Ordinance-a. 274, the following. ae—ans have been taken relative to the interim zoning regulations pertaining, to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study Area: 1: At the express request and di2,.ticn of the City Council, the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has beer.continuing in its . efforts to conduct and complete the"Foothill Corridor Study^ to develop a plan to result in a unified and balanced specific plan of development for that Portion of the City of Rancho C•er_;wtga encempassed within the study. Tee Foothill Corridor Study ir, an ongoing process which will.eventually result in. the establishment of permadeat and comprehensive zoning policies for the rur.: 8 area. Dated: October 16 1.9 t r , 85. Jack Lam, Commua-ty Development Director