Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/04/23 - Agenda Packet 4-23- P Agendoa, Pcocke-:t P� "S","Y' MCY f• A' R 1 ro n Z � Z � G] ~ y E 111 w r' w H z.. CD k sa W CL`C t.lQ.` SK RANCO\�Ct Gf���1l,IG<\GAN f\kj IN ' S Z ^ ff a f�.t� ` 1'J7 ; WEDNESDkt April 23,1986t 7:00 p.m. 1, LIONS:vDARK ColdMITIdITY CENTER 161 BASE'T,II1S RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALF bRNIA ACTION ___ L Pledge of Allegi--ce EL ROIL Cell -Commissioner Barker' Excused Commissioner*Remipel X Commissioner'Chitiea,X - CommvsionerStout X Gommi .cioner McNiel Xl.• 6 III. Announcements N• ApproNal of minutes APPROVE[*:AS AMENDED February 12,19,86 V. Consent Calendar ` The following Consent%a' n�far- tems are expected to by'routine and non-controverslul. Thi u wirl'iezddted on by the Commission at one time without discussfc,: If!anyone has concern overvny f*;em, it should be removed for disci' son. APPROVED 4-0-1 A. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 9649 -L.4NDCO A custom lot residential sub'divi�zinn on 22.4 acres of land 1, located on the southi{est corns of Hermosa and Wilson Avenues in the Very Low(VL)District)-°APN'201-172 14,T7. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-04 - ( DAVIS DALE - The development of a 26,000 square foot medical building on 1.07 acres of land in`the Jndustrial-Park category (Subarea 6); located on the northwest,corner of,- r Haven Avenue and T rademaekZtreet-APN 201=381-01 VL Public Hearing = � Y The following items are public hearings in whtch conceed ndi�riduais may voice'their opinion of the rt ute'd�fn)ecttrP7eaise [[fait toZ.e,acognfzed<;by the Chairman anal addle.s the-a tssion ; = by*stating yournaWe°and address .i4}Z suchoptntoris shailb Zimtted to 5 mtnutes per:indtvidual for each prolecTL Y 1' °'aTi T.^- -•�q ..xcn. �P, a: -_ roc= E C. CONTINUED TO ;ti C. ENMROI�TNIENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT ,.., '9AY 14 1986 . 13114.-SCHULTZ A custom lot subdivi"sion on 5.5 acres of land in ha liow ResidPntg District(2-4(7u/ac)located)at the southeast corns o;-'Vineyard and Calle Dei`�'Prado-APN 208- 82I-03,04:�,:(Continued from April%19EAnoeting.), D. CONTINUER TO D. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84•-14-VFW MAY 14, l5€6 A' meeting hall servin alcoheli^:bevera es in an p;gptin g g g g bus'ding with a lease space`of 5000'square feet on 3.47 acres' of land .in,the .General .Industrial• (Subarea 3)"Category, w located at&751 Industrial Lane-APM 209-031-74. E. APPROVED 4-0-1 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT TraiT to follow creek 229027 WOODLAND PACIFIC = A proposed residential bed subject to review • subdivision•of 29• lots and'one "remainder parcel?' on 3967 and approval of Trai 1 s .,acres,of land in tWa Very Low Residential District(less than 2 Committee. ,Utilities du/ac), located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue' to be undergrounded. and"Almond Avenue -APN 201-071-5, 6,.25, 26, 35, and'36. In addition,applicant has requested a Tree P,noval Permit taremove selectgortions of trees. F. APPROVED 4-0-1 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 857733 - CliUR6H,OF THE NAZARENE-Congtructiori�,of Phase 2 for the'Church!of'the Nazarene consisting of sanctuary,,bible study, office, and '. vicar apartment'.on 2.04 acres: of land in the l4iedium, Residential District,(8 14 du/ac)located on the north side of Arrow,3001-west,of-Fir Drive-APN 208-321-011. ` O. APPROVED 4-0-1 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND. DEVELOPMENT Language changes to proposed,CODE _ ,AMENDMENT . 86'-0k - CITY OF . RANCHO Ordinance per City Attorney:" CUCAMONGA Froposal`''to amend Section 17A6.010=5 a pertaining:to grading of custom lot subdivisions, Section 17.08A40.4I,':pertaining 'to usable yard area, and Section 17.02.140 pertaining to definitions of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,OrdinanceNo...211. VIL New Business N. REFERRED TO DRC H. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE'TRAdr 11549 1-BLEtIR MAY 8, 1986 AaENDA - Design Review of footprints and_.building elevations,dok-:av recorded tract of a'residential sus divisiop,-of 21 lots4on°17 "., ' t acres in a Very Low Residential District (Less than 2 dine:) of:the Etiwamda Specific Plan, located on the east sine;of' S•' r Et Wanda,south of Summit APN 225 181-20: T;, „'APPROVED.3 0 .1-1 L. �ENJIRONMENTAL ` .ASSESSMENT AND; 86 DEVELOLyMEI ` d (Rempel°Abstained) 105t BART,ON - T,he developmento a i2;000 iscjuare 4foot+rQstaur'ant on a7 2.68 acres of landAn n 'du,`trfal� �r PackyDistrret<(Subarea.7),located;at,the soutitresteQrner of ` " ¢ Foothill Boutevard and Spruce Avenue-APN,,208 354 '�,W .�.j�s' ' " r. �' lI 1 3h J. APPROVED 4-0-1 J EOVIR.ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMEY'T REVIEW �85-53 - ANDERSON - The development of 3 nid-ustr'iai buildings totaling 61,845 square feet on"4.47,acres and in the'General Lidust0al/Rail Served District(Subarea 5)'iocated on the Korth side:of 6Lh Street, 300 feet'wdsi of Turner Avenue-APN 209-211=40. K. CONSISTENT WITH K: PIAELIMINARY- REVIE 7 86-26 CARLTOa,T -BRO1t'NR INTERIt4 POLICIES GUMPANY A consisten^y determination".between the F�7othill Corridor Interim.'blicies and a cornmereiai;center cor�cept.lo,Gated at the northwest corner of>oothiil'Boulevard and Lion Street 9PV;`08-632-047. VIIL Disector's,Reports L. STAFF YO DEVELOP L. REVISION,TO SECTIDN '17.04.060(d) OF DEVELOPMENT CRITIERA FOR,. CODE:MODEL HOhtI SALES,bFFICE COMMISSION CONSIDERATION':, M. APPROVED 4-0-1 M. 'VICTORIA'GROVES'PARK CONCEPT J { IX. Old Business N. STUCCO FINISH TD N. ;DEVELOPMENT REVIEW'05-.k,_ EDWARDS. CINEMA .IA, MATCH FINISH ON, request to'%modify the approved building elevations for a 6- EXISTING BUILDINGS. Alex movie theater of 25,188 square feet, within an:approved P master plan'(Vi,1. Dare Center),located on the northwest I corner of "Foothi'l and Haven, in:the General Commercial (GC)District-APN 1077-104-01 and 03. X. Commission Business 0. STAFF"DIRECTED TO PREPARE REPORT ON O. TRAILS-Oral Report THE .STATUS OF TPAILSXL CONSIDERATION Public Comments -a = 3' FnR, PUKING DEVELOPMENT This is the-time and place for tht;general public to address the OF 1 UDGET WORK PROGRAM Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not AND BUDGET. -already appear on this agenda. ML Adjournment 11 00 p.m. The Planning Commission hMi,u,dopted A,dministrative tegulatw that set an 11 p.m adjouurnmi m: tune, If$'terns go beyondythat time,they shall be heard only with the consent of thiCbirm i�sior� {Nj; $ The Planning Commission will adjournvto a wor&shapdor`•�di9d'assaon`" of Iridusal Specific Pl`anrevisions. - � A, r $k N 1 13177 AOWW : MAP '6...i L, i j .........•. �,� 1 rj1 Y Y t. 'Kliide Ni■fW p' L1YC101lLL1fN[. n f L CHAFFE1', COLLEGE n n L,y •,� ? 11 Llli[41 vANN11ew'1NIeNWIN{ e ; .I r LION�YAp ry" `CITY HALL Ana. R i i. ■ r Ewomaraffimpm CUCAY■NOA•OUASTI'COUNTY AEGIONAL PAP■ ^. r , ONTARIO�'INTE■NATIONAL AIRFbOf, .f g a. CITY OF F tAi`MWy", � -,, r.l kikH••sFgYCU� 4 2"::9Wlsrtca. e 77 i CITY OF `f�� _,•,�,, '` �` Rr1�CHOa CL'G11•IO\G, _PZ 'V FI\TG `GOINUMISSION, cY� AOE>' DNA 1977 - tNEDNESDAY April 23,?986 7;00 p.m. 1 LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161.BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONrA,GALD?ORNFli j! �I L Pledge.of;Allegiance 4 IL R011aCall; CommissionPr,Barker Commissioner Rempel. Commis,'over Ch tiea Coinn6!A A 4iout Commis over iVi'eNiel Ib Al=oameeinents. N. Approval of Mu►utes, Febrla�y i22,1�986 ��� V. Consent G,endar T+et toTiowing G'brnsent Calendar`"'items drel�81 pdcted to be xoutine and�non-controverscaT: They 7wi,L`o acted sn by the CommzsSlan:'a't ones trine with oUt �scus�ion. I f.anyone has concern over',any i^Lem, it;shoulclbe�removed fortdiscG�ssQn,, r A: FIN-A1 19EADXTE NSION FOR,TAACT s96:49 -LAND'C.O-A custom last 'residential 3subdivis10n on` 22:;4 aese of eland located 'ona^athe southwest,pornei of Hermosa and Wilson e VerAvenuesin th AN20Y72-14,17.I B. TIiVIE�*E*XTsEa1SION ;FOR. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW`84704 " D'A4YISz D'A;LE•ng The �ieuel'opmedt>of a," ,000 sgyare. foot h mec'W&VIOuildi on.1.0.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park category,.�Subi eP'�i,located on the northwest corner'of wJI Haven Avenue and Trad,,wark Street-APN 201-381-01. . VL Pabhe Hearings The fo�liowtng items are public hearings in which cone eJdirs'', iiidiWUWIsUinay votce,4their opinion of the related4pro"ect. leas w w e omit to Ire°Tecogn red by the Chairman and address the o missto try"sta'tI...... our ame and address. kti such ptnfons, shall e Mimi ed o�5J uteseper`andividual for each prolec_t. ' .. IX C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE .TRACT 13114 S ^HULTZ A qustom lot 5ubdivisiog on,5.ff acres of land in the-L''ow�Residential"District'(2-4,'4u/ac)located atthe ` southeast corner of'Vineyard and Gabe De11,Pirado-APN$08- 921 03° d4.'(Continued from.April 9;1986 rneleting) a D. �iEtIOGA.T,ION Qi.CONDITIONAL USE..PER:MIT'8444-VFW _ � AyCneeting'�hail°ser�nng�alcohohc:,bevecages m:an,existing budding�w�thsaleasespace"of�'5 et on 3 47 acres, of land yn the n ral Industraax��(Subarea 3)` 'Category, 1ot AMP-LPN 20�9'.032,74: E ENVI1z0N°iVlEid,TAL ASSESS"IE+IdT'AND TE{1>I E TRA0T. " 900DL�A�ND PNY0IETC- , A pro"posed�residenhi subdLv lion �29` t'ots and one 'h emaind`�r apai cel"son.39^? acres of laROn�tYiezYery'Zow,Iiesic entiaL District(less thai►-2 He ); 1' rner ooeat�d,a�st1�e soutliwestcof"`. ` gsh venue and.A�A"lmond'Ave�ue �A�PN'x201°071 5, 6, 95,a o,m 35; Aand-36. In additionzLL�pphccaant has requested a Tsee Remoual�Permi`t ry , toremove'select portionsof treeg.: F GQNbITIOIA1, §USE �PERMIT',$5,;33 CIiURCfi, O1?°.THE NA3Z'AIRE*Ewon"struction of Eha's er 2Ffor the Church o,"the onsist1 d C NaYaren rc1iog , 4-W 5 vicar, apartmen ?, m20 acres !of«land °in. the Medium 'Resr "nor.;th side of Arrow,3€IOkesof>it DriveNA�PN`208-321 G. EI!i51UIROIiNiENtTvAL"ASSESSMENT •AND: DEVELOPMENT GQDE�";`T AME+NDItIE+NtiT`w 85 01 ""OF .''.RANCHO CU:C'AMONGA'X �•Pfbd6salMtor amend Section 17 06.010-5(a) ^ peraainiing,�`ato grading of custom "lot subdivisions,'Section 17 0804Q-Jaertauung to"uss+Sle •yard area, and. Section 17`0;2 146apertaarung to defi'rations of the Development Code of the Crty^,of Rancho Cucamonga,Ordinance No.211. • I c VIL New'Bussuess H. DESIGWREVIEIN FOR TENTATIVE`TR.ACT;11549-1-:.BLAIII: - Design Review of footprints and budding elevations�f -a recorded'traet of a�iesidential subdivision of 211ots on acres in s Very Low Residential District (Less than 2 duijac) of the EtiWanda Specific Plan, located on the east s dear Etiw_ands,south of Summit-APN 225 L ENIIRONNiENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ' V+irI�O$ME^AT aREYIEtW486�05BApRTON:-the deuela meWx as7�2"Ono x "° >,>m� r square fod.,Westsur�ant on 12f68 acres of ipand ndustri arc istrict(Subarea 375;located' theasoutBorne o ,�� ti �,��, ��.a "�z� 'Faot i1fl�Boulevard$and<SprucerAireiiiae AP1�20�8 35-5 � syy 92 i A F 2 �f a J. tIRVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ItFMiE,N 85=53 - ANDERS"QN - The developsment of,''3 a industrzal buildings totaling;61,845 square,feet on '%padres of 1and�n tfie General Industrial/Rail Ser,!ed DistricSuberea 5)located=on the north side of 6tl Steeet,,300,feet west-o Ti crier Avenue=APN 209=211-40. s Yn y c RRELIMINARY ;REVIEW $6-26 ' CARLT6 BROWNE C©:MPdAgN+Y A corasis P cy determ�nr�t on be,Veen :the F�ooftuilCortidor Interim E'olicies and a'tcomme�cial centee :�v adx„a concepocted at the,northeas*corner'of.FoothillBoulevard anted, ip Atre�et WON 208-632 04'I. r MIL IiireCWE ;4Reioets4*k " L« 'RED rLSIO�T_ U„SEcaTvIOir, ,IMX4 07�0(0):OF,OEiMBROPMEN�T CODFA_-MMODELIJHQMES!SAIBES�OFIcICE M 3(ICITORIA'GR"OYES PxARK CON�,CBP:T IX. OId.BF ...r � as N- DEMEL0 MENT IiiMlEi 2 S,CINbMA A request�tomkyYhep�rrouedbili�ldmgele�ahons or a 6- t,.. ple Vmo a her,er of g25,188 square.p�fee�t,i�iM an approved master p an�t(Y*rr��g MI-.M, 6 Gaen�60?located on they northwest corner ref ootllr►d E'�even, in,the General (onrnerai (G )Disteict AI'N 1077-104 01-and-03,. X. Commassion"Bildn s . O T12AII;S* Or'.a1 Report - X. Public Coinmtenh, This is the time,;and place for the general public to address the a COmm13Sgn. items to be discussed here are+.those which do not' already appear orii this ay??uia. XIL Adjournment ' The PIa,'rtiing Commis on has adopted AdministrativeRe atoris , tr thast set an 11 p m adjournment time: It`ttemsz'go�be4yand that, trine,jthey+shall beiheard only with the,coiisent 6fi thg Commission. G g s }ieaiuing Commission:ynll adjourn to a workshop for�discussion ; of Industrial Specific la&retnsions x x k f i i t x At MINITY" .............. P._.J LJ. M ' IN•k>. �t W.Igt 1■�e. �j S Y IytpK e I�G}�IM�y lllWLjlAI.. l�^, ■ TiT C•�� V: CNAF,FET �t Ig}p �•• r i COl1.EGE a ?e SwtKnl lets ` �•-. ■, ■ E E MMIM..tMMKMNMNMM yy e:. i • W ' r , ■ • / 4 f a Y�f•.�Yf6.. �� t� Feotd■•� ,® � e )q,, S. s _ CUCAMUMOA"CUASTI CUUMTY REGIONAL PA11K n' '• .K: ORTARIU /NTFRMATIGMAL AIRMRL {. CITY OF R11TlC"o- C11CA�t 1,� 'y.3� i ,f� � s.. i/d �• ., ., �Y �,^$ � e •T 4 r. w- CITY OF RAINICHO CUCAMONGA °v3 STt�FF RUM r - x E z mm DATE April 23, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Westman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: FINAL TIME EXTEMSION FOR TRACT 9649 - LANDCO - A custom lot residential subdivision o acres o and located " 41 on the southwest Corner of Hermosa and Wilson Avenues in the Very Low NO District APN 201-172-14, 17. I. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 9649 was originally approved by the arming ommissi,on on May-12, 1982. A twenty-four (24) month time i �5 extension was granted on May 9, -1984. The applicant, the Pennhill J Company, is currently in' escrow to purchase the tract and is requesting a one-year time .extension. This would be the final time extension and no other time extensions could be granted. I i II. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension with the J eve opm nt criteria outlined in the City's Development Code. Based Upon this-' review, the project meets' basic development standards for the Very Low Residential District except for the minimum net average lot size which calculates to approximately 21,000 square feet. The current Development Code requires 22,500 square feet as >a minimum net average. . However, Section 17.02.02OC-7 provides for the continuance and completion of any tentative map approved pursuant to the provisions of an earlier ,, ordinance of the�City. Further, during review•.of the initial time j extension request,. the Commission determined this item to be minor. ##^^ III. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends: approval of a . -mon n time extension. Res tfully sub 'teed, Brad Buller ACity Planner - r' BB,:CW•das Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhi bi t "A" - Location Hap ` t Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map "C° - Tract Man ITEM A Abb. Ah. !ft. ma"INIMM April 8, 1986 Daniel Coleman, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 • Re: Tentative Tract Number 9649 f.P.anch, Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Coleman: Thomas E. Tucker and I are currefttly in escrow to Purchase Tentative Tract Number 9649. Pursuant to the agreement with the Seller, Alta l,)ma North, a California limited partner- ship, we have the righ tc pr!3cess documents for all required governmental approvals. We hexeby request ,a•One-.year extension of Tentative Tract Map Number 9649. Should you have any questions or desire to 'discuss the above, ple=se do not hesitat: to contact either me, Ralph W. Hornbeck or Donald Hornbeck of Alta Loma North (818) 449-2622, or . our engineer, Frank Williams of Associated Engineers (714) 9P.6-5818. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, s.WR g. e. THE PENNHILL COMPANY t j ' ,•`hf Garwin I President agf5 WEG:dnh 10JB cca Alta Loma No=th Att: Ralph W. Hornbeck —RECEIVED-- Donald Hornbeck CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Associated Engineers PLANNING DIVISION Att: Frank Williams ' /' APR 101986 PA 7j8j9t1011j12i112,3i4l5j6 + . { j C Y y Nam �I NORTH CITY Or, l�'CH0 CLC�.T ITEM. RA h j TEA TITLE: Ld� `T(d f °I'L ?�'�tIl�'G DI �ISIOV EYI-III3IT. SG^ r as /o ss lr1•� / IFMAI�MI74E' TTACT AM I ` <..... .�. �Irrt/7Arn41 I maer nn nss/ j J^` 'WL jJjJjJ C t R > j �• o o ro..v O Or � flr.. 0 � w./.ee ® rt•�I•t0/e '` weArl \\: weAt/r w.: �ievr, ��nw,ru•< ��. ,I NORTH CITy 01-11 ITFAM: RANCH0. CJCNOT�G,& TITLE ` r . }PLArINING DIUISIO��k EXHIBIT} _ �CArLE A yT f 1 i iryt n ly ' j• 440) 15 ------------------- Mlyy H. byso + ly TUNT& ~ .IVT MAP avnn o[ Co.eco.ae no T ewe. ; ,i•■wa ao[[aa awTa rio •+... CIA?ED 4tGINEEfll� '�..�.x_;._. y r TRACTN0 9i9; -'"iagNi.a.[[ awm..r•aM.... :Taw '. "I RESOLUTION NO. F A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT_9649.' f pj WHEREAS, a,i request has been filed for a time extension. for' the above-described project pursuant to Section 1702.090; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above described Tentative tract, y- SECTION 1 The Rancr., Cucamonga Planning Commission, has made the following l'inn ings A. The previously.,�approved Tentative Map is in ' substantial.: co7,plian�`e with th,'e Ci.ty's current General Plan, 'Specific Plans, Vrdinances, P};ns, `a Cedes and Policies; arid-, , B. The extenston of.the Tentative..Map will. not-cause signifi.,ant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans,,Ordinances, 'Plans, Codes and Policies; and, F C. The extension of the Tentative,'Map3s not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and, D. The extension within the time limits pre svribed by state1aw and Vocal ordinance: SECTION 2 The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission,``. hereby grants extension for: Tract Applicant Exi,,r.ratio n 9649 Pennhill May 1!49 1987 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAv OF APRIL, 1986. PLANNING COM6-iISS10N OF THE: CITY OF RANCW CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Cliairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy ecre arm" f. 12 Y IAI � a •;v� ., ' YPL`A}NNIJt� GOM1�tI Sh.O RESOLIITIOPI , Apra 1 23; 4t351 { * TT 460 -ml enn4al'1r 3 9 2 S _ K I, Brad Buller, DerVty' Secretary of the Planning Commission of the-City:of. Rancho Cucamonga, u,rherd y.ce`rti'fy that the foregoing Resolution was=d`uly--and regularly introduced, passed; and aGapt�ed by the Planning Commassiot City of Rancho Gucamon"ga, at a';regular meeting of the Planning Commission heldk on'the 23rd day of owing vote-to AXES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMiMISSIONvRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, . ` i h r �Y .., � ^fig• r Al 100 CITY OF RANC IO CUC_AMOX(L %` G�c4,o � K STAFF REPORT DATE: April' 23, 1986. 197 TO: 'hairman and Members of the -Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, Cite Planner "BY: Dan Coleman Senior Planner SUBJECT: TIME,"-EXT`E STfON FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8'604 DAV,IS,.. DAL The development .af "a c0,D00 squareTcot med=l.ca: " buitd:7n11 an 1.07-.�A04s, of lane% �n �a a I04strial<Park�= category tSubarea 6}, ,located on the n'grtii�►e Ocorner of Haven Avenue-and Tr ademark .Street APN, 201-3$1,01-. 'i I. BACKGROUND: Dr. Wiliam C: Dale, the ;-uture occupant of .the building, is requesting a 60 dad extension of the:"above-described project. Development Reuiew` 84-04 way ;originally approved April 25, 1984. It will expire .on Apr.!,.! 25 1986.` "The applicant's request is based .uebn unforeseen delays' in financing that are not within the applicant's control. W, II. _ANALYSIS: Staff has 'analyzed the proposed time extension with the development criteria outlined in -the Cityls' Industrial ,Area Specific Plan,. The,: project site is also now locatedr Othin:, the Havert Avenue Overlay •District and subject to :thoae development. regulations. Based upon this review, the project," 'meats all , Industrial Area Specific Plan' and Haven> AVehiie Overlay District requirements. The maximum time period for Development Review,--approval is``four Years. Therefcre,';the Planning Commiession ccsld grant up to--a 24 month extension to April 25, 1088. III., RECOMMENDATION: The Planning- Division recommend', :a 12 month extension to April 25, 1987.` t 3 'e 4 ITEM B PLANNING COAMMFSS'rl4N,STAFF 0evelopmant�rRevYeW'9 0k - Davis. _ APril 23}+ 936 . Page 2 Respectfully submitted, .Y is Brad Buller City Planner. ,t BB:DC:cv ! Attachments: Letter frarm Applicant Ex' iit,`V _ Location°Map Site ,Plan Original Resolut-jon,,of, Approval With'�Condit�ons' Time.t;�ten�iiLn:Resol.utori; :� S .p 1 { 9 f 'f? ME [CAL DIRECTOR } tte4:l9GIi6 1VlEDlCEAd CENTER 9223-•AechibaidTAee:,'SWteK,'Rin6ha Gucarnonga CA 81730 984-5588mp ' April 16, 1986 _R C CITY OF RANCHO'^UCAMONGA tE PLANNIN&4, JV1SION, City of Rancho Cucammga., Departrent,.of Camunity.D'evelopment Building and Safety Lwi"siori APR 9RancchooCCucam Ra c 91330 «jS��✓�lO l tSpt annng Attentions Dan Cdewm,, Senior Planer: Subjects. Dale Medical Building;- 9500 B:aven Ave. Plan Check:*#85=59.63 Dear Dan, The plan check on the above 2e€erenced ro' � 3ect will be`�xPiring on , Appil 25, 1986, therefore we,ale reguesUng a sixty day(60)--extension to June 25, c1986 We have ience3 delays in project costing,' general contract s_egoti ati ins,'and.£inancinq-, Due t,�o ,,Ehe';drape 3 tr interest rates ?Lenders ar&flooded with applcati on5�and,have been slow in respondil: to u8. We have'bee#i .,nA,6an approval since last full and we anticipte fun ng San Califonua Federal within the next forty five .(4,,) days.^ We"would greatly appreciate your cooperation in granting us the sixty (60) day extension. Enclosed is our check l£or $62,00. ' Sincerely, William C. Dale.,M.D. WCD:dd +A Al r •.� ^+ a x, ?ar J y,q e _ •_ t j„r Syr t E s j 6area 11 i ,k C y } � ZL r n 12 NORTH CITY CF tTEDVI: RAN VHo CLrA.MONGA TrrLE: .� .. ., PLANNING DWISKf X .;s �kx EXHIBfI'= S'C.AI.E ,.. a..... j .m.m r,anr t\\,.prs-maned ` mM�ma.aema.w . � s, 01 • - � 7rADE'MARK-STREET N . ILLUSTRATIVE SITE&LANDSCAPE PLAN WVWARY ZONE -. _. LOT AREA S073 AC - - i-, R xmm '.I GROUND AREA-9SW.SF TOTAL GROSS AREA- 19,600 SF PEP LEASE AREA:IU50 SF PARKD a:, • REOLIRED&PROVOM 61 .;.,' ... LVDSOAFED AREA:.9=SF ti C' V NQKrH ' s CITY OF _ _ r &CAN'T k CLT IVIO�rCA Trfu. Y PTINDVSQ ' EXH IBIT. SCALE- 7- �_ i C SOUTF, 'NORTH EAST EASfaaAn OUTLMFER NORTH t?I CITYOF BLANTCHO G'L;CAIVIQTNGA TrrcE PIaAN1�7[NG 13 I5K5 i EXHIBIT — scALE• I � RESOLUTION 110. 84-3S A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNI%C COMMISSION APPROVPIG DEVELOPMENT : EVIE'fd 110. 84-04 LOCAft.D 'ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF%VEN AVENUE AND TRADEMARK STREET I'N t THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) WHEREAS, ,on the 28th day of February, 1984, a ej?:i'plete application was filed by Thomas Davis & associates for review of 'the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 25th day of April, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held A meeting to considEr the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: 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 purposes' of the district in which the.site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse ,impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 25 1984 SECTION 3; That Development Review,No:,84-04 is approved subject the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: P to p J PLANNING DIVISION 1. All building materials, colors, and textures shall be compatible with the existing Lusk Development which is located ' adjacent to: the project, A' materials sample board and colored building s; elevations shall be submitted to the Plann,ng4 ` Commisslon for approval, -prior to issuance of t' building permits. Resolution"N0 84'=32, t ' Page,2 \ 2. A forty-five (45)r foot building setback 'shall be maintained contigdous .to Haven Avenue APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY,OF APRIL, 1984. PLANNItQG_COMMISSION 6' *TYE- ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' Dennis L. Stout- an y 3; ATTEST. I Ric�k— mmm pE1�au y Secretary I, R'.Cv Gomez,, Deputy Secretary of 'the Planning 'Commission of .the Cify f Rancho/Cucamonga, do hereby certify, that the foregoing;Resol'utann was duly a�d regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the P1'a6ning Cbmmiss_ion of the,City of Rancho Cucamonga, at..,a regular meeting of the Planning Comml:.tion held on the 25th day,of April., 1984, by the following vote=to-wit: AYES, COMMISSIONERS:µ BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 14ONE r. ABSENT: COMPIISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL " n ' a ' .v..u....b... .. .. a dsl'�"PY`'• N'>C u0 b oU A Z'G pL r > dz11 5" cab ann you '� d. N9.o >qw r CNu M� L Sc`i NO. LG.O q. V .. `y AY �.0 Ic A A.-N qr o� rna _ L11 OZ „N„ qq a 2w LSn G Lo c � SA NFL d NCpC. cNN y � u N.N 6 A duN Larn? `�T r JAC4 `o pp NOEE O£ A ^ n.L.r6 r O O O O did _ ~ TT Eg ou LZN o¢ p do p C C Or q= 6y C CC E > � E 6 C E. tpE�O ca. ¢N�o COAea ci .:4 E!„ L111 O m r a J od yY AY W VON �q c N q b L G• ,. l o �- OdE AA O A C t p N E pY ED c0 no« :C J - v q q c L a�i c O a qQ O v eA u uz A c t a Ta ta� d` N0= = L L r di Yqp H. 6 �'.D. Lt'L ^' d r • rf q: v S 3. R.O G t 5-3 T � sdi0 A ,O E pyy.. S.Y O.r p NACn70U � w.G4OV U Vd0 Op ^ ,u VC 6E L.i0 n GO S CL..; nEY t uyua E w �` E Nt a V L�,� y UE V MLap 'Cif O CtEaD x y�.a O.y�rC� 4+,.y q7 n15;. L. �. ,^_ q `. '�_ C. Y.q„` 44Q0 '•^�q til=a�V ECyi^a+.N n�O A A GV 0 VUOO 7 ^.O.'O Uz LEow '�Y OEi';a`ELCI¢ .alb v L p.Z E u p W c YN v^A,q uEppC G Cj AdC' A qC. ` O •Z. � � d Cb.J N L O O'�.g O• V.= ca C�d Y y cn u cw Y t F ..^ :o m cY: ' 'INN CF 6E.a+d �YYN. LOw�0 Yti 0 xLw� p^.v 4t4 xNtY,.Ay •ibw+ d co ...Y Zs u le'A m M,� pp s :d10r4 is Vxbo y aY Lp aio, `q� _o v • F.Kq y pq v z!.0 E VY M=0 OG Cu. O.y. x0 •`` bVVd n � 6V C CE:.co. .� " LSO pO+V E� • EN b • Cu3y C. y brn SNC.o \�Cp � C1 WY Nu C V C v V t o u naV Cw A� up OC _ U 0.2 y L.e•S _ 2 E« W r' C''O o42,9 L � a_ a ..- a,u v=vqc. 0-� q `p C a V^ c �u 'd'v c uca ` cya a.,'ci cL coves c� "-`s V L,. NFA ^(6.L.6L1 � Nam. N <` C.C.Eyq ML d' Yf b ti W r• +_ '` ter"•`.'. v �� r � � o c ty Un � + N y r A�OYU N^ A CU cS 1 AA c- 41 !� C 2 1 a'n S 9 pp _G V -O� aVq V : DOn C.q nY n`+' E�� •C � GNP 9 c� e•' vw .L vsv u au u'ca.x o. 4uA o'E' u y wt•'.P oL n� g, LO YC. G nM qY uVC C O.0 NV A Am Z is OfJ d w C V• �.0.. jo o.• a et a.. _ `.q � c c � - mncc w.e oa ao.e� nL ou LL q < JL" q C nNn N ✓ a � � �. 6 V6�6 G O tngv ` � OV:LM 6✓ � O O Gu Y, O O L h L 6-< • � q.V N_ i y o n a MY d o. ow Oy O I��dq +dn VLL^OZ^ O.� ✓"M w.Q...C>?tga.�. ^q W Cf L. aN OVLC E L:O. rl Y y L On O C ENO [LJ $V C >V.O t Cd+ < V .E..E - uu�.< V•nn ^..u^Z `. Y �, L.a-c�Ao A.�L L •i r<, ¢L:L� O� � u V O�•N G<Ye� C• L_. <M Y�q � 5.. a✓ C✓ <� qL� C0900 L20 � V'Ogl- .. �.�_� '\ «a¢ oN qo rJM9n'-!a! ���. nC.q ..r c-e yo c a u. •e. .< A o c q CViuO qy iT 0o O y0 T..`i E G { Gt��NN - rid nc�,o_, n n su u ur c o u �N. o O V 4^ `F n y q� EN 'G O NNro \. A C <n6q WYN06iN+M q^ 6N� Ga 4N¢NYY � '- I r O CCiu yC .{yCa T•t :a Tr U> t.... u L M O. q.0 C V ��L� O O c Y =E y •q Y � 57- {.1 2.-.N 4.�j A •� C O.� J. �` � ^ins y O q�u O Ocp C O V` `y O�NF ^bq L ate. n^pC Y V S •'O �C. �'' Y= L� ^N ^fit. V� v`N cz B¢- B un. o«dLi•i.. -da.ei 'a. - ^ Lw ou n�L� �Y eY •. a�S�6 O p.l Cy .p y1 s. `= Lk 7 ZA.^r. .. }. OpN C d.`i SnC. •+� � 4 V G O•V'e',r .+� N P`N qU � C.Ea L � '.•� Q p �. y 60 N d {]a. t T.2 V T. - q••rp. .L p'. a �� Lrg V.•^ �D b,u Y atOi p4 ny O.V+. -CdOLU `� -a iVe CS B z G6 F ...C••N y N t•. L q:'ts pY y �v0 n C, 71 TT VL a i' E 67 q NO ..`C•.nON O .l1 AO • aCGa L.h d.�m�G N i'YA WNo WYU j.G n V Qom, :Lpp Y h b J ti. NY • G ��a •d s�a..i q Vim: p p9 d y 'C tl^Qdy t E S--^ �9 q a O P 7 O�+ OYy@ 404 —61 —79 `. p. .rc OpY �C• i E L �r T Y n ` r• O c Ed>: N N@ Br 6C N u C. S tL�l TVA Q`. � O^L CV d0 •LY.LO'n. � e � LyCU wOL� Y .• p C' d d O N.4 L o. lu 79 pp O P' tin L Y� U a � QIRY VL^Y y 00.E nI. 6 U }�O O �.r. C Sc tl ti TNO ;.4CL:gL YrUN �!. ra4 Y. O` O•L T: � l 17 a` aa0< •• <m G1'O HQ uv. y� Y� 'Aa. 446 L f5 L y 4 �i 6 w 4I GtCr �.0 L}`.C dO. C}•O LY � � i ' � in! Vp:v4in �� do^n S 77 r N�Ask 2-1 Hi O 6 2u J N GQ ! 1 i E Ems. dam n O � ' t�J J A E o St N O ' n� o O_ O "s L yy �rpar N n. i a _ a � Y L^ v n d^ E p 9 _ w0 E Ln 1 6 s9m 9pNc N L40 U.'�.L. E sa. 9 am ��d� z A.yo.- +•"o.. a-no _ y eU COS ��+ •^ �.+a�. N �. W N_ Lam= �q ay•`,�= n Na cE L =mot unL =LZ-94 p Od ONt L� �. C JL r..,Uu OZ N.0 26 2 • S. O p 0 L O 0 0 ^ C E O O' c 'e vow ON yyELL TN 'q- api N d: .N.• _ T_noua E o+.o a o as .6 O c p n n m O Y N c d . ^O m9Q yu OT 9l dp 9dc .-.H Y md. E LE2v 6U > (.D �=N 9M BOO U.E _ V a � JD aV�4 cd+✓ C G O¢ Y y A9 -Q a d ,per T 'oA a Zga O v ^ NAL To m �� y �L U. u cow ^o a -..fin u o9 G O U m An Od ' c A T d y y r• a d T d � `.. N'. ... Q a T p D. E.. o a. r U �+` n N 2y, TC A T 9 a O. O C L d9 Q.L a V O a 9 p • 9 �v �^L 6 GN 4.� Vim.:O N^� Na .1 I G�+ L VAi 6r.. ti N� �c y Y ^ N ^ .9- r yA NN ¢ cow QAL ' Qo " v w cy ,na YN vLd.A a c aN 9 Ny 'r c- Q�n Do. a01 fs� `c.` ova u Nd 9 Na N. ^cv pa ua. x1­5 E _ N N G C L w.0 u¢�77 9 V. S .. o s ¢= v N +N A N 9 ,' c aNQ: A 9N v A �' V L 6£Oy u oc:N6qu N » NA. TL O VACN: i VV O 9 A 9y OC C O'66� OQ 4¢ ",l Q^N :2 2-1 COS1 V N n : CY a s n)'a iv aE �.AON .vd. i _4 E VEO `.L C O� _rCL • , 1.0 ` EOe o,` T uN Eq'Q Oy �,�a�. E _'1 n OO q.._ t. U 3 r Qs� p¢C EatnYO �TL ^u UC LO Nr.W NC -UN.00 V Y^ N N V Q• d d.YY L..an d.. LU�9 a O'^A C A u N qt_' r N LN a+ygCl.3 da. V ¢� O.NU N� .F NWd d 4 u. E O.N)J N¢ N V 6:4 N 4 U 6 G 6 fOJ y ; i F O U v O: 1 r .0 �U d 'OnUL oa e i L _ O AW qov E .: W m u3� it � ` c Al tG �.0�. 3,• q�. O C •.r � G � � r o .: TZ Oj g ME O M § t1.'•.. c u o E E t o f.. c .e i E c c �' p Ou u VC .Q a:nS2 A RESOLUTION N0. �i 4 A RESOLUTION-'OF THE.RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COME"tISSION, APPROVING THE TIME-'EXTENSION r-OR DR 84-04. r� •", WHEREAS, a reques-z has been filed for a time extension for the above=described project,. pursuant to Section 17.02.100.; ' WHEREAS, the Planning, Commission conditionally approved the above-described OR 84-04. m SECTION 1:. .The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed. market climate fore' development of the project. B. That current "economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable;, to develop the project at this; 'time; C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of apnroval , regarding expirations would. not be'-' corisisteni .with the intent of'the Development Code.` D. That the granting of said time extehsion'will not -be detrimental to.the_public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to' properties or improvements in the Vicinity. fl' SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission he grants a �n12 extension for: Project Applicant Expi_ r�on OR 84-04 Davis (Dale) April 25, 1987 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8RO DAY OF APRIL, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: :. Dennis L. StoQt, Chairman -, ATTEST; .; Brad .Buller, Deputy Secretary 4t , PLANNING COMhISSItlNx FRESOLi1,TI0 } DR 84-04 - Data7s �. Page 2 f I, Brad Buller, P, ut r 'p y��5ecretary of she Planning ommission "of the City of Rancho Cucamcnga; do. tiereby=certify tt at the fore`g„ing:Resolution was"duly-and ` regularly introduced.. passed, and-%dopted'by the Planning Commisslion of •the a City of Rancho Gucapf ;aF,-at a xegular meeting of the' l-acining-Comm ss7on herld � on the 23rd day.of a.w�'ff7 =1986; 'by the following vote-to-wit.: r �. AYES: COMMISSIO1yQRSa. NOES: COMMISSIONERS-: } ;K ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: J w 'y i .yuT a „ CITY �v rOgF RANCHO C,UGAkIONGA cucnr,1o�c ” 'S GAFF EPORT ', k o' DATE: April 23, 1986., .! U > TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning;%commission 1977 FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner; °+ BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planter SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AWsts MENT' AND 'TENTktiyt TRACT .I3114. ' SCHULTZ -rW-21Ycustom•lot,subdi,vis•ion on 5.5-acres cf'land, in the-Ldw,Residential-Di=strict; located at the southeast` corner; of Vineyard Avenue and Gaile--del Pe'ado AFN:_,208- 921"o3 :and U. I. BArKGROUND: On iApril 9;_ 1986, the Planning• Commission continued Tract'13114 to'the,April 23, 1986, Planning„ Commission .meeting. The Commission directed staff .,to continue.. working kith the ` °` applicant in developing a conceptual grading plan per the ' Commission's"direction. II., ANALYSIS_, The applicant has submitted a >revised p.han in the attempt of address i;ig. the Commission's direction. Although the applicant made a good effort.to work quickly, staff did not receive their revised' plan in time to review and work ,with the applicant , prior to this report. Furttjzr, staff does not believe the rIOise' . ' plan addresses the direction discussed by the Planning Commv`sslon: .. at their April 9, 1986, meeting: ;Staff-will continue to work;+with _ the applicant on revisions to the grading plan„;that will reflect the direction of the Commission. The applicant has` consented to continue Tentative Tract 13114,8 allowing additional time to,develop and prepare the appropriate plane III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff '"feirommends (with they�consent of"-the ' applicant), that theJ;lann7ny Commission continue this item to the May 14,.; 1986, PTammng ,Commission meeting, to allow staff ,. additional time to' unrk,xwith the applicant in preparing then necessary information naeded for Tentative Tract 13114. a Respectfully, submitted; ' i Brad Buller City Planner BB:DP:cv 4 , �. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Apri`l 9, 1986 Staff Report _... , ' '. , ITEM C ° R $ .. z` ""ci W ' X 3 pd CITY"OF RANCHO CUCAiY1©NGA5 -STAFFREPO f�Gttip=P a, 01( R �v Z DATE: U, t� Apri 1 9,, 1986 1977 TO: ( Chairman and Members of th Pi.ann3n ` C g onunssion FROM: `J Brad Buller,.,City planner " BY: .41ino,put: no tissittant:Planner t_ , SUBJECT: ENVJ;RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ,AND TENTATIVE "1RE.CT°°' 1 114 . CHZ - A 'Z' custom :iot subdavision on:a:5 acres o ` land in they Low Residential; District,, t Gated at th s-ouliheast corner of�Vine'yard Avenue and CM a Def- ado'r- Sjou' 8' 'and,44. :n . I. BACKGROUND: ? bnrMarch 26, 1986�, the ,Planning Commission. continued . Tract 3 to the�pri1 9, 1086 pl"annin: ,-C,,mtssr►on meeting,., The; Commission d r..ecteASstaflf ta. work With the app`licant,in developing i,. alternative grading .methods ;tor= minimize gra'ding4and avoid li a "padded" appearance'. �• II. ANALYSIS: Staff has dig II ,cussed with the applicant=� the following four grading alternatwe• methods to the proposed osed r'adln an r Tentatime Tract 1r8114, custom 110t subd- v�vion'• 1)g ?furLheplreduce lot pad area, 2)pad 'bti ldinq footprint46nly 3) "combination of "► building pads g . , ,gradin and custom" found t,4on 4aj inre;poste development with'and ' de tract map prgposal,. Although staff ivas , t to Formalize a,specific`gradin po able ' 9 plan concept; dj�scu'ss�on tnoughts , directios wi7,' be presented to the bomm ssion^to encaur..age,';furth r. ,r` direction. `` 'Z 4_1 F V The applicant has. expressed,tiiat they-'Wish to euplore the`:idea of t grading .building foot rant p pads only in addition to street grading. After several"meetings with'the.Engneer1nj and Bul`litig`' and •Safety Divisions, staff hasW attempte&to" de�ealgp'�ci�lter�a the applicant to prepare a gradln"g concept: Due.to,the GO�� t�rr,tcted time between P1aan3na.Commiss7pp meetings, it.has bean dirficullt prepare and presEa,` to ;the Commlassi,on a com rdhtirswe lan and,. report for tonights mee_t1n p p continue TentativE Tract 13114,'`allowing addition latim� to prepare(:+ the appropriate plans. ITT Nt1 G COMMISSiO"1 STj CF REPQRT Tentative 'Tract ' 31�1 `eHuJtz: April g, Z9`86 ' ,Y Page 2 r , IA .� '1r t. •' _ _ _ 1 4s III RECO?�MENDATTONe„ staff recommends y a „ (with the, cons'ont of the , , applicanLitat�+the PlanningCatmm�"sson continue this itPin �to tte Apr7;1 23, h 1386 Pl�anni.ng &o mZ�ss�o ; neeting, to a pow' stajff _ addwi;tional dim r to vork w�th�tthef�eidpli"canf I :P, pa�^'ing necessarx� ink ormat�ion needed foil Tenit.ixve Cract�`131 4 a rCespectfal7y sub`mitt�ed,' A A t x r Brad Buller City Planner _ r BB:DP:cv - ` V Attachments Exh'ibiet l"A ;Mjrch 2 1t9116 Staff Report with�Ehibi3ts ,. k �r a. yw - n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cvCA,tiro STAFF REPORT f a 1977 3M e DATE: April 23, 1986 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, L,,.y Planner,; BY Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner a SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE 'PERMIT 84-14 - 'VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS - A mee nall serving alcoholic everages to an exiting building with a lease space of 5,000 square feet on 3.47 acres of land in tha General Industrial District (Subarea 3), located at 8751 Industrial Lane qPN 209-031-74. I. BACKGROUND: On August'8, 1984, the Planning Commission approved - on :Mona Use Permit 84-14 with a 12-month review period. On.:; October 9, 1985, the Planning .Commission 'conducted a 12-mo6th review of Conditional Use Permit 84-"14 to determine whether the use _ operation was consistent with the conditions of approval and applicable City codes. ,On March H, 1986, the Planning Commission determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination to consider revocation apid :et 'a public hearing for tonighti meeting. This revocation consideration is due to the failure to comply with the Foothill Fire District requirements to 0'. install fire alarms. II. ANALYSIS: According to Chief Almond of theFoothill Fire District, Tf e ep one conversation, on Thursday, 'April 10, 1986), 'z applicant has 'et to :meet the Fire District requirements. I PP y q s addition, the appl i cant has .tailed to submit plans per, the Fi 1 e f District's request. However, the applicant has taken further steps in meeting the Fire District's requirements such as purchasing the necessary installation equipment, according to Chief Almond. " r Apparently the applicant is making forward progress but is not completing the work in a reasonable amount of time. Should the applicant meet the Fire District's requirements after this;-report is finaled and prior to the Planning Commission meeting,. StaKr w,ila then present an,update as to the status of this project. c ` ITEI, `D 2,2 PLgNNTNG,COhUHLSSION STAFF REPORT April 2t' 1`955 CUP 84-14° -i 11FW Page 2 s III'. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Planning Coamis'sieon revoke G on.0.j.;A:p n a I` Use -Permit' 84 14 ,through: adopti o ,of „the: g Attached Resolution if the fire alans''are not installed and approved by the-F-fre7'tiistrict priror to this hearin4, Respe f41-Ty suY 'tted, Brad'Buller City Planner BB:DP:das t Attachments: March 26, 1986, Staff Report Original Resolution and Conditions of Approval } CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA C_1A% . STAFF REPORT }) z DATE: March 26,,.1986 1977 TC': Chairman1Od tiembers of the Planning Commission P ` FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner k�a BY: Dino Putrino, Assitant Planner SUBJECT REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 - VETERANS` OF FOREIGN 1JARS A meeting ha l serving alcholic beverages in an existing building.with a lease space of 5,000' square feet on 3.47 acres of land in the.-General Induscrial District Subarea 3 ( ) located at 8751''Industrial 'Lane - iIPN 209-031-74 I. BACKGROUND: On August 8, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 84-14 with a 12-month review i\)eriod. On October 9, 1985, the Planninn Commission conductee' a 12-month review of Conditional Use Permit 84'-14°to dete,,,Imine the use operation consistent with.V'e conditions of approval and applicable City codes. It was reported that the applicant had yet to meet the Foothill Fire District's requirement to install fire alarms. The Commission granted the applicant 90 days to comply with Fire District ,requirements and direct staff to prepare a status report for Commission review. II. ANALYSIS: According to the Foothill Fire District, the applicant has yet to meet the Fire District's requirements (see letter dated- January 6, 1986)., The applicant has `,'ailed to submit a letter of intention and plans per the Fire District's request. The applicant did install a fire alarm system, however, the installtion does not meet the Fire District's standards. After re-construction to address the Fire District's correction comments, the Fire Marshall made a recent inspection (week of March 17, 1986) and found that the installation continues to be non-conforming with the District's requirements. It is believed that the ap3llu:nt has had more than a sufficient amount of time to comply with the Fire District requirements. The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditional Use ' Permit to insure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or any manner which is not detrimental 6 s` to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. If, after review, the Commission deems that there is sufficient evidence -to warrant a fultl exaiiiination, than a public hearing 'shall be set to consider revc^ation of the Conditional Use Permit. 'r ;n a PLANNING COM�t,-1 5�IG .5,� F F-REPORT' CUP 84-14 - I�FW �. March 26, 1986 ; k • Page 2 ' II;I. FCECOMMENDATI,ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Com misst5.n � F determines �t at there, is sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination.`for revoca'tidn and set a public hearing date for April 23, 1986. k RSectfully fiit /BI " -- Brad Buller , City Planner BB:DP:ko a r _ . 1 !1 S i RESOLUTION 110. 84-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISS4ION APP0VING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 84-14 FOR A MEETING HALL LOCATEO AT 8751 INDUSTRIAL. LANE IN THE GENERAL. " INDUSTRIAL"CATEGORY (SUBAREA-3) WHEREAS, on, the 16th day of July, 1984, a complete application was s�filed by,-VFW Post 8680 for`review: of the above-descry bed•,project, and .° WHEREAS, 'on the 8th day` of August, 1984,,` the -Rancho 'Cucamonga Planning Commission herd -a public hearing to consider the abovd-described project, y NOW, THEREFORE,' the Rancho Cucamonga Planning, Commission resolved ,as follows: SECTION 1 That the.following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with `the General Plan, the objectiv?s of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes.of the Land Use category in which the site is located. 2. That the roposed use, tugether with the-conJtions ` applicable therAto, will not be detrimental to the . public health, safety, or welfare, or materiallti- ' r W, injurious to p,operties or improvements in tFi1&_` vicinity. ; . 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the a� applicable provisions 2f the` Industrial Area Specific Plan. conditions: SECTION 2: That CondYtional Use Permit .No. 84-14 l is approved roved subject to the following 1. Any proposed changes to the general activities pertaining to the use as .,described by the applicant in this application must be reviewed by the"Ptanning Commission prior to those changes commencing. 2. Prior to the use of the building or business being ~' commenced thereon, the existing building shall be.``' �' y made to comply with current Uniform Building Code,. and State Fire Marshall regulations-. The applican t. shall contact the City's Building and Sfe Division and Foothill Fire District to dis' dis these ' requirements. ?C;)WIltu 11m kY e O yf "¢« h.. > : K ResoTTut�on',?,toa Page: 2. w APPfOMED •AND AOOP.TED THIS 8th DAY. OF AUGU�i 1984. PLANN . G All S�I N f THE CITY-OF RANCHO CU,AMO'GA X BY Dennis t. Stou aitrman ." tITEST: is P z, Deputy Secretary ' I, Rick'Gomez, Deputy Secretary ,of the, Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the forego7ng'Resolution was duly and regularly=rMtroduced; pas§ed, and ado to b the lanUin Commission,,of the, City Rancho rCticamonga^, it x a-regular me t�ing of'tffie,�Pl�anning Commission^;held. iJ on the 8th dZZy .f August, 1984' «by.the fallowing vote-to-witi AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPE!-, BARKER,- CHITIEA,�McNIEL, 'STOUT M NOES: COtMiISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE r RESOLUTION NSc'" q AOL A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ,IOKAISSION OF 'THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA REVOCATING CON'41TIONAL USE PERMIT'84-14, A MEETING HALL SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN Aft EXIs'fIrJG BUILDING WITH A LEASE SPACE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET'ON 3.47 ACRES OF LAND IN THE C7NERAL 'INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3),, LOCATED AT 875i -INDUSTRIAL LANE, WITHIN THE, , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT" THEREOF A. Recitals: !' 1 (1) VETERANS .OF FOREIGN WARS (VFW) filed an application for the ' approval of a Conditional Use; Permit 84-14, described aoove in the title of this Resolution. HereinaftertLn t1ift"Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred;to'.:J. "the CUP". (ii) On,August\b,-19J14, the 'Planning Commission approved ti ',CUP with a 12-month rev:�ew period. On 9ctober 9, 1985, the Commission conducted a _ 12-month review of the CUP to determine the 4se operation consistent with the, conditions of approval and granted 'a 90-day compliance review period; On March 26, 1986 the Planning Commission determined that there..was sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination for revocation and set-a public hearing date for April 23, 1986. 71s2reafter, on April 23. 1986, the Commission held a public hearinq to consider'revocation of the CUP,. (ii, All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.' E. Resolution. NOVI, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commissiora of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as, follows; } 1., This Coh:Tission hereby specifically finds that all of'-the facts J} set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this"Resolution are true and ;correct. 2. Based upon substantial Evidence presented to" this,Commission during the above-referenced August 8, 1984, October 9, 1985, March 26; 1986 and ,April 23, 1986 Planning Commission meetings,. this GOmmiSSOn hereby sr�eciflcal;ly finds as follows: a. The operation of the VFW facility is inconsistent with then General Plan regarding the compliance with the Foothill. Fire 'P otection„'' District's fire safety requirements; b. The operation of,:the VFW facility does not confor with the^ conditions of approval, as stated':n Resolution in-that fire alarm(have not ;r been installed as required by State Fire,Marshall regulations, PLANNING`GbMMIskb� N RESOWION�s,- April 23,.'-19B6 CUP 84-14 VFW Page 2 c: Tiie operation of the VFW faci l i ty coul d have a'si gnifi cant impact on the environment by exposing the members of the VFW organization and persons and properties immediately .adjacent to the subject site to fire hazards, v. 3. Based upon'.tha,substanx,ial;evidence. presented to this Commission during the above-refgrenced t`tanni,ng Commission meetings and upon` specific t ' findings of fact set..forth in IM and "B2" of,this Resol.r Lion above, this Commission hereby finds and-concludes as; follows: a The operation of the VFW facility is` not consistent with the General Plan; I: b. The operation of the, VFW facility is ,not consistent in the condit,iona of approval. p .. � C. The operation :of' the `YhtV ..facility, may cause substantial environmental damage. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set Forth fn this r Resolution, this Commission hereby, revokes Conditi,anal Use P2102_i#4'-14.. } - APPROVED !LAND ADOPTED TH1 23RD OAY,QF'APRIL, -198F. PLANNING COMi9ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA a' BY: i Dennis L Stout, airman ATTL'ST: 4- Brad:Buller, Deputy ecre ary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of h Rancho. Cucamonga, dothereby certify thafirthe .foregc�iing Resolu i.on..was duly and regularlyro intduced;.passed, and adop'ed by the APl annri ng,,Camniissi'on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeti�g` f the Pi.anniAg Commission held p on the 23rd day of Apr,i,1986, by the following ;rote-to-wit: T AYES: COMMISSIONE►:S: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COTIMISS.'bNERS: \ .. p w, r CITY OF i2ANCHO CUCAMONGA �v.GAA C N 3 s SUFF' DEPORT GAO O Z*;- U DATE: Apr"i1 23, 198 f TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bul? r, City Planner BY: Debra Mefer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12902 - WOODLAND PACIFIC A proposed residential subdiwisslon of 29 N517-'5 —one.'"Remainder Parcel" on 39.7 acres of land in the Very Low 'Residential Distrigt, (1'ess ,than 2_ du/ac) located at the southwest corner: of Hermosa Averiue and_ Almond Avenue - ON 201=071-5,-6, 25,`26, 35 `and 36 In addition, applicant requests":a. Tree'Removal Permit No. , 86-22 to remove select portions of trees. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: ' A. Action Requested: Approval of tentative tract for custom lot r residential subdivis: '� and Tree Removal Permit. B. Project Density; 1'.3,du/ac C. Surroundina Land Use and 7nnin : Nort - Vacant land South - AgriculturaZ uses and Low Density Residential (less ir than 2 du/ac) under construction East Low Density Residential (less than 2 du/ac) West Vacant land; Low Density Residential (less than 2 r du/ac) D. General Plan Design t sate ations: Projec - Park North Very tow Residential ,(,less than 91du/ac) South Very Low Residential (less than 2`du/ac) East Park yWe.t Flood Control Corridor; Very Low Residential`(less{ than 2 du/ac) fir. E. Site Charact�ri tics: The site is located-at the. base,of the. 0 an GaDriel Mountains and"al'opes from north to,southYwtha oel f^ . ecauseo its.`:Iodation. t t � site is subjers to storm �a,.er lows-from the mouritairis and then,' , 7 natural drainage channel is a significant feature of the* ' *a, ITEM E 31 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT w TT 12902 _WOODLANDI R4'6NC April 23, 1986 Page 3 ' 3. Eliminate excessive grading and tree removal on c most northerly lots''facing Hermosa Avenue. the use of-split=level/raised foundation house designs' ' will be' encouraged. to maintain ''the `natural terrain. ' Revision;_ CC&R`s shah be prepared.,.for the, project to preserve.existing trees and minimize graditig allowed for constructiltof homes. 4. Trees adjacent to Hermosa Avenue should be , preserved to the maximum extent possible. Additional front and sideyard setbacks ,may be necessary to accommodate" adequate tree preservation. Revision: Lots siding onto' Hermosa Avenue shall provide increased sideyard setbacks to preserve the appearance of the grove. along Hermosa Avenue. 5. Elimination of lots accessing f-coi Tentative Tract 10088. Revision,:-- That portion of the tract west--of 'the drainage channel and south;of Tentative ' Tract 10088 has been designated as non buildable until public access from the north is provided: 6. Eliminate development within Alquist-Priolo Zone. Revisions, The northerly 3001t of 'the subject x proper.,ty•>has been designated., as- a remainder parcel because of its inclusion in the Alqui"st-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As wa result, this area= will.renain in its;natural state;except for flood protection measures necessary along,Hermosa Avenue and;Almond'averde. _ ' 4 C. Trails -Committee: The Trails Committee has reviewed the prp%j�eet,-.at- length. and. has made several recommendations reg'ard�ng ,p,lacement of+ k local feeder trains and reduced width acid', meandering •Iranl��that Al would allow •for`the. preservation ofi`as many trees as po...—le�(see l_ Exhibit °'F".). TEie Trails Committee rgcommended`an addstonaltra'il along thy; Alta Loma Creekbed which the applicant ,prefnrsnof, to : r PLANNING,"COMMISSION, STAFF REPORT`? TT 12902 - WOODLAND nPACIFI:C 411 April 23, 1985 ". Page 2 t _ site. West of the natural channel the terrain rises to the d western property boundary with slopes exceeding.50%. Another unique feature is the 65 year old-Red Gum Eucalyptus grove that covers most of the site. II. ANALYSIS• A. General The :tract 'would" create four lots facing: .Hermosa Avenue at the Wort°he.rlx portion of-the.�trict and three,cul=de- ! ' sacs taping Accessr*frbm Hermosa Avenue that utiliie' reduced width rlght ofs-way standards to ,.ya,12 ,.for maximLm=f tree preservation Wt�th `the use of rreduced width night-0f way .A standards,., no on str.,eet puking wil'1 be "allowed: Lot,F/sizes.,;' canoe from 20,D00 qu"are 'feet to over So 000 ;squareffePt; Cd"n Z va dering 'the' r,1a"tion in lot size,�'Urrain- and=:nigue natarai features rho_- tract has the potential for,the truly custom home tract (Simi iar to "The" moods" on the 'east side of Hermosa). E Atti Lot 29 wi.11 be conditioned as non-buildable...at"this timl'. This ¢ lot will be-accesseuvia aneasement through Lot 15�oendin development and publl c right-of-way "access provided "from the north. ,\ B. Design Review Committee• Design Review Committee,has ;reviewed the project on two separate occasions. Approval was a. recommended after the, following issues were discussed and .resolved: Use.of reduced roadway width standards consistent." with tract on the east side oflli6rmosa, (TT 12237) ' to minimize,: grading and maximize. tree ' preservation. Revisions Right;-of-way reduced to 40' with a "28' curb seP"aration. s 2.- Concern with,. stream bed alignment and,�,buildable area on lots I at the west end 5t court Revision:' The e,,�ream bed will be regraded and moved westerly for 'a length' of +30Q' to adequately Protect "Lots 21 and-.>22 At.- the end, of court "A". The remainder i wi11 lie"heft'in a natural statLs. y� _ d ..�..� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12902 WOODLAND PACIFIC' April 23,.1986 Page 4 develop and regiests Commission discussion to resolve the issue The Alta Loma Trail would be a,community trail with a 20 foot dedication that would physically bisect individual lots. The applicant 'feels` that this situation would, bv undesirable to potential buyers- and creates a situation of questionable ,liability. The Trails Committee intends to have the Alta Loma Trail within the boundaries of the required "drainage easement for thee channel, creating a dual use easement. The Committee feels that ',the Alta Loma-Channel` Trai 1.is a major community north/south route Tinking the. northern boVidary, of ' the City to the southern boundary,of the Equestrian Overlay. Zone. the uniqueness of such a trail would' enable it to be one,'of the few aesthetically_ enjoyable trail 'routes within the City. ` Since the groves could not be retained as parks due to unavoidable financial considerations, the Committee felt 'thaat this. community trail `would , preserve a semblance of this unique grove for the appreciation of all City residents: The applicant had requested Commission review: of the Alta-Loma Channel Trail. in, a letter of 'April 1985,.(see attachment). On May 8, 1985, the Commission reviewed ,this request and. was advised by the City Attorney not to give direction to Mr. Scott because the item was subject to public he Consensus of theyCommission was to defer any discussion ;of trails until Tentative Tract 12902 came before the Planning Commission. D. Grading Committee: As a custom lot -subdivision, grading is proposed for street improvements, development of equestrian trails and flood prevention measure only. Preservation of the grove +. the extent possible is a;critieal aspect to the development of this tract. The Grading Committee approved the conceptual `grading plan subject to approval of a final grading plan, and,ail requirements for custom lot subdivisions. !n addition,, if; any additional trails are added -'as 'a result of Planning Commission discussion= the Gradinn Co ;ittee requests that revised 'plans be submitted for review'and" approval prior to any tentative map..action being taken by the Commission: E. llnderground. Utilities,"') The -Engineering 'Division has noted that overhead_electric line's less than 66KV and te:lecommunitation lines exist on the opposite side 'of Hermosa Avenue. Normally, it would be the recommendation of '!`,taff to require the developer to contribute towards the future and rground-utilities by paying. an'in-lieu fee equivalent to one-half-of the front-foot cost of undergrounding. However, the same owner, who recently completed,.the project on the east side of Hermosa Avenue was not required to' underground' the ` overhead utilities due S'�a an ambiguity in the City policy at the time., of, rpcordation,, Therefore, the Commission has two options :for consideration: 1) :to require the developer to pay an in Dieu fee � equivalent to one-half of the front foot cost of undergrbunding, the PLANNING'COMMISSION;STAFF.REPORT r TT 12902 - WOODLAND 'PACIFIC' April 23, 19$6 Page S overhead utilities with the understanding that the City shall bear one },alf;•of the ,00st in the future; or 2) require the applicant to undergr,'dund,the overhead utilities on the opposite side-.of. the street along Hermosa Avenue frontage with this project. The Conditions of Approval reflect"-both options. The appropriate "OPT.10N11' h'aill apply as determined by 6e .Ccmmiss'on. F. Environmental Assessment. ' The Initial Study has been completed, and expanded .upon y geologic and hydrologic studies to aildress.Yspeciftc areas 'of:,concern. : .The geolLgistls prelim�narx reviesv"`Idetected a ;. fault trace in',the northern portion of the property.;, This portion ,. has been, deleted from. tftd?proposed'`development until, more detailed information cail'be gathered.. - �. Hydrology studies have focused on the natural drainage course that 5 - runs the,length of the site and i•nti;rsects With County Flood, Control facilities �at 'the wsouthern boundary.,,' Mitigation measures'sbased on 100 year storms along the creek Piave been 'incorporated into the Conditions of :Approvhl that would sufficiently " y pro'teetproposed development, while alaiowing the cr4ek bed to remain, for:the most part, in, its natural state. - A study of plant and ardmil life' was prepared.when development of the groves was initially proposed. ''i At :that time, there was no evidence of rare or endangered plants .,or animals found on the property. . Further, ;it was found that the,,vegetation,was principally Ron-native an&'although ,foothill .creatures frequent,the site, it held a relatively law habitat va;,!p, Staff has completed Part II of the lnittal Study'and finds that although significant factors are involved with the site, appropriate mitigation measures have been applied° to the project'. .that `will Alleviate any factors above an insignifi6ant'4level. Therefore, it is recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued .with- mitigation measures incorporated,into`�the,project and Conditions;of Approval,. � i III, FACTS FOR FINDINGS:. This project;is consistent..with''the Deve!",meat Code and the Genera, Plan. The project. wilt not bedetrimentaltto adjacent p�pperties or cause significant environmental 'impacts,. In @dd'4iion, the 'aY propesed use and site plan '*together with recommended Cgn it�i{ons of Approval, are in compl;',ance wtth4 the applicable `provision , of the. Development Code and C7ty Standards:; IV. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends'that the PlanningCommission approve'' ' Tentative Tract 12902 and related"Tree Removal Perm�t�8622 adoption of the attached,^Resolutid ,and Conditions of Approve r V. 77 r PLANNING .COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT TT 12902 WOJNLAND PACIFIC. 'S April 23, 1986 £ Page-, r' S�. ully �J , Brdd !iuiler ,.. City Pl anger tir Attad;rents `Exhibit "A" uu v i M5 za� on apaxhibit '8'! eatures Exhibit Tenti5e, �vpisio pud k c„hibit�.-D C6ncep:u`?1 Gradfliing Plan _ Exhib u PE" - Tree R� of alr Areas p Exhibit, ;F!.=.' - irat`ls .1 r.,. Tree .RemdVA1,Permit 864. 'Lett,e�tfrom App:l icant May 3, 198� Stiff Reort Memorandum f rom'Traili1 Ad�V sort' Committee '� Part,trjt4ni,Uai Stu ay, .� ,. May,8, 1985, Plaanni'ng`�Comm7ssnonrMinut-s y 9 Resolution of approval with Gond�i�tinns ti n c TRAM IUM 6:aT1 kir ' a \oe•�• <jy 4 . ! a O0 e NZ �j � � ,f;%�rc `. ' o .9 .e •' ICI ! f` CITY O err r �^+ 1T � e � /Oz G'g i..� Tc P ANR1M DIVISi( 1 EXHIBIT: SCALE; r EUCALYPTUS GROVE A. V- SINGLE)REES i %44 E + SLOPING CONDITION D� ' /91 DIRT ROADS NATLv AL DRAINAGE COURSE 1 � Aft NORTH o( .� CI'-7Y OF iT ENI: ?i' /z9�g $� TtTirE: /"lL/ G!/ua t PI Al P r, DR%IQN EXHIBIT= 4 TRACC 12902 tt let "�.'l.7i� �'`•• `TfiVRitlAfiJG 4� .�dAvps'tJi±YaZT ..�'7 jj.. NORTH a CITY CF Al�xCI 0 CUCAMONCA TrrLE: �L ✓i i r1 1JI� a rl LANDEXHIBIT- SCALE- — G! - TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 12902- r Y r S � J. t� T .t `• �. - i •� jt 11 �1 �-t�y...��ice. �t,.- _._.! _;/ as��� � /.�r (� •.i �+ r s j -max '" •� %i� � !� .. ." Ir , &� T y OF HER- 'EXHIBIT-LE- gmwr k TENTATIVE MAP surer TRACT 12902 ��..� 4 � �..� —``' ..���.-•� '7 ��� as � Z` err '-xr..-... c " p.• gi FPk r� r�, JriKv'r!/,�� ivT�.•.�J/Ylff.'!' . �X. �• ��� • aa•' � � "�' .. '� .. ._ ;" / iC�-�-..•I�: _as �i— _ __a► 4 _ %,�' s„.•" ly � 1 � - tip~ n.c-a,n .Y rh- M1.:Ir.r.+.G.+�^ Yx_.a,."a :...� _�'�.. i t✓fa.a.. .+ r .l�AlY1 A CITY C:A _ ?CHC) CUcAMCTGA TITLE. " PIANNIM .DIV"EM EXHIBIT. ZEE SCALE' r' ' �kt Ad x S •\ `• •n- r ��.,�� I "��*� i. ..cur �• 1 mr.f 2a..+f a•G � as .tom< , ! ♦4•. I 1 = d r.i e (�� .I• -'mow .1� >s +�_. �x n.� r 1 I S �i>•.:c y .. to �D:> b � �. ` 'k. �ur� \(-Sib B �"c--`� !F `� a %""�-• Gam-: T. I � ��.�i NN o + n �.� GD NORTTJ c a -TT RANaloCL7C�IVICrtsA PLANNING DivEM R ., J,: City of y Cucamonga Free Re ova E der 0- 66 L GEfVERAI INFORMA'fiOW5h,t� ``' ":i'' '�-. � o � ..�.:�=°_ .c s�.�."��t�L.a�'���t ��:3.t.; .1;'n.r.�:�'o-`�.'.5���,Tai a7•� ��3. ,rs., < - CD l .r t ti Ordinar:e No.37,pertaining to the preservation of tr,,4s on private property,requires that no person remove or relocai6 and`woody plants in excess of twenty(201 feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of twenty(20)inches or more and multi-truei%s having a circumference of thirty(30) Inches or more(measured twenty-four(24)inches from ground let"t, without first.obtaining a Tree, :;,*. f ( Rer.4val Permit from the City. r r L S = :iJ er i ♦ � C ir'•e-W x,2f .c-�:mtt > �,- �.•kFr ' JO BE+:OMPLE'i E© byAPPc!CANT n'�''y ' � r{4;� d w. �7 .r •,..•,>•r, ne.., _ r�i` �••�"ye!`,`+t�G OCAiION OF SUBJECT SITE: West slde~Hexansa�lvesiue, at P00tllills, 1,L f't NAME,ADDRESS,TELEPHONE OF APPLICANT. -1m Pacific Development, Inct; r � d L Ml W. '9th `street, tJpl,and>' California 91786 (7I4) 946-1802 . ..' -' ::`�. •-. 9 _ f� fy au / NAME,AGDRECS itLE�IiONEO�PROPERTYOWNER(if other than applicant).LLI •. At: t n.f {- I IT+glc Scott Inc 1111 W. 9th Street ifiland CaUform.a 91736 (714) 946 1802 REASONS FOR REiN7VPL(attach necessary sheets) To construct raads rer subdi 3*.en ,.._'tf Ft.,.i�y � � n,,nt.♦ .r ry <t r x i 4 t _s: - t }t4*cc�.. +n ..i tom..•i��tt r -�, { �plicati.on, Tentative •act 12902. i _ r {ta3 t r 1c , ® J- PROPOSED METfiOD'OF REMOVAL Do�� is and sty �s. fa.l.-ewood, euze stumps. .>at= r•. or gall >"ees cut or ":,t"e H 1.S, �,-V •�Lrli i.�,ai;�.l ti. ( FATE: 3/10/136 ^� APPLIC'ANTSSIGidATURE a3f;V-'e.W au-1-411 r:,srs—r 't}` r. �j,, ;L tS ®n17iONA!_FtLll�lG RE� IDIRENlENTS � , x� N�e.� S' ...-'....•r ,—...•.1.. �,.... .,.•y.r, aY. •. . . :7. 4 r:,. .. •, _.� i L.i s ta- t y, This nt,plication shall include.a plot plan Indicating location of all trees to tie rem' ad'Ad retained. ® The species,number,a,id size of the trees to be removed shall he so designated.If a trees is diseased, then a written statement from a licensed arborist stating the nature of the disease:shall.be;equlred. ` ® y ACTT©N vai4!on of this applications based on the trite fa on the reverse si0 e. , i4 s_r .- Z - Ai=FRCYED DENIED — r- Reasons .4t'+ : Date. An approval shel nd t become effective until after a ten(10)day appeal periodi Nflotification of approval shall be given to property owngrs`rdjoining the subject property.if no appeals are received,then the permit shall become effective ten(i0f days prom the date of action.This approved tree removal permit Is valid for 90 Lu �' 'days.Should'applicant fa;lea to remove t,e trees 'his 90 day y period,t new permit shall be required. ,;iP' e a• 1 . Can the tree be preserved by pruning: 2. Does the tree constitute a significant natural resource forthe City: �J, !�/5 67 ` cdy at 3 General condition of trees: n yry �u �IP1�F�,7,Q,!�?•��'r�' G'Oi7C//-f/LJ�'/.5 y ` S :�. ' 4 Any safety hazards to persons,adjacent property,or utility installations G, J.1•' • ,j `r ' ,t T ttitl� v S. Proximityof other trees in the an;*a j7 '017Er,- X7IYYI/!Gl%J' ' 6 Effect of tree removal on the aesthetics of the area and the public health,safety and welfare t ` ' `.' f - -, a- it s'� +�i-r. .— N `.•" a t,;' -roe-o. :+ ., ,., �� ' minirnr��c% •bv a/srz/ s ka �.'i��1�'fY ..-',.'-..:'4 �.,�. r�i.'Nr a.. 5�1.1� �§y, nidY5[�V�iR3�• �?�''e+� l" _ .17 /AV 17e 7't'?I7I0 Va` ;- ZATt� ,J�ti�� fl�cfv-�C/' lu"' �� ��1�� •ran •'t t :7 w {� 1`..:�R��J �,�� ..t_Fta "'ni i 7 + , ;.,' r". ..::•}r.J k .f.ram., a,� '" ,`.'j?.r.�•!-� ,. ; 1 y x. :.`.�.�Yj ,»'•°si.r °S`` ,',J/�RT3 .nK ♦ _ -„'-1, K..`sS r'. r} .e'"1.,.'.w S e' +k^ e_. a •?L�Cw.~•'t ty�=�Y.r,�sS.�J.J� • �' i z r3� .VV r 1", ►/� , h April 19, 1985 r/4 4/? l � /cP,9r, Mr. Lauren Wasserman City Manager City of Ranc,.o Cucamonga ` 2-0. Box 807 )340 Baseline Avenue, Unit A Rancho Cucamnga, California 91780 Dear Lauren: Re: Property At North End of Hermosa AvPaue As you know, we are currently develop"," ect k g the easterly sire of th&-above referenced property, in a project as "The Woods" This development was the subject of r�lmerous Communications, letters, and " s other negm.atio,js, spanning a several ^dear period, the result of w,zich has r been the de�elopmen* which is now underway. 'ii' This development, and the prcpe—.1,on the west side'of Hermosa,.I ihich we f � own, are unique ones, with the st!d of trees, etc. I The plaru ing process for the pray-�y on the east side of Hermosa, currently under developmen.`., was accorded top priority by all affected' departments and groups in an effort to preserve the visual and aesthetic resources and as many of the trees as possible, and,to create a natural setting withouk7 extensive on-site;grading. .During the plannin g process, we questioned the wisdom in removing.,-literally hundreds of additional trees, in order to provide a network of equestrianj tirails, when, statistically, only a small fraction of home owners in the area north of Haipon have horses, (according to information furnished-to M. a { by both city staff and by Nz. Pam-Henry, of ..the,egtiestrian committee). However, in effort to resolve all matters ha Zno,,lously, we agreed.'to instsll�lion of all of I-he trails, inalttding,',,an extrpmely expensive trail, at the insistence of tl `jroject'planner,, immediately adjacent to Hera,sa,Avem;e,;on the East s_de:' To in-stall this;:.tl:ail,'we had"'to remove trees`to a distance of ?pproximately 300 yrom the curb:line, perfcnn " �4 s ' r �r 1111 WEST NINTH ST'i. T • t)PLANO.CAUFORNiA 91'' 'A • 714 946 180x t c` Mr. Lauren Wasserman AQril 19,- 1965 Page 2 extensive grading, bath elements which we had R_.ped to avoid in an effort to preserve the aesthetics and;natural beauty of the area. In June of 1984, we`'began land planning i r theprn r,.:y on the west side of Hermosa, and prepared a number of schematics wLiich seemed to meet the criteria of the planning staff and other affected agencies. After a number of meetings, reviews, etc., we concluded that the design,.criteria for,that particular pa parcel was more intensively affected by geographical matters . than the.east side_ Significant among the geographical matters are the 1 _ gradients of the property, the configuration, and the creek running through the property which will become a portion of the Alta Loma storm drain facilities, for which oe- have given easements to the storm,drain d;.atrict. ' Accordingly, our plans were revised to meet the engineering crite:i.a, and after several meetings 'with staff and:various committees, we appear to have solved all matters as they relate to the land use concept, configuration and gradient, incluling an agreement to individualize custom type houses on certain of one lots, with attractive bridge driveways, eta:, In addition, we agreed to the City's consulting geologist reviewing the geological and seismic data submitted on the property by Richard Mills end Associates. �l In short, we seem to '� r brought the proposed development to a point of ' acceptance by all affected City depar-tctients, however, the.same situation is not true with the equestrian committee„whom i understand is an appointe' group to giveadvice to the staff, Planning Commission, and the Council. At your suggestion, on Tuesday, April 16, 1985, L met -with. Ms. Pam Henry; in attendance was she, bV. Bruce La Claire,_of.my office, and 3. I found her to be a charming person, who appeared to understand our concerns over the apparent mandates of the equestrians committee, but who reiterated the i committee'.- in position that it would be necessary.for there:to be three north-to-south" equestrian trails within a distance of 300' to 600,. In Tier analysi.-', she ptjected the opinion that since the general plan of ihe 'City"shows an equestrian trail parallel with the c_eek bed„ that this exact location it mandated :tito the General. Plan. Perhaps this is trus, however; 'my understanding of.the intent of the general plan, and in the showi,g of equestrian trails thereon, is that dertain flexibility be accorded in the exact locations, depending on such ' circumstances as grades, drainage facilities, too situations. ograph' cal, and aesthetic . ' - - Frankly, we are at a quandary. If the equestrian committee's insistence prevails;we will be forced to remove hundreds of additional trees, bisect a number of ,logs, with at, �'4asemert for an equestrian trail, for only approximately 15% of the people in the city,pand do it with the knowledge that it would parallel an additional planned trail Located app^oximately 100 to 150 to the west. Mr. Lauren Kassermau April 19, 1985 Page In addition, the bisecting of ;individual lots with such trails raises a series of legal, liability, maintenance, and invasion of privacy elements, which we do not feel is in the best infterests o6 the prospactive purchasers of these h6uses, or the. City. �C r We are reluctant to formalize an appek of this matter to the City Council, since we strivc toward the working out of land use patterns, with staff, and other affected groups, 'to arriveat acceptable compromises, wher. there appears to be docd reason for doing.,so. However, Ms. Henry, has indicated ' that the equestrian.,committee-:is-ada pant on their-insistence upon-a trail, followiag the creek bed, which would bisect a number of 'the lots,. r i o We also question the essentiality of he extent of equestrian trails, when there are a numiier of prospective purchasers of homes, who do not wish to maintain,equestrian facilities nor to participate in the equestrian life- style. In fact, the City statistics show that, the vast majority of home. p buyers do not wish to own horses. We realize that the problems set out in this letter, are comprehensive, and R may require more time for a`detailed study on the part,of the City; ` unfortunately, however, existing time constr-lirts give us, in terms of our commitments to retire debt on the property, no more time to devote to long negotiations. NIs. Henry indicated that ti•!"equ>strian committee was in complete accord with the :trail system ; set out on our tentative map for Lots 1 through u 12. For that rea .r.i, We request the following: k I. Allow us to process, on an interim basis, tentative tract 12902 *> covering Lots l through 12 only, so.that we could obtain immediate tentative approval, for these_22 lots, and proceed with engineering, recordation, and construction as expeditiously as possible.` 2. Request the City Council take this matter under a.lvisement, on,,a r formal.zed basis, (not of an appeal nature), to discuss the essentiality of having an additional trail parallel to the o:ie which we are to construct on the east side of Hermose, when there is.an' r additional commun,;,.y trail scheduled on the westerly portion of our ., property,at the top of the slope, thrpujv+m act 10088, so that there would be, in effect, three north-soltli'trails.within, as stated herein, 300' to 600' of each other, with the necessary removal of I hundreds of additional trees. Pursuant thereto, if it is found that the creek trail is to be a requirement for the development,o£ the balance n our, property, we would request guidance in the method in which the City proposes to allow each individual lot owner to utilize his lot, without excessive invasions,of privacy, and without the liability to be incurred, by allowing full use, by the equestrians, of the property, to,,rhe-west of the proposed trail bisecting;the,.lots, as the equestrian committee requests. It, is our understanding that the City does not wish to z - assume this liability, we do not wish to do so, and I think st &,,fair es�umption that the purchasers of homes would prefer not to i. 'L�:.i .�ti�es .. ...,SEJF�i Lu vai's&.T.§sr4"Y-"»J4°1...'.. e —_ _ ._...�"d"._ `•"" y.x.y Mr. Lauren-tVassermaii ,. # April 19,`t.T985' " _ Page 4 I hope that the comtsents contain In this letter'will indicate:.wr.sincere interest in solving a A uation in,a hat'monious nature,: without-frac�ioh,_ , r" in a spirit oE`;cooperationt' between the City, ourselves, and the equestrian, ` Eaotaons, bearing i{n end ar1M1`factors as enmerated '.aerein. 1 Should you approve of this reasonable request, <re would be`able.to 9 with development ofi a po ison of propa*-ty in 44,6h we area % full5k d agreement with the stat�3arc7 set nub by a11'of, the affedted CItzt s' d2p:.ar ej` rands butte equestrian coiYani ttee. as relafied to Lots'.1 thro�:gh l2,"ard expea1fiiouslty, obtax�answers;"td questions as theyaffect Lot,"13 through 3?, so tEiat the balance of the�prolect coup be presented;;to the y_ c¢mmi ssion, and' the4 CotinciAl `taith all'paztxes zn agreement. Sincerely , " ! Richard N. Scott. President Cick Scott,"3nc. t2N81ca '• Y 1 Ry CITY OF RANCHO CUGA ONG,, MFMAN , ZT ; - DATE: May 8, 1985 T0: Chairman and P4ambers ofs�the PTanning,Comnission F20M Pam Henn, Trail Advisory & Parks Development Commission SUBJECT: ALTA. LOMA CHANNEL TRAIL AND,THE,'TRAIL EASEMENTS THROUGH THE Pzt.CHARu SCO HERM05A GROVES "LOCAL" DEVELOPMENT ,ems - Y1 1. The Trail 'Committee required only, one,�north/south community. trail over this project.and the,Alta LomaChannel Trail. 2. The traiT`t,,al6rg hermosa.vias raqui`red a,'collector .for the several east/westrl,f6ijer trails that dumped out onto_Hermos.e Avenue; no requirements `for landscapingK were made by the Committ`ee.`: SLdff directed rho design -of ttid parkw Jt;st as are niost_parkway alone. li major pulAic roads. 3. Because this is a unique area with the numerous tree:. creating a forest l�;e Pnvjronnent; the standard feeder. trail requirements for cleared cra�ii widths .of-I5 fee'1 and also grading ,requirements were altered`'so, that,Ahe pieserva-z on of Taximum-)lumber of trees, was encouraged. We suggested "meandering" + i g natural pathways througF'l the easements, with =''some tree` thinning to; ensure safety, and no A> alteration of the footing. 4:' The Alta Loma Channel Trail was established to .overlaythe drainage easement for dual use of the easement. 5. The Alta Loma Channel' Trall is, a major communityy north/south route linking the northern border ci, tfae City to the southern boundary=N�of i the Equestrian Overlay zone. Its continuity is.very impor>=ant if it is to be a viable part of the recreational trail system. ' b. Because the Alta Loma Channel Trail .is north/south,- it- drew no, k duplicate, the function of ftz' east to west Almond Trai A , ,, ., intersects that' trail at Almond Street. The Almont�'trail s��gs a south,' along the top of the essentially impassibre c11ff Yf ;ch' ' borders the west s,de of the Alta Loma Channel, It r.ns south fo �;14 short distance' to bypass some deep ra+tines, before. contin'iing ; westward. `� �r> 1. .. r p9? T r ?ram } " t w PLANNING COMMISSI�C``' ,EMO Alta Loma Channei,"trail May 8, 1985 Page IL , J < 7. The location bf the3Alta Loma Trail, alongside the: channel and - creek, eha Ve.tit.to be one-of t1�,_ very.few asthetically pleasing and _ en3oyable` trai] routes in the City. A. r-creational vs. a strictly -` circulatory Pxper .enca_ 8. The: Cit-izen, Advisgrs for the;'Gen'eril `Plan-'designated the Hermosa Groves a unique are&, desirable of preservation for public enjoymcat via park,desigrration rBcaus;e'"of firr�ahcial and ether constraints; that has `not been feasixble i�owever,'by,providing a community trail overlay on ahe reauired.`dFraa�nage easement; a sIp`a17, semblance of that unique envirgnme`tit. can.,,6e ptr..eserved for the appreciation of Cat residents. i�, Y PH:cvAM VW i 1 i ti , CITY OF RANCHO CUC-ftiONCA STAFF REPORT O'l IZ DATE: May 8,11985 �. {m TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FR014: Rick-Gomez;-City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF EQUESTRIAty TRAIT. REQUIREMENTS FOR TENTATIVE E' TRACT- 02 -TIRE IRED,LAND PACIFIC - A custom lot subdivision of, 4 lots on 39.7 "acres of land in the Very Low' r Residential District (less than'"2 du/ac); located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Almond Street APN # 201-071-5, 6, 25„ 26, 35, and 36. I. BACKGROUND: The Equestrian Advisory Lommittee reviewed this -project on two occasions rece, Ily and recommended specific" l.r locations for community and feeder Trails as discussed below. Theft k�l applicant, however, requested Commission review and direction of the trails recommendation prior to fullconsideration of the Tract l� Map. Al, issue is the requirement for a. Community Trail along Alta �t Loma Creek. � II. TRAILS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Exhibit "RI" shows !.,he Trail:. C=10ttee recommendation which includes community trails Along'A`rta Loma Creek and at the north and south project boundaries. Local feeder trails will be iocatr_d behind lots off of the three cul-de- sacs. 'the, Trails Committee recommended that ,standard trail irprovements be waived in favor of maintaining natural contours with a meandering 16 foot wide trail. Fencing on�both sides of tl•ie community trail should be brown versus standard white extruded ! concrete rail fencing. I The applicant, Dick Scott of Woodland Pacifip, is concerned _with the requirement for a trail; along the creek and submitted a 7etzr requesting further review of the issue. Thr, key issues discussed in the letter are outlined in the following sections and staff ' analysis is provided. II. ISSUES/ANALYSIS: A. Duplication ')f :Community Trails: The applicant is corcerned� ; that three north/south community trails-are proposed wtli�n a *; A. r distance of 300' to`6001, and the requirement fora trail along 'x. a , the creek is excessive. ,� PLANNING COMMISSION -rAFF REPORT TT 12902 - Wnodlano ,ckfc May 8, 1985 Page 2 E e As shown on the Generali Plan Master Plan of Trails (Exhibit "8")2 three community trails converge near the subject property., At the top of a steep slope along the west boundary of TT 12102 is a portion of the east/west Almond trail; which k will be installed with development of Tentative tact 10088 (Exhibit "C"). The general alignment of th"s trail parallels Almond Street.. Almond Street does not connect'througn TT 10088 so alignment of the trail jogs south along_Archibald Avenue, and then runs along the south and east boundary of TT,,10088 back up to Almond Street. An easterly,-connection along, the boundary`between TT 10088 and TT 1290z would be extremely difficult considering a steep slope drops off rougnly 40 feet down to the creekbed. East, of the subject property within Tract 12237 a community # trail is planned along Hermosa Avenue. This trail ,;ernes a dual purpose of roviding'north/south circulation for residents witbir, Tract 12237 (Exhibit "D") and accommodates the community trail on Hermosa Ave''ue. Although-improvement plans have been _} approved for a 30 Voot wide trait in this location, the Equestrian Committee stated at their April 10 meeting that only a'12 foot wide community trail would be necessary. Regarding the creek trail in'question, the alignment parallels Alta Loma Channel to make asat of the drainage right-of-way, similar to Demens Channel or Cucamonga Creek. The portion of this trail adjacent to TT 1290- will provide a direct link to the Almond Trail. B. Bisected Lots/Liability: Thy :applicant is concerned that bisecting lots with a trail aloe=q the creekbed:will limit -to full use of the property, create an invasion tJ privacy, and increase the liability of future homeowners. The Equestrian Advisory Committee felt the creekbed, as it exists, is a natural barrier^ dividing the l:ts. The Development Code requires trail access to the rear of each lot (Section 17.08.050,E). Since the creekbed is near`the tease of the slope- and westerly access is not feasible, the required cor.aunity trail will function similar to a typical rear ld ' y trail. The fences will inhibit entry onto ,private propert', but gates will be required on both sides of the trail at eadii y lot to provide east/west access for homeowners. In additiolit, the numerous trees on the property will buffer, the hones from the trail,. : C., Tree Preservation: The applicant is 'concerned that construction of trails on the property will cause the *removal of hundreds of additional traas,. 1717-77,77, PL.iNNING COMh1I.S5IOh' ,TAFF RtQORT ' a TT 12902 Wobalano acific 4� May 8, 1985 _*. _ ` Page 3 - _ t'4 The Equestrian Advisory Committee shay'es this car.-,ern nd recommended that 'the standard�grFdigg procedures would not � necessary�3-that:.the trails cc�rld. meander along the cree0,11>.d _. and throughout"the project_at a minimum TO foot width. D. Ecuestrtian users. The applicant stated a number of prospective home buyers *do not wish to maintain equestr`iatc facilities al�c�• that only`�,smal,l .percentage of the-people 1n the Ciiy make use .`t of the equestrian trails, system._ The Development Code prohibits excluding, the keeping'`of hors s' within ft6w, subdivisio►lsss in the Egdestrian/Rural area and requires ,tse dee'lopment of In, feedei,, community, and =` regioeial trails. II ; r 1V. RECOMMENDATION: 'The Equestrian Gomq;ittee� re ommends that, a, community trai 1 be--,required/,,along the ciieekbed .as 1"W icated in the staff report. The �Co�issibn should review all inp`ut,�antt'elements. f regarding' the issue and ,provide the apprbpriate direction' to the w_ applicant and :Staff ii' o ,der to final the, preparation 'of staff , deports ' a propriate',conitons for this project." z R e submitted, ick omez _ t 1ty lane ; RG:CJ:ns Attachz::!nts: Exhibit, "A" - Tentative Tl'aC 12-902 Exhibit ,'B" - x;neral PIiwn< Master!Plan of Trails. Exhibit,".0 .T�vttetive Tr'et'l0088 Exhibit ",D Tract 12237 Letter from Applicant `` y Ld Z ` Q w O a O _j U a a Y O U Qi 7 W cc o v a a o ce a O J v O N n z n Nna a O W< Nz 00 O cc xo o fwa a� w coa w o w� vLa_L cr, a i72 L 1 L ='w a Y O0 ccocr f 3 a W 7 t_, a F•� r 1' 4h D 4s DC.O000 \ t pu Of [ - � OgO�D000 a000Opo aOD. D O^ 1 .: 3. p - .�ppD DODOp00.•iii..O�r �1. 3oan°+00000n0000$ q c "' D li ❑ DI : �p p0000 OPO na000Op OP'p 1Xn1 d' 1 1S< b •- O p n 1 p. � p 1 A Or. O - D '■ O. 'L p I �oD?000000'ap ob0�dtil go:o:{tan:Ga ei.a? '•� Yaa+��4° �°� �' o. •t { 0 1 y z 4 O^ tl IY mmx mar@mbnu�mL¢Iglullnu��urr¢rnanmimnumnu _ en ntlmm�R $4pC elueq m r r �,•! a s 3lypyg o...' Sa. q ■ p ly F }.Pr $Ilr.■■.O.w� p 8. £ 6 along o- I r . �5`'1�_ ii� of � ' � �� �°�• •��I 0 $ a D I s Q ;q� - $pD aDDOIIQAOa p ?'$AT 9BABb e..wo �enme ser°a0 +■i D 1 �1 < � .. � ..•a � i '• ti, W L ay. coOtlR � a 1. ❑ � Q o #, + f . ,• �� � a•3nmauumaa!¢:ulutm■i ■rAmammon�I. i • ,° IUD av,wuad 1 .+� � 1 p (�S�f "0 0000 o�I N c laumo 1 0 !! p P O o! i i � u c oII "'•. 7 nDp°+ raker '�y 1 •:4� o•.� Oo° ,�: _oII ucwpaµ.. •� �. aV� Lu- f a vi .pq "u a4aoQe A-mt '+Q• o - oar w 31�'q -� o r •� Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated that. he ;'lnderstood the BIA's concerti, but• p any :hanges;-in land use -densities would not be magi overnight, but would be ' subject to advertised public hearings before the Wf'tanning Commission and City Council. Additionally, thatrany changes considerec;'by the City would oe under the guidance of the City Attorney's office. Chairman Stout advised staff that the decision of the Commission 3eemed •to be two. Corm;isrioners, himself and_ Commissioner 'Chitiea, in``suppr•it of `the alternative to look at sites on` a case-by-case basis, and two Commissioners, w McNiel and Rempel, in support of the no change alternative, Otto Kro-+til, Senior Planner, advised the Coli-mission that staff would, convey , LVIK the Commission's recommendations t-.=the City Council at their May J'% 1985 meeting. - - P. REVIEW OF EQUESTRIAN TRAIL-REQUIREMENTS FOR TENTATI;. TRACT ILjO2 WOODLAND P—ACIDIC - A custom lot 4bdivision of lots`on 39.7 acres of i land in the Very Low Residential District (Tess than 2 du/ac), located on ! the west ,ide;Tof Hermosa Avenue, south of Almond Street APN'201-071-5, 6, 25, 26, 35, and 5 . Dick Scott if Woodland pacific stated concerni'*ith trails requirements placed on this tentative tract by the Trr,`?s Committeej, Jim Markman, Ci4 ,Attorney, advised that the llCommi si,on could listen to`fir. Scott's concerns; 'however, would suggest thatl;direc,`ion not be given at this time since these are matters subject to public`hearing'. The consensus of the Commission ks to defer discussion regarding trail, fro Tentatir,r; Tract 12902 until such time as the,;tract comes before the Planning y Commission as a publi-r`hearing. * At ; ADJOURNMENT; Ma.{ion: Mover by Stout, ,seconded by Mckiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 10:05 p.m. r Planning Comnission adjourned. R ectfu ubmitted, _ Ric 'Go z \ Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- JMav,-` 85i:. �% •� art .s`. .. -k'" - ,... & ram'f 'i^ - _ • •' ' CITY OF R.L`aO CUCAMONGh FART II - ItiiTTAL STLTAY E'VIROb EyT3L GF3EClLI$T s . DATE: '"�/•f1' � .+�,'+ `, y APPLICA\r:, //iG� FILING '?ATE: -=17•�� /cl'1 'LOG .� G 2•�'23E:ER: ;r/ PROJECT: /�li�/Y'? :fr. s 5�•.�,1 I F 71 PROJECT LOCATION• '�1,d. &'•Yl �L4 :�� GrG ✓i'�✓" ;`/� der vN I. $*IVIROJ'SEN�PAL IhSPACTS "a (Explanation of ali Jrasy and maybe"-answer sheets. . are required on attached ,1 �l YES $E NO 1. Soils and Geolosv. Will the proposal have signiricant'resujts,fns a. dnsta741e ground cOedit,�ns or in changes in _. geolfsic reTat3onship� b., Disruptions* displa,rments,, compaction or burial of the soil? c. ,Change I= topography or ground surface contour 3nt;ryalsi d. The destruct (n; colering or codification. Y �f any unique)1ti�a}ogic or physical features? e,. n. ;' oten P tfa.� •increase.in �r3nd or water � erosion o` ,ai s, affe t :.g either an or off site condltons? ' f. Changessil:atianI ay-deposition? ,✓ Y'` g. Exposure of p;>,ople or pr,berty, to geologic t`A hazards su_h as earthquakese landslides, mud— slides;, ground failure, or:*Imllar hazards? _s � h. An inciease- � in the race of::extract_f on,and'Ior s use .,Z-'Jny mineral resource? + . H dreloeu.wi1°1 the ro oca ysesuits 'i'n; p F. eve s�pnificant t t r 3Q60 Poi ° . Pa � � 7 -- g" page..y YES `�UkYBE `0 a. ' Changes in currents, or the course of drectio Of flowing streams, rivers., .or ephemeral channelsl f b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, V or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course waters? or flow of flood s d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? / e. Discharge into surface waters, oa-iany alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with— drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. ,The reduction in the amount of water ot[ a l wise available for ;public water supplie,,,; Ask i Exposure of people or property to water _ related hazards such as- flooding or seichca? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results:ln• a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobil e 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 •a Flora. Will the n oposal have sign4,ficant,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 u`n£que', rare ` geyed species"•�of tpian�? or end an ?age: 3 " 'YES MAYBE._;�0 c, Introduction'of new or disruptive species of plants into'an`area?' d. Reduction-in the potential for agricultural production? " ti Fauna. Will tre ;prcposal*have significant results ; in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? 7 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare 4 or _ndangered, specie±% of animals?: c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of ,animals into an area, or result in a barrier / to the migration nr}novement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or / wildlife habitat? V, S. Population. Will the proposal have significant tad results in: ., a Will the proposal alter th^ location, distri- bution, density, diversity ,or grawth rate of I, the human population of an area? f � b. Will the n oposai`a fact existing housing,, or create demand for additional housing? M 6. Socio-Economic Fat:tors. Will the proposal have significant results in: 4 , a. Change is local or rt.` ional socio=economc � characteristics, including economic or #' commercial diversity, tax rate, and property ,f values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, ! tax payers ar project users? $ 7. Land Use and Planrine Considerations. Will, the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of,the present or planned land use of an ar(aL? f b.: A conflict with any desjgnations, objectives, R a •` policies, or adopted plans of any governmental -'ntities) c An impact upon, the qulaity'or quantity of Je.Yisting consump"tive,or no creatin& oppbrt>inities? q ' c_a9 - _ . . h. IF Page'4, YES �1 r` _4Y9.. ':U 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in:, a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? - b. Effects 3u existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c`. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial im tion systems?.pact upon existing transporta- ' / v/ e. Alterations to.present patterns of circula- tion or movement of`people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? 1 g. Increases in traffiz hazards to moto, aehicles, Y bicyclists or pedestrians? , 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? _ 10. Health, Safety• and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: 11 1 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 M substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pattenogenic u organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? '�`'�• f. exposure of people to potentially dangerous x t, 3' noise levels? g• The creation of objectionabie odors? '� z $+. h. An increase in light of glare? ' 71 .17 Paye ' YES VO " o 11. Aesthetics. Will<the proposal_have bignificant results in' ; a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or v,lew? / b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C. A conflict with the objective of designated / or potential scena.c corridors? V 12. Utilities and Public Ser.3ces. Will the proposal have a significana need;for nei systems., or alterations to the following; 4;1 a. Electric power? f b. Natural or packaoed gas? �. C. Communications `,(stems?' _t d. Water supply? - _✓ e. Wastewater fy:j.]3.ties? f., Flood control structures?- 9- Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? �. i. Police protection? - . _i. Rchcols? y k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, 'including x roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resnt.xces. Will the proposal have significant resu,`•t;;f in: } a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?, b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing. sources of energy? c. An increase in'the demand for development. of. new sources of energy? 1 d. ^.Ast increase-c"r perpetuation ofl'the consum tton of non-renewab fdrms�of""aer P H ! & c gy. when feasible ' ,r n wab)Ie pou: ces of gy ener are available? '. r < � P 7' 7 � 'b 4� fi y � , YES. •!xYBE Np e. Substantial,de � p.etion of any no or scarce=Hato=al xesoarce? ti 14. mandator' Findiii s,.of Sienificance.. '? a. Does',,the Project have,,the potential to degrade : the quality-afZthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish•or wildlife species; case a fish or wildlife polulation to d=op . be ow self sustaining levels,-threaten.-to w` eliminate F. a la °ent or animal community, reduce the dumber o p r restrict the:range of z rare or endangered p12nt or-1 imal.o= .elimina-e important exam les o£ the mayor perKods �f 4 California,history or prehistott? b. Does the•project have the _ Potent to a ieve short=terci; to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goal`s•? (A short-torn impact on,the environment is one which oco' s in a relatively brief, definitive period of lime while long- �.� term im acts will endure well into. the future);. C. Does the project, have impacts which are j Individually limited, but cumulatively "considerable? (Cumulatively considerable mzans that the incremental effects' of an Individual project are consider>able.when viewed In connection with.the effects'bf / and probable,future r Past projects, ✓ k. p of ects). d. Does the project hatre environmental effects which will cause substantival. adversa. effects �s on human beings,.'Ieither directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF EMIRO:II3ENTpy.'.VAyUaTION thethe a .qu,estions C .e., pf affirmative answers to t p�.us-,a,discussion of`proposed mitigation measures•); } ,e y� 3 ,par, r �� 5 i Page 7 f III. DETERM IATIO�t Or. the basis of this initial evaluation: .* I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the eni,•ironment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I. find thati although the proposedJ o'ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there willnot 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 ha a s ificant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT ACT REPO is a `fired. i Date � •S' nature ' Tth 9 ` and 4 -tlww wt s. I Wura/ We. t. Th�r� j� � p •,, r�u� �� lr;�eli haoq' woemo on 171/-67 To } sucharnq t b the t�> c����-�` Y q tchicr� grove � C�/�/?1 o; �K� Wt 11 f r rc�ecl f� " lye Y l/1 � 40 ?r� rerrro =1..-{i� •'°Cup:' :" 4t .,? " " "!rwystia4`. r _s raa Ak ` r 49 lie o � 7vr iYIBGISGIra� ��;�GI%%Y% �7`����y -{�!•c'�. . � ''���- O� increq � aUhei� ' Ael 1,07— { 766 41, y ��• � r�eu�pub�i� � ti5�r� �?�; ��,, a. �r-.�mot- ; 4 5 i t �Hw y .t 5 f h I s- � r:,H � a 71 l; KSOLUTION NO. a LEI A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING,COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 'CAL,FORNIA, CONDITIQNALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.NO. 12902 i WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12902, hereinafter=I'Map" ,,ubm tted by Woodland Pacific, applicant, for the purpose 'of subdividing. '`" real property situated,in, the. City of`Rancho,`'Cucamonga, County of, st;-San Bernardino,. State of 'California, described as 39.?' acreslocated on_the we side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Almond' Avenue into '2a:'3ots, regularly came 'before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on.April.23, r986.; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has r4commended approval of the Map subject to all conditions :set Jorth,. in the Engineering .and Planning Division's reports; and ' WHEREAS, the Planning_ Commission has read and considered the � - Engineering and Planning Di'vision's repvts.,and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing: . NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings,in regard to Tentative,Tract No. -12902 and the. Map.tfiereof: (a) The tent'ative'tract is consistent with .;the_+General Plan` "ment"Code Develop , and spec�flc-pl'ans;• (b) The design or improvements of the;tentative tract is consistent with'the General Plan, Development Code, and specific 'plans; a ' (c) The site is physically suitable for"tfig type of s.° development,proposed; (d) The design of the' subdivision is not likely to cause - substantial environmental damage L and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife.or,their habitat; (e) The tentati?,;e tract is not likely to cause serious public he:ll i problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the ' 4 property within the proposed subdivision, ' (g) ' That"this project will not create;adverse impacts on the :environment and, 'a Negative Declaration is r issued. a • RESOLUTION NO. TT 12902 — wonDLAND PACIFIC s� April 23, 19F Page 2 SECTION 2: 'Tentative Tract Map No. 12902 a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attrshed Standard Conditions: Planning Liy'isiun: 1. Lots siding on Hermosa Aver,)s (1, 11, 12, 18, 19, & 24) shall provide minimum 36 feet side yard setback from,-curb face, 2. Height, material and type of fencing used along Hermosa Avenue shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planner. 3. Tree- removal is allowed only for the construction of streets, equestrian trails, flood protection an:@ minimal ,* pad preparation per ,approved Tree Removal Permit. ^, Additional' Tree Removal "06rmits'will be required at such time that proposed dwellings- are submitted to the ?lanning Division for 'review and approval. 4. C.C.&Rs shall be prepared for the project to preserve existing trees, maintenance 'cif trails, and minimize grading. further, CC&R.'s shall proh;"bit solid (view obstructing) walls or fences. The, C.C.&Rc sudll be prepared by the appiicafit and submitted to gibe City for review and approval prior to approval of the final map,. 5. All trails,:,fences, drainage provisions and site clean-up shall be _accompl'ished in conjunction with street improvement installations. This shall include appropriate texturized pavement treatment where the community trail crosses Hermosa,Avenue. 6. Provide a community trail along the channel as recommended by the Equestrian Advisory Committee. Engineering Divisions 1. Main north/south natural drainage channel: A. Minimal grading is allowed within the channel as necessary for flood protection for future rasidences as approved by the City Engineer. B. All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 50' { " from the edge of the Q100 water surface level, unless erosion preventing measures such as rip''rap are provided' in selected' locations. A defined building set back;; ;line to this effect shall`'' placed on t4e final map. a4 RESOLUTION :NO. ' TT 12902 _`'1OODLAND PACIFIC' " April 23, 1986 Page 3 ' .Ir C. An offer of dedication to the City for drainage mm MWAW purposes for the total area. within the building set (\ back lines shall be made on the final map.. a D. A final drainage study shall be prepared by the developer's engineer for the total project and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map.. 2. Drainage devices from the cul-de-sac streets to the natural channel shall be provided as approved by the City Engineer. Easements for the devices shall be dedicated on the final map. 3 A minimum 20' wide easement for access to Parcel 29 from Court "B". 4. The Almond Street crossing of the natural channel shall be designed to pass a Q100 under the street. 5. A storm drain system shall be constructed within Aimond' Street to convey flows from the area to the northeast of the Remainder 'Parcel to the natural channel generally as shown on the conceptual grading plan. 7. Underground Utilities ` Hermosa Avenue 1) Option 1 - The developer shall pay an in-lieu ;. fee equivalent to one-half of the front foot cost of undergroundinj the overhead electric lines less than 60KV and telecommunication lines on the opposite side of the street (a tota ' of ,." 2127 feet); or 2) Option 2 - The developer shall place underground the existing overhead electric lines less than 66KV thethe opposites side feleco the�streetn for the linesoentireI length of the subject tract- prior to occupancy for any of the lots. APPROVED AND.ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: y Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ` .� ,ATTEST: F ; " Bra . uJ ler, Deputy Secretary VIr RESOLUTION N0, b ; TT 12902 WOODLAND PACIFLC April 2.3, 1986 Page 4 j 5 I, Brad Buller, Oeputy4Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga,.do <hereby certify that the forego ng Resoluti jn was, duly and regularly introduced,,• passed,.iand adopted by the planning Co*isif� n of the„ City of Rancho Cucamonga;"ot a 'regul'ar' Teeting of the planning C6niss.ion held x` on the'23rd day of Apj,!l.,,i986, by the following Vote-to-wit: ; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 ' NOES: COMMISSI'ONERS::, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. a " l � y °';u.... uo .A,•r ooq =a '�.o. •.o-v Nolte dOI.SdL co r n n Od�LdRA�O 01 c'o 6 LID6 L Vt N Uy, G L Q Ld LTu d O li..ar 9 C ti a Y�Cp � n 0 > L R 000H..1 n t CYd YT�� ��aOV6 L L 9SL OI. L04.L' d L O.a U.y. it 'VIM dENap nY GU`L^d OQ'O 00� OI n �'Y t .te T1r a G y n 9 N V OV yx GE C 10 a•. .uardtl 90q ORV O: i q d I Vfi-tealyn'q. LOti CNN q Y� OUV Odg €jo LiLia0EEy0.. t�RY.A �> CR,Q nN �.N_ rq0 R OI.O 9 01r N q •g O G O q q=y �G G L N C .J q' y E C N d � �COIdaOi L �Z.oY �TuOgi n CGM .td L G 4 R O�V OI"9�4 C WOW OOR'd UVT. s+L.Ru N L & O Odds 9aC u nL ea ` ddE.7+i �€',e{ d�O�o> �a� o L L:�{� c'_• pp d�`YS nb Y:NLR=� O �Opy.L Oi4M 4N+-�wt2 R:ORO �j ES i Lpli 4 it b ' i �y d � .Qaam auLL ■p y� �\\ S. V d I,Sr� M c-Nq M q 6nµ�� Qy t 34n � y iL tl $ ay ya �Nc L 6q 6 u r' 'ter _o R4 a.� O L .. N G:O Y R 4 IS-q 4..•2 M'9 a�tadi.+ W • w E - GCA.O. t^b>1CbC AY • C LGuI Ir q 1 T q0��OY C ..� C OSa 'a G.C^Hg Ud d4d.L bY.� -. • Ay Oa �LA NV d_`'L'1 v�d ' 2 ei Ap. pc A CQMU �, L a`o n r A a 6"Yo 0 0.-Q Q'.E°10 uL�,s dNo giNn Y t,.a'da'•a• va,,,, au >A 7 li ,:�.an� 1 0 n vv}°� ��•. oaaq°v » � b'».Ls q Cy ^ ^E d C U G L O Q 5r. �M O��b BN Q� 4' a. q N `d•g +.oi r q LNa ra„�U ` pC^O a pNY L>�dZ" dN • L •jLV di. +F iJ Pw COpfa^dY..=,•It U� M .�O,D6 E.L-p• a.R9 ate. AgfiT :y... GA. .ap TN dSl V•N L�c yCG :O L oCOL ,^�O •Nkp. YYOSN ^P !'i9YaL9. EOwN Aq 6� b N yN .h M.G.. d p c A bN C. C VNNAGN 91ia Y C . �V+: i de n� 4�A <�A ri.m� psv �^'^^°H.ooi�Ya: om u.p1 a9. •bw> nm' it Y 1" Ay W: Fed.tiSN AC aL.O P�^ ---c,Y yl:taCi CO W d. hE ^4.CL„6« So •C C C y. W R d W V N.. NAN 9 N rN i, ao O 2 a Lq ^o I �. Y�. L C�P I�b c C V.c A •p..b L�W y c 9.G G N O C. Y 4 M q a luZ. N EY�> q L q,pg O.A V a s H b L d L O Y P c d ayl>­. 01 ^- � ��� o�o YM �d �a p ^YYG <'" GqE Q EYO.G O: b NY MNL GSM dui N 6b2.2 N61M•Gn Lp, W•.�X. O ^'dLOa Y _ - p C QLAMC N6� 1 N r,c�pj vG ocq 21 G^=26'.. LN='C' cl=.... G Z O G^ 9.0 d 66N >yy 00. a�.A A ^ 2aO d7Yr Y � N.N N LM N.r d L Lp..42 GCY= C�0 UU LOA `CA m Y Y.LYy gg jq"'fV N N N p ti L C .- E C C O A`^ o q cA p :6 a O. qy N yQ 79 .- O 9 S..b d P S aa. �1.^ j'G,p>N V L>C U •D �51. vo Ld� L6 L•'yICI` . YY A^ �C aCG `C` .�L hb0 A^NA p PC N Np O•NG A. Yd O d.8 6 GL,'u w O.a Ca UL Gfi•-. Zq ^ r LpLpA C N q C .N d }q a d 6A L2 vpC N w •" ae s o^v m o GO�a 2 >dN a�0 C L VC W GNC cit b^a�CiV.. G �Va. +U v 6 S ..p..N Ad 0. 9 CO f P^^ LO OG V G'dA Agtb cVcC OIC C9 qLO %1 a a .NG �^L uCc Pp 6C �.Tf 'N WU �Y EE L a vaO C`.a td C �^. N u d .1 - c O C a L L 6= A. O N d N L S ti:t p C P� S t ..u U C 'b A, b N ti CC V '24 Va C E LC 2 'u0 =V�v Lw LCd Oq W� L� Vdw: A^`o w LE p gp _ r v wa Gi4. v P5 C L� tc 'O A.a L aL ";Zs Q A6Sd ••A� i �c O. LVC ."b VO pw i C.- Y 69 O 4A pO.A!t.t E p 4We NA Ku r4 Gd a�01^ 1-.w.�t Co h A l ~ a s e 4 C ^Y o,EY�ood m iV+Oi rur� c LX'L � µYpO Y/ JO VagYyYC 4CC L'N"xa M "7• 04 «a: L .N...VT S O— F �NCVA'O^- D 4.1 '$.O qy� V p l LOB dq vJi.J ." y.q qG pw^ Gp,Nr �. QYo p1. Cw �j. ao no La .wa C4 1,1 is �" � y�Gq'Gn LC I K a.�4 Ny V Y11' a'LL VGQ GM nit HZ ` YY pp _ D• `oto g a't5 ...L L o...wu4.y on rnp mu'd D..; -.G MLA wu ^ ~r� ..+ w�C : N ^ pb'L `wun ao `.aw •-o. iO�u oNL c."n c.r3 --4 N N Y N'Y w d aw T 4 G d N G 4.Y I�^ OI YNN aY V. VAC L,L4 C0 2�pG cL5 4CC NS CYp,'r w t1LY u,C.�-1 K O Uq nL� GpS V>GN N.^V u YM: + ULu 1` O K w. CLC a ..i Wt a1gN L mCL Cun y 64p O� 7^ J `O:.t U aWC.M L uua N ( N Y N' Uqw.w� 'c—g A RM AC N.Q 4. LO,Y ' �G/ 4L� H�.a OL^N V O`OCV O OC.0 Cc �fanYY ^Y. c wL Cl. G .UC: 6 GYy L4 vhd646 �Y nC N N.wLpY d�L L E'q EOYI �' `VN i CS�N .•= 3yym ..4 0014+�L VI�+NwN KN^ KN SNO I+N.G 6N Y��O�T 019.N 60 69�NZ KY. 4.ONON ti 1 • M W 10 �:_ LV aqu acc oa a M u *wvC.C.` aa.,d4 «:s Y 4 OVG.y O. dVlyw Ol ag9Yy ¢mow!! Q uF w N N w Q U.� FL •LO.e w. CV L G�MO is Y V �N O N Yn aJ off` o LAkc ��. —Yn Yu1.4wM c c4e L O ^N V S� 4 y g N c aT "O C w M L YN p p V o'.Fe c `Nd N� Ou AL Yu d.0 - inn VO,...O n9 t.dam a Ly LUV- p L NAM d Y o.'y O1 q n T6 RIZ 4V y ey 6 S u4 w,i g�. OCOE 4.,a'M wy d Ma NV C§«6 N u c N N S'm'N p N `. J d M L Y C p a q w Yq. Mi 4 p �dG FE.F U. .. 4 �oG N o d Nw wd+a a rrn. u o c na.ao N. ^.lo mY GW Y OI L Y q V.lct O OI N C N YN c o ` O N 4E 4 O w E�G �.G 'Y w Y : u T OF... O O q L ,. Q . k ' vE.Jp Y64 u n 4po-qu 6� J� uY'UY N L C At L.0 A O O 41./.. <oow.-.: d�c Yn Kin o.w o..o.rttw.IL ii .x:Y." 1p. ►x C �F N _f'7 Q N ` U v w ,,14..x. .. N x ra. n = wtc mho eq q mr ma AI ca 40- O p A m E d o 21 ffi p^ mQ�En w`E dy^ ��L�..O tJO> LU > .� nN u.\L C.d yy2 Adf..\ .+ `y a SpHp w LO tY.E q 6 u >^m O p L E U Y C q pp d L m E � y\T T« y\.1EE OTC lei, n.0 Z• q.9 LL, Ci:ntS x YO Cy :LL6 dN a UN uC0 pLC L�(R(s 1- n CmMO V ,-^\p Otl mydG cE0 I=- Caq Llo qy: W m. Vi L OC 3.q UVLYgdq r m� n U U. ,W -6~ N g � Ea EE E O G 6 mom+.• G A u O O •G'`r qO L N 0m'.ac :O Cq L.G t.\.EEC m a0+> m6 y v^Oi y C d C O\:C A y S V C y Ol G'i: p A.Ea C dno V a C .i LL C' O U. Y O S.+• ti O C L L Y AY E O c9.w m.' o'n .nab nt«¢o m^e'„•� L"i cd. m o maT-0_ F` r N ypi ca m uo� �+ 'E d G E N O 0 0 = .112 O C LL S 600 n.CYG L n� S n uA O T^ Am a 6 C A _ d tJ{Y f. Oi. -T 6 d q O O H O '7LLN 3ii_:q 4d..p _ � IAiNk x m rnL pd yu\np qa i,y, u d Otu Ec Sp i y� ...� Y Y� Yam• - p p Atil o. aye quo �� y u c> uc m Cr O'A U m d0 Np L~ L c O L m e m O y C O c A� Z i O Y ~ m L A o c ...� C d y > C W 00. O'pc p OY A E A LOIN Y..a O.r m Opy Ap Ep'C Hd0 s y m E C.p m u +l -'9 pyT 1y �L. cdL L GpV..b. 6N �.rT O.qnG• m A py LO O.. E ^ S p n yp Li' p Lm q +•Od0 LLEEN W C� V Y. E O OC N6d� On at; N qn q 4N m�^LL C y r N 0 qyo m e.z u^E. c'Tc p G m ? It J. =>€ ` o^a r. p ,0 Sp E qd E.qQ 0 iCi i u" m < ci-O OtlA O.CC TadiC TFOF« �mTp'. _ •• m Lip C c K a?g aA C d 5LL l ^Ep. S i •i 0.• yLE^" 6 I�.A�'q+ 46m CYN� U WLL Wes^ i>VO cz Eat o oy u t0 ¢ 14 zoo' —g— f EV o � . roC dm'�E Pd^ 9 do .p oa i w p y A q y N N oq E- o d t N =LN.Ni G02 •:l 6 p dU LM �Oo T p' 'i � ,C nwo.� iaF•"L c �N �u o L vca� d.� o L .'s 0 0 ..` .p y i° a =o 0. NY p Nda'T c'aa. Y-o d d M Edo ev .o u? Q.T..L d O CYI C E y W p..d N.E L S y a•,n a pq, o 9v p a Y. a. fi. N N uL y V L ,dLp r r_V1 roN 01a Li w� y.Y Op 01N d ` C N LL = dE ,NWT T�:. p'G CY p adip Y �ro`1� M� du G • roUd d ,..0 pA �`1 O�U 60EY0014 _N > VF.d d^ Ud cFiO V^YO€ %Y`: 1 LL a v ro L V V t V VT 6Sd.G RpM C Y 4• : � " e it i o I I J LO _ ro FF2 Npp I q C. O dfY M m rG Y490 6 y p � hCG O. OI•G GC 2rC OV IJ .Y I., U pq c Y� d A Nn Y.O� qTd 4p..d.Aq m G , =: ddpi p.N Ad�NU - E� G O d9d roi ¢ an T, 10 p0 Nd.Lpy p E yl n O p A Z G d p N O 2 Y p 9 Y p pl C al} yn q.N vd Mro N.yt apep � yE 'cp qQ«a �.0 C q E C o N� dU'6 L4Lp. 6.f CY .CN d ut— 'S aU16 N ro O o oo- o cuL Lode >T noc 9 E,a^ �- t v u o +a1 L d q 8 l-.2 Vt. yLp BUG p' LOE Nar N p OI 0-C ro qE Pd �C d YU a L V� O CC}O Y 6 �.T.O L 1\ } 'fit Y E a..,, • Z u 9� 6 �.Y. p. .a pa aLi G d V p= U lea L ld�- plp OE pm )r« r OUL d N 1: M1 i o �w �E ro o o VE=VN J 7 j nd } yI:Yl a{ �_ xA p . JhiO Y lip' 000 O� O'O �.� O OOa.YOL a `Y ?u' U •.r O .^Y ChC .l • G�'u.O V a G R •O 41 �- W CC S L.y a q a 'E h.E.7pp d d W C 6p.0 L`L Oq. M G V L9 Y R Y C Fa i cq a�✓r �� b c u C,PC i Cy V [fir, 0.• d� 'o �•v.. > E q 'ate Ac u Y ^-a�'+ o VwV. LY,.vg a d � a�d 6 •ay M. 4.�. dA a C tai .e � �.w ,.d N C Ca a uEL? D.,. CEa L QYa 0�40�06 � Y Q. °� qO�V• vcba N.O Fed. ippR •'_• � G06 :i Y � •a OA^EN �v� Wes« hv'r YL yi .�+^�YY.L AL 7d Ol YL9. hL C. Jzn d2� 4C CN L = N6 ,--.C. NO«.•+ Vl9 6VY..Li, 4V 6.0 •XL W•aN L U Sp by Q yam. f, to oo 2 w..La• , 4 a YI •+- •O+y E� V D." � 10. O E • VE h•h+ y s•.as c v L C,.' O i" W dy 2... •E•,. _� Sc OC N tc+d X mE. otR 9 ypp i N Y.� <^ C G CG N €}. VW M L t y+" O.Y �a hR wy •t u QO •! q CI.N Wh Y9 2u �.R 9yY. �� NJ 45H C 00 C �L aEiv�h N yS LY t= L�w C Rp p L� O6 ' - R Y4: GO 9. 4. E•=•�.0 <N Q E D• dL A. v u p ^ G Y Y� �O 2 q l 6 O �� V/3 Y C � A •p '- ,•, la YN i L�Y E OI I '. N3 Y CC a Na O -4 Ep E.; d O L { �� 6 •i bi W i L VA NC QL U^ U . G LN# p�. ��� ti •� _� . X� �Gl I NI XI �d x_I N� ��•. pI �( Yt e c � 4 u b L �o �C � O L Od••L- G 6, y Y•.y € }l T•+ N L d nT O u � W E z L C N • A y S � q d r-N •ro :U.... w L d d1Lr �`a u C 01, LU o.•�Y Fa- ii'Na Y� u v ., '•.- da n '" as v N u v'.c' u o yw � roe qv mU. n a No• i,` O 1C1 0• ,L y O= N q ,[Y•Y Vidl L u a n Nb 45 u L c m um Ay. z N �- at y - 'a yE -o.•'{� :{ �✓ ya Cd� �� E u� 9L d o ac w d 9 • .. q.T l.r W.VSV La �L ro� L E i 2.- Lq�p v •a• p •v Y �•••V �d «d y i' a/M ro L u d }•d 4y N V� Y'. ryn ,O W R n'm c 4 L.aTi �+b C� 'O N -Ct Y.6 <.4 A-5� JVo C Iv �t. 2.mil �. a i c oy MA Sq do u F c.� yNod ''. o •iZ N q i d L��b C• o, EZ 22 ou i L o "z N" b E .3 ��• -V .•.0 •$ bal qa�ro N Lo Lam: nd .: N ro vu ad v nY Eo m j y oN,� � C ca SSE d d6 a Fro _ ro a .-•L N '� .: \'� ^•a o 0 yqj b A _. qd. Y�O d daNj 9 YL CA . 2�• n O d. • q q�u E.. ro� VO O N Cb•1. Y..y V N d rod d• L V J =6 yro < ro O N A r u '- q) 5 av -u E o� by bro N az; ZL- c a `_� .? �" CF r�'•e I xt• / V �„Y � ,� I I � ��� - i� ..1 !.'t.4 h� YY — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT O z F Z A DATE: April 23, '1986 1977-' fo: Chairman and Members of the Mato_ .--sion 4 FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields' Assistant-'Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND CONDITI.ONAL 'USE PERMIT,.85-33•. CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE­Constr=uction of Phase 2`for' the • _;. Church of the Nazarene ,consisting of, sah'tuary, bible study, office, and 4vicarwapartment on L04 acres .of hand j in the Medium kesidentiai District (8-14 du/ac) ioc'Aed'on the north side of Arrow, 300''west of Fir Drive - APN208- 321-011. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: >approval of plot plan, building elevations, and issuance of Negative-Declaration. B. Purpose: 10 construct '2nd phase of church with sanctuary, office and vicar..apartment comprising of 12,466 square feet. 471 C. Location: North side of Arrow 30C•' west gf Fir Drive D. Parcel Size: '2.04 eicres E. Existing Zoning:. Medium Residentiai District (8-14 du/ac) F. Exiting Land Use: Existing church facility (Phase,I) G. SurroundingL_ a and Zonina: j North =J Existing,mu t-1 i-famil residential, Medium Residential District (8-14.,du/ac South - 'Existing singf6 family residences,'Low Residential District (2-4 :du/ac) East - Existing multi-family residential, Medium Residential District (8-14,Ou/ac) • West Existing single family residences, Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) H. General Plan Designations: Yi Project Site - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) North i. Medi(h Residenti0 A1,14 du/ac) South Low'Wesidential (c-=Y•du/ac) t y, East - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) { West Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) A 1 . s T, w ITEM F ee +� PLAN14ING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP85-33 - CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE April 23, 1986 r Page 2 I. Fite Char' terisli : Presently, the project site consists of a constructed fer o sw hip chapel and .educational building (9,505 square feet total) with site-improvements including 61 paved parking spaces and related aisleways and landscaping. The ' remainder sKe is_ relatively flat with no existing trees. s Properties tc' the north and east are developed as one-story apartments. :Property to the west is presently used as- a=single ` family residence-. Property to the south across Arrow'Route. is dev;.loped;with single family residences. II. BACKGROUND: On April 25, 1979, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Site Approval, 79-10, Church of the Nazarene, for the developr;,ant of a Master Man for church and related facilities on 2.04 acres. The .first phase is now complete with a 9,505 square foot building and 61 parking spaces. III. ANALYSIS: A. General': The second phase of development includes: the sanctuary; bible study, office and v ;car,apartment with an-site improvements comprising of ;25 additional parking spaces and emergency access with gates for the -ear portion of the project x, site (see Exhibit "C"). The project will provide 85 total ar parking spaces, which meets the Development Code stF_ndards at 1 parking.stall.for every 4 fixed seats within the sanctuary (336 fixed seats). Access will be'provided by the existing driveway. along the west property line. Originally, the project M proponents wanted to construct a 3-6' block•wall_ art the west property line. However, ?,e to having a potential shared access, the wall was not constructed.' B. 'Design Review Committee: The proposed -exterior} building elevations for the second phase of constructian wills match the existing building. 'T,he materials shown are concrete tile roof and an ivory stucco Ainish on arches-and wall_s.' The church building as finally ,`completed with second phase of development shows the sanctuary, bible study, and office on Exhibit "D-2 The'Committee reviewed the project proposal and suggested additional <architectural detailing around' the windows, and architEctural relief to the 'large 40' vertical expanses of the north and south elevations. The Committee also recommended a texturized surface treatment at the north. entry of the church, stucco. the sides of existing trash enclosure, and placing view obstructing gates on the enclosure. Lastly, the Committee stated that the applicant would either have to _limit the building height to 35' maximum, or _apply for a' ' Variance. The applicant has responded by reducing the building height to a maximum of 351 'a.-d making all the appropriate , changes per the Committee's request. Colored elevations and material sample board will be provided for your review at the ` meeting. _... 't.i,aS' ..., PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP85-33 - CHURCH OF'THE NAZARENE April 23, 1986 Page 3 M C. Technical Review Committee: The immediate area has overhead utilities existing'. along the ' .forth side of Arrow:ti,Highway_ between :Archibald and Turner including the frontage'-�of the, proposed project. There are no-'existing overhead utilities on the fully;developed",property along the=south side,-of Arrow. If undergrounding_of.utilities is instal +ed by the applricant, only .: one pose' would(�`ne re�ovedand "construction woRd involve modification . anc�: replacement of'. existing landscaping. The `. Committee recommends that"utilit'.,`undergrounding,be waived; ,and that an in ,fieu fee!tbt cal•lected�,as contribution to a future K unde`,groundingrprojec along Arrov(Rou�te including the=frontage of ,:he site. •The Committee also'i�equzxre emergency fire access wit' .crash gates,)and knox box at.the northeast corner of the site '-:,ee Exhibit "C"). 0. Environmental Assessment:" After she public hearing on -April 25, 1979, the Planning Commission-' deliberated ..and concurred with the staffs environmental evaluati:n and issued a Negative Declaration for, Site Approval 74 :' As a ,result of a development request for Phase II, staff has conducted a second environmental field, investigation and can find r,�:'sign€ficant adverse impacts on the environment or surrounding neighborhood b as a result of 'this project. Therefore, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for Phase II as well. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS:. The project is consistent with' the.. General rPlan and Development Code. The.project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties' or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together' _ with the recommended Conditions of Approval are in compliance-,with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and . City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: A, Notice of Public Hearing was published ,in The, Dail;: Report newspaper. Additionally, the site was posted and � notices of public hearing were mailedto property owners within 3001 of the subject property. To date, no correspondence has been received in regards`to this project. �;.. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve CUP 85-33 and issue a Negati`re Declaration thrbugh'adoption of the attached Resolution with Stano3rd"Conditions. ' S(e- ctful ly s itted, x Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:ko a 1 i : ,.,'� q(fir a '>«;k ='A,"�"` '�"$»y [:, .� _....y;+-e, 'use '. PLAIiNING COMMISSION STA6T REPOR7 � .. CUP85-.33 - tl URCH OF 7HEAAZARErvE �a <. April 23, 1986 ° Page 4 J,, am Attachments: ExhibjV,, ' - Location Map ExhibIR, "67' s Vicinity Map_ Ex ibi,ti`"C' Site Flan Exhibit �p-1" - Subm t€aed Elevations' E ," ura.. xhT.b o't, 0 2•�,. .Revised;Elevations Eihib, u R.7`an` Exhtbit+�'F'x t;Conceptual Landscaping Plan Ex�iibit„°G"� Ganceptual'grad'ing Fran Exh�b ,tH" Apprstied Site an Exhibit 'I" sConc�ptual Applr'oyaI Landscaping Plan Exh`'1yl �ta I ProVe ;'<,E1;eve '0ns irtit w, udy,aPart441 Res o�utoibii'{and'Attached Standard Conditions Staff Repar,.t Approvi"ng it6MOp,rnval .75-10 Resot,tl.on 0. 79-39, LL .: �f .4� ' ,' # fw ice-- `�--��-�i' 6 S ' os ❑ �; TERRA oa ` FC ❑ IFC "�^"• �' i tf[_ i `nnni'7t'ifRrnnnnnnrnnr ` i' OP i tSmama - ® Future City , VP ��` Help MH MWE Ht —r3? 7�S7rst`'l ,'. j, GC GC i ■eta®a®® ■ t• I.S,P. :. I.S.P. j t — t: I.S.P NORTI� CIF ;. T ITEM RA:NCED, CL�CAIMO NSA TITLE=__..�27�':��ioe6/ A � "r MP.LAMINIG DIVV.LS ON ;t iitHIBIT: _ t E: IF S r f Xpi OQJ Fn �erss P :31'' �' f 4 I• , �f Oe'!T ARRO W A f NORT: t¢ f V IJC rC 3.M TPNG 1 y, TITL.N.:_y I c of i ry ►41 a�. - 5' PIA M C3Ii!�SKZN EXHIBn ",��. ALE: �s - FIR.E AGEs� 1 Arh 'Al PAXK1NG s: 1 t a'a idk a�• a .l, No 1 ° CITY OF �\ rri:N4: C u�' es- 3 3. � 4CM CUC MONGA TITLE: i l"E 1L.C11V1V11��T'1XVISION EXHIBIT.----C- SCr1I.E #, ;leyy ♦` �:A '�' L/1 r' tirl,»w-tiro G< 1 r4.. f1 ,Idµ.{�,•. ' , \}y f } rn :-••� — "tratE_HnnenftlT hollf_H GLV_!WN: I 1, ti �rY - , r. s ,� . .ifU° .arrc{11e� _n?PTF1 tJevent isrlez+.a L .:(�IrUE_�l��j':+Ar•i v.�.t---�i�varnN r „ r 'NORTH CUY CF ITEM. Frtil: FtA1�' p �O\TIiA 33 4 TITLE: SuBm�rrF,a PLANNING I}[`JLSIC?N EXHIBIT= LE--- ,... v oil- KIM— i 1 �ftn�t�j� o � ' ■ i v. Y .s 4'r I� ix z - � 41 _ rw ac.rwc.�— �'''1;. men..-�r^- --�_ _: t m'+ y I.�Mt�• . 6.7.p•"; .....+.rr«... l q. J t u•erp�r!-� y,� i rsnnc,� i i.w SScs.' q MF. u4 CKI " . xe+:�nani++uintuary �m�4L*`'�'w s u�A,.v�rt •� G3s _ '•v:. n-iyaoyptRFy �.yt'M(FMC �, xrs r1OIIC jr—,Iyv Wx- 5 G roS arnl iEts riym raWref14 4 ;1 itu i iut TGxr _ :Y tcrsa -$. tus ono wprgc*m A. ti. rrta.n at' e V-wc Of 1'IB' AtirT ews Gt►�r?rg4L YS'ttT '4LKtr tirm- LA i/1<' Lfitl. 'Mop. 'IJLl�fASW gdlt - IF t9�tt{µ gflta YD ii'L!!Jtll¢IL Wr Litt-.+fYSyrC� . s � ry6'NCF 4.,.st•s2rR'ecru,rx mm+l.s-vw.ve�ror. ew. CITY :. J rrElrl= RAMMO TITLEN�&i7�,p EtHIMT �siir..a.wea�Lh>lF:.- F..:,.t�v,mi€,.. «. �,.. .�....,..��. .,...s...�a..x3�`§"..•:;, i , MIS.-�✓.. • �• • 'PYtItM K vu ��IgYE4!L. it 1 'V ifAc. r''� _ Tiwc�•/t b`� 9 I �'✓�/r � 'L' N' f/ �� f/ }� �\C..i n -�//^l L ' u�rct.re (uocn � ]yd:ynr• fV �f 1 iacR WRc btu"1 — � } �("— •'. .:i� � `5, � Nrsmya r �'L ,�_ �� _!=: •"s _ it �� � ' \ t, 1 •' t ArA ',. k`H�1MM'f � L_ --D;fir,tis a �� � •� � 1 \� Y'a I _uuwtPet tti cy� 01 a F i . 3 CITY SF TC q V A . CQCAM i�TGA TIT LG IN uAt t°��1�U/d1,E�� y sAlvt tIt�t� rxvISM E HINT. �`-1QLr, �i j, 3U �9 j i. " !' ; � i a '.,.�s i a'• 1, �ff - 1 �� 4 .may-• `z pLp et . e I ` bi4� �\�j rK%(°aGitr� �innrjj. � 'dtd�lal. txGli CITY CF ONGA TITLE: PLAI�fii �•�•� °yyq$vI1�IGa I$fON EXHIE'Ta- . SCALE--. GYM�+ F Y Y• �'d�LKx.. ..: `�Slil�v.. J•4....... ...4.' .;�_,iR ._ .. '•� � dimd_ $al�':T. i i E F ' - • u4 rxa. t-~~ prA. ��•�w.w! ^tfr:a. -- - -- rt+e�cu;iwU ���°' --- N�M�wt�. � o•�•rRGYMN• O,.K�iY •r•OACWOfU(� v n.n r4r i� • : ' viuitrYiii41 S 1 " I �• 9t1� �VT ------------- �- •- `O a iwo...;r.-r�Frrnartrhn' ` �t. •'. @5u.nrwrna ta.aa C•1 O-ur� rl�r , v(�4•flrN,.ww .Y.wa.,bra• •^-�KPrrdNns, ►..JI— .t1. "I (—� —_. Nn VL ryti Wr[ IMMfA iH.• ISw. E1y�..Yh_./tr•'Gi.�>• ••f.�.t1Y'Wes--h��_. - n r tYai¢an i]v r rr•muw u c u...a. - _ sM- Jf.�tttynttJN,ryt riPArt N�'�• _ i1L.LiPR ItnrPlrt.t wwNxatpn LdND-_�GGI�: YLFNfifG. (1AN taN4%rafi uicary-f,F.a crWt:fl '0� •.F.i tl�au•Mom.. ��p Arai r�r� � mr:ne.l.rurt: r•ruv -. Mil elrrt xr m e r u.= lAL%aC!—_'--bft[•.4�4 a4'•Pi{.rN!•-U ua.Y:^NU. .. REVeAus .y egsP� VEPJ 1d/s f 4AAl Ij Ftom ?X/qsa� z CITY OF ' UC �i®I�iGA TITLE oNceorw;9z- SION L �� LE Li .3 _ ,-1, '141 S' : ii Ilk J� y r — LF �.' .• : W ��67� `°� zttl.� �� .ter - .»rr ur::ri vnri r. fM* •�anon• ��. i �, .� u-- � X ^Y -c � r �, .',,qq xj� ^ 1 a� e hTE-' y � Y e s' E�CHIBrr- i" _ —" — SCALE s _ 3 {' 7 4 � • r a ,b o %4 77, A a1 49, r a *; CITY'pF RAANCIia-cljCA`IONGA - - a PkZTxII -'INITIAL STUDY. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKII5T ' DATE -------------- �g. _ 4 t 4PPLICA1'Tsjr9/PP ;C��j>S-.�is3T,E�i% FILING DATE: '4R! OG NUMBER: C/ ,.A9t- 73 PROJECT: Ills9 PROJECT LOCATION; i I NV EIRON:•i£NTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of 'all, Yes" and "maybe" an are required on attached sheets). � i YES�MAYBE NO 1. Soils and GeolOev. Will the proposal have _ _Y[ significant results in a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? / b. Disruptions,r, displacements, compaction or iw^ burial of the sail? �I Co-,Change in topography or ground surface it contour intervals? ' d. The destruction,,. covering or modification � of any unique geologic orw physical Features? e• AnY Potential increase in,w•ind or water erasion zt so31s, 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- �R6x2 slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? r '-y h. As, increase in the -rate of extraction and/or .; use of.any mineral resnurce? Z. Hyd=oltZ£y, Will:athe`proposal`have significant rest lts in: " 1- s YES 'LyY3E a._ Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams,; rivers, or ephem•:ral stream channels? - Jak b. Changes iu absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and,amount 'of surface water runoff? c,• Altilrations to the course or flow of flood waters? ' d Change in the amount of surface water in; aa body of water? -. _ _ _v. e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f,. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, s either thrcugY direct, additions or with drawals,' or'tnrough iaterf' aquifer? erencE with an £ .c Quality? `4 Quantity?,, h. The reduction in the amount of water other-, wise available for public water suppiip '- i. Exposure of people or property.to water • ` related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant f. .esults in: E. a. Constant or periodic air emission Is from mobile or indirect sources? `? Stationary sources? j b.r Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or j interfzrence witil the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic t conditions, affecting air movement, moisture ortemperature? A „ 4. Biota Flora, Will'-the in PLdpusal have significant results a• -Change in the characteristics of species; �f. t { includ#ng diversity, distribution;-or number � of an species of plants?F r � b Reduct_i'on df`,the numbers of,any unique, rare it , - riendange"da.species of plants?F_ •'. moor ,i YES `fAYBE 50 c. Intioductior of new or disruptive species of -- plants into'an*area.?" y i d. Reduction Imrthe potential for agricultural ; production,? Fauna. Will th&"proposal',have significant tesult> inc a.. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversify, distribution, or numbers of_any"species of animals?- b. Reduction c- the numbers of any unique, rare or endanger_-\species &:`,animals? c: Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals' into'an area, or result in a-barriet:, to the migration or movement of animals? Y' d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ 5. PLOD lation. Will the proposal have significant ` results in: a. Will the progo'sal alter the location, distri- bution, density, didhrsity, or growth rate of i a the human population of an area? b. Will the prcposal affect existing housing, or i create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have f significant results in:. f z�jr a. Change is local or regional socio-economic Jr charact*ristics, including.,economic or cuamerciai$ivars3ty, tzac'rate, and property ` values? b. Will project costsie equitably distributedx ' among project beneficiaries, i.e.., buyers, tax payers or project,,users? 7. Land Use and Plannins`.Considerations.' Will the �\ proposal have s'ignitisant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of"�aq.area? y b'. A conflict with any°designations objectives, policies, or adopted,aplans of any governmental" g ' entities? � , r cr An impact up on,ythe:qulaity or quantity of . X, .- c w a '"existing;%c nsumpti:ve or non-consumptive recreation opportunities? (Z_ . _ . YES "0 -x 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant a. Generation of substantial addi movement? tional vehicular b. 'Effects an existing streets, or demand for ne_.treet construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or, demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- t tion systems? e• Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion,or movement of ;people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, moss transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, i, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resource_ s. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archae,o.Iogical, paleontological,,�and/or historical resources2 10. Health, Safety, and .Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential h lth hazard? / b. Exposure of people:,to- potential health hazards? ✓_ 'yyy 4 C. A explosion'a release of hazardous sufst..tees in :the event i0f an accident.? '� + d. "An Ancrease in the number o£ Individuals , or species of vector-or pathenogezUc organisms or the exposure c�%people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels?- f. Exposure of people to; potentially dangerous noise levels? -n S. The crzation of objectionable odors? wax" h. An increase In light or glare? $ aps. .,. 5Eh by°*g iy ap.Y 5g A `x +, r Page 5 YES aMYBE NO 11. Aesthetics.,_ Will ,the proposal have significant ` 'J results ia: u a, The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive 1, site? r� c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 32. Utilitids and,Public Services. Will the proposal r haven significant need for new systems, or alterations io the following:` a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gasY C. CommunicaL'ions systems? d. Water supply? e,. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? . t g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection?' _ J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? ' 1 Maintenance of public facilities, including ' k. roads and flood control facilities? y/ M. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal ', have significant results in,. a. Use of_substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing i sources of .energy? c. - An increase in the demand for development of yHx { hew sources of energy? d. An increase ,or er etifationof the consumption P•. P P �:. '1 of non-renewgble forms of energy, When feasible : renewable.4sodrees,o€ energy are available? e. Substaniial„depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural:resourte? 14. Mandatory F ndini. of S£gnaf3cance, -� -- k a. Does the:project"have,the,potential to degrade the quality of the ervrironment, substantially ;redo a the habitat of�'fi cause.a f3sE o wildl sYe specieswildlife,Pop�u cn lati �to diop " below self.sustaining:�]eve,Is,, threA06n to, elimr a"pliant or.an£uial commun'i£ the number or, es -�ict the y; reduce tt>pge of`a rare:or. ;endang red.pladt or animal.,or)e..imjn'at t important examples,of:.the maj. r g riod`s of ° California"history ar prehlsti�ry� ' b. Does the project-have the potential,to»aeteve -' short-term-; to the.disadvantage of long-teym,..environmental goals? . (A shbi&t-ermI-Ampact'bn the environment is which occurs in a irela iwely brief, d'efin ,t£ve Period, of, time while long- term impacts will end well into the future), " c ' C. Does the .' project have impacts 'Which are individually limited,*,but.cumulatively considexable? (Cumblative7,ky,- considerable means that the incremental ef}fFec,ts o'f an individual project are considerable whenkv;£awed in connect36n with the°effects of past s '-nd probable future P Projects, , pr��j ects). d. Does the pro3;ct have environmental effects which will cse.substantial adverse effects Or' human beings, either direr tly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF EN['IRO*it�NTAL EVALUATION i.e. Of the above quest£ons Plus a discussion of 4 affirma�ise answers to P Proposed mitigation measures) A. Ilk F � k i 4 ! y r� ti:F �p 6we �• �-y�O� SF., , P3CP-71 ti a" III. bETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: �nnfind the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.;, I find that although the proposed 'project could have a significant r effect on the environment, there will not be a §ignificant _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 'I'MY-=have a-significant effect oil the` envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT L`SPACT REPORT is required. w Date fEf . ignature, Title .. 9 a' 1 r a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 25, 1979 TO: PlanniT,g Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development ' SUBJECT: Site Approval No. 79-10 — Church of the Nazarene The development , of a church and related facilities on two acres of land located at. ' 9900 Arrow'Roufe. BACKGROUND r The Church of .the Nazarers is requesting approval to construct a .two phased church project, on two acres of land located on the north side of Arrow Route between Archiball and Turner. (Exhibit 'A'). The site is presently unimproved with the exception of an existing church parsonage located on the northwest with of the.property. The applicants propose to develop the church in a two phased program. The first phase s'.tall consist of the construction of a fellowship chapel and educationaz building with 61 parking spaces'and`relatPd aisle ways and landscaping. The fellowship chapel.will have a seating capacity- of 180.. Thi„ first phase constructs,._ will total 9,505 square feet of building area. The second phase construction will entail the construction of a 5,000 square foot nain sanctuary and`an additional 25 parking spaces. , Property to the east and north have been developed as one story ry apartments. Property to the west is preseni'.y •lsed as single family residence. Property to the south across Arrow Route is developed,with single family residences., The subject site is presently zoned 11-3 (multiple. family residential) and the General Plan designates this-site and, surrounding area as high density residential; 15 to 30 units per zcre, : The Zoning Ordinance permits churches in residential zones contingent upon'site approval being granted by the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: The development plan, Exhibit W, 'indicates that the site is adequate in size and,shape to accommodate the proposed uses. The site fronts on a highway that is properly designed as to width and improvement type to carry the 3uantit-, and traffic that will be generated by the proposed use. Access to the proposed development is provided by one 30 foot wide drive fror.. Arrow Route. The location of the driveway is close enough to the west propert:e,,'r line that would allow future development to the west the possibilityof hawing shared access. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 24 foot wide aisles for two way traffic. The most easterly north/south aisle on the site is "bows at only 18 feet wide. Staff recommends that this aisle be widened to a minimum of 24 feet wide in order to meet Zoning Ordinance provisions. The first phase of this development is proposing to provide 61 parking sta�ls. Seating capacity of the fellowship chapel that will be constructed in the first phase is 180 seats. The Zoning Ordinance requiz_s a minimum of one space for ' every four sea p is within the main meeting hall. The 61 spates proposed is well in excess of this standrxd for tha first phase. The second phase, which will , ` complete the protect, will entail the coustructiul, of the main sanctuary which, ITEM "C11 S.F. �, according to the applicant, will accommodate approximately 350 to 375,srdts. The second phase also will include the addition of 25 parking stalls for a total l�, overall parking;of 86 stalla. In•accordance with the Zoning Ordi rince,;186 parking"`' stalls would allow a 344 seat sanctuary. If the applicants wish ..6 have a larger seating capacity, then an additional parking space_must,be_providt4' for every four additional seats within the sanctuary. There, is some additional r-'rom on: the:'north end of the site Co provide additional spaces. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a revised site plan showing how the additional parking can be provided within the second phase development of the project to accommod<.t.e the seating •capacity as proposed. I£ not, then the main sanctuary must be limited to a maximum of �44 seats. mrz Exhibit 'C'- displays the proposed exterior building elevations foz ;:he fit iphase of construction. The materials indicated are concrete'tile roo",and an !vory,stucco- t finish on-the arches and walls. Exhibit 'D' displays the building as completed with the secur.,d phase development showing the sanctuary.. Exhibit 'E' displays the ietailed landscape plan. :The I -idscape,plan indicates aounded turf in front of. Lhit property w;;th several diffe.cnt kinds of.treee and £ two specimen size trees, �Aiid tionai landscaping p 4i ping is, bti,.:g�provided throughout the ' site with bushes and tree,".A Six foot block walls exist on the east and'north lines and the applicant is proposing to install a six foot block wall on the east ' property•line up to the: front of-the fellowship chapel. Part I of the Initial Study is attached for review.. Starf has-completed Part II, the environmental checklist; and,has visited the site and can find rio significant ;4 adverse impacts on the environmect as a ;^:ssult of this pcoject.' ,Therafore; staff is rect maending issuance of a Nega_iYi Declaration. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hi,r,?ing was published in'the Daily Reuort on April 16, 1979. In addition, notice& public hearing were mailed to proper owners within 300 feet-of,,the subject propeT'y To.date, no correspondence has been rece'ved is r_a__;[o this project. RECOMMENDATION- 'The Planning Division-recommends, after the publichearing, that the Planning Commission approve Site Apptival-No. 79-10 based xport the findings and*conditions gisteF.in Resolution No: 79-39. R spectfdlly submitted,, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development r Attachments: Exhibit A Illustra+,:ive Site Plan/Vicinity Map Exhibit l Detailed Site Plan Exhibit C Building Elevations Exhibit Building Elevations Exhibit E. Detailed LariiseaFe Plan Part I Initial Study Resolution No. 79-39 �4 A s i AdMk ti -RESOLUTION NO. 79-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING `- CQ;LITISSIO�I APPROVING SITE APPROVAL tNO. 79-10 LOCATED AT-9900 ARROW ROUTE IN THE.R 3,20NE. WHEREAS,` on March 27, 1979;- a formal aP2licatiou was,submitted requesting &review of the above described project; and WHERE&S, oi; April 251 1979, the Planning Commission_ hela a duly advertised Public hearing foY; the,.above-•described project: r- -"- NOW, THEREFORE THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING-COMMISS 7 ION RESOLVED AS .�i;LOWS: *. SECTION 1: that the following'findngs have been made: I t 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape..% 2. 5 4 That-ti._ s '•3_ . . has adequate ,,access:.. 1 3, That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the', proposed General Plan. S. That the conditions listed in this report are necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. SECTION 2- That this- ,)roject will not create.significanL%{adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on April 25, 1979. SECTION 3: That Sit Approval No. 79-10 is a •�t. e A pP approved subjec to the following conditions'.. Applicant ;hall contact the'Planning Xvision"for complia�ice. p with the following conditions: Y 1. Parking lo," lights shall be a maximum heightiof, 12' and direcced away from all property lines;'zidjacent� streets and residences. --a- 2. Parking lot trees shall be a,minimum 15 gallon size tr 3. A11 two-way widths shall Im a minimum o£ 24, feet. wide 4. Any signs proposed for,this, development shall be designed in conformance ri'th Cnmp_ehensivd.4Sign 0rd�.r3nce and shall require review and appaval ybj* the Vanningfi,Dvision prior to in''stallatiori of such"" signs: %� �.m 5. All landscaped areas shall be maintained iic a -healthy and-'thriving condition, -free from weeds, trash;'and debris. r ti 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in accordance with the Master i Plan of street treesfor the City 'of. Rancho Cucamonga. 7. Site shall be d developed in accordance with the approve `., site plan on file in the Planning'Division and the conditions contained herein. _ 8. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 9. `All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall` oe architecturally integrated and shielded from`view,and the sound buffered from adjacent gropertes and streets to the``satisfaction ,of the Planning Division and Build lug Official.. . 10. The main sanctuary shall be limited to 344 seats. If additional seating is desired,,,then,a revised plan must be:submitted to the Planning Division showing additional` K parking. 11. The City reserves the right to requite the owners of this site to grant a reciprocal access ea Lantito the west property for shared access in the event it is needed to meet the City's'access policy. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance'with *a. the following+ conditions: . ,, 12. The applicant shall comply.with 'the latest adopted Uniform "Building Code„Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing; Code, National Electric Code, and a2i other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of,approval of this project. Yg 13. 'The approval shall become, null and'void if buildingpermits 3 are not;issued for this project within one year from tte date of-project approval. 14. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance, k, with the Grading Ordinance and to, the satisfaction of - t' .Y the Building Official. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance, with the following conditions: " 15. Prior to=,any work being performed.in the public right of� way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained fom the City Engineer's.-Office, in addition to any;other,permifis: R` required.. . "' +I 16. Approved street improvement plans prepared by a ' Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improvements, prioF to issuance of encroachment permit. j 17. All street improvements .Hall be installed to the ix satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. 18.. 'Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of. the City Engineer and theCity Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to issuance of building permits. F 19. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: Arrow Route —curb ar',`�guttel:, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approach,'s_reet trees, and street lights. 20. Pavemen- t striping p g and marking plan shall be required. y 21.-"An approved grading plaa and soils report in accordance z with the City grading standards will be required.. 22. All proposed utilities within the project shall be ` installed underground. 1 23. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the appropriate utility companies and the City + Engineer. 24. ' Developer shall be`responsible for the relocation of existing public utilities-, as required. Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District and the Cucamonga County 3Tater District for compliance with the following conditions: 25. Water Supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be. provided to the specifications of the Cucamonga County Water°District and theCity Engineer with all incidental fees paid by the developer. "v 26. Prior:to issuance of,'.uilding permits for combustible construction, evident-: shall be submitted to the:Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 27. Emergency access shall be provided and maintained free and clear at a minimum of 24 feet at all times during construction to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. ' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 1979. l v4 j. PLANNING COMMISSION OF`THE CITY O RANCHO CUCAMONGA 40 BY: x Hermann-.Rempely Chai n _, t r • a a.. •ti},n ► .. . Sec retarp'of tr i=Planning Commission I)'JACK LAM, Secretary.of the Planning Commission of the City bf Ranc6 Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly, and regularly intr•, u oEced,' passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of4Rancho Cucamonga at', a regular meeting,of-the Planning Commission held on,,t,the 25' da- of April, 979, by the follow ng,bgte to-wlt: Ap ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS:' •.'GARCIA, DAHL, TOISTOX, REMPEL NOES: CO1QSISSIONERS. A ABSENT.' COMMISSIONERS: JONES _ 1. q' I V yt 4 : ; ' RESOLUTION NO. A "ESOLUTION OF,THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA.PLANNING COMMISSION . APPROVING COND,I°TIONAC"USE PERMIT NO. 85'a3"FOR CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW-ROUTE, 300 FEET PEST` DRIVE IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL t, E DISTRICT,_ WHEREAS, on the 27th day-of January, 1986, a complete applicaf'don was filed by Howard,.Eaumgarten_for rev ew of the above-described project.;'.q,td .; __ _ WHEREAS, on .the `23rd day -of April, 1986, the Rancho SCucamonga w� Planning Commission held a p0jft hearing to consider the above-deseri;bed project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the.,.proposed use is in accord.. with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code,-,and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the. proposed use, together with the;conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety, or .,wel`Pare, or materially injurious io- properties or improvements in the r vicinity. 3. ; ,That the proposed use complies«:with each of the applicable provisions of the Deve"4mentCode. SECTION 3: That Conditional' Use Permit No. 85-33,,;is approved- subject to the following conditions: t Planning Division: 1 Provide emergency fire access to satisfactiokv,%of the Foothill Fire District. 2. Expansion of this use beyond 336 fixed seats in the sanctuary shall require modification to'this Conditional Use Permit approval and provision° for additional parking. 3. Provide stucco texture matching the buil'ding to all sides of trash enclosures and install view obstructing ates, '. . 4. Provide texturized surface-- treatment andt raised ` plantersjseatirg at. the,-north-'entry of. church to .,be reviewed and approoved by the City Planner prior to, ` issuance of baildi,ng pertni°ts. r � RESOLUTION NO. CUP 85-33`-`GHUPCH,`OF THE" ARENE April 23:, 198E Page 2 V.: f. .k. t All. condt" }� S 5• ons of Site Approval 79 10 as contained in Resolutrpo :793�9Sshal1 ,apply: Engineering D:iwision ,,J ' The applicant .vital l ,pay prior to t�`ssuance of a bul.ld�tng permit, a iee in lteu,�of undergro�undtng Overfiead 1�tes� front7ng' Arrow klagh ay a distance of 200 ,feet 'Said' fee is estahltshedv by* Counc, resol ulan ga dd�:sha77 be �te]�d, ;for4 [ contrtbutton to futy',a underground h"" of tits fronting , fact l iti'es A71 services eztendatq to the Fs7,te s�a1 undergrounded. *'- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS*23RD,DAY.OF4 APR2L, 1986�: � PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C`I-TW OF: RANCHO CUCAMONGA' f BY: y. ' . Dennis L. Stout, C airman 4 ATTEST: r : Brad Bull Secretary T, Brad Buller, De pty Secretary of the Planni'n 4' maCom ston of- -N Ctt g -� *tI Y"Jof Rancho Cucamonga, do�hereby' cerYttfy thar:`the forte o1n ,Reswolu:ion �Aasdu�liy and regularly, introduced g e. g'`" passed{, Randt*,adopted by tithe Pl`arinting Comm�ssJon Hof the 4 City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a 'regular- meeting•of nthe P7�an sing`Comm sston.held on the 23rd day of Aprti,, 1'985,`by the fotinviing vote to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: a ` r NOES; w `7r4MMISSIONERS: ` yF ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 4 pt, t Y A{� •� � sR`y�d � ter t o g S 1. 1420 U. M2. 6 � V YYA O 't m l d A-F E Oy n 11C 6G YNm �G 6A 0�. ��d - aL»,. co jq w.1,^ uww.0 'art';: Z anuDap cY u� Lys u b p�n��n nyY~ V09 U E LTu. VC W, by d OLL aCE Un q L.;L N9 ..� 6 p C �� •n G C ..LAM S^Al GYM O V Y p P^O x w q Gbd y V i CO.. goL Ey.-.V6O. main, - d� e`d' LO•aM.A' G� j1/'jam *Q Y t. :.d ¢OYa: OpyU f` rwq y60 V T Ax b u CD`V A ACU V A ^ ;L O .YE q.ti Vd90 Off. O�y O�� 0:0 .p:gqp ba 0 L ua O V 1. �' 6az a C. O au., LSO �\0�49 9� • A O E CO CC yu C t^ .G-�T.... Y T^C.O C. Y^o v0 YVV nC:= V60j L? a E Y C.d aL+N u 44"• x u�=.. 6V 3xL162*• ISO CY+=+ 6'M.:d'GS ¢O^ �L 6L 3•J. ' d aE p N m LY Owp1 �� YC Maa 00:� u _ v u y r y U .�O to A M � .;;LYd [S Ea+uLiao Tau� c p L x C EL o Yv .54o nL nwN E {.-.z u i` Q_ Lar^ 04 dYi,'os. u o Lnm I a.o�T Lggo s V aN Vr Inv � ga Ll I q C Z =y O y. O q O N i o tz V�.4 d to a m . { dn—E O 'u L G ¢ G b 11 Y� U E y P p 6'O i U�yO P CO i ,✓si_:,. +Y A V U h� O J; ti N w1 Q yj I' I .a.OUC Cb qa PP�`�. . .a^.d a•uU au.'.. v E u.r ( yP a dY„p, a� E '.LE E C� CaNI w d p E O 1 :S FY •_ ^O OPRYb9d O.y- i^o L ''Q�� ?C HE G V OgyO pq,T p bdL qN 1 Iti u E a N �- a d s b u. i co a,. q y4 -Fl. Nt oq o� i oCo dN wYL eG'L° c p •n a O NS! �.M. � •�q y o pU d U t �R u.E S T .+ b Y9 b q Y u a� �. bdfN 9Ugc. b oafi E � Fpd N R as.o nia to U O fro U POgT b u NC NO x a C R G.o t .^ H .#. i N G C w U m 6tt 4 G R P L R u9 Tm N 'O Os n a '}. Oq I,cl -qC d1 �O P~t �Y O ^ L c_�b • YG E b A G 'Z N LC Y' U ZC b� ON U C o a' 24 s cy'>, •- q ao+.> L..q x w oo id xv d ...CETG d.4 N PE Gds C: bPN ai:P d L nd db d CC E du E x �9 : fY6S C6Y'd T'. IIOIM MN LS INCyU -CwO.n w�6 �j CC •a;L R�L Vy16p ' ti Aft 79 E 1 a` a �'a�sCL �� e C4 ay91rb . a+ss�N a�q.. G L Nix C.d O- Sy aCS a+N. 6xU.0 YOy"oL 9S A. L O. rN aLiGN 6M. �p �u N.a+ €R.fi y0 q d LEU00.L RS G ON 4 bC6 g b .R o a E ^Ed...._..o. E O N G rN d V.N�L C,q da U,�. q OUqu LL�� NCQ YN. .V Cyyq q. Y NO GN -ke aL+CL U C N.L uErNNc Y,$ • ��w b Y a C A y^C L� � � b O'•d E 'i C.`.�O G «Y OdY. r cb. P66 ^6 /� UR L N40 O_gC- GY G y> O 6yr 00 NL YLLOb 'd O s:C d Y fi 1 cMb++xq c m xbz La'D Pv `x co'o; LQ anc ' 6O P9ad 40 NH NC LA 1..N.•- YW, C b Cb.�.jZLq 3,' aC d Lp O N O TUP dOy L C.G V�,Cb Nv C S _A '"}3 LY �l qqN =.2. aRU a: L-b�W p Od U .E O cy�N E <a a agyy NYL w�. q b rb xJ t Q u c 0 4 L G� E t4 a1i G 6O0 2Y �d .L.+L G . NO = �• N NO [�� bd. p d C. x p p'� E byO S O pY yth try G P O C O .G �UO p q b .4 a P G d p, rd ` Pp aFiAL'h d.$:• a d.N o L.WO Qf.N.p 1%y4R QU Mp 6V qM P.�� Huj M. Ft. gQOn ..` a Gcp LL mtT.gao+ .cr u�.ac E4am ,dam}= S. .yp.. ✓J q6 a x d^ p vYL dTy t EydP M xLn o D as en da ev�' N p o or N n• fi u O1 r AL O d y0 �O d x iOV nO Y 9L� y m� C y N L Oy >�.S ^O y yvL A Lt U d Y W N d C C L t m •n Oti Ai�u A 6 ¢ 6- Y.0 LN aq ��d at qO CyY O D L x 6 0 d S a. L t C r C O d 4,y K Gxc On m A.LN Via' d C '.: E L^ ���'� b•... � as N L e and no..°q' m•O {._. t L� ovoo na t.. mp owe'. °'4a auD � •� n CUT yTO ON.. q a0 ddYLL Ogk�6xr 9}O�`y: _ d��.N=d E F E.uy 6Yf 1e TW qad IC Vnnv nr. �L wdiY d0 a~i - O^ Z A d CYO...S� _E i Ow O> u n= £wL Ed tdM m f ,y €u x BA N pu �xA x ¢x.q- 4M 3N0 m ~c Dk aA nD C�a. Ua: ¢:u Y.o A N'u^^ yN ` Ladm adZ9 Ot WC L ' "BIT 01 Cn r-_L i� dy. o .co o An c� a4ciL d 4 a Y Y C N N i _ �C 12 D C �-..2 C A p. d.2 'O t OnC ax m L yyx yp aCJ ~J=9L v .ma y.n. vy Ta q x c o pv is �Tne o:� zn v'L'ypvi Y. v .0,j y,c r Ot 9~9 N eak Y T O G E C ^ C ' _O 9 O .'y.� r an V a c _Y� pL.0 n zm. p v,2 wp raoq �i+9L Ee 4'� - x m CL a Q S. k�u x Ot v A c Y p [ d CiS y ua Nx —A Ira p L n^na tom w b� ut }y O yy , d O ^Cw a O.CO 6LL t pa L �9 4EZ- N7 a 4ECE '¢1 C Y' 1 9�9 Opp. v paivc w.- ZT fgi.cL �c uC C•�d ^a'td 4L Y naaL.ni.:q a I'Sd >qq •. t W ti 4O.O E R �a+'•. � nq. O.6 N �. i O Ua L C G- d ply yL v � ^pa .� � E aca y>. EEE•E+.a • n� t w Y E E dy O . y -os O'DO Y Z Lb J b U L6t �� G 4Y III d 9` E p3-1o.0 O 6E 2 d • m Z qb U V on LO 9NC 1� 4..d:.UC V o p1 �M� rs. €aq � uyo N d C T ^ gt qmn � L et+d NUCC qD6 g g _: �C O A(' cQ r°OP L b = .ti. �p Yq��. CC O• L N Off. >^ n u ��yd FdLI c« au `C u O• N nuC �.'O G i Nzz d LF L°Ib O,�ea� Lx�EG yU ` •C 6 Y V L.A O U c 61 i N U U O Y L 1-�n« IEm-n L L Hm fLn N. O Eli m.p 6alLy 6 LO Yf N Cf R rnN�b Y �bd a0 c'�y CC U E00 s try uC. y �9 N.On C A L.LL c N= dan p.=b _ a Acd c aa P o _ ol p nrN q c� ua� ¢t\ u Ni iO-� Mql�.. c uEa qq SC -dy .� sL�n a i6e r_: oN cel L_ Z. v�a +..Om •L• oe yd �q- �$t` nb •-o raioa. i L HE N b a..N Nq b C ^�A dq wa 6gO L.0 aall yp,b `°_ �. C'q Et'rL yEE�p� U2 L.oa H pEE LO�� Ei u' O^Z O b C L a It L Ntqa: y u 6 q L Y M L V n q,y p? F 6.. E q C O. � n d g O L p n..`O._ V� j9 �SCu L CN gQ y Dyy 4l4 °L. 6.wa- 1 d G C2b�O A E a~Oi N y qY. N^ qN L2.0 z c.'xN.a en qy aol p. q E.enm Ayu u.- ADt 1` Ao ,ti C O O 6u.^ UbNCU yN �.` Q Cc. L NO q O CG 4Ub N. Ri q'.a O U ^ M O^ E'.. 6 h`q+•q�. 4 6 m C Y N� W W E T L!C!OE t ,� y O.O \✓mil 'a te 1 i v E ` 1� 0 N N u A b b Lm q v. _n c o Y N E L ih b ^ b L I Cp N.D O. y^L O yi L e" c Z�� Z LLE y My q�Ql Zc OL> b bANO CV G. .f�O6 Yb�Yy Tdi ^ ^ A oq g. NE C GOM i. aFL O•yL yqa t2T0 u..y V.�y Ga G N. O Y d yn. ++ - C9 �CLa gm.bu Ynoo v� .r�rn�q od s. ubNca. w.p m+c d0 V QUC pq .. A YypLj 14! 1 b G� 'E ^ EpEp Apn. iz--s CGYYG.O.O. M V �S q^ 6 Cb LYO. uqy perE. byn .Y. L 'O. >• q CO D• O`VG• .Li a•Gn VC 44 OG«6L.EL 4 VaC. O u J • _ ` Ln ,J • `C tCV L -b 09 C •. D•�'00 ydu CO q.1 � ? Ln O. d • d • LM�ugg a.Up b� V � p rr L N � •- L� Y' - u.p yp ^po ^OI ^.,y .09a ^Y 6 .OTn �ii f' E4.Ai0 xYt r NL2e= : I .E.Oi. aG � C A2.. x q e• YO� O YY.N a•« ,..% ' «e fi tOIL'0.. !V C ti0 EOC' S N y VC � �yYi �I v y q p q9 < • C i x.• m^. � Nc �u n � dL ,- r .b..p01� vi � En �.,. ,"� as ncL ''. Q2 i±.LOr NV z� 4.c OE ta f l ' �.�. . i% u L -� . �"•''oY � Y o �o`o • of In� 'y io.oaa� .°+ m. . v1(.1b a S L Nd i s •' ^ �L.. " N 2 a .-. C �. 9b O ..9. G a« MOi vY c v. E L� L•. � Cy F qV O..E � S�q'. _. Yp. N Gp, L �bL nY N LN'Z. V RN S Z g O I 6 Y q I C L r L C w T N �. n�q W a N g •�. 6.0-d cam. 6.0i C6OL. p.•p NY. 9 C y n o. E g n CW n R. yC WC6c. µY t� €YU,i„ Y�LO UP OIN 2. CN V.. r.A v An • _ V _! A C AO Y.Y r4y CYWtL^. LN1p NV .r t..)L W'V�. q YN �T n.d.O.. S.il E T L i �6 Y NO C..V O >n. AYya nu. nqU tU CV. L .p�C^U a Y y L a C Cy O M V gY o ,..nu. U EC a.CiN C4 �L"•L g au Oy n�� �..• C' a a g.a��.r• V X a d n L p y V d. Y W o O� G'p O V Lu AYUL pN ^_'W C Nd UYq OYO NqCC u 2 L ' L CO L C C =T U V 0 p1 a L T u W. A a. N i uY u V N6 A:nNY NOYN y0 pL.Ii:aL• <ul 6� WY NL.Lti Sp Sot 4 O< g { L q01 Y OTgE V . w W 1 O �� i p W � S 2 i V O U M 4 N OL V n C p C� L O L Cla^ _ A z O -M u go n o nY c` i12 "0 N Hor 5:5 1.1 0, go M. t c +o+ aC QpWNu'^ .5 9 �u2 C Cw S GQ L WI Y.qA NC Ci 40f l� W u t V' H L»t1 `;l A I P = A .� U Sin 9 � � E g• N � �. a g +i � 4 G = OO tl m�. Y� YE n� � aaLi �". � 4G � c�^�• u ad .t,P. ai o p dec L o V N C tt Igb) L � N • L Y� A C Py �d �Y .CCq LPL L� cc p _a0 O Ate •y.... :dO Z Ey V yx G� L O q0 �n J �.! J L O• r. �` C �Y >q h. O •^O D U O��.d L I T A 2 y.L d OY _ 9 • I�Y� V x� L. p EM ' c .A.u6 41 a o 0 M pM. mod. yp.Y X.- Tr 4 P� �a: .- a ..-► " p w Aa=� � n. o v a c x n w u aiR � G� A� uV LY. A� wY _ Yt C V 19 34 yc y �. n Y E y 4 3dA �d LO uy i,LYr. a o L?• .. v w mid: " a� '•'oa �a c 3.�+ W m '4 L •�� .0 OY- Y` V' O.V V pf L E z. V•r N�• A Y iVppp��:d VVa. pL ��.. S F•V �. M.W.+�.'Z KpVY. �H 1..jd Ol YS� _� � 6M "� I !4 11 ~ s Nw.� r _ �' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAi1NlONCA CAM, STAFF STAEP REPORT > DATE: April 23,, 11986 is:7 C Chairman and Mambars of the Planning Commissioi;';, FROM: Brad ft-?iler, City Planner 5 BY Bruce Cook Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENt CODE AMENDMENr 8 -0 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCA_P10NGA Proposal to amend eection 7. . ,0 - (a pertaining to grading ­)f custom lot subdivisions, Szcti6 " 08.040-J pertainingi to usable yard ?,ea,�and. S�ction 17.02.140 pertaining to definitions of =tBi Development Code of the City' of Rancho Cucamonga,:; Ordinance No. 211. I. BAC,3ROUND: This item has been continued from the Planning " Commission _meeting Iof March; 26, 1986, to allow staff the E , opportunity to revise the language of the amendment to: a) clarify who-has 'the deci,ion making responsibility to determine, when and ihere it is appropriate to implement more flexi6ie gradinS criteria 4 an custom lot subdivisions, a„d b) incorporate language specifying the need to require usable open space .in some form other than as graded yard area on g.olects where the intent is to minimize I grading. II. ANALYSIS: In response to the first item, staff has rewc,rded the " proposeu revision to Section 17.06.010-5(a) as '. 11ows: Staff feels it is a poi cy issue that would be,most appropriately handled by the Planning Commission. The Commission's determinat',-jr, wou=d he made based upon the merits of the proposed development and ;recommetdations of the various review Committees. Accordingly, ,r- To encourage innovative site planning techniques and r. provide fur 4-variety of housing styles, grading within tp* custom lot subdbdisicas shall occiir for streetsi trails, x and drainage control ;oily. Additional grading may be allowed subject to I approval" by, the, Planning rs . Commissiou where inn©va�'ive grading tachn,ivues' are utilized' and- where the site constraints and. strict adherence to this requirement Aimit grading, would render ;i<;elopment of. the .site,infeasible.: &abjneo ' apppeva;by the B+ann4Rg Ct �ssifen upon the 1- b �X -;�;pia•"v ITEM v w PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT' , Development Code Amendment 86-.01 T ' 7 April 23, 1986 Pag f 2 Ask -V reeewendatteR 'e€ the Grad$A4 Gewatteer The 'intent is that tuiit structures._ be designed to fit t:,e natural { topography and that grading' be minimized, wheKiver possible. (Refer to Secti'M 17.O8.043-J in regard to requirements for useable yard a' ea.) V.egarding t e 4 issue of useable yard space, staff s proposing.- I, inclusion of nLWr'language to-amend Section 17:08.040-J as'fol ows: ` Usable 'Yard Area;- For ",single family detaches;/semi dtltached; su divisipjs, a minimum 15. feet of flat, usable rear yard area shall be pr^vided., between the house and •; top or toe of non'=retained slope banks or" to the retainir-g wall in the case of "retained cut or fill per City gradina standarri drawings- 11twever, in areas of hilly or sloped-terrain where grading is being,,designed i to minimize alterati0p to the natural land firm, vsabie open space "should be provided in the form (.f decks, . patios, balconies, or some similar form if built structure designed to 'Pit the natural topCg—ip',ty rather than as graded level; yard area. (Ref r, attached Ordinance for, illustrations,used to ;help . " ffy intent.) III. E'VVIRON.M10,TAL ASSESSM'NT,. Staff recomrri, ; that the Planning Cumnrr%bsion make the findings required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, .Sectir;r 21166 of the Public Resourcas 'Code that 'Would not require a- st;hsequent or supplemental Enyirotimental --Impact Report and recesrmends issuance of a Negative Declaration. This finding is based upon the fact than the De,.relopment I,ode-implements the existing goals;znd policies of the General Plan wh;ch were fully anaiyzE vri',h 'ttcgard tc environr8ertal impacts durinS. the General Plan OR:. l ' IV. FACTS FOR _FLVDINu: ueTvre approving this Development Code Amendment, 'she Commission must. Asa+ rmipe that the amendment will net be detr�,hental for individuals and for ro ert� P p Y, and will n ,t caJse significant environmental impacts. In addition,,lids projei�c must be consistent -"tk the intent of the Ceneral plan:' CORRESP6 DENC_ This Development Sode Amendment has been, advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Repot"t newspaper. ' VI. R7 " TIO� ._.Staff 4=ecortrends that the Planning Commission re`viE ^. at�d 'input regarding this pro,)osal. If they Commi*.� '--,,,that this Development Code Amendment' is coisisten ' for Findings, then issuance"of a 1egative. Deciaration­_o i0f the_attached Resolution'would ee "in d orer.' - At fi PLAtVNING CDMMTSS ON,Sr(1�f=_.REPOPIT y �� Development Code Ament',nent•86 01 �r I April 23, g1986 �t 'gage 3 Respectfully submitted, , r 4�_ Brad Bull r� City Planner , r BB:BS:cV fr Atiachn,1L",ts: Stafa Repot MarcnY26, 1986 Staff Report, Februar,- 22, M96 Initial St+dy, Part` II Resolution of Approval y r - III i t n i r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ �M t1p STAFF RlE?ORT s r > F DATE: March 26,'1986 1977 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning'Sommissi`on FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Ccok, Associate Planner SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AM DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 86-0 " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONfA - A propdsaj to:amend+: ' Section 1.7. 6. -51a pertaining to grading of custom lot subdivisi.ons:, and'17:02.j�40 pertaining to definitions, of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance_2Yi. I. BACKGROUND: This Development Code Amendment `,s i nr espouse. to th,. direction of the Planning Commission to provide more flexitq.li4y regarding grading of custom lot subdivi onsa ANALYSIS: In reviewing the [fevelopment Code, staff perceives the; sis ups,of the 'prooli=m ti: be primarily the' result of.two specific (1) the m^sapplication. of the ',term custom lot subdivision", and (2) the "all or-nnothipg" inflexibility of the current standard 'for grading of custom lot subdivis"ons which.:does not foster .innovative- grading techniques-or alternatives in u6`que situations where strict 'adherence to grading policies would be impractical. 'There are three typ es,z of sitbdivision applications within the Development Code asfollows: Custom-lotcSaivisior.: The condition where a piece 'of ? a and is subdivided `and lots are sold in an, undeveloped state on gat-ny lot;.has7:.for 'individual development: Tract Subdivision. The conaition where a piece of land is ;ubc,v u d now, but to he daveIbped at some future date as a single tract by one •developer., Total Residential Development lna condition where a 1 piece of Lana, is subd'video`,; concurrently with site f development of a housing.product. The term Custom'--lot subd.ivslon has.been mistakenly applied to both; kr custorr-lot� tract subd�iv�s�on`s. The intent of a "cus-am,�l11,'ot Subdivision" is the condition where land is cubdl�lded a d1 '°� q L e PLAWN ING WMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA l,36 01 " :lty"off Rancho"Cucamonga Riaroi 16, 1986 Pa 9,e' 2°' undevelopedsJlots are sold for i'ndfvidAl development of Pcbstom homes". The ratrionale her^ is .that cus/iom hdmes,arel traditionally �v.. higher end •products -in which" grading of 'lots is left to the individual property- wner instead bf 16ei6g pr`edetermined,,in, the hope of encouraging -,innovative site I(.planning r tec'hn.iques and" a variety of hous.iry styles. `To aiiPly tht s term to'*p"rooects th't are being •subdivided, now, but..`-to be deveq� ped as a slnfTe t act I is a future- date;,, i - ,,a misapp ication ofi� the° team fnr CUSTOM*1•ot j, subdivisions, not 6n,srstent wilt thev,j ntent As a. remedy, ;staff would propose the" fo114ing, -definf4..,�ons be;= added to ,Section 17.02.140 of':the oe:velopment Code; " i' Tract Subdivision slon wtsichi eatesfiye .or more.parcelt,to bek'developed as°Oa whole or -in-,part by an owner, or' building'°for'all ,residential ;projects of,� �.e . than four (4 gwelIing unitsl..!: Total t Development subdivision: 4 pro eot,,whichi fn hides f the ,total rev ;ea�raf . residential:-,,rlevelapment.%including tentative tract _InMI t4apt rdVal," unit 4101acement,"' an scaoinq, esti nreie►, ewc The primary vLs nvoi++P infle ibYli y of the current standard for virading oFrcu�+� lot subd v�s�ans The Development' Cotle . -. stipulates that grw�n54wUhin custom° l:ot subdivisiogslschall occur for streets ond:Y. As istated r above; the:.p `ima;y"`purpo'se in limiting grading of ,custom lot iddivisiont iS IEo­lea+Ve`'tfFb lAnd ,in, as, natural a state fi'possibl'e to, al;loW­for tiie-greatest�flex.10 ty in, the ability of the property owner to design and build h1Vyher own umgiie dwelling. iloweverT there',are some, `'situat7ions where�.an individual lot by-lot grading scheme becomes �mpra ±,cal The Ir t physical-rconstraints ofr,,"the site may 'hqu3ire certain techn--gbes such as rearb#'ard .cross=lot drainage,,•shared us'el(and".maintenance of ;ope banks,, etc. In these,situations, for, -t'he•se techniges� tc ' work, grading of lots cecomes isiterdependgnt uF,,on adjoininj' ots. This :type of scheme can imIly be easonably expecteR :io functj,fi, if ; this site co is 'graded an a mgrehens ive, ma.. g-- r'v A.9 basis. In situations such as this, the Dei+elopmerst Code requii.e efi •l�1Tf9 ax, the grading to streets only for custom"lct subd:<visions can pres''ent ' obstacles that severely inhibit the ability to dev. Tap a4particu`i.ar project site with a feasible,.,,workable solution. As~'a' remedy, 4 staff would propose a revision .to Section_ 17 .06, 01015.(a as I follows: ,Kr a` 77 PLANNING COMMISSIOM TAFF REPORT DCA 8o-01 Citr,b ancho Cucamonga -, March 26, 1986, Page 3 To encourage innoviti'fe site planning techniques and provide for a,-varilty 6f,housing styles, grading within custom Tai subdivisions shall vtcur`for streets, -rails, and drainage control only. Additional gridangr may be allowed`where Unovati;ve grading {techniques are utilized and where-the cdattraints and stirigt adff&,O a to,. this re ua"n t. to limit re e , gradjnj Isom. find& ' l devetopmentTnf he sett imeasible�subject.to<appsa'vali bye ` th- .P7arin�ng Commssion upon:the recommendation ;oftAhe Grading Crrmiites The jnte tt is, that:.bui:it structures be designed° to fit, he .esatoatoal{ topography, anti 'tCiat' grading be mi 'Ujz 1,,,wherever passible. III. ENVIRONMENTAL -ASSESSMBITt• Staff ,recommends that the Plannipg " Commission ma a the57,i ndings nequired;purs6ant to' Division 13,. Chapter�6, Section> 166 of the Pubii(<Resources� Code that`wou`td not require subsequent or supplemental` Eaviron+rentO Impa6t Report and recom^ends isseance of a Negative Declaration Tfii�s thding•=is baste ' upon. the fact that $theDevegopment Code !jtnp,lements* the existing `goal's and p oil icfis of- the General Plan which were fut y analyzed with regard-to= envirormeiltaT ;fmpaets during the General Plan EIR. !, + IV. FACTS FOR 'FINDING: Before approving ,this Development Code Amendment, the Commissida. 6ust determine 4-hat the Amendment-mill not be detriment ail !r individuals :and for-.property,;and wi; knot - cause significant,�.enVironmental. mGaci .: In addition;" VIM- project ' mu�t.be,consistk•lt with.the intent oaf thb General'P'la, N V. =ZRESPONLENCE: "his Development C'odo Amendment,�'rkhas _1been adve,'tised as a publ7plheaxang in;The Daly Fcefiort newspaper. v VL RECOMMENDATION: Stiaff jirecbmmends, thai tho Plefini�fg Co. fission review all e+lemenet ands input, regarding 'this p5rspn5al�. If the Commission determbes that this; Development 'Code endment •ist,; consistent with; h Faets for:-findings,when 11ssuance.off a Negative> Declaration and adoption of"'the attached..`Resolutian'vroulobe in • order. Res`ectfuily submitted, ;/ : Brad Bu11er %`�_ City Planners " 8B-BC ns 4 PLANNTNG COMMISSTON STAFF REPORT aCA 86 O1 - City of Rancho'Cucamorsga March 26, 1986 srf ' page 4 zI Attachments.°="_'' Staff ReRort - February 12; 1986 . In�tia�I tady; P,-rt H, :ctes'd ion of Apprpy } 1. `i ; '$ 3 �PaY. 7, - r CITY OF RANCHO CUCATNIONGA Lac ,tifo STAFF REPORT =�z DATE: February 12, 1985 1977 I TO: Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission 1 _ FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner i BY: Bruce Cook., .Associate Planner ` SUBJECT: GRADING OF CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISIONS - I. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to receive policy direction regarding g�;ading of ; custom lot tracts.- Staff is reco^ending that the, Development Cods policies on grading be revised to allow greater flexibility to deal with varying site conditions, i II. BACKGROUND: : Tne Devel,pinent Code distinguishes between two types of Suo bdivisions. 17ra.6t ,Subdivisions" are the.more' traditional &, form whereby the devel"iper"'subdivides the land into individual lots and then :'wilds a hawse on each of 't°he lots from a previously< approved set-of houe',plans. .Once constructed, these tract homes are then offered for�'sale to individuals for residence. A "Custom' Lot Subdivision" is a case where subdivided lots are sold in their undeveloped, state to individuals' who 'then build- houses on these lots-on I a one-by=one basis. Per the Development Review nrocesS"of the City, before home sites can be constructed„ grading plans must ' be approved. kith, tract subdivisions, mass grading occurs .rver the entire site,. including both streets And lot sites. However,' grading with custom lot subdivisions is•'ltsited to streets only and 1 also to trails, when applicable. TFa Development.'-Code does not permit -mass grading of lot sites •with custom low subdivisions. Mass grading'-r;shoi ld .be di.tinguished•.'frcm "padding'•'. uut `of the lots. Paddini�6r lots is `charact ari7,ed My cut and f4ll slopes to create terraced, •'flat, ',building pads:. Mass grading involves grading techniques that are sensitive to natural 'terrain, such as contour grading and variable slope i-E,nk gradients. , (King (Ranch "x Estates is an example of mass grading','." III. ANALYSIS: . The operative word in the definition of cbstom lot subdiviTs is individual; custom lot subdivisions, as opposed to I j tract home deveiopmpnts,. `are where,.the ,person owns a raw piece of Tt nd� nd has the opportunity to design a custom home 'specifically suited to the site constraints. To .encourage a variety of housing stylas and site planning`'techniques', the Development Code 'I'VlRsw grading for-custom lot subdivisions to streets only-, aqd requi A •.- , buiidi;ngs to be designed to fit the natural topcgraphy, "'' , „� .,,. .. ,` i PLANNING COMMISSIOff AFF`REPORT Grading of Custom Oac Subdivisions February 12, 1986 Page 2 Limiting grading to streets only requires that each lot be graded independently in a' self-contcined manner; There are some situations where an. individual, lot-by-lat grading scheme becomes impractical. The physical constraints of the site may require certain techniques such as rear yard cross-lot drainage, shared use and maintenance of slope ;banks, etc. In these situations, for r these techniques to work grading of lots becomes interdependent t upon adjoining lots. This type, of scheme can only be reasonably expected to function if the site is graded an`a comprehensive, mass grading program. In situations such as this, the Development Code requFement 'limiting the grading to streets only for custom lot subdivisions can present obstacles that severely' inhibit the ability to develop a particular, project site with a feasible, workable solution. The primary source of the ;problem is that, as it currently exists, x this Development Code requirement applies as a universal standard ' to all projects regardless of special or unique circumstances. It is staff's opinion that a reasonable soll�tion to this dilemma 'would be to still require this limitation c,, grading for custom lot E subdivisions as the primary direction but to provide the flexibility to allow comprehensive grading of the site when special circumstances warrant such a solution. Another aspect for consideration- it..' the issue of minimal grading versus usable yard space. Grading policy of the City has a?;hays t been to minimize grading and to design'built'structeres'to fit,,the natural topography as much as possible. This policy is reflected Development Code' criteria for.,grading stipulating the creation irF of minimal building pad areas. However, another City policy is the creation of flat, usable yard areas for, single family developments.. This policy is reflected in the Development Code ' criteria for a minimal 15' usable rear yard per single family ' homes. Both are useful 'and -necessary policies to promote ,design, standards to achieve a high quality living environment. However, staff' has recently experienced situations in which; the implementation of both policies concurrently for the same p�^oject has proven to be problematic. Toe problem is that these two policies can be m tuaiiy exclusive of R eacti other; to implement one is done at the expense of the other. - If grading of the site is kerjt to a minimam, this ob'vi6L-sly inhibits the ability to provida,flat, usable yard space. Or the i other hand, to provid,� flat, usable yard space cbviously,impll S i more extensive grading of the site. Because of,these situations Lei which two City policies are in direct; conflict with each o"he', i.e., the implementation of one limiting the-implementation, of'the WT} *' .3; tip, :r'arn.,- PLANNING COMNIISSIO$2 RFF, REPORT Grading of Custom:. Su6d:ivaclons February 12,"1966 s Page 3 ' - 4 d other, staff has had difficulties in resolving design " inconsist'encies' o ,project' submittals in" makingl'them conform to City Standards $ aff= is reauest.ing the Commissions discussion of ,.his issue'to'provile staff feedback and d rection i» establishing 3 " priorfife's so',that when theSeAwo*policies of minimal site gradrngt a versus flat usable,; yard area are in confIict`r.I'h each woo'her; there is,,a consensus pot icy,as to which direction to pr.;eed. IV. REM 'ENDgTLON Staff recommends that the Planning Commission t dimat the taff'c to pPepire .For the Commission's review, a Development Code Amencmertt that.would amend ,the sTction that. Timits..grading,,of custom lot.subdivisions to.street"'oily}, to,where this limitation on grading for streets only,'is still tgl l,pr+imary v direction for. custom lot subdivisions, but where also a'•d'egree of, flexibT7tyais permitted to a�1ow.mass,;agradin_g'`for the project area i m when site candit?ogs'"vrarrant it as deemed appropriate by the y' responsible 'Agency of the,.City. _ Respectfully submitted ' Brad Buller City Planner .- BB:BC:ns aj < Attachments: DevelopmentCode Definition 04" ustom'Lot Subdivision Development, Code SiOction Limiting Grading of=Custom Lot s Sub'6 v rs`ions to ,Streets Oniky - fR } f b • r � ' 3 M4 �C R IT CITY.OP -W%CHO L;;C.!,%O%GA VARY II - IN1T1:.L STUDY -' L""VIROfi11ENTAL CHECKLIST 6yy6 " DATE: APPLICANT: / r` TGISC DATE:i _..LOG NU;ffiER� PROJECT,:,&M�.1�+`14 PROJECT LOCATION: �f I- ENVIRO NTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of al]. "yes" and "Maybe" answers are required .3n attached sheets)Fa" r YES myn NO yw 1. Soils and GealaQv. Will the proposal gave as significant results in; a. Unstable ground conditions.or in changes in geologic relatforiships? b. Disruptions,, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil?'` ✓ c. .Change in tupograrhy or ground surface contour intervals? 1 -Ae d• T✓e destruction, covering or modificataon :f any unique geologic oT physical features? E Any potential Increase, in wind ter water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f, Changes in erosio. rilta"ion, or deposition? _ g• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failures or.- similar hazards? • h. An increase in the 'rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral fesource? r: 2.. Aydrolocyy, WUl. the proposal'have significant x, results in±` - Page 7 y` YBS uaYBE NO a Changes it; currents, or the course of direction Of flowing ` ng streams, rivers. or ephemeral stream channelsAfflik . b• Changes in absorption 7 rates, drainage patterns, or the rare and amount Of surface water runoff? c' a• Alteratinns to the course or flow of flood E: waters? } d. Change in the amount of surface; water in ary body--of-water? " F, e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? �x t. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? r g• Change in the quantity,of`groundwaters, either through direct°`'.Aditions or with it > drawals, or through Interference ulth an aquifer?„ Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amorpt of water other- wise available for public water Supplies? i•` Exposure of people or properXty�to water' related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Qual ty. Will the proposal; have significant E,. rSSults inC, a• constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources?, Stationar y sources? , t� b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment ofapplicable ,4 air quality standards? c• Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting, air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota _ FTn-lora Nil" the proposal have significant results (1 a. Change in the characteristics of species, A , Including diversity, distribution, or number of any'!,spec'ies-of'plants? " b'-'`-'dCct op of'�tthe numbers of any unique � �,�'• �� , ,.# a.endangered: 44 species' of 9 , rarea ` plants.a ... ... A_...e. r'1Y,is; +.. M`#.�...b E.:... ,� �,µ a—�'mm.�.• �..';. ?age 3 1+' AS 1 _ LAYB2, SO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Fdants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural r.-bduction? ti Fauna. Vii7. the proposal'have signif csr1t results iD: a. Change in the characteristcs of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers ? of any species of animals? s b. Reduction of the numbers of�.� unique, rare' or endangered species of animals? e. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result iri'3 barrier F to the migration or movement of animals?. d. Deterioration. or re;^nval of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 9:, - S, PODhlation. the proposal hay-- significant results in a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution; density, diversity, or growth rate of the.hl man population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or i, create a -demand v:z;additional^housing? 6. Socio-Econaaic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or ' commercial diversity;,1 tax rate, and property values? b. Will;vroject costs be equitabll distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e.; buyers, tax payers or p_; ect users? — ->e 7. Land Dse and Plannine Considerations. Will the i; Proposal have significant results in? .� ,,•-,a a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of,:an area? 4 b. A conflict with any desigi,ations, objectives,' pclicies�,or adopted plans'3i any governmental entities? .� ' An lipacz upo ; iha. qulaity or quantity of ' A.w exis'eng,tonsump`',ve or non;consumptive `¢ zecreational o ,artunities?' *; * A— :F� m Pane 4 YES. >L4Y3H Np 8. Transnari_n. Will the proposal {gave cagni£icant results in: . a. Gener a,aon of substantia?, additianal vehicular „ movemen, 2 , b. Effects on existing stxeehs', or demand for new street..construction"': c. Effects, on existiha parking facilities, or demand fax newsparting? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- �,. tion systems e. .4ltetations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of'neogle anal/or goods? e� f- Alterations to or effectsbit present and Potent.Aal water-borne,' ra,it, mass transit or air traffic? k4 �? �� 9. _Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles., bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. cul t a l Resources. Will the proposal v sg:�ificant results in: P have •:� a. A disturbatre Mtn the ante rit g Y ,archaeological, paleontological, and/or historici-1 resources? 10. Health, etEL.and Wuisanee Factors. Will the �� Proposal have signiflca,,t results in: , E a. 'Creation 02 any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. Exposure of to'people por*;t,a1 heay.h hazards?. c. A risk of explosio±±,ar re4ease of hazardous Substance T1 the event of;an accident? t a. rsh increase it the 6 amber of inniV:K;als or species of vector or_pathenogenit, organisms or the e•,�„3i: a sf people to such y orgjaismsi e. Increase in existing noises levels? f. i•cposure of`peap3� to potentially dangerous noise levels? 9. The :real an of objecx orab'e s w odors 41 An 1.:=res.5e.d.n light,or glare?r � '(iEno4 as y �Y. �.r�E� r"�`K`. .�+•,� ���.,'`�.r 1 rada Packet page r FAW Em Page 5 YES NO Aesthetics. WITI the.,propesal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? 49 b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated a or potentiar scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the pros pal have a significant need for new systems, -ar alterations to the followings a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems?. d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures'? rq � If w 9. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? • 'pe i. Police protection? J. Schools? k.: Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? •' m. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results ins a. Use of --nbstantial or excessise fuel or energy? b. Substo-G5al incr a,-e`in demand upon eRi�ting sources''�f energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d.` An increase or, form perpetuation.of the consumption of non-renewable for of.energy, when feas:.ble - - r>enewable{sousces o£ energy are available? 1 h Page 6 n, YES'}•aYvE *70 e. Substantial depletion of and nonrenewable or, sc-Arce nat,ral resbu=ce?' Mandatory Findini,s of SitnificanCe. a. Does the project have ttie potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of zish.'or wildlife species, ca"e a fish or wildixfe population to dropx below self sustaining levels, Ca=eaten to eliminate a plant or animal co=unity, reduce_ the number or, reatrict the range of a tare or r r•. endangered plant or animal or eliminate impr*tant examples of the major periods of 4 California history or prehistory? b. Dow; the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the.disadvantage of long-term, environmental foals? '(A short-.-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively - brief, definitive period of time while Gong- eft. term impacts will endure Nell into the 'future). r,r c. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, but=cumulatively considerable? (Cumulativa ay considerable ;Y means that the incremental effu;ts of an 2V ind;.vidual project 'are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of .past projects,, • and probable futn._-projects), _ d.. Does the pro;,act have,environmental effects which will cause substantial advt �e effects yk on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISUSSION nr EN<'IRONMENTAL EVALUATION �— the e answe above questions plus 'a discus.�bn (i.e., mitigation measures)rs . P " T � ilccaPt�nec►.es tr►t .etc-Aeswi- '-ram 'Er jets- ti,� I a�.+-�z�n tile-�a Gaye -ra r="141JL0tJMWes-V1L lrzj?. .-sue ;M t-1 �'c ^rP i 7�v�s o►s �3 Gam+ ►P ta- 6 Spy-ett�1 i Ski&G Et-I�ItRot.1M�-f'CA�. ( -r V-� owv 6-�oLiWD i r _ s A } �, ,tik.. tt ,a� •Ru-�Sq. ,�r-yv a;;wt w•: .. t ,d- ..= rT,•ga'.,.. x f` Page?7.,?'. III. DETER ) 1 On the basis of this.xinitial evaluation: 41 I find the proposed pra3.act COULD NOT have a significant effect {on the envirorpene, and a NEGATIVE-DECLARATION will be £ prepared. I find that'although the proposed: i { ` prajec�t could have a significant effect.on'the'enviro msent, there will r' G be a significant efseci in this, case because the mitigation measures describe'd .on an attached sFeet'have been added to the Project. �r DECLAPATION WILL BE PREPARED'. P J A•NECATIt.. .a I find the proposgd'grojecE LAY have a significant ,&ffect on.,,the �• envirnment, and"an ENVIRON-eM I:SPACT REPORT is required. Date & �^ Si ature ,> Title i- . r ORDINANCE NO. PO4-23-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CUUNCIL OF THE CITY 'OF RANCHO t CUCAMONGA, 'AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE SECTIONS 17.06.010-5(a), 17.08.040-J, ;AND 17.02„140 PERTAINING TO GRADING OF CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISIONS, USABLE: YARD AREA, AND DEFINITIONS, RESPECTIVELY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamunga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Covgcil hereby finds and determines the following: A. That the Planning< 'Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga., following a public hearing held in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the Amendment to t Section" 17.06.010-5_(a), '"Grading of Custom Lot Subdivisions", Section 17.08.040-J, "Usable Yard Area", and Section 17.02.140, ,'.Definitions", of the Developmer.: Code'_ as hereinafter described, and this City Council has., eld a public hearing prescribed by law; and duly heari and considered said recommend4;ion. B. That this Development Code Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. That this Amendment is consistent with the objectives of qW +` the Development Code. D That this Amendment to the 'Development 'Code will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. ' SECTION 2: That Section 17.06.010-5(a), "Grading of Custom Lot Subdivisions", Section 17.08.040-J, "Usable Yard Area" and Section 17.02.140, 'Definitions" are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17.06.010-5(aj to read a follows: To encourage innovative site planning.techniques and provide for a variety of housing styles, grading within custom lot subdivisions shall occur for-streets, trails, and drainage control only. Additional ,,,rading may be allowed subject to approval by the Planning L"ummission where innovative grading techniques are utilized and where the site constraints and strict adherence.to this requirement to limit grading Mould render development of the site infeasible. The intent is that built structures be designed to fit the natural topography and k that grading be minimized, wherever, possible. (Refer to Section 17.08.040-J in regard, to requirements fqr usable yard y area.) S� CITY COUPCIL ORDINANCE a Page 2 Section 17.08.040-0 Usable Yard Area For single- family detached/semi-detached subdivisions, a minimum 15_feet of flat, usable rear yard area shall be provided between the house and top or toe of non- retained slope banks or to the retaining wall in the case of I retained -cut or fill per City grading standard drawings. However, in was of hilly or sloped terrain where,,grading is being designers "to minimize alteration to the 'natural land form, usable open space shall not be provided as level yard area, but rather in the form of decks, patios, balconies, or some similar form of built structure designed to fit the natural ,-opography. usen� Pnmct/t3a ca1� s - f'g o.iio laves_ -fo, sppG v .L1. ;1;.p1611uhiUirya illillClduWpily; 'b'• ,__� > 4 1 !1111 III! .UI I .I dl I1 III! 1 • l_�VEL `fi-iZo SpPGE �Pr� 8E �ov�,�Ec us�.1G 8t1 t i,.-r 4�ue_-Cutz5,s -,uca{; til Illiuhihl lit ,/-/r�� ri✓ •IIIillliuhiW iily —. Ilul !. h i,., _IiIIII!11T1GI lit a" Ii IIII GI ! >' I w �In h�ln Section 17.02.141°to read as follows: Subdivision, Tract: A subdivision which creates five or more parcels to be developed as a whole or in part by an owner or builder for all residential projects of more than four (41 dwelling wits__ which shall be required to reapply, for eveld oament%design review as a total development. . Such reapplication shall a required as a condition of tentative ysu tract approval which shall be satisfied prior to issuance of, building permits. RI Subdivision- Total Development: A ro'ect which includes the. . .y total review of a resideatial developmendt including tentative tract map approval, unit placement, landscaping, design review etc. 40 r€^'q+•mtl'W1' T4 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE Page 3 k r* The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to •+ be published within fifteen (15� 'days after it's; passage at least once in The . ''Daily Report, a newspaper-of general' c rcuiation—published in the CitSr idf° # ,a Ontprio, Ca :ifornia, and circulated in the. City of.` Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of *, 19*. AYES. ' NOES: ivy. a ABSENT: - �+ Jeff Mayor ' ATTEST: `•� `" . Beverly A. Authelet, City'Clerk r�. ` I, BEVERLY A AUTNELE,; CI(i' CLERK of,,the C"ity- of Rancho Cucamonga, California, 'do hereby ceitifyi that the foregoing Reno'ution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the CJty,;Co ca•4 oft the Cit of Rancho Cuca`mon �� Y g_ at r 4fr*gu19 (spzcial, adjqurned)r„m'eeting`of; sa'�d�1 sty'"CoUh it held d'w * day -Executed this * day of *; 19** at Rancho Cucamonga, `Californ:ia. Beverly A., Authelet, City C-lerk, �j 1 �w c s <r t , 41r, MY k ' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,_' CALIFORNIA, 'RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO".- 86-01, AMEND1,NG SECTION � 17.06:010-5(a)((("MTAINTNG TO GRADING OF- 'CUSTOM` LOT SUBDIVISIONS, tSECTIQN' 17..08.6404 PERTAINING, TO -USABLE YARD AREA, AND ��7, 02.146'PERTAINING TO' DEFINITIONS. WHEREAS, on 6e, ?3rd day of April, 1986, the Planet ng Commission held a duly advertised public; hearing pursuant to Section 658%4 _6f the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, t1id. Planning ,Commission finds it necessary to clarify, and revise the Development Code_ requirements` pertaining t of custom' o grading lot subdivisions, usable yard area and;.definitions perrtaimi:ng to.subnivisions. SECTION I.• The, Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following fit dings: �- z 1. That the Amendment ins warranted in order to bring current standards fors grading of ;custom; lot subdivisions 'into conformance with establishe& City policies and procedures; and b Z. That the proposed Development Code Amendment would not: have signadficant,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,March 26, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: YI 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City' ' of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval the'26th'day, of March, 1986, Development Code Amendment 86-.01 amending Sections 17.06.010-5(a), 17.08.040-J, and 17.0LIA as contained in the attached Ordinance. �y TP 71 ResOlutiori'No DCA 86-Ol - City of:Rancho.'Cucamonga Page'i +I , z 2. The Planning Commiss�on� hereby recommends that t ,tr he L , ;Couc�c,�al ,approve and:adopt Development Code AmendmQnt 86 01 as stira 'ed^hene�n 3,. That; a cer' `if ed copy of, tht Resolu;i`on, ai%i rel; tec: i material hereby�dopted by'the Plarkning Commassi"c� shalrh be. fiorwarded,to the City'�Gounc� ��� * s �� APPROIIED,AND"ADOPTED TH FIS 23RD DAY O APRIL,' 11980... K PLANNING COMMISSION OtirTie.:caTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA S` x $Y: Dennis Aj Stout E ATTEST:.- w '" Brad B u°=1e Deputy Z,ecre"tary�;� �1 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretaryof the Pignnng Com�nj,ssron7of 'khe Cit Of Rancho Cucamgnga, dog hereb cefff that the f�oregonngtRes` union V4§4duly,and regularly,introduced;, pas ed' id "adopted by�,tirep P�nnWng§Co �sst on" of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regilla meeting' of sthe,` P„aA bg COMMUion held p on the'23rd day of Apr '198C by`t ee4.f ,r§IOwing?vote-to �i"t' :AYES: COMMISS 0 ERS: LL , NOES: COMMMISS'I,ONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • t .,i _ _ .. -, Pam.... .•4 - .T .m .,. CIrl OF RANCHO CUCAMON rA v ra STAFF REPORT n z V V 1977 a DATE; April 23, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner *' BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant:Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11549-1., BLAIR The Design Review of footprints and ,building elevations for a recorded` tract of a residential subdivision of 21 lots on 17-5 acres in a Very Low Residential District (less than 2 du/ac)' of the Etiwanda, Specific Plan>locate on the. east side of Etiwanda, south of 'Summit APN 225-181-20. L._ PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION': A. Action Requested: Approval of Design Review of footprints and building elevations. g§{ B. Project Density: 1.2 dweliing units per acre i# C. Surrounding Land.Use and Zonin North - Single family residence; Very Low Residential South = Citrus groves; Very Low:Residential fast Vacant; Very Low Residential West - Vacant; Very Low Residential ' D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North Very Low Residential South Very Low Residential ' East - Very Low Retidential West Very Low Residential ' E. Site Characteristics:." T;ere' is a recorded tract map for this site with'street improvements currently under construction. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: Tract 11549 was originally approved as a 52-custom lot subdivision in May of 1981. Lewis Homes received Design+,' :i Review approval of footprints and elevations for 21 lots- (,Tract: a` 11549-1) in October 1-981. In July 1983, the Etiwanda Specific '��., Plan was adopted by the City. In May 1984, Tract .11549-1 was�''� ` .4 recorded with the County of San Bernardino. f tµ Y �r0 P r ° x ITEM PLANN---NG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 11549-1 - RLAIR April 23, 198C Page 2 ir B. Design Review ,Committee: The major issue raised by the Design Review Committee level Was the compliance of the proposed ' elevations and footprints with the Architectural and 'Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This project represents the first single family 'Design Review of footprints and building elevations under the Etiwanda �;secific Plan Architectural & Design Guidelines. Therefore, this project could set the standard for further tract development in the-' Etiwanda Specific Plan Area. The project satisfies many,.:of.the E.S.P.'s policies, such as setting the homes on an angle°to the street frontage, use of side-on garages, and even the introduction of Victorian style elevations. However, ,because of the precedent this review will .establish in terms of implementing the Etiwanda Specific Plan ,goals,' policies and ` standardsy the Design. Review Committee referred this item. to the full.Commission for review and discussion. _ The Etiwanda Specific Plan floes tiot specify any particrular architectural .style for projects developed under the ;,Basic Development Standards. It does refer to three styles: Victorian, California Bungalow, ,and California Ranch and the architectural elements thereof. In addition, Lots 1, 2, and 27 fall within the-Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the design of their elevations should 'enhance and reinforce the visual and historical character and quality of Etiwanda Avenue. The use of field stone as a major design element is strongly encouraged' by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Design Review Committee and the applicant discussed. at ` length these issues. Staff believes that while the elevations presented may be acceptable outside the Specific Plan" area, `= they do not properly address the policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Staff believes certain elevations do not adequately reflect the styles`.or elements previously mentioned. Staff strongly recommends that certain features such- as verandas with large roof overhangs, bay windows, eave tr-im, gable detailing, decorative vents and prominent chimneys be introduced or emphasized. To create a more traditional look, riverrock and brick trim should be changed from the veri zal to the horizontal plane. Plan 2332 "A", "B", & "C" should be=upgraded to include a porch , . element along the front elevation. By stepping, the 3rd door hack, the massing created by .the 3-car garage iffll be ' lessened. Plan 2452 "Bit shall be upgraded +o include a siding material and ,lowering gable element over entrance.mob ' w PLANNING COMMF$SION,STArF�REPORT °w TT 11549-1 - BLAIR -, April 23, 1986 Page 3 d L� All elevations shall include bay windows, horizontal trim.and� more prominent chimneys. = n' .t III._ FACTS FOR FINDINGS:. In "irder to approve this project, the Commission must f'J!Jd,`that )this project is, .consistent .With the guidelines, policies;, regulations, and standards set forth in, the, s` City's General PT0, 0evelopment.Code aqd Btiwanda Specific :Plan. , 1 IV. CORRE'.,^NDENCUr Th1s item has been advertised in the The Daily Report newsVaper. ,a V. RECOMMENDATION1k Staff recommen"A that the Planning Commission review an .. d%scuss` the proposal pr,1jects compliance with the r ftiwanda Specific Pan and provide the applicant with directioh , prior to fiit it reviewsf the Design Review Committee.. Respectfully submitted', Brad Buller City Planner BB•JM•ko Attachments: Exhibit•""A" - Location Map. Exhibit 119" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Elevations a l A { • a a, w VL y N VL os l os VL E I E p VL f P VL VL .• ave. VL L :. L l pe N os / 1 ne l VL /! CITY CF RANCHO CUC"ONGA PLANNM EXh,• T SCALE-. I , ti WWI 14 �yf:.. �I I rwa t � w er. !^� v � •� /P •'. •, _7ti. ul rr IF "s w:�i'w ..•raw.+..r� .q.a.rr t ,� �`' ,Vr .yt TRACT NO.11549-1 PLOT AND�'RADiNG.PI.AFi :�: I�iORTH,,;• CITY OF MINI f iNL\CM CILUALMOI GA 'ITI'I.E: _{ . R PLANNM DIV,ISI01`�I EXHIBIT SOLE �TRE"S_.3'Rfo_4nt7 er �. Pia � .--�hf�1+:�`^�z.tr•�r .�7cl..c-ctne—•��: �....:_. _..,_ _ _ .. �' .• .i&.trwr..:: �'•�'Ta h=_ �• .�sffoeaKfiavrlp.•.„�1 CM y f :J •I �` tq ��j N•t w �T r d nsr •e, 3 01 � wl err.���U��J��7Y�. l �,1^ � .7 .�t ,,,C I �. ..• r ,� w jr AN ~ � ,L'Y..J. � � a � tl JIfD'a• , � I I •R11.Rt�e7'i �I�t a.tlil� S: r..r....c�' •rn.nlvsse..enr�..wr%••.•. rrr _I TRACT NO 115%19-i � „ COlVC�7UA�.E�ANOSG�PI(�i'tAN J NORTH , CTY OF 1TFitiI� x t' RAl�'CHO CUCAMONGA Tyr �' EXHIBITI �i SCALE-, ��� �� � � '''Ile• '{I,II•�'it i��{ i FEN NORni fTFr1�I� RANGD, CLLTCANIONGA 'I'I U PLANNING .EXHIBIT:- '1 SCALE_. .. Ids,. I�, 1 1 �V ' .wrsr ■ irt■i, • N J ii•� � �IU�III a Na, _ l! aaaotaya �aci e r 3 w 9r. i "`ttt Vx prgy��y LEFY ELEVATION q.`:a Y W dS ELEVATION �.� NORM CITY OF rrEND '> F'LAMM DIIStoty EXxtBrr SCALE. '.P"A fawns � en••r. 7 MAY � A _. orm loom. q®� .yam 4 yFy, :4Mt d.is'pa PAP � -.__".9PFbawvVWe rt.y • nn l t' I�?RTH CITY OF . n q � PI'vy1: AT �p ., R CUC��Ii ONGA Tf m L`�-1i�'9�►� r �i PLANNING DI4 WON EXHIBIT=- SCALfi r , � ep►,rse LU I .... .mw. r.r era ..� " " �.. '. � .�• t �,� wrv'.cw�w.e� 00 = - -00 00 .._. ©ooao�d n cu ' � • ti -av�rwn>t..-�. tr�M�.rir+o •�anacur��t ' I 4 `NORTH �. CITY OF T T ITE�bi: R CL�TOTGA TITLE: PLANNING EXHIBtT: o"� SCALE- ---------------- ' '1r4` HHCI f .Iry���QIII IVO+ ti• ��.. fI1! 1 wr. �j 1 ttll E �.S i 1;..Y' Ilfif fllliC I� ia4 t t"Qtfl9� ial f �IlflfiLl♦loli "UAUAI BAIIHIQ illl Fd9- s : p II 1DIf1Ilf1 i IIIIMI IltiflH' •.IYII..5�' a' tb],—��u111f.Qtfq�t�'� 11AQAI B'Q'6H ilil 1 s! _ r�; mil 1 II � 3 S F 1 J V11/{YbA1M vi ' I� ' I •I+ '' + ICI a I r01 i �, as rWfY4Ll�Of 1 REAR ELEVATION ;NORTH CITY OF - - IZAhTCI t3 rmv,: t CIJTC�IVIVIiTGf� Tom; " 4 y � � NNCNG DIVISI�'aN EXHIBIT: g Sq E•N *. maa ' 1 1' 1! 9 r II. t ..• ��� � i �9 IIIIAnainYl 1! Hit HIIIIIII p4pN■p0 aaa L saaru 1: I� aaaaa I�anuune I � I 1 l � m mrn 11ap (fII9� 1 11II -114 `a.3us J s g,r taNn�l��elamu+ room w o,M1f�Bi, L'F 2q�d®® taatrbt'ilus� --�ceeci'sq�,m s nK 1 Av � tl , i11 I i 4 _s �Y i aI I�i___ r>a ■ IlI �1� , �II Alin■ t ' f, 'll2 � O>�1�ry�1+ �� � a 0♦la \\� tan■�� 5 - _ / 1 (IIiY i■ice■ t.l"NO K no OAMMMiM ME 1 � ors irrr tiRl • r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA n4�v—ff- 7,oSTAFF REPORT 0Z 9T > DATE. April 23, 1986 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-05 - BARTON The development of a 12,000 square foot restaurant on 12.68 acres of land m the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southwest corner of x foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN 208-35-05. I. PRnJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: :Approval of a site plan, elevations, and i issGmce of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use ari&Zoningi North Vacant, Commercia Terra Vista Plan) South - Vacant, Industrial Park (Rancho Cucamonga Business Park),, East - VacanaL, Industrial Park (Rancho Cucamonga Business Park) West Vacant, Industrial Park (Rancho Cucamonga Business Park) C. General Plan Des nations: Treject` Site- Tndustria ark North - Comm�Inity Commercial South - Industrrial Park East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics. The project site is a portion of a` vacant parcel and part of an Industrial Park. Master Plan. TI. ANALYSIS- A. General: The proposed. project is located within the Rancha'\ Cucamonga Ousiness Park. The Business Park is a. 290oacte Master EIjanned -Industrial Park. According to the approved Master Land Use Plan, the project site is desir'tiated as ajood` park (see Exhibit °E��). The approved Master fete Plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Business' Park illustrates a building 'at-the. r ITEM z � ( � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and.DR 86-05 - Barton ' April 23, A986 Page 2 corners of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue. _ce Avenue is the major access to the :business park whicii reads to the Corporate Plaza. The intent of the Master Plan is to make a dynamic entrance to the business park by providing a strong architectural statement (see Exhibit "G"). "he proposed site plan varies from the 'previously approved Master Plan in that the proposed site plan is designed with the building set back further from tine corner and the introduction of parking at the corner of S,roothill Boulevard and Spruce, Avenue. The proposed parking areas are desigoad to be screened with landscaped berming to mitigate tho visual impact of"the parking lot at the corner. " It is the app'ticant`s ihten, to carry this same concept of parking a., the corner onto the parcel at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard .and Spruce \venue. B. Dtsi n Review Comrittee: The besign Review Committee reviewed Deveiopment Review B and considered the following issues: 1. Should the project be revised` to orient the proposed' building at the northeast corner of the project site? 2. Pedestrian connections on- and off-site. 3. DisburRement of compact parking spaces. The Committee recommended approval of the r000sed site plan and arc itecturr U n. On ri after completion of this report, and before Planning Commission review), the Design Review Committee will review details of the pedestrian' path/area design. The outcome of this meeting will be x presented at tonight's Planning Commission meeting. The 'Oplicant and Design Review Committee .agreed to a revised Larking design which would satisfy compact parking disbursement. In addition, the Committee recommended that the proposed building tie raised to,create a more prominent architectural statement as viewed from Foothill Boulevard. b: C, Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has -Fe—viewedthe project ailo determined that with the recommended conditions of approval,, the project. -f's consistent with, t0d, ' applicable standards and ordinances. Note: There are, no. existingi overhead utilities on any cf the street fr~,atages ., These utilities-;lave;previously been underground. i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF;REPORT`: Environmental Assessment and DR 86=b5- Barton April 23, 1586 Page 3 D. Environmental Assessment: Upon review ,and completion of Part I. ' and Part L1 of the Initial Studyi' staff has found i10 1 significant adverse 'environmental ..impacts related to the development of the proposed project, �. III.. FACTS-FOR FINDINGS: Thee project is consistent-with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan.:. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent,J properties' or cause '`significant environmental impacts. Im addition, the proposed site and bui;ldicg designs, together' '>;�W the recommended conditions, are in compliance with the Industrial Arta -Specific. Plan and City standards. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff .rE;.ommends that the Planning':Commission ' carefully consider the design. of the proposed !ite plan with relationship- to the Intent of the approved Master Plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Bu:ainess Park and make a consistency determination. ' Should the Commission determine that)-the proposed plan :is consistene with the Master Plan, 'then it iS 'recommended ' that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 86-05 per + the attached Resolution' and Condit°ons of Approval and issue a Negative Declaration, for the. projc-`-. Should the Commission determine that the proposed plan is inconsistent with the Master Plan; then it is- recommended that the- Commission direct the; applicant to work with staff` in,dev,-loping a revised plan per the intent of the Master Plan. , :ie tfully 5u to Is " Brad Buller E City Planner ' BB:UP:ns f 'I Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity 'lap - Exhibit I'D" Site Plan,. � Exhibit "C" - Elevation 'Plans Exhibit "D" Landscape Plans f% Exhibit "E" Master Plan Exhibit "F" Master Plan"Overlay $, Exhibit "G" Food Park Rendering, s Exhibit 911 - Grading Plan Environmental Assessment, Initial' St!:dy, Resolution w;'lth Conditions of Approval x t ti. u z C 4 O M -^ F � _ ltz N p {'`� I O � � ' ���� •. o S p I a"io ji=iS Ttii � 13 y t 1 d "ys Pet; 1{ u oI Y I anuaer uaaw I � 20 I w n r r r x. f t . I p m 3: on cn .a00e 30Z•y YIl 3tl 0-A S '3 LLtlOW to +�II � % I-TeT-w a \ IOU I Ul� bwt L o =S ISTI J i r s, � t Q` LA r o � Av 1 I 1 l03 � s c ,et ,��, •P ps all J I 1 t � ti n ,LL9____h L ► . r lu l ✓ ; La' f '—� Wro,It 44. m + J w -" J _ ' t t flii 4 � ♦'v �. l� N 77 n a / 1 � Q t _® ,ri J 7 Rf a a,l U 2 : r�, ft • - W,. 2 �t a 71�* Q c. •� Q a I •� F 4 r A 3 Q O ,V 0 A " $ r y� i x ot Li ..] .i•• a ; 11 1`r�•• l' �.• .�k��' }� —_ e' e I � stir;xYa�'•�"" x�; ;� a t O- ,•y ( O x W Ff t, b u G fj l'I n Ss • d m 33t3 R i '� 3 m as g 9 elm .J ©Q.® I= • � ��-nor• f's . . w v �i � : �;, v a ti� 4d t p *�.ar. /•� \r i iKAtt ► 4Si— tp�lO'n f�* ��r `R, •"'.. � 12n�.. ; it& Zr --.: G�At_ei► +�i��' � t+o aa'�•'A��_� �� � fir' 'Si9 � �� st- Z.i ae tZ m NI•ra sfti e.� 10 as w a�/,'� .. �,J 'Pr i G? ..$�� � <<s. SEYa'� a+b, �� r � C. - •� eel§ sat sM•Ei (1'si ..�� ♦a`G 1C•�. Y�va,'ty Ii:`/\ItlRt /!J�/►t•lia//.'.I�r►.A�ta.A.Q) Ci':• rJ". 1�ya t,e a r� t,�i�eF � � ,���i'? r+ �v«v• �s�i'vVrY!`I'ar'aw..aN/,ilMr�� at»�. ra[ ! ;°; �I • t1IDj3��A/\l�6tAN\?r�l\If/!►A\I.Y/.!lt� Yi ia�, ie ai�•�. aie• +`�'.Vt'h Pi�f ~.e • /lay y�•r••rar�wwva►�Fu.ai � _ �S a►-a,3fj1 3 aya• �1;/ \� r#_ r�r. •ryLn "/8.t' . It*1 !•:x`�'♦ ®"': ��! V�p .y °•� �#p � or,: �s 1,,ppq�a�r I'IY: �j 1• yJ��j'� �I. ' r0♦""� _,�x s4�V�i'� y�_ JTiytSrtJ� tl� I bi:. �� lyav4:�„;:. ay.r T�:�'�—.vvT �1. �'17-f iS .'•+s _ `w \ t. 'a!, °` ;fagt ® -��kvziz; IrF+ t 3rL. r may. `►„ . r ram: w a a: t{.ter � �J� of 1Bps i y� ' / T. nr w4�\]}�.1�4 n i Py \°t�` 9 a•, `.��� ar.. 7E' jf�\ t�8 +�• • e.y, �.•r.-• ((UU„ e \ a.+sl rrs >\c°� [�G a xv r� �.: ._ . '� � L y�Y+ �`e�j�\�xia+ti� �:o+�������Y�\../yly r• :�\��--$AA�."�ff..��x qj �v,«�SSr,9 N. ..su1 $K.�•ay�„J! :-�'"57 �'�� ��'3'2�i � -r.��'-�y' ��. I(}p� � t.� �.:�'►� y: l+ICF�T".'., \� i\��'. a�,,�� �• i��G}I k,J�ti�15.�1'b.a,.r��'a'•y.� { �. gm �fah 6• ����. ??i`�.s�'�W Q� --�+�� r �w�\� .Y'�e�l..: t•��Ct'S�,��y�,... A�Or� �Q.'�~ ��c/ ��i �j � 4 � "'���0.9♦# I' ♦• l*!a ,.C�^ � - r �4 ♦ ar f a ',. �,, �f .L ,_+» .,ate. . �?�.:�' w-rr v�r• T, � �{..:✓.' lao• n1, � ., ra•, '� nay �#��. «r t I •r�" ifEi::. !t. •'t�ir.. i.t Vlh � r',5^'� ��'.' �<rn �'ti. a� 6, %0fl i°e.fill .,u O Oyu c sa �'c� :'3`a '►` ��(\y4 iF RL. t•i� ,.��ti.w"w'�!"�° YYy�y1'.1:Dl�Ijy� 11 �!11';Ir: :� �M�:t�iaZ�K�� jiL Ll.�' � �,t=, �', ,� r :.t,'ii•'4 i�' f, dt�1 4(D =:T4�r jhs� r , , r iu: � 'S. t { •�'�'� � 'fin � $:.��. .�1 � �(p{+�{n� 1�1,. ,� y}t ��'Ati'" � t 4 , r 3 a. ° 1 i.• `slr ',� Ilk, at h, ° . C~.. _ {• _:f- ¢r� r�r rjJ.. +M �`y 4 t'r 1i < e, •• iir. ° e rj�:. it .SkR Y Rlif.. •�1•iL� ii.R�'�►.R t, ♦t.: S �� i�ll1, el � � t.�. � ��` ib alk Q y"Ix G% a -a [��wnrih �Carss•.A',� w::wA j 0 t'1 Jam•.♦ �.s O°- •8 �::.:�"tn ". �� •-` ��i.L aN.►n riN°•.����a..a•� nr�-t� t�! F.14.: .*! .1 T ;+«r `a `�.- L• k � � 1, Y .r �.Mre�� lit" h; '�; _l:}: r,`�:? I i� tvX��.�"'•.�. ' LX '• F7 r1 na•.ta �{f�+ �$:��v-�qyp�,' t� '�La1�©CT�'s I� •n`r,�4 i?z c} C �ilv��'' l') tiL Rj a 'a°, • r:r.�ilOO�a *. • \ 'c.y�fi0•rw �1'r• 1`aKptt9: • ifs y �•, :.•�. ••c'. ..r R t C e• Q► ,r t1 v vr., 1:� �+t`Ai 'T"� +"t' r ^�.��\/�0 y �\i�'i�•- �LE1 FA4 r1 �'"r.'•<'•_ iS t+"qa• J!!4' ` "'��r rtr�i '...' �;lr/� ,:h� 'x+s i e.`�4s Y � {ri ; it i Ya`�rw •�. [i♦ �•�`��� w� ttt�aaa i� �Z la,b� �i ld�.:�Q� �'�\\ '�Y;Ya^ 7ii j 7Y„Ct 3. '4 a I dY�I•�°'•'),•• �•i ••�icY ISM,. »t tC.ky �h ww a...°.,P ..� s i•�l tl �• s. � z-i'6. ik''s� 1Y.,r:.�f a�i.d►, }.a. fs8,zrh�'+'MSYm/' 4i #`i 4•� L : (r'0f 0 VI'\ `it.� ;t y•. .F, k :. _ i _S e• K3i'Q �1..� rr� �'s'� �Yl� �� 1:• � s •• � '�;t,. ^�Cr^ ;.. 1Q,�o •, �,�F.., �,�iyi�x�'• \ •1 i� •��t/ ,�l�.c°���►�^'�. �k'� 'a. t _ V T"� a;:.: \L •�` R • :�•-: yet, ,ra`.\ C�=i� IS, -\.. • elfi+ s is s i1. 'L� \F'�• '� r I A3` fir`• ' i j� \..,.°�3'. �t S1!o. �� ^�• ^ '� ' '�`)1�,C; ,� � �r `�'�' �� ?^ .� s= >�t /iy.®,,,ram- �- ' ^.. .:r' •• ..ww !r. � L r,..;{,, �" 'S� kyt�".l°`:k.`"" � ail{ a. v ��` •h..' a.i„ �.Cv' �+rfm) i ,�74•,�. �. i' qt ,^ts ` it d) r • � ', . e 1. �• =a•• �M? }:\ r a: y O CD I R i V -H�r-1 m ro ro K, ✓� P, r o .Ut4 r Gr a+wa aoN .e M a .1 043 a�V a 4 a e5 ro 94 $4 4J :3 43 0 ono,'a0-r-r 41 N w $4 33 U Yt ro - m Or a.Isi .6. N w•ca�A mrrr ' O 4J,tPH, �i; �:; is O*u 3 r~ a N a '• T t~!y ror roc a$4 r. r in o {yl4'Ci Liyi' .M m N ►•� e n1 O'1•i.14 m a>Z a m•Hr'4 a t'1 "ati m e••i�m m $4 a � in 44 N �l•n -J.IOY '0J• j� O r^ir b' Y'•Y .m 41 1w >; s, 1, 0(DeO ,9 $4 . 4j �Ra ne ICJ iJ • �r. nlo Ot,i W.d.p U0 .1rm A i _ w• .ap,rosl $4 to mom m (Q a o-.i.e U c EitLE14ro E4hA+3 fig• - .�-; y '� � _,T.- 1'� k ��'� IN 1 1 1 I:I I a O IVli ki: Ij :Y;� -�' � lx.' ¢9 :0 •r � ac�f��e ��,r'. �_ ��. ,� tL • •t . 44 NI �x« rr, CITY_OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II INITIAL STDBt _ v ENVIRO*"- TAL CHECKLIST DATE: 77 / (v `. APPLICAN''T: FILING DATE: E -7� LOG NUMBER: PROJECT:_ IZ. � PROJECT LOCATION:�n�sy�J��c�T ,ciciz^��Ti�/LJj7 / I. MIRON"IENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheetn). ' YES MAYBE NO !� 1. Soils and Geolc¢v. Will the proposal have significant results in: `• a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the scil? .Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? / d. The destruction, covering or modification / *` of any unique geologic or physirl features? e. Any Potential, increase in wind or water erasion 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, landslidesg mud— slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of,extraction and/or " use of any mineral resource? 2. drolocv� =Will the proposal hate significant results in s. � . YES u-AYBE Nm a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams,,rivers, or ephemeral stream p channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c• Alterations. to the course or flow waters? of flood d. Change is the amount of surface water in a"v _ body of water? e. bischarge,tuto surfaTse 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- drawal--, or through interference with an aqu.:fer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water ether- wise available for public water sugp ,.ass? i. Exposure of people or property to water ,* related hazards such as flooding or seiet,s? 3. Air Q_ uality. W11 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 r Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting alit movement, moisture K or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal iiave significant results 4 in: �,. ;A a. Char-ge in the characteristics of species, 0.. including diversity, distribution, or number # of auy specs of plants? b« deduct3an of ,the numbers of any unique, rare ..;,: o r endangered species of lants? rt raw Page 3 YES, XkYBE NO c. Introduhtion of new or disruptive specieg of.r_tt J i plants-into an area; d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? pk Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results - a. Change in the characteristics of species,, including diversity, distribution, or numbers s =r. of any specie3 of animals? ti b� Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare - or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new 2r disruptive species of- animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or / wild't fe habitat? �( ,. S. Population. .fill the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- hution, density, diversity, or growth rate of th human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or _ a create a demand for additional housing? Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have c#gnificant results ia: a. Change in local or regional aocio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed. t among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations., objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any aov.,_rnmental ; entities? , t c.r An impa,at_upon the: qulaity or quantity of +a `'_ excing"consumptive or non-consumptive re'crea w tionasl opportunities? +� , 1�Opp •VI e rr� YES �0 ,C. 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have si(,tiffcant ,_ Y` _ results. in: a. Generation of substantial additional vesicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or detla--i for new street construction? / zz. c. Effects on existing parking faculties, or demand,for new parking?` - d. Substantial_imgact upon existing transparta- / tion systems? / e. Alterations,to present patter} of cizeula 'j tian or movement of people ant or goods?_ r f•. Alterations to or`effects oh present and.. ? potential water-bone, air traffic. rail, mass Cransit or Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, 1� k• bicyclists or pedestrians? ' 9. Cultural. R€source:,s' Will the proposal have significant �ts in: � r y� I - i a. A disturban n) to the ?ntegrity of archaeological, } r paleonto r _ logical, and/or historical resources? .,1th, Safety <and sa Mvr nce s. Will the proposal have significant results a,. Creation of any health hazard or potential health haza•Td? '* b. Exposure of oao le to p potential health hazards? c•- A risk of explosionor release of hazardrus substances in the event of an accident:' d. An increase in the number of individuals ,. or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels?, �r f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? s a g• The creation of objectionable odors? h. An inc=ease in light or glared h Page 5 rw. YES :'_4YBE NO Il. Aesthetics. Will the,pronosal have significant rAsults in: ba a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic ^' vista or view? b, The creation of an aesthet .call.y Offensive site? _ c c. A conflict with the objective of.designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Ser+rices, Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following a- Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c, Commur.3,cations systems? , ' d, . Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structure.? Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection?' i. Pe;lice protection's — -� J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? / 1. Maintenance of public, facilities, including iiiLLL roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Energy,and;Scarce Resources. Will the proposal nave significant resin-ts i a. Use of substant4al or excessive fuel or aiiergy? / b, Subs tantial increasei;"in demand upon existing sources of energy? e, An increase in the demand for development of Meta sources of energy? - ;s d. ' Apt izcrear`'or perpeziiation of the ccnsum lion r r? of nun-renewable forms of energy, when feasible *� ., rene aaole sources of finergy ? ,are available? � s F- R `Y YES MAYBE NO s e. Substantial.depletion of any nonrenevable ^or 8carce,naturaJ resource?., .__ . 14. Mandatory Findings of SiRnif5ran a. Does the project have the {�.potential to degrade It the quality of the environbIOt, substantially reduce the habitat of fish'or wildlife species, cause"a fish or.wildlife population to drop f below sdlf sustaining.levQlti, threaten to ` eliminate a.,:plant or ai^rimai community, reduce the number or restrctithe range;of a rare-or f endangered plant or animal or eliminate: 3mportant.examples of• the:major periods of California history ,or.,prehistor'l °4 b. Does ;the ro'sct ?' `project rave the potential tn,achieve shoit-term, to the disadvantage`of longs-term, enviTo*imental goals? „(A short-term impact.^oa the environment,"i,s one which occurs in, a relative ly, brief, definitive period of`time while Song- > term :imp acLs'wilV endure well Into the future}, , c. Does the project have im0acts which are individually limited, -but "camulativel3r considerable? '(Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental.effects,of an individual project are considerable when vi6ied j in connection with the effects-sf'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?it 1� iI. DISCUSSIoN OF IMMOMMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative'answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). . . 4 T A i ' s + r �'� 'a0 Paee: 7 ' IIh DETEP�INATION a �y On the basis of this initial evaluation: find the prop-sed prc�ect COULD NOT have a significant effect VN on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIQJt will be prepared.' I find that althOlgh .ne proposed project could have a significant effect aatithe environment, there will not be a significanti-,effect d in this case because the mitigation;measures, described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A'NEG_AT,IVE ' DECLARATFON`'TILL BE PREPARED. ElI find the proposed,project MAX have significant effe t an the envirnment, and azr ENVIRONMENT PORT is,,ze uir d. Date , ' Sig" cur Ti le .h 3'I f • I it 'Y • a f RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF:,THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 8645 LOCATED IAT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND'SPRUCE AVENUE NDUS IN THE ITRIAL PAR - DISTRICT` WHEREAS, on the'fSth day of February,' 1986, a complete application was filed by James Banton `t6r,n6iew of the above-described project; and WHEREAS,'-on the -23rd-'day, of Agri 1, 1986',i` the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission`held:a,meeting to consider the above-described project: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho 'Cucamonga Planning Commission resolve) as fI; follows: ;Y SECTI0,X 1: Thar't the following can be met: 1. T hat the: • Pro Posed project i s. consistent with the ob3ectives of°the General Plan; and 2. That thehpropnsed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and;th!� purposes of the district in which the site is located;_aid 3. That the.proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4.. That the proposed use, toge#nr .with the 'conditions applicatle thereto, will not b6' dotrimental to 'the public health; safety; or welfaia, or materially injurious to properties or improvements`` in the vicinity. r SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative DecIaration is issued on April.23„ 1986. SECG'ON'3: That Development Review No,. 86-05 is approved subject to, the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions; PLANNING DIVISION 1. Solid metal 'trash enclosure gate shall match metal roof (material design and color) 2. Detailed design of sidewalk and pedestrian linkages shall be "�lhmitted-to the City Planner for review and approval priml. o issuance of building permits. a, i , . Resolution No. , EA and DR,86-05 A April '23, 1986 Page 2 ` 3. Provide fight bo1111rds along. pedestrian texturized pavement paths in the parking area to supply decorative EK convenience lighting, and prevent auto parking in these pedestrian.walkwdys. 4. A pedestrian path from the' projcet site to Laurel Street shall be "provi,ded on revisedz plans to the satisfaction of 1 the City Planner prior to issuance; of building permits. 5. Streetsca`pe berming shall be inspected for ipproval"to the_ satisfaction of the;,City Planner prior to landscape and sidewa4k­constructIon. ' 6. The,entire dandscapt-planter adjacent° to�`the west limit of t construction,line shalj. aeI fully developed, landscaped, and irrigated at a width of sik {6, feet minimum: ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Notice of Ielntention to Join the proposed *Median I,tland Landscape 4-Maintenance District shall' be filed, with the City Council prior to .issuanee of building permits. 2. The developer shall-provide surety for the construction ,of sidewalks along the street perimeter'"` for the, entjfe parcel'. : 3. Sidewalks shall be consi;ructed,-,'4ithin the "limits of construction" line on jthe • approved •plans to' the satasfaction of the City�,Engineer '.prior, ;to '.issuance of building permits, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS-23RD DAY OF APRIL, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -7 BY: a F •Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Bread,Buller, 'Deputy Secreta- ry :.. � , Resolution No: EA and DR 86T05 Apria 23; 1986 t Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Deputy S"knAar3,,of the Planning CommlSsion0of the> Crty of Rancho Cucamonga, do here"by�certify that the forego ing;,Resolu.tibn wast duly and regularly introduced, pas§exj, ..a0d adapted by the Planni ,J4. ommission of� the City of Rancho Gucamonga., at 6'ragular meeting of'th6�'Planning3'Cor V4S' CI n�'heid;- on the 23rd day of April, 1986,, by.,the following vote-to wit ` AYES: Comm IS$IONW:4 NOES: COMMISSIONERS-.= s b kr ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s L f ` y.v p ; � +3 ` y I 'a �Y s T s. x N k d all—1 �> b p^ �Q v� • Nv dC O¢¢ yi' �r5 n d avY^ d.i dNn fo'c �.bo� olBoa 1l. C� vN N'G'Euip a. L'"y pqy C C'i { E i� C d OYbn OI LL�VpC- C ti L Ud p y u CCC Z u-.-Ud6 n rr�.O �.� u yv- y �o 'p N� ' L E 6u tl ~ O O b a n + E OGL E YO O dud OInO nn dd N^ 1. Y=x cu a p�.p d a V b u O: V.H T s 2. .I.Y ti d x LO O p C 6 ^d am a t •T C O O G E_d. tCv V b N d N d .+ L .".a s v ac _ *'< q_c uvn pr/f p Ac 1O�c ocia *; Vu_NO La .�� 1.L d O CT14 o a u o E •+Y p E S N d C u d~E� Y N c Y�Q C d L O�d O p p C C ' dtl No. S u d. C QTCNI �� ni oZ; m u > 1 u:LL a c y €d 18 a L 01E an O Np •� Lp dbEE EN F=- C G b L m S EE''^'x x> rlZ W c5do N9 n m No c oo;anLc°L- b u d. ' Y.p WY L dp N O �� .a C S N v'"° ' M Y c h o .92 Eo tJ m C GG E Y N 0 rV n dy C. LO W M u R. . C e 4 3 H « N O 5=2. E— .a, Yp cW u d C at .� Y ¢ A u s d G � •O.�'d.E C d � rY _ .. N rMLq Gb 4d. q airy .y � :.� OTyO C mdye o n^ r do a ad. 0 A y o E � u E Ew. pD L oo d N O U � O OpYO tq' Upc ywv 0 /�' a Ed. s.. yi Ot bC9d Onav Oj db�, L E GO O 4U A L TC E L d O eEy 6 OA'� pN V =EOu t � Ly LL ^O �O{. ....d O Eo>•Ti.1. NL6 d{�. �« {J O Y _N 6. O.Y Oq� U^ OuL: w ,^C m •+ +� - GJ c a c O N A E Y•C. v L d�L • L ^m n ?^ •r7 A c O 4 Y '.0 O d d Y-C 2 i L♦ N A Q .. dw �b N> �� •-� 9..4AaTi L gUCM d4= 9 Oa 3Y•E�r� p ON. a.�6U ro• .ol Ewiv Tc� u 44 r G CE6U dA � Lpald �30 q?.q0 NYD aV�, SL uq EE t y G1 c A EE pG .cd C q d F O L N c GG L9 aq ai _ �09M q dd2 O.0 6 y55 ED L E'^ S.6V1 Cl ^`EE'E adV- T4dL E .72 L� w ^c AL. aSSUL"^u Uv� Aa'E6 l.G , YAC.. LG7-5 CC •' G K E•+n 6 6 6 N 9 C R L A^^u .ir+.. •'.ue am^ '>- T .v Gddr^m a.+�.a,i. o'G..�.n 'a av u.•o+d nT �.o, -oG .c:=:.ycyE�N oo r DU = .�.` 'r.` iL•- NT T=..6` i m� 66 ^2 L9 4. d^� Y 4Y. C d bE..�L V LA.2 Ccy St, td9 �,i d^p i'aN p�:E •�+o. T � aF owL'� G •o-.N- ua'G°�:W C d ~L O Cl L �.c E V`• D C O D !} NEd V dA pd �6 d0 v�iL O 4.` y L�pC CCC Y a q6 g9:C0 a:O. .^• S LL Y V q d y 4 UCOO L i}�y d`o•�, ^ c~d CO OC L :Nd oawb Voc C�_ O.0 S' d a •n '^ O nE • ad r c6Y 026 tU ALO.n u ylEy A u.G D. awi� a .° n «2'Ca N'•..p4 qj Lm Y �O C py Z G L U N d Lq OGy N OV: L , C Yd E L = :.W G � yL• . �~ d� �MdV 4�V SN~ V �6 Sw•.D. C C d4 O SS9 L• � ^ .�i O .+C, oG'v.^a L p.. d e•N E�V y l� A' S^� ' tQ'O O da Ar L ar 9CA dV � Ed c d jw Ot O �C 2.y� may +s L. EE Ly q.np� C L ..bey pS0 cY.� NAG N Dy ti V Ao L dNt it �. O.TNE A� aT.lc p00 O U ZW MyW c •O .� d.�t a LLx L r r0 NSy c LG C x 9 g Gd O.• O V �W� cY 9y a^d Cq Ig DA , Va OC Oy Gq,.O 9C A _ E NoO• OV dC r g y`O g U d E N C L Ii L A s ` a ooq^ K A nC n —w a h L N G N 4��M a N O A N O.Lc O� C d` n -d 4a d Nol 4U J•+O 6YoM q�� HyYwC O IL-. n40C � O N N � • ( E y - ' lw DO CQ a d. O=.LO CI NLAO T,Cq A .O.0 22 OOp t .c Afth ko L6G N Y N Ab Qq an d L M LdO G'O A O Ic N ue- t b d 0 A -'N 9 n A Lu vdi u L L. m ro u _ •n ,.G.. rod Z Nz o - u Au dL GG�anusvl'� Na d� ro ro4 dye= V NN U. c E N `"'I ' .O qVp it ^ n Q 6m N mY. N C. t a "' cb puu O cC L L C N 0.d6O0o Jt Gi0 u y pYfN O i<d Ga O. GT dG xNL _4d O�.:n //.n�O�wp 01 _cF I RVzm, �b ri+ LO r C N .0 A.L L'c 1.` +fJ Nc NOpi E I G u u N uV T N LnN d� 'n>dd ��Y AN b>b V 3 qy qt mt O f'1 ! d L qw n p0 I" o A.V Ld �p�qt d ^n a Ov ZG O m Y l,p I c d O Y L O m.q� b d d Ei I Y L d pcd Ldf gyp, ..�.EO em1 sdu dq,e u �. t b nin N �o Ed N�NN M. QN� 4vni S O ,I�N.0 Q[ti.Y��OIi TANpO 6A�06 o 4.O l— N cn E. E LadiC Ada ^ 9< 1 ? .G" L Vw. d c >Ax ao oY. �.L.4 P++: b r- u qY M s0 cTLpc N+u'�'$4 pYO. i L Ua A.p 9.L 41 d++E dG cQ L E •O- p 'e.N-I 'u.. A E ^u� A O L x O O.i _ a .G O `du � b Oq Vrm- A AL Vo. pA nO ECj ,, C 4� O N tD a 2 Eli .. V b 0.� NS. d NCw V O\ q E dt Nb O C r 0 Q U bu Cro N u V w �� O Nc:E O 9 ice';q `> ':Q�+NO Q:N M.ep Y QON Hn 4Gt 6V 1-.0 N^L 4pn 6 N6A {Yn nr NMv _ o a 5.7 d q E `• dL 6 V^da .e O �.. C6 `A dqo d #: OA^ E U3 ^ CdtJ lOi. 9 EWE t5AOL `O (z q NY O •f..f^ �D O.b04t • t E N U. N V..aA as d.•. yo d � dO'pq LO ♦q�p • L 6 8 _ ^^ 0 Vl d C OC 6 .DLO W L �rzo �Un oo it Ncu y c a'� nou'Y y oq N t00 O yxYN Y SV dY Cpvy Oq��dV C �.A i. C q0 O > VGO C. ,per E _ u u Y I �O O.. M.p� 6NtQy. Y N V yvy Ou d.00 d06 F L Y� ♦.O L. $o 0 0, Y�M ca `a� �L c',m n.'.^� - l T fin,,_ ��. c o...d•- uqi � cV u Wm oa F.•E'. Ny N U .. � .. U O SA.A Ce L pY CO np 6 C � Y :6qy i i g. q � dN LVErn y �1 C 9 Z � >P N �d O N d cAcO d. O•i Cr ;Ez d dWrn OY AY dt Op^ _ K;s S.LY.N.6 q N .�. O �UW L 6�.6C 4.N bY'q y.,p Y� d w 1 U;� � hl q` O V O . c..l ati n'J pCp E.O'O S LQ Y .fNC�l1 pYL- Y NE V�nL 9N .y Y'^ P.i.0 d Y q. 7=1L l O S .vnp O Oa.Y '4 en�C ON r,�y L 1 =G •3Y •LrNN p~ 30:N ••..i ^G O O C.> A q j �.' P.q. .qG L � .O L V A � �•'V ..L�'.,q a.N z 'Qs 4 p a� o f q au O w .� TO.S CL O 4Y Y p y}rn C^ Gd L q n cq O CC 0'd�c s p �u M� _ m�dd. � �.yd n'o ���N �,.0. L.L om Y.aw p`y L•n et. d v d e A. ac ,�aC �'d�C vN� Etno L�'M ^Y N��.Y G �d'y L VL: 'G•r. OY^ Ot Y.p ^0 AS dd .dp N L wL AYg nqL OVY.n b'� pl C Wny Ed.~.. V GM��. Od NOC G. Gl yAL E10r.� �•+ Y nw.q O 6N � ppn O qO N.-..� G V.E O q0 y = ..V.Ad q� n • >�Y -Nd G Y. LO r pp •y1 A ..� CQ c. r 6 n'O�� Ny 9L Y O G C.S u^. T E• Clp � q. N2 awu o �Eaai. zc '`� A� u�oa Ao vN W a C O •r. w O w w bLCO- L NO m C G0 OLA OIt: P W L YL W ?yy'�.,• Lid d 6N Y L ^C ^ n nN L P G ON y as r �,;z - C WY. ES LdMy � _ wf a .�•. v `:y t^ LOO. <GOCOL... N L d OCC ^✓ ... E A U 10 G q v t O �G.,D µ O d OO. q Y �. V Tv'.N� 'C to Y ap G = V n y C `EE o Y 1 y O µ u c O.� GyygNb.. GS yC 4 L Oi�'� 9d. - Z. dog, "-. ^_' N 6 E Y u q o C Y U q N^ C v p _ OU- •' LLB d � 6 41 y Y dV dt 3Wv ^.p _ B.NA Oy' O O .:D O L~ :O. q �•.' p~~ - • Ot E FFF m ayi d �. N N .510 2.FG O. V p q q ED C yiO• o G A q.0 CLs z Cy�dU=Y L.U . Y Y +• '. ^ • E q _ 6yq adi p�aV N� a Y d a�..Lv. Gq O a`c po_, qy ca'L" N mn m a ddod >o o a. V9 Hp U.�EE..� Gb GN '^E y• •• �,,,L. yd pT L. ppgp EpEp GY NO U VS �bG Y.mdY 60YyO.NA O C 9Vy L. 9^ Ja C2 R EE u G d 'C� N U O q:A O:N 6 L 0,. 6 Y r [I T x J t pp aC. tom.` U. {!b. CLCd y9dd OrnC�: 9n q+- t rno. R .. rn U G�c� m`�. CLUM� cm I a an q ... Y9 m E ;z •V r L d a` a 9. V N A V q d C O LL d N YL' 1 a • G ,.� E q.01 L V^Ou SS �L i�a GT�. y N^ yy M �00 Ly or y. >,G dGdy� C - _ v p G O Y-.D N g q N G q O. L O EQ Y 4 N T y 9 G G 01 C ii V d d ^ y N y C q L 9 • GI �E ' id G� O G01 t L • q i 4 q O W 6 7 F C �^ 54 � C .O C dr G Oy �L d C G O� y A.d IOL: O �pp y Oq 6 d 6 V q g E C O y !1 Q y G tJ6u �O L.,c E .dy Cq. dynlp L c vu •; rn— q..G O O L G V Y O M p LY N,� b O C .p a' „t E E. O o •.j L O 2 u q a! g O y V n 'EX e p . u dm ; w EDP .- .� pa. ` u a.� •' Lay.do Si KVVN+ v(AgCI 06 E'U-.L F ay}.1- WNO Ytpl- �.0.. {.•LJ�GI. '.6� 40. KPW 1�0 ti, � U �� NI 4l I AI>1 4 4• v " V ',.� �� YO. d u L dC 9a� O N ,No �. b •C V N,a y N C L. q �a0 P pY e O n FJ O r N U L o N 2 T J Z. �p Nti u^Si n `.wcs t U n nq C coo �aE 'ee ql «c cc !p Yi.O L C22 O � �•V CN o•E ^ tic �'^ Lw V.O LR .. c a V `� U C C tea. a ya N �w EE� pcE.6 emu.. O«4T6 a � a Y aW y' Vtl0 B 4 tea". O'y. a 1VV a d C� Y La C 4V >� w ' tl pw c STLQ. 'oy x oc +- to� F qSy Sa e 9 OaL Q Qy ww .C^b' � V,O I to 195•+ L H WZ _/) !�i t .COO - o. n am oa ins X x. y c a aq p(2. . o qq 6 ^ M O +•O•^-•� 6C KOL WS O-vpNM6 4L 4.' W2 V � Y E 6N4` a e���i� . « 1 >4 ( . a L 3 i. d b c a b= a p ouo a.c .bY+y E $ Adh ny� A«L. ow.c kk Y.O U N 6V ..• C N q� C ML C:ieNV nN aC@ N L U N.rp- Sao, f �. . AZ q �� {J..• C��p L 9 ^u. YHn C� } U:L u 7 W .1a 2 Ri 4 N� L bJ c9. l.b as ;o ob _ ar v c ppu' co au Y�. Ica QT� �9F. Q » 0�. OpVk 6.0 4.6 Q.6 r'.• 6JU� 2 N �'i •: • b h S N 1'1 f d \ L m°' M4 •O V IN C YW y U.`. e- qs kL a.. aa� " N u d c c yA tLD1L w C L ti dad g �qo a r S` R- L cz v nL t n CITY Or RANCIia CUCAMONGA G�ycnnr0; STAFF REPORT 0 M O DATE: Ap-il 23, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning :-gmission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nanny Fong-, Associate"Planner: SUBJECT: ENVIRD14MENTAL A5 ESSMENT AND`DtVELOPMENT REVIEW! 85-53 - NDERSON - he development of industriaT—bu%ldings totaling 61,845 squai-u feet on 4.4T-,acres ,of land in the Genet-zl. Indlict-ial/Raii Served District (Subarea 5) l.?cated n`the north sdel of 6th< Street, 300 feet west of Turner Avenue - APN_209-211-4G. T. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Actio•, Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, and - issurace of a Negative Declaration, ,p Yw, B. Surroundinq.Land::1se and Zoning: North Vacant: General in" Sarved District '(Subarea 51, South -' Vacant; General Industrial!Rail .Served (Subarea 5) Last - Vacant, existing •industrizi'br;idinns; General Industrial/Rail Served (Subarea 5) { West - .Vacant, existing industr l park; General Industrial/Rail Served (5,:.area 5) ;[ C. General Plan Des nations: Project Site - General Industrial/Rail Served North - `General Industrial%Rail Served fi South -, Ceneral Industrial/Rail Server: it East - General Industrial/Reii Served West General Industrial/Rail Served D. Site Characteristics: Building A that fronts on 6th Street and j 6 the off=situ ,'improvements are cari,pleted except for the ' meandering sidewalk The site for Buildfngs B, C and D, 'which is behind Building A, has been rough graded. J < II. ANX rSIS: � A. General: .This proposed project Was previously approved i-a 1980 } fa the , do,ielopment of four multi-tenant industr,isl r i ITEM J- xp y 4 PLANNING~ I�SS COMMION STAFF, REPORT EA b DR 85-53 ANOERsory April.?3, 1986 Page 2 buildings. The developer has completed B'i(lding A (as shown in Exhibit. "C"), and grzded the pads for Buildings C and D. Unfortunately, the approval of these three bu;ldings expired. Therefore, the develover is requesting approval of ` this development and has modr;pd the previous approved site plan to comply with the minimum standards of the City's current Wustrial Specific Plan. 6. Design ' Review Committee: The: Design Review Committee "has reviewed'_ thE;, project`%and has recowmended approval=, p it h the following imj)rovementi' to be h.ade to the project which the developer has agreed to:. 1. Outloor `eat-If area/plaza area be added to the east' and west property boundary as shown in Exhibit y 2. A texturizod band between the two accent stripes should be provided across the top of all :four sites of the elevations for guildings.B, C and D. 3. Entryway and landscaping An frr . `the office entrances be provided,as shown in Exhibit 4 C. Gadergroundiag Utilities: Over, , utilities exist on both sides of.'one 6th Street frontage,.—' The project site has 66 kv and 12,"Ov electric lines and telecommunication dines on the same :,joles. It is the recommendation of the staff that the 12 i ke electric" Tines and the telecommunication lines be ' undergrounded at the expense .of` the:devel,oper from the uta 1 ity Pole alo x,I�the wetterly,property'line to the first, utility pole eas, '-,f•_ .he,,:--sterly property-5i�,e. D. Environmental s,essment• Staff has completed the €nvaronmental ''he ist nd has determined that "there will not 11', a significant imma t_,s a result of this pro ect. If the .Ci'wission concurs with the fisidings, issuance of a iegative 4 Declaratien will be icy order. III. FAITS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent' with the General Nian and the Industrial Specific Pla6. ThP project will not cause a significant adverse impact, and in ade,ftion, the proposed use;,: building design, Site plan, 'togethe;� •with tha ' recoftended Mons of Anproval, are in compliance with the Industrial A n',hG'- all other applicable provisions cC, the City si HM �.:C�la t..a@.R..itSwEe. .« ......a�,..�..�.'LL_�8flrt"S.•F. '�. .-w,.. .. .. - -N76 "�'+A. .✓�'"'+, —_ PLANNIN Cop MISS"ION ZzT.4FF REPORT EA & DR 85 3 - ANbERSoh April, 23., 1�i86 1` `Page 3 ` V. RECOMMENDATION: .,Staff recommnends� 'that the Planning Commission ma 's issue a Negative-Declar-at on and'`approve DsVel,opmert Review* 85-53 through adoption of the attached Resolution'` and Conditioner of Approval. Respe t ully submit ,� r Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ns " ;tachments: Exh''bit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B!':- Site-Utilization M;upi1 , s Cxhitit "C" Detailed Site Plasr' .' Exhi.blt "L''Z Cgnceptuai landscape Plan {2) EAibit`"E"' ceptual Grading' Plan Exhibit "F" = Utilitjr Plat �.. 8 ; Typical,�Eleva..fon ' Exhibit 'W" Floor Plan Initial Study, Part II vl Resol+ltaon of Approval V.ith Conditfos � t � 7- 'f } r '`� ?i� n � {*'':�f✓�..b..�.38, � .... 1�: �°..., . e'er` f �y Y i• ,�'•�• qv�r/fir � r I �' U ��qq ta lip a e- �ORE h r. ro a g7� 74, �+ .•'+ter (� • • -• u� ��'��� � �� l+ s• k = T Y 3S L — e f 117, aNT'.•-WIUW. ti• lhIW1 N1hiuW 1 t INp.Mh�uw) ZONING _ NQRTU:. ! C= OF ��El1: �� CVCAMONGA. TITLE: PLANNING 8N ExHIrr:. SCALE .,.` �Y�s 1. ��^ � '�* •Mp ,,. u- - - � _.. .. CO �� � � C .,� �, ... .. ... :� ���i��:` 3 r�'iii� �� .. � co . •�� �, ��. ra �� ; �a !_�.s av 0' a. oT�. .�'- ag o� ..Q � � ._�. � --=: . . � „ : a� _ i�� � - ;, �- _ ... - ��� � �IK Iy _ �1' � � ��� a � '� — °�"" a �' + �� ._ _� � F .� C ,1 a,�.hw .1"��•,.. � c _ �.. � �'� :' ., - . ten,.• U pT_� (p^! �. _.. pC ��. t,*.Y4�ie�F"'~aliiM.��JryiV �! nFe�L�yk4 '�'r,� i —'r'.. w � .✓ .� � �� � '� J � � f �.4� ,o-. t � t;? I F�F ft _ }^M fi .w } k P fO4 A .�„vT.\oC}.t�? 4. tis:t•;�c,4 fiw ,2 \�{... dx.:'�;3°:.�•,.�'`.'av\'\::�*¢�`3<:v;�', `,4•;S:s ta:.'F,-2tS• +.•�'.'.4'�f/v>�S�+Jh_ Xk � 4t�t`•+`S vv }� '�{ Y.,,,,,c� �t4.,++�.\ ��ta �#tf �+ �i �.t,2<��� i„Ysc4 �. •,r.+'F�..s ;3:'S ��� ;fix t„,.�,;,az�r�,.:,r-: t<x•;;:?�..:�v'...�,a��#`��,'-s��fi�'.��'�+��.,`t�.� ::`y'� .��� �� �V' e�� ti�y�,y,9'fi�� f Y�4Y�^�+c • �`i°:�3�sk;+�°Y�,�+.v�^.T��St�s4�`.Y.�+�iYl.�Fx: .� ., :: , .�..., . °ow: � • NORTH - �•vKw CIW OF RI A CHO CLTC O\'GA Tom: toff, a PL1 NIetiA iNG rI'VISIaN EXHIBIT: }: fi= r T-r a 7� - 'MON t i dE .�, 0 . d TC-H®ACUC�M 1TFrVI -, 'l I'IZ J' EXHIBI Ti': PLANNNUtIMMONSCALE: �-• ��' (, a j ,.- •-�_ r LU ozi 1 L" Fz,µ rxeEr !.. NIORTI! k f i rry T OF ' TTFiVI= 3r, CH0 IMIAMOT A T1T E= ! PLANNI1 Z LIVI.,�'fOIN EXXHIBM. SCAIE: ' k r .ram ' rr MINDING a'aoo l LL P �t 4 V� ' I BUMNC_eim i 1 T- gill r a t � ��i I �'s_._._'_"•_^zoo ,t � Q �li i 1 1 I t i1 g� i , ... 3 • `'--- r w. mere�ee Y � j 9UCiLi ST. r..cs 4w�a unv�ta y NORTH CITY OF tA1`1 C} CLCA.MONGA Tom: ` �� ,p �a T Ll .. Fla ��I;'i i 1V 2 a aY0 . �' � •f I �■ i CC@ y�, a �i >'l � f • � � � j l �(fit W lJ l 1 1 ; : Y i , 3�: I n . 1 z r -+ 19 EnV Q IZ i UL 9 t if r J F�f , CITY OF RANCHO GUC-kMOVGr. .: PART 1I',- INITIAL STUDY q ENVIRONlfENTAL CHECKrtTST DATE• APPLIC',�,%T:� FILING DATE: l02 LOG NUMBER r PROJECT:.3 ' fat► 4•&t7 MOW-- A' PROJECT LOCATION:_ �Ursuf[6 sf r-yh cT. ' a.... I. MWIRON.'ENi'AL.IMPACTS (Explanation of all °';.>.'� and "maybe"answers are required on attached `> YES XkYBE NO 1. Soils_a 0161M Wi13. the pi•opoaai shave significant results ir: ` a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in - geologic relationships? b. Distupt3:._is,. displac'!ments, compaction or ' i� burial of the soil?__.' ,or.Chang a in to o ra h _p g p y ground surface l ' contour intervals? m" d. The destrucn on, covering or modification y of any uniq;iet geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion Of soils, affeaetiag either on or off tP site conditons? t f. Changes in erosion=nilc'ation, or deposition? ` g. Exposure of People;or property to geologic r hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards h. An increase is the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineraz ,resource ' H drolo v.: Will the proposal' h;,,re sianUicanL results,in-: 41 ; E * a. 'age 2 YES MAYBE N0 a. Cha ges'y--i currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streamsv rivers, or ephemeral stream - channels?, b• Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, o%Z t%:"`rate-and amount of surface water �t rdnoff?, c Alterations to the course or flaw of flood d • waters.? d. Change in th4 amount of surface rater in any body Of water? f e• DiPucharge into surface walkers, or any \/ alteration of surface water quality? t. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quanti.E:y of groundwaters, alther through oiratt additions or with drawals, or through into,ference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for psblic,water supplies? , I. Expo,•are of people or pro'r.cxty to water related h• :ards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the Proposal have significa resultsnt a. Condcant or periodic air emissions_from'mobila or indirect u9urces? Stationary sources? b. Detetioration of as•$A4nt air quality and/or Interference •With the attainment of applicable ,�air )Aty standards? .Alteration of conditions, affecting air&movementmoisture or temperatur ? 4. Biota Flora. Will the, proposal have' signa,�Icant results in: a. Change in ,,characteristics of species, Including divlers'ity, distribution, or nueder of any spec$ of plants? � \ b• Reduction o taie numbers of :any Unique, rare . endangered species of ?lams? 777,' a P 02, \eF 4- p 'v�J �;l Q �L+V+�.v? 1..�}\'.f 4F>.5 b'/ 1.' y 3.vdw z ��, .:,bm. anp4z:x-Sts, ,Np Fr Y C I 'ace 3 YES C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of i plant's:into-an are d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'ha•,e.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 un.z:e, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new;or disruptive species of animals into an area, or re Alt in a barrier to the migration or movemen', of animals? _ d. Deterioration'or removal of d'kisting fish or .wildlife habitat? 3. Population. Will the proposal hav%s signif3,cart results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, f'a;tri bution, density, diversity, or growth rave of' the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 6. Socio-Economic factors Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including econaxc or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property f values? J b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine-Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? "" a. A 'substantial alteration of the present or -. Zaaned lan:� lse of an area? b. 1. conflict with any designations, objectives; policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? t, " A c. n ,impact upon.the qulait or ,,.. Y quantity of existing consumptiva or non-consumptive recreational' opportunities?- av; , Page_.r ,. YES NO $. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a gft a-, Genexztiou of substanti movement? ate additional vehicular : a` h. Effects an existing streees, or demand for new street constr•sction? J 'A c. Effects an existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing, t'ransporta tion systems? J e. Alterations to present patterns of circul,a— / tion or movement of people and/or goods? J f. Alterations to or effects on present ana potential water borne, -•ail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: Ask a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontclogicai, and/or historical resources? ..!! t: 10. Health, Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health •' hazard? s• b. 'Exposure of'people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? xi d. An increase in the number of individuals or specieS. of vector or pathenogenic �y organisms or theexposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? i f. Exposure of people to pot, mtially dangerous noise levels? " g• The creation of objectionable odors? 1t= ..''An increase in light or glare?-- #g , Page 5 n Y�5 4�YnE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant - results:in: ' a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista OrIview? b. The creation of an aesthatiF llffensive site? Vy o / / 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? a // c.. Communications systems? ✓/ d. Water supply? J� e. Wastewater facilities? . V P f. Flood control structures? Z Solid waste facilities? h. FijF protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? .� k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. `Maintenance'af public facilities„ including / roads and flood control facilities? / M. .Other governmental services? 13. Enerey and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal r have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? / b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing /r sources of energy? / c. An increase in the demand for development of i! new sources of energy? k` 't d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-4enevable.forms of energy, when feasible r.ner e"3sie sources of*'energy are available? t P Face 6 r i YES 'av1YBE In , e,` Substantial_depletrion of any nonrenewable or sca,ce natural r �. - ource. --.. _. 14. Mandatory Findi :s.of Sienifieance. a. Does the project have the potential Co degrade fhe cuaZity rof the environment, substantially - ';r reduce the habilat'of fish or wildlife species, =r cause a fish or wildlife population- to drop ^, below self sustairning levels, threaten to elia nate a`plant oz animal co=untty, reduce the humber;"�r$;restr.ct the range, of a rare or '"- endangered plant or'animal.or,eliminate imp ortant"exa&ples of the'major iieriods o California history Of Prehistory?` b. Does thq p=oje`ct have the " potential to achieve shorOtk term, to the-disadva;;,tage 'long-, 1. environmental goals? , CA�short-term,impact on the env - eii, is one,(which occurs in`a relatively brie€, de�ftn Live Period of time'Ubile`long- term mpahs will endures �'` wPll"�into the Put ire). J c. Does tk,+XprOj4 ; .have impacts which are if individually limited bptjeumvlatively cons d�r� ;e? (Coal latimely cdn". , e ble 1 means.that the incremental effects of an ' individual pr-ojec ate considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,, and Probable'future project's). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either diractly gr indirectly? D?SCU5SIon OF EN[7IROi7*�*STAZ:EVALUffION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions,�,Zus a discussion ofproposed mitigation measures). 1 r ae b l� i r!�" � f Page 7 k! III. -DETERMINATION Qa the basis of this=.initial evaluation:. .; I find the proposed project 'COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and.n NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect 'in this'case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have, jE added' to the project-. A NEGATIVE_ DECLARATION HILL BE-,PREPARED. I find the proposed jprojeci MAY have~a' si—aif cant effect on the j envirnment,, and arO ENVIRO*IMEN,T I%JPAC' 'REPO:-7 4t req ;fired.. Date w. igna't .e �o rkr ME Title Title 'a y } 1 .3 Y.._ e -i \ , i ♦�, � " ��. TK��-may• 4, r i RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF -THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING .DEVELOPAENT-REVIEW NO. ,85-53 FOR 3 NULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL'iBUILDINGS TOTALING 61,845 SQUAK:;FEET LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE'OF 6TH'tSTRE-cT 300 FEET WEST OF TURNER " AVENUE IN THE GENERAL"�INDUSTRIAL/RAIL 'SERVED DISTRICT < WHEREAS,, on the 3rd day,of January, 1986.,_ a comp lete;applicationjwas filed by Arnold Anderson for eview of the above describes project; and WHEREAS, on . Cucam> 3 y , ., onga" Planning Commission"field way meet�ingto Ilrionsiider-the above-described pr.-oaect* NOW; THEREFQRE, the Rancho Cucamonga+Planning Commission resowed, as - follows: SECTION1; ' Thai~.the foillAIng"can be met: ,. 1. That the pro osed project f consistent with ,the objectives Hof:the General§Plan, and 2. That ,the ­proposQfa use is in accord with the object-dVe of the Industrial rp}ecificgPlan 4and the purposes Oof 'tf;e d'i'strict in "which "'the sijte is located, and 3. That�ahe proposed use is Li -Vith each of the applicable prom°on Hof theDeveloment Code; - and x.. p 4. That,the ;proposed use, together wits the conditions a,plicable,rthereto, -will pot be-�detrimental to the public he`s°lth, {safetk'..'kor,-welfare,'"'or materially injurious to" properties wor improvement` in ' the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse imoacts on the environmen`.and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 23,' .986. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 85-53 is approved,subject;to <Y the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: Trip .f Reso'luti.an'No, ,Anderson Page.2 Planning Myision: 1. Outdoor eating arealplazas shall be added to the east property boundary between 8uil.�iings A..and 8, and to' the west property 'bound ar3.�between Buildings C, and D. Detail deVi',gns-° of° the outdoor eating area/plazas shall be sub i'tted for+City Planner review and approval prior to sub�imtt�ing ;for plan} cfieck Detailed- place shall, be a inc�t�uded ink thelandscapc and, irrigai ion,+plan and shall be �ubm3tted forP�lamm�y�Dwi ion �revieti+ and approval priiii+ to issuance,of buUtng permits, 2. All front;" off`iee: ;entrances^ "shall be ppo•, ided with texturized .entryi ay told.dandsciping;- 1ile.01 designs steal be ipclud�dgthelan'dscape and �rrgation plans and to, be`;sub fitted for ,P�l�anntihg . I islon review, and- approval priarta ssuanceobuildiswgQerm1`ts � r 3. A texturized band 6eteentwoeaccent st ,fps aid the top of, the bultdingsh�lT be�pPavide'd,xto�tFie ;ourfi,dest of the,` bui Ming.elevatf&o for 5uzldinys B, c fnd D. i 4. The design•of the Blood wales{,shall ancludeitsuc 'materials as split face block nr»concrete and shall 'be submitted x for, Planning Off sloe =remlew a d 4AA p�roval 'for to issuance of buald", permits. 14 , r EnRineer4ng D:ivisdon* 'A 1. Existing telecom unlCd,tJon lines on the north side of 6th Street from thet utit]it�y pole,;a�fong th's 'westerly property line to the f cr-'sue AIM,ity pole east. cif the :easterly property 'tine .{approx�;�iately , 1251) 'shall be placed !- underground prior tito issuance of an occupancy;permtt~. 2. Notice of Intention to join the proposed•Median Island Landscape Maintenance, `bistrict shall be. filed with the Jl City Council! prior to the issuance of a 6mi lding permit. a,�{ 3. An off-site hydrology study to verify the flood wall � locations, configuration and height shall be submitted for review ;and approval prior to issuance of building P �: permits. F e �.4, Al' . . �lt�,' '�'�.r.. .,�! •`�,''.�9"ggt^-S"';"�� '+��r' t.. 'ate' a ,q^^^ ai• `as' � Resolution No. ' DR 85-53 -Anderson s Page 3 APPROVED AND,ADOPTED-THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 1986. ' PLANNING COMMISSION OF JHE CITY,,OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA <r BY: Dennis L.:Stout, Cbairman ATTEST: e Brad Buller, ;Deputy Secretaryl-r. I, Brad Buller, Deputy< Secretag of the: Planning Co-imission of th"e .City'of Rancho Cucamonga,"do herebycert�ifthat$the foregodng Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passeF, and.?adootea by the Planning Commission of .the City sof Rancho Cucamonga, aa'.reguarmeeting of the .Plannrng 4CommsSion held of the 23rd day of April,;66- Zby,the folio ing vote�fa.wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS.; A ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5 n F n p 3 iO+13- C N L>.� N u f G= pl.NU adiZs Wx n pC a D -E Ot LO.D ♦ cq Lp p V V N VVy'uO d nTOq C Amy O> 60 OOIGO •.: O L �i C LEi G d^ AWL Vt V6 Q « cO ♦ > C Gu N L i AN OE�+i p bL uY. A am fen: d'^ - ^ Y. Y•p V A U r Y o.N CT L^ b p0 9 N 6 b � O o TO O I E6E a ari E.0 Eup... V Cb G Oi'T.i: yc,y by V ^ E, =Or. goal: Va+Y G qO' T 6d uy N9 L 'LO r d u •-. O pb uA - U �4b.aya. tu..nO00Nn� 06 y ^ at T O G wu- rn� b V O a^y y eq^ V q O C IT pill: o1 A^.� yEd a V «EUN f N.0 VVOO W cEc d ON+ Grr r '^EE �^ C Oa Gta dy E jr n9 AO O'pj OrC AaI ' a01KIII, N b C t b � 21 L O 481 G LO6\ect..q G Mc I QE1 �-E�Q� O 6YUg6'�a xOb2�:. T,g11 CY,y C rGCN O�E G-ka f ¢o. L m 4 d stir. .. Sall.p.: > 6r N • L y N o N.N y W O :G - ir....�.. iQ.. .:dam d Or. N p.^.OEnL C.Ob V qItN L T• a O O K � 4 6 �N N O d�O L W. � anb �' mo dT ramo c • Oa = dpO ^Lr .. E u O O t A 2 M 1004 gym. 00 GN .. j E'+ VF Z Ell V F. cL LLY.E xN, r ti S N O ^. ` G� 9, 6 d W C.T. t ATti K a V 6 n L L N L a A Nt, i1 u u �udG -Gb Ng a�T y d�dl0d'[]. du . V e tl1 e a a p.0 t d E Y a.1y d w9 Oy E ? pm S ^41d Ap�C TD EE 4-.p 'D D N� d Gl.E d N EE ..M O' �.� E.vTT.V p. LL$ .uu COA LO ^O 6N'y Tda d 9 rnz;d O T o w �.' U dL pdgN EL�o. AV. X^L A Ep r d N EUA� b Oa CY.to I— m� A ?E uLi T I E> A NTNp uN �LL Tq L6 O d0« �� d o C y a 0 w� N..q u i G N U O A A." pL 61 NE L� ^ bd Vm E O�bq Gm GE6d ' VSL D'tlM^'.N D A u tl U1Y EL L ti dG'SO d`.q >Gb.Y d N'O 53 1.5 ON y SO ,.. a Nib 37u� ULq Td ua LO+ C9. CN�TT u�� C�C GG UC9 UU.. g �.0 Oby L EE d= C V^y yd 6� �G y^.GE Td9i T 1 O. m :ma. Y ^ pp L d G Ap E6 U W L E. L ^N gg 4 E�6.G lL Arai Y 0Q1 to a+ 1♦2. 1E2N.uti N CC.OS G T.0 dC d . qG 1 C Q it N N m+++�p ^$ C Q L D A y a C C C C .19 i C m T• Np U b 4 ay b Ir C m Y d:N. 6t 7♦L d Z= 6b ap y A A S. d L O Z d m L L C L t'€. d O. L N D e :.G 6 3 if O..fJ O•�`O y F 'vLi TGL b d � y E C 'umA2 � SL C cT y N G�♦ q^ O O a t 6 m p p d q G W 2 N y Q y E d d> A d C d „ L ~E 96 �T� yU N T LGj b9u C yai N.M q ' dr'- t� b ONd C b L tl u Od qA =O S •N L63p 4.i 6'IOp O.� OL,mitli 6 Up a O Y C a .G a AL b 0 0 L. Gott �Ep AZ6 tL�" ^.dE U duv Ali p 01z �N « my btl+ dd x.•cD v Ti.z„p A� a' L>.d E byi W O W z C to 6 � L'Sd^ A N L9 LUG `^UmA aA.d G G.A b O dALRC OdAy:N cE Gy y L 2 c..yti, G N y = v U b '�_ V p«. a d .8• +♦ E L 2Z C Ey v Sy u L PL N MG +-L b� b u b0 A TF. ON him+ ^ m tl c CYL bb cy d. O. p0 YT U LEO Ob dt GV +`A b Lr` O�+E Y n01 TyA ^0. TOp $ is A, I>C.a b €m i a L..�.y � E LYO W A L TSIIdA U6 -d d6b mN 6 m OLn > 4a6L6 �. F•L NpA 4r-Np NNA, 6Y �y9601 A�+91�.E- L YaL ha..YNCe h�Gi06A6 ♦ r. ti L Oli: d gp g ". :ONO CO Oa �V 00 OOW�YI.d LgaD+. .c qdL ^ap ^ V Nt qOC aIVF YV b 1� > TQp .mac d Ab O.j �Od L C9 O o AMh d C• O a. O q d Y• S b r O oY L qu ZwTgd 0. wU • bw OOY•Si1�NNa Tqvw• GJ ' •� mYDd xdlt A^ n Q pL up LN �C ',t > � b bC�L � N C c Oi^ V O V O � i •V�d Oy 6wN ES L qy p} d L c TQ^ i�b ya a OWN �.LD = Ilf i� E• by4�'2. L V6-Ypl � yNd tWy ctl. N ++U N L d �N Icy Cx VL w 01 N Cp do L D.d n6 >p b. 2 OIL aN EYE' y'o� w 'I d d v •^ d�. �+ tn;Ld n•�-1-1 .�d dl n Na 0,0. �, D dE d Boa..: y 6 D O N c V a d d d d d i 6 D G ^E V V �' • � FC R � N d� G � TquG L ON y w V d C L SSC� c N O V c EE52. bd`�. �VI 6 y E 6a1 O Lu V N .sir �b IOi N O N M L 6 N Y OI N N L.l`v`\�Q q O d. Q Lh d`.. adb V ac L dpr, p as cd La• d�. p c n wn �a Y Y L b N Cam. aw G S SN q O6 Sr c w c•r 'V _ r cb n NL n dd qO C. DaL.n d0 wa �y xS i do O paY•. O..C'y. 6 w w a S > c C d N. L� .yam '•�dG d bL i W N T d w ^ L np wa+ bEY > b S u ua+ cY�O Na LaY pV0 O•b S `c d V y G Q a �E i� G •N V V 'b EE� C L T q 0 O d .Jl My Ly � S oT�O p, CN d >n2 tdn H. q CC c CI w6 LN yV c0 WO O Ned 9 No C aC y L yN Co �.d L .✓ 2 6r V b.• b^E b6 q W N N yd e V q'1'•�O N� LSao .^ pD d 0 'E b dy Ny N � � d VN:OCN a.i^. TdOp. L qb� Eb 62. L m p �y0 �. • CMq n Od .-.LL w dY• LygnC-COE q Lb L n^ uxi Ip d U V V p �tV M.p { d unCO b OI 4Edy N..O O 4C a w'uz q Oz 1 L Oy L G < O �. U J1rV YY. dD i. • rd p � C d q y GC u V 3 6N D L 1Di.V d1• d.;N 4 C�g x E u b .t .yx.SiN0 GAY.m > 6bN IY nN 6L1 QL 1='D N�q QCCO QN6gn W,66:5V>lv� I IN- Mj Ip �• .N�i�l C Yf ,0 �. N. -�.�t y.. 4 To AEy v� X H - v ruG ,nw GM i € CAR l0)i ydc ~ u Vq..p V.0 .G • �d Fs LFE.du E • L , P dqE U d GO� U OHO R. .{L^ E.i90 ^p L fN .4A..02 Tj U dE Ad COS LEU.. OJ Nam. ,d p 'dam Gq,+ � rnm d v uui w o LL q j uL, 2 =4... xuuo c bOu O +n GEE AO R` «�d w R o cu. R dH v N qCO V�O N i L,xi, f Ny A,J U GL d�a 4 v ~ ~s d�r d y o L d N r . u. 0.4 n .p CAR 9 C=ER 'q d d aT p y E G G d + a 4 i =Eu od 4d C Amd o E� OQ O�. it 4E N S Sw OI Odd 9 dV �S GGE c�a _ 0'6 >p� 9GMULL ai0 �. h. U C,J r � Y� 2:ud uVw^O GL LO p yt 4 ay N.O✓.E G. C V O ��, '.. y vu, t~i 'Mmt d N. i[L' NUp qyd L 4 M_>5 � S4� V y.u. YO6dE N Cdd Jy Vr L Cl�40v.. ,nEU p d i5 �p �j�'dL fiN G Un axi 9` N ..a. m G,Or U..N E'EJ T9Hyd �Y c a Y O O e�G. U S.4 nC Rn q L-np 1. N4 p. yCj. J L. USy LLY 6 q u G . CC11 L OR 1-n 4 46ai., 2�.LLN6 HOA N O fac;Z 604pawvi L•.G q,rG N 6Yd \-54 UZE I �i -L.a GC ad R LS,9 xCd O dIr ..C,.O .Z 4d s tiv Eq iti t Lu uO a+T�l �c x y. yvm •a to Ab O. G N mG..L OO Rqu N01 � .mod( 4 Y 4 Ly C LL p ` ID qV .Y V UN V G p p L. p�OG L CI � 4wv� pia: " Rs�� •. ,`q� a do dpi-° 4Lpn 9 O^O:� LOd � y9d EEq aaO+C` R� qqGG 10r tOL"ru ~qG GS R 6y L~ _ E:LN dN d Y LJ LFw�r yrG d4 �L� d4 ON� (((eee R� Y^b s c a o.d a ML �•d•.a u R^� caS u 'C q �L4J N Cho.S�R yq dC El.3" Ly p Jy quv yl E>c MCd jGG', pU MUq�. 4 Ga 6 u L z R gg L p'O^O� d.OU p a L N O nN COL n' 'V L_y.6� / IF Gan o eE aro o =v oR x E��^ JY 7 ' xT07t 09 da0 O, 4."C,4Q 0Q:C^a 06 wll C�lL 0 2 _ n Egad Aqo r N=c 1 S w d y .,.i Orl..C L N is R 9 d d .o. :n�' FrnNCWES LL;,s • y , ydI N q L � D54 ✓1 - O = q Y V Q Na„ TAEOFL J\ f'Vy N +` N S dFda.. V ,C y � dYr y2CN�O. r�G� �4`W Dd P. VLM. 44N V Y r'=0 O V 7 aL nyLii- <jNyt�R naG 44 � � � 4 Oyr.� MYd do w^d`� y ^.Ot N D O O .0 Las .O a CtA 4^W `:G� :Y CO^,,qr4 A aaL+ • � Rr L T dMq �. D•yq yq PAY � V AUAp..: dE O^' ^ ? `� ... FMB yy Y+F a 44vr Cb Lg CEO K4�G K. Cyr. �� w F '?NNL Cq� a :a �C Orl 0t V N:4V � ^q 4 O ^r4.4 Yl Mlno @.� C 7 c'. O�. L g L ' N• 'o vu d�u M... �y D z > aaSo.L.. a cA �` o�,aV • q LL VO y CaV QOia �9 'd f+' a aO�u oy. N uDa KiO Cy 4Lo 4VN b �44 4 � Ln l ` ''92 LC YD•d C Y LC 01 DYf:4Y Y43+ L0z ' qA f+'q � •a C10.Nrpp MCw O �~ 96 �� LL�Y Y'NY Cw..^YLa.. d� A. zci'D: Y ^ q4q O A 40 wYC'� d�L LC. 3t Y'4 O 4C V 4� Y4 Y�OL D L.Y gOOLY . y•e •onq o. q= u o �YC r �q:C.�. RN�} = v^ Uq O rtD {A 601 AwfO. � dM A� Y y�Y�L L y C d n.Ni C L pM W _g ram. E. E � �8 � .. n.-.u..> c.a. ry. .. ..n w r y�LO ^q �'¢��' 'tea v►LY a Y�. ,,, ^O. � - r esc +( i �Oqo. p da pOr. pF O D4� .. OID by d� N4.~`O q0 L.0 Q,5 �\ � .OL 4CZ uSpY` CM �'�F E o u�.cL v n1oNL . AY4 NO. O� 00 ui4 4 ='C 7 V 6.. �d�YG: pOSY.wD. � CV qu �D.; �'e eifuo».� aqua f'oN�q'v r fT L @..Fir 7c L q N�o yak On'r-Erd-y q.�.uo,.z. n= cam. D`o aui eau rO q WN9� WYGDJ 7Q {L7�OS- K++ 40 Ko+Y r0 _ •��v u . ; �l. J-,;Les �' NaTiOL O OQp « OL np b b L L... Y �. p La pq OI �� L 5.1 S ?U v N N Y Y 1 N � C L Li a "M oy v'on°n t+.i Y Yaau La YNy d cY. LLN�^' H �. Z. a.Ai z It Ctti 1g }�.' uy.o�^' ` • ai i.�= its o'" '~ «�. a'u Y V 6 c qp G �ry V q` GS V ry.. N Cp YO. id O aqG CL 1''d IS V ¢p Lq^CW uuiEd� N14 O E'q \p.0 aC� >^ �p�.:.'.E{� •.ni, yN=pV:"tQ p ^ q " paS G'p. b Ly gWu.wb,,..L L^ c..,y, yC N.d Y OMOC xq �p L O q P g C^ {} LEW i 2u. L np »Y ^V q .. C••. yy R w u'rni +ii. o q YE v a' 1. up. o An Y � _ a1 r L gL t iy 6 rn v i _o YY p a n 6 r.« C Y bpp V sq N N � e7E d� ..Lo.t rnv a a. V y..0 Y Pm N 6 p E.0 tiY .: W vu L W � Y LC rn.�d �Y O ppppTa, H`. C.E n' ..1 C O. 'r•Y �' 6q C.RL WT. yYq N6 C.L tir W ! Y fi..�NV �'� s L S L J u +pi s C1 U� A J A OU CEO at d C W a Y D Z C� ^Y �W AOA E aC N i O c.0 a.L py M. x p,r as 48. No. d N d J E y C p� � ari d O C O C L:y d L N L V A C • C N a d q m V d C... L 6. - N r d r L a C _ e ... COp L q0 i6 .pJ C<L Or E qN C rnCTC A nY rna Vat.Li E NA L q u..y A N. n. tl ? r 0 AdIlL L L C aN n L„ d `n bE L 9. d+ q r d CC 0 a C ON aY 4;i rY. LpxoT N C' � AE �2 Z. qqZ 2 LL. a EL r j.w ^ O1U y Ca. - Aa OQ y L O L yW y Ay YY. i L. N 2L LCO u � n ut Vy y CI r Y 9 C dp c9 is dL E'an o i.� � L Y a i p a y `sr N. Nr^ •-a N L c S Z�. L N d. G yV gg A1•' V.W .. d A O . A L 4 4.. d O •� O u. c m non € 'c d Yc L�r. vop wat .biuv: m I � `G mu .cd au. q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C1 �AcAnro k STAFF REPORT o x F DATE: April 23, 1986 1977 Y TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ,v FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner . BY: Debra Meier, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PRELIMINWI( RFVJ_FW 86-26 - CARLTON BROWNE COMPANY- - A conafstency determination between the Foothill Corridor Interim Polices and a commercial center concert located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard a>d lion' Street - APN 208-632-047 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) South Medium High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac) East = Pep Boys; General Commercial West Music plus Center; General Commercial p s B. Site Characteristics: Trq site is on 2.7 acres of land k; co -fining an existing.,build,tOg now used for office space 'that. W. igina,,y`built n the 1950's as a �..it and vegetable si Th're are a;'so at least 10 existing trees of various iyp.... sizes. The remainder of the site is covered by native-,-yr.tsses. II-. ANALYSIS: The .project, Rancho Mercado, proposes commercial and related uses that are appropriate for the General Commercial District and consistent with the Interim Pelicies. The site is surrounded by fully developed commercial and residential uses with Which this ni^oject must coordinate -access, circulation. and landscape treatment. The Foothill Boulevard Interim Policies are provided to help drrect r design potential for development along Foothill Boulevard and�,guide the Planning'Commission's decision making process as it relates to consistency w*i:h these policies. 'rhe proposed Rancho'Mercado is subject to reu;Iew under. these•' polices which relate to new development,-thus, not all of the policies are applicable to^thy project. -The-specific aspects of Rancho Mercado as the relate ]y these' pertinent policies are addressed as follows: y ITEM K i * w, 77 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF kERORT PR 86-26 - CARLTON BROWNS Z;*ANY' �< April 23, 1986 ,f Page 2 Policy 1. Pedestrian Orientation Site planning;' including building orientation grid parking lot configuration, shall enhance pedestrian connections on- and off-site. A continuous pedestrian system is -required in all new projects with connecr`_ions -=twden _',buildings,. parking areas, : street <' adjacentsidewalks and transit 'stops. Amenities strap be provided such as ;plazas, shaded- seating.,aAcoves,� expanded w0kwaps with,surface treatmentT Jtexturized• IIi .J pavement across drive disies, raised planters, try.>i receptacles; and drinkiig .fountains. In addition, outdonr°"w; eating areas are encouraged. /Y Comment: The proposal iaciudes L two satellite buildings located near the Foothill Boulevard frontage and a, third<, gore linear building, located� ,near the rear ,of the property.` The site plan indicates pedestrian connections via textured pavement between the rear building.and the satellite structures.' ` Several points `of' access to street adjacent sidewalks.wili be provided as well. •t. Small plaza areas have beer.• provided for each satellite pad. However,, the center- lacks any larger plaza element that would create a focal point. The majority of the building area is contained in one linear #" building (A, 8, & C). By comparison, the retail center at tLe northeast corner of ' Archibald and Bascli'ne is an 'example of plaza area that creates a strong ;edestrian focus see Exhibit "0"). Vehicular circulation between the proposed project and Pep:,Boys is indicated, on the s`ice plan but this connection lacks a pedestrian'•orientation that would encourage tha use-of the two centerslas one group and discourage "strip commercial° that is so: '1 ' characteristic of Foothill Boulevard: ` i w , �I • J`) PLANNING COMMI=SSION "STAFF REPORT PR 86-26 - CARLT,ON BROWNE"COMPANY April'23, 1986 Page 3. Fin z_ Policy 2.- combined Access Through the ,,master ,"planning process, z^ dPiueways$�nta Footh711`_Boulevard,shallk�be coord�natei! for consisteney .s:th' &.sting., 4 City access policies O.e, t& -Iveway a eparation') to the extent,l O�iclticals;. ew►r dless° of parcel r Width. �s Comment: Ttie proposed'project mu it.coordinai6, ccess ` with existing,•commer`ci,al fad Pities to the L eatr,.,,and :west. To the west; the d,'riveway +, onto ;.Lion, Street has 'been "aligned with existing drive into Music Plus Centdr, as indicated on the site plan (see Exhibit "C"). it 14as the Antent for th*,s parcel and. the Pep ,Hays phr�cel , to share one " . driveway onto Foothill"Boulevt•cd. However, the, applicant is requesting an additional driveway onto that would Foothill Boaievjrd ' be considered1` inconsistent with the City k access- policy. ;T►,a _applicant's feeling is that ,this driveway 'is crucial to ,provide sufficient access and circulation "to the I proposed project;, arW further, that one driveway," ;ontoFootFiill' Boulevard cannot a�t�uately handle traffic generatedby"over SQ Oa3, square feet of combinedM comet W61ai S uses. Staff feels that the driveway onto t ' Lions plus the shared. access ta�loothill provide,sufficient access for jlh IS, sma1T c, 2.7 acre site.. Policy 3. .Streetscape and'LandscapincL Streetscape, design. elements for al,l nei jects $hall' be coord;inated'A for #< , consistFncy with the gctideline�:' for Foothz3T;Boulevard in effect a the Itafte, of development, `including d :} i'an dscaping with specimen size berrrizng*� and :meandering sidewalks.,; Yn additiog street form Lure" and 7r1 ,A rockscape and monument signs may rbe requira;where appropriate. .a ; r .1WL , PLANNING COMMIg5SIOK!STAFIF�+ REPORT PR 86-26 ;;?LTON BROWNE COMPANY April 23, 1986 Pago. 4 .Landscaping shall be designed to_create. visual interest and variety to the streetscape, enhance building archi.t-cture, buffer . views_. of automatiiles, }screen dutilities ' Bryce areas; and _ d� ..tingush "pe�a���,,,,. -: spaces frpm vehicular, areas_. "ii f Comment: The project meets landsCape� setback rl requirements- for .,Foothili•� Boulevard'. Meandering: sidewalks compatAble with_wajks exfsting{' along 'Foothill {ana Lion are ] indicated on the site plan., J, V. RECOMMENDATION The land use of the proposed commercial center. is 1i consistent with the. Development Code and the. FoothiII Corridor X p - ti g:. p Interim Policies and is com atlbTe`with surrpundir? develo ments. However, the proposed plaza and access ,to Foothill are inconsistent. , Staff rec6mm7ends that the Commission give 'the applicant direc+lpq o proceed with formal applieation subject to l significant ekpa�sion of plaza areas and deletion of access to J Foothill. Res fully Su, ed , Bra Buller City Planner ` OB:DM:ko rg ° Attachments: „ Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan '. Exhibit "C" - Driveway Proposals Exhibit "V - Plaza Example t A ". $"a '-� .,�;, '.. �„„� „- `.:• � jar V n t 0461/1.1 if 441 IS x. r y fir, k r 0 i 100 200' 300 "= SI;ALE A :3 CITY OF rr�r�: 2a, RAJ� C CLT�A:NICNGA zarLE / lJfi l/ f/O�h *; PLANNf NG Eli ON EXHIBIT.�_ scALE.. , SUMMA LAND AREA 418.320'SF!ZT ACRES) - BUILDING AREA gZ130 SF - LANDtBLDG.RATIO 76811. -' PARKING REOUIRED. 141" - PARKING PROVIDED 14/ - ,.. . A - O. ` I �. muss• B — artosr — j sz Auxs sF N m r.� , E t I DD a t q .. A ' FOOM LL BLVD. _<) SITE PLAN! W-W I° CrTy CFITF�bh �'� �lv-2lv RANCHO CL.ICAMONTGA TITLE:- FLAT WING DINTSM EXHIBIT- 45� _SCALE- m ,�"sue• � - -- — .. .. 39 _ At ( A :ter a 40 tw E ' i t ' 1 lO�ItTH CITY OFio 1TEl1rY: — a"x lCM CLTCA1VIONT G PI.AI`J1 IIl\'G DIVISK3N EXHIBIT., G SCALE "' ��1 l 4 Ao�cY�1T' 1 �3-� .tom 1 1 az;, LCW WIu--L CfYPf�L) .� rselua.1/� Tail 12x7271t.6Paq'f�Wr1 IAti411 exuc�. Low W4EL 'ng'.W I car•Nr��je. t�J` 12 - , y �fl���'��.� ��'•.�` -; fit/,� n/� " CITY OF RANCHO C•UCAMONGA o�CA,�o STAFF REPORT 9 t O o F Z U > DATE: April 23, 1986 t977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, AsFpciate Planner SUBJECT REVISION TO SECTION 17.04.070(d) OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE } MODEi. HrTMES SALES OFFICE I. ABSTRACT: This purpose of this report is to receive direction from. the Planning Coi-mission regarding the desirability of processing a Development C�»e Amendment to amend the section of the Development Code pertaining to the location of model, home sales officeswithin residential traits. Although the request was initiated by developer for a specific circumstance the proposed amendment must,.. be anal zed from a Cit -wide perspective. An amendment to the Development Code regu ations governing model home sales off ces may ue �n�ti�azed oy consensus of the Commission or Council II. BACKGROUND: Citation Builders of Tustin„ California, is the developer of:!he "Hillgate" Community (Tracts 12238 and 12530). located on the northwest corner of Church Street and Hellm.n Avenue. Citation is also rea•ly to begir, construction of Tract 12830 located on the west side-of Beryl Street, north of'Base Line. The product line being developed in this tract is essentially the same as that being built within the Hillgate Community. Citation Builders would like to sell their homes in Tract 12830 from their existing model home sales complex located in Tract 12238. However, Section 17.04.070-7(d) of the Development Code requires that the sales office for a tract subdivision must be located within the tract f which the lots are being.sold, or from a contiguous tract. In response to this restriction, F.G. Linton, of Citation Builders has submitted a letter to the City requesting consideration of a text amendment to this particular section of the '- Development Code. III. ANALYSIS: Model homes complexes typicallyresult in increased :I vehicular traffic into the area, along with its associated impacts of increased people, noise, litter, etc. The intent of the Development Code's prohibition of off-site model home sales .office' is to protect established neighborhoods from the "nuisance" factor associated with model home sales offices. If the homes offered for sale are not located within the neighborhood, then the residentsw:. w. should not be expected to be exposed to the impacts resulting from the operation of model home sales office. ITEM L tw , �,F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION - MODEL HOME SALES OFFICE April '23, 1336 Page 2 Mr. Linton, of Citation Builders, is requesting a Text Amendment to. " waive the restriction against off-site model home complexes;"under circumstances where the resultant traffic impacts within the tract where the sales office is located are minimal or non-existent.° Staff believes the current Development'Code Standard is consistent i ` with and-provides 00 most effective means of implOentation of the c accepted City policy that new development is to Tie designed to }_ result in minimal`-i'Apact;to existing surrounding dei,`elopment. The purpose of the proh'`,bition of off-site model homP.'-complexes is to protect established ,..iighborhoods from being."imposed upon with , i. impacts resulting from ,new development. For this ,reason, staff would not be in support of a Text Amendment to the Development Code. Howevel', if the direction of the Commission is to consider alternatives to the existing standards, there are other available possibilities. One would be to simply eliminate the restriction and permit off-site model home complexes. Thp middle ground would be to allow some flexibility with location of'-off-site model home complexes, ar-, opposed to an out-right prohibition as presently exists. , One pcNssible method would be to permit off-site model home complexes subject to the granting of a Condtional Use Permit. In a this way, the appropriateness f the complex would be determined on • a case-by-case basis. If this was to be done, however, criteria R ' should be established as to what would constitute the minimal findings necessary to enable granting of the permit. IV. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should consider all material and input presented in regards to this proposal. If the I ' Commission determines :to uphold the existing Development Code regulations, then no further action is necessary. _If, on the other hand, the Commission would like to consider alternative methods of regulation, then they should direct staff as to their desired_ czprse of action and�!iave staff initiate a future Text,;Amendment for their review and consideration. Respectfully submitted Brad Buller City Planner BB:BC•ko Attachments: Section 17.04.070-76d) of the Development Code Letter from F.G. Linton of Citation Builders of February 28, "1986. i} .SS=om I'i.d 7. Model Homes., Model tmmes may be used as offices solely for the first salt of homes within a recorded tract subject to the following conditions: '(a) The sales offir�e may be located in agarage,trailer or dwelling. (b) Approval shell be for a two-year period, at which time the sales Office use sNt Abe terminated and the structure restored back to its Original condi ion. Eitensions.may be granted by.the City,Planner in one year increments up to a maximum of four(4)years ar tintil ninety (90)percent of the development is sold;which ever Is less. (c) A cash deposit, letter of credit, or any security determined' satisfactory to the CIty.shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga,in an amount to be set by Council Resolution,to,ensure the restoration or removal O£the structure. (d) The sales office Is to be used only for transactions involving the sale, rent or lease of lots and/or structures.within the tract in which fhe Sales.office islocated,or contiguous tracts. (e) Failure to terminate sales office and restore,structure or failure to apply for an extension on or before the expiration date will result in forfeiture of the cash deposit, a halt in further construction or inspection activity on.the project..site, and enforcement"action to _ ensure'restoration offstructure. (f) 'Street improvements and temporary off-street parking at a rate of two(2)spaces per model shall be completed to the satisfaction of the CIty Engineer and City Planner prior to commencement of sales activities or the display of model homes. (g) All fences proposed in conjunction'with the model homes and sales office shall be located outside of the public right-of-way. (h) Flags, pennants, or'other•on-site advertising snail be regulated- pursuant to the,Sign Regulations of the Municipal Code. O Use of signs shall require submission of a sign permit,application'for review and approval by the Planning Division prior,to`i,estallation. 8. Trailer coaches or mobile homes on active construction sites for use as a temporary living quarters Tor'security personnel,or temporary residence of the subject property owner..The following restrictions shall.apply; (a) TF,a'C(ty Planner may approve a temporary trailer for,the duration of tpe construction project or for a speW�Lf�ied period,but in no event for mare than two(2)years; If exceptional circumstances:exist,a one(1) year extension may lie granted,provided that the building permit for the first permanent dwelling or structure on the same site has also been extended (b) installation of trailer coaches may occur only after a valid building permit has been issued by the City Building and Safety Division. M1, O tt v� 10-4:7410,1- PLANNING DBaR N, FXH�cE' -- v x SCALE TIM :773t IRVINE 8LV0•.Su¢e No.201,'TUSTIN,CA 926RO (714)731.0141 " 0�' % February 28, 1986 ^ �• Planning Commission City of Rancho: Cucamonga 9320 C Baseline Road Fancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: We herewith request an Admendment to the text of the City's Development Code and Specifically, Section: 17.04.070 sub- section 7(D) Model Homes. We are requestita that the p^ohibition against a sales office serving a noncontigious tract 5e,w '_. awed d un er circumstances where the resultant traffic impacts within the tract wherethe sales office is located are minimal or nunexistant. This determination could be made at a staff level by the City 1 Engineer. In our specific case, we have models and a sales office located in the garage of one of our models located on Whitney Co:irt in tract 12238. We would like to sell the 103 homes in tract 12830 (locate:- approximately one mile from tract 12238) from the sales office in tract 12238. From the enclosed exhibit, you can see that traffic circulation on Whitney Court poses no impact at all on the homes we have sold within tract 12238, as the traffic will exit onto Hellman from Church and move North to tract 12 ?8,.0. The homes across the: street from the models on Whitney Court will not be started until the 103 homes in tray... 12830 have been sold. Additionally a orovision could be made in the Text Admendment to limit the "off-site" sales office permission for a specificed period of time, and I would suggest twenty-four months. 4 If there is a more formal manner which is required to initate thi's action, we of course would be please to comply. Sincerely, Citation Build . A Partnership F. G. on, Jr. Develop ent Manager , FGLj'rjsf w F, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C!JCAXJ0 ,cq ME1VI(9R14NDIJi4'I � y ,4 cc m Y >7 Pate. April ]R, 1Rnf U A To: Planning Ca=ission' 1977 � From: Pave r,eMard, park rr"ects Coordiratcr`— Fubject: "Tictoria rroves Paid resign Concept i i Please find attached a Conceptual resign Plan for the Victoria"Groves Park Fite and agenda package presented to the Park revelopment Commission on F?ril 17, 1986. TIe design calls for develcpre`-t of a six -acre (rf-) T?eightorhood Park adjacent to a school site. Additionally, as part.of the Victoria Community Plan, the park sitf.4 was recamnended to include ineorparation of existing California Pepper Trees and provide a focal point for the ter ms,;of the Victoria Park,TAe :street system. The.design as RrwXded,meets all•the requirements, and Ebe Park' y Development Commission has made-the reccamhdation that City Council adopt Conceptual Plan. R RECCth tiPATIQtJ: +. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the design for Victoria Croves Park and provide comments whsch will ::e forwarded to the City Council. No .'0 L, y, "SAY.. 1 i ITEM M a_��.!,v - .��,--:• T' ���-off;}�y _ `'� ''. �'fir 7 •zza,-e - �•a`�`'.��_..�' � �..,_., me zr s�e2 RC y?r3a'3- �. yq� 3�zc�� 'y�.�t�'� ;-_. .. �••C��•f r••�'.c--. i? 's,.,4:'-^r .tN�." �-`"^=_•� �a GI-.�or�ns Div • _ .` �rY- � C -" ' ;' •__ � tea.. r•. � Q C7 G..z'i � -a.j C•i. cn zp tc 'vy f •.\ (( " - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G�CAx, MEMORANDUM +� Date: April 17, 1986 j 1977 To: Park Development Commission #^ -From- Dave Leonard, Park Projeots Coordinator Subject: Victoria Groves Park.Concept The second park construction obligation of the Victoria Plan community will be due with the next phase development called Victoria Groves. The Groves concept was derived from a stand of seventy-four mature California Pepper Trees. The Victoria Community. Plan (Appendix A) and the area development plan (Appendix B) provide conceptual utilization of the trees in a six acre (+/-) Neighborhood Park. ';The concept though, failed to evaluate the health and structural integrity of the trees in a proposed park application. Staff has been working with the William Lyon Company and their landscape architect, Morse Consulting Group, .to develop working.plans 'for the Victoria Groves Park Site. It was immediately identified that a plan could > not be developed until the condition of the trees were known. To resolve the issue, the Lyon Company and City,mutually agreed 'that in the-best { interest of the park and the City the 'trees needed to be evaluated by a professional arborist. Sam Knapp Tree Service, was selected based on his reputation in the field and his previous workings within the community. = Mr. Knapp v,isually. inspected all the trees and'physically tested seventeen of which he recommended, seven of those which could be used in a :park setting with relative safety. The report-(Appendix C) further states "it 'woufd be prudent to replace the entire, grove", but the seven identiW3ed for y, preserving "ware the best in overall condition". Based on Mr.Knappts recommendation, a'second opinion was commissioned. Golden Coast Environmental Services was contracted and a Mr. Tom:Pehrson from the firm evaluated the trees. Mr. Pehrsonls 'report (see appendix b) ` confirms Mr. Knapp's findings in that he states "A recommendation other ' F than to remove all the trees and start fresh with a new'landscape, was . :. difficult. Mr. Pebrsonlgoes on to state, that with proper attention =twelve f of the trees could be candidates for preservation and his report quantities nteps to be taken to minimize the impact on the trees if'they remain ` r 1 v yY 1 ! M- 3 �, - �:t�.�4 .r. . i3ma. �`.4Yu ad E. � .. � s .c..:h kA1$16.•'.•.: .j'°� '; .Y, VictOela rrovos park,concept Arril 17 19R6 fi�= Pa sad on the two ePorts, the, Conceptual' as proposed in the Victoria area' Development Plan cannot be accommodated with the existing trees. r r w witY this _reformation known, the Morse Consulting develop a conceptual plan with Group was instructed to the following abjeet ores: 1. Incorporate the viable Pepper Trees into the overall design concept; F 2. Establish a plantincr format that symbolizes the :Historical Grove r atmosphere in a eecrent park-format; 3. ,Provide a focal;feature for the terminus of the' aria Parkway; 4. xnc111cla all the amenities needed to establish;a functional Neiahhorhood Park, i.e. picnic facilities, play areas, restrooms, i( off street parkin, hallfield, and court area.. F SUMMARY: 4 The above elements will satisfy the` criteria established'3n the Victoria Community Plan relative to hteighhorhoo�x'Parks as adopted by City Council; fi second the design element provides an aesthetics and functional format,and finally the design is in; keeping with the#City's objectives to provide modern ef: cient and usable facilities.' 4 ., RECCIMMP MAT,T.ODY:' ` At is staffs recommendation that the mark Development�Commission^adopt the 4, conceptual plan and forward a recommendation for-approval cc-the-City Council. a LL i - { } KV 3� tr.. im t- L.i Ll � �nr JFTe f kj s @ � x � _ r r 4 �-9.,1-"':^. '.-L-�'�ec..+.•...y^.c..r �l`- 7 4^^.'?�L+Tsw+ i HE VILLAGE Or VIC i 0RIA GRI'DVE VILLAGE CHARACTER The ccz:acca- o; 4.-,tnria Graves will $L ld ccc.. the mature _ C=:ve of Ca _ _ 2-3==ar Trees. The Can. -C-•---_-��m�s qq .n _ '++ - T a l a �. a .7. des.a The. .n _- . C=�Ve wil: s?rVe 2= a V_., aT• a^.= -_ - _s. C= VILL-kG= ..Gc.- P Tc.a jTi1 is enclosed by ??C.__.-C Ra zv8c trZC.Ksr and `Leer•C_..eC.. G L; .___G and be t 1 ry "he. �(!,e rest an — r a w=? ce =r=m e :cise-an_d t a'_=_c c c-�se reads. G__d_.T'C wee w 'S a t-- _ CZCss se^.__ .. DroIICsed for these roads suOwir.0 blow t'is cou_.A be accomplished i:i an att-ac,_Tre waV. 'k wz?1 t:^.zt ver:e 'i'_ setback from a road cur.^,,, with a ne. R ^d. .A- .. .7v2 C > •�• r.plantzng broken by s:izl'_er infor=al tree. masses wi_� pLcvz t e necessary acoust1caI are. visual protectiCr to create a r nleasinr, and functional st__etsc:-pe- Plant mate==a?' - electian wil? emehasize d_aucht tolerant s_ecies and tc I - mi nirtize irrigation. - •rim..,-��.:� „� C-sfuv6+c^ }svz'Sa Cr- � �..,»a+c«+ n•c�.a,s o�css c?iz_s�c�L�N� -•---ram•i,.�J a�ia+v fdn.usu•cr f ^Ln• M ��Lr� a' cciu�srw•izo�.ales dsc�as "''I `a'I 14T I �a_,rl la+cr• a c t �a fr I 3 r_KLla�r,ax h �d.I I .f'�i5'� I�� � ( _� ,.��• arterial �o M y} AREA. DEVELOPMENT PLAN r:- VICTORIA � GROW , • Rancho Cucamonga_;Ca e • THE WIWAM LYON COMPAN°f' MORSE CONSULTING GROUP THE SWA GROUP rr bY Vfo yy � j 1 n 4� :i :� �,�,. .ram „I.x'� �eysc��-�,._:. ,,•,~ >; �.'�^'SA..f'D �"�� ��ryf ^^'f.Yt�Y-1� ~ �^ 1�i�%�,,..��4�Y •i' 4 i., �'^ r /,a'r!' �•rY'G:y���4a;�'. .�s.-�r� •�t'!qe,� - }; VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN INDEX <' • • •. FA1WA 'uusutw Woke+!/Fw lYOrK.,aM�olnWhwxtt R.w i� / BQW0 No)Itxi4ofCrNIVY �elLw�wM LYtpnQ F71a:+YY FpCUG1AOfalllt wen w. I . FA/QRC.'ObWwl4wWMwaIMVYiO0.1M :. W�•j14-:i1W1s'iwot0l�!t rM.i�[A.'. 4 FFiOf[Q [0•®IwIM•e;�w�MnlfteMi4Y•Mtw [7J®TN RONC� pRrO tY.W « :. - . i]Oa11kQ f, NY1wKM R.ve'ROi1HYlI.IYRIWM 9A®ff0 AYfICt I�01O1'Ri1W .. . C wo (u/�CY�w..LCibO FR01r• MCN.'tweNxlil WlyeM @1 ,- « e� mawn mm�uci.wr:mow'-ilnw @NfP4 .�oae+lalomcr.t 1� _ lRMRN 'sa¢nur4'awlaw.unue 1 ,�`•. wwri 'ooriinr.uwr+ww-wlw.i werta dm¢nrWcwe.Aa�4�w..: �� �...® oaerl :eaewau.ow/w..an. tlQeia '.'.u.a.ua.w.rw..na uc J�P-PEN®1X Brj • t ILLUSTRATIVE`j_ANDSCAPE PLAN VICTORIA GROVES ` Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. THE Wltt+ 4LTCN COukN': • 1 � \• \ A �•C OnE/.CfYlO/Mr1. I- y�/ �, / / •u1 �¢, 'LEGEND ,.� � '•� �� N IS - /Y}r!- 4 A� VIKAC a �r•-••�-^-f1�1(: - �-�, rl %r J. }w J•, ,4. EV' Av I Dr jil � F� ,� � 'j3 •�4 t 1 �r Y i y'.Y`, t yA Z ♦` > Nf/ -T R E"E qUS �{° a`�tl S l 7' rt +;. s l��'T/� +.r f•_� ` , E VIC $: Complete Arboviculiural Services " L .. REPORT FOR µ MORSE,CONSULTING,CROUP I ATTX. ROBERT'J: MEUTING Norwood. Tow�,7enter ; 4860 Zrvine Boulevard,''Suite %201 Irvine, CA 92714-1293 i Sc' OBSERVATIONS AND RECO MINTIONS"REGARDING 1 � TREES 1>AT:- CT, PREPARED BY SAMEIEL L. KNAPP KNAPP fiREE SERVICE APRIL 1, 1986 ; ` CEIV A)p- 1986 THE WILLIM.9 LYON,CLt SAW BtA1 .D)NO CIVI'8 1;-- ,' APPENDIX, C �. i ersI a 759)698 6043 LicensedContracior�481325 Ful(eriopc(74,4) 95'.; n^� 1 slit r nAf• r fYWY�YR p_ RE. Preservation.of Schinus molle (California pepper) grove vi-thin the r - Victoria complex ` There are Seventy Four (74) Schinus molle (California pepper) trees planted in a formal grove settiing and.they are approximately Fifty (50) to Sixty (60) years old. The 6alif6thia pepper trees have been crowing in ' a natural env:sentent. with little or no regular maintenance with respect to safety or to preserving thci,grove., These,trees have been left to the-.•iciss- itudes of nature, a There has been an array of different damaging and injurious elements effected either by manor by natural events. The majority of the trees ex, hibit extensive lower trunk, basal area cavities/decay due_to past equipment r .ti operation and storage- Vandalism, fires, wind damage and limb failure from overweight or unbalanced canopies have created structural loss of strength. Fw• What is seeming to be natural and common such as injuries and stress, which other tree species might tolerate, becomes much more crucial for brittle, tuft-wooded trees like the California pepper tree, which decays readily in- �a"; response to wounding. California pepper trees are very, high in vitality, but extremely low In C vigor. Vitality is the ability to grow, reproduce and maintain overall energy i � sources. Vigor is a trees ability to resist decay, to set or form boundaries, I' and to limit the spread of decay. Vigor is a set genetic cod`uag that ce, not be changed and directly relates to longevity. Thi.a is why the California p�)per t tree can appear to be .in a healthy stable condition, but in reality may bz structurally unsafe. This is thP..:17ndition of the grove in general. s, Enclosed is a sketch,of, :he grove area depicting trees for possible saving J and removal. The Seven (7) trees identified for preserving;a_ere the best in overall condition with respect to the grove, although none could be regardeds as a perftact specimen tree. They had the least percentage of injuries, cam-: bium loss, decay and canopy problems. They were tested with the Shigometer, an instrument that measures,the electrical resistance of the wood for decay, detection. This was coupled with core samples to physicallytaid 'in defining k . discplered systems. Al_l of the seven (7) trees tested had internal 'decay; . thereby limiting the lifespan ''� !t x t, f ., PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MATURE TREES d r 1. Corrective pruning to specified standards for tree preservation -- in urban develojiment. ertif'ied Arborist preferred) 2. Establishment of undisturbed soil.zone,around tree bases, set at a 12:1 ratio of soil surface width to potential trunk diameter. 3. Clearing of all vegatation and installation of hood chap mulch on a needed basis, retention of all natural leaf litter her.e'ath } ' canopies. 4. Where soil has been compacted or otherwise disturbed in the root zone area (particularly under canopies), fertilization, , aeration, watering via soil in,7ection of dll accesible. soil in the 'root zone. 5. Installation of irrigation systems with caps ity for periodic deep watering, during and after development-. 6.::•.Installation of chain link fencing to protect :trees during" development of the area. 7. Examination and, documentation.of each tree, with specific maintenance/-preservation recommendations. ' ., 8. 'transmittal of recommendations and specifications for con- ' tinuin,g tree maintenance to parties responsible for tree and landscape managema t on completion of" area•development. " •t i ors ', t •,�,7. •fir, > i ""? J.: ;i �F M�^•y a.1_ AOL • . y • v: STRATEGIEVTOR MINIMIZING LIA:BIL"ITY RISKS � .r RE: All trees that are' to be preserved " w CONCERNS A. Aging urban forest B. Gro,xth of suburbs* C, Environmentat factors "p Strategies; A, `\ Ail_nual inspection by qualified tree specialists F B. Avoid crisis matagement C. Establishment 4:& systematic management plan •D. Apply arboricultural principals E. Documentat`�:6n • vt' N. • w A ` (lie)441-1305 Golden Coast - EnYlrronmentsl Services,Inc comoutedzed Park and Sttest Tree,lm*niartia 'r •Tree management Plans g •HanlMturat Evaluatlons and A00ralsals I TREE EVALUATION _ TOM PEHOSON traaw.o eeo.+ne w� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Pres.e•nt wu.n•nteut = I ' PROP.PSED PARK SITE — VICTORIA GROVES The trees of the proposed park site are all California peaoers iSchinus mclle). These trees were planted by the previous --- agricultural• r landowner} when land use in this :area Was primarily { a - i: . The ov roll condition of this stand of trees is poor due to d funeal disease organisms- neglect, wind breakage, an The condition oi' the majority, of the trees present do not Justify Based soley ' ate the R incorporation in a park �`etting. l physiological condition, a recomme�z'eticn other than, to remove all the trees and start fresh with a new landscape, was difficult, Considering the lack of mature tree specimens in the F ' proposed development area and the his orical -value of this ." agricultural remnant, I have selected =veral trees that pose as ''ryn the most likely candidates for incorporation ' into the new landscape. The locat,ian of, these trees can: be ' found on the enclosed. map. RECOMMENDATIONS "FOR CARE AND,MAINTENANCE' Iry .t Water relations g e x The- trees of the 'Victoria Groves park site have matured �n` t environment thatmwas not irriUlated.' ct alter,. the Water. relatiahs APPENDIX ❑►' n significantly with irrigation and turf within the dripline of t„�e� tree could hasten the decline of these trees, Ifi};lancsea-koipg, is done within the drrspline oT these trees it should. be done a utili=ing.drought 'tolerant species. 2. Grefl Changes a Removing or adding . oil under a tree,'canopy can seriously damage r, the roots. If grade must be altared significantly within the dripline, the affected tree should be removed. a 3. Pruning All trees to be incorporated, into the new landscape setting ' �• should receive a ,Class I Fine Prune. What 'follows is the National Arborists Assoceatior, soeciTications« CLASS I FINE PRUNING ,,Removal of dead, dying, diseased, int.rrFering,, objectionable and weak branches. }_ Fine pruning shall consist of the removal of dead, dying, ' diseased interfering, -objectionable, and weak branches, as well- as selective thinninig to lessen wind resistance. The removal aaf such described branches is to include those on the main trunks, as well as those inside the leaf area. An Occasional, branch, upL, to 1/21,11 diameter,, as described:above, may remain; wit,tin ttie miCi, ... leafi area s a"I t� emo�, y to its full Icng..it� When it is, not practac _ y M . The following specifications shall apely`: a. All cuts shall be made 'sufficie-tly . close to the 'trunk or = parent limb., without cutting into' the branch collar, or leaving a y " protr Uding stub, so'that closure can reads l^.-.'start unuar normal conditions. Clean cuts, shall- be made at Al times. ' b. It is necessary to pV,.'_ut branches too heavy to handle prsavent splitting or Pee sng the bark, adhere necessary, tc. prevent tree or prGparty damage, branches shall be lowered to the I v ground by proper- 'ropes. or equipment. c. Remove -t`f% weaker :or least' desirable of crossed or'.,rubbinq AVL IP branches. Stti�, removal should not leave large ,holes in the ,Ax,eral Outline cf;cFa tree. d. Treatment of;-cut= and wounds, witn tree wound dressing, is optional except where open wounds in certain trees ma,> attract insects that carry didease or allow fungus invasion: If such treatment is made, materials non-t=:lic' to the cambium layer must be used, and care taken to ' treat only the wxposeH wopd with a thin coat of dressing. e. On. trees known to be disea_;ed, tools are to be disinfected with; methyl alcohol at 70% (denatured wood_ alcohol diluted!- appropriately with water) or Chlorox solution .after each cut ai~d i � .,` w� .774 _ between tretas where there is known to be a da»gar of #,ransmrt'tia�g the disease on tools. f. Old injuries are to be �nsrected.. Those riot closing properly. N �k and where. the callus growth' is not already completely t J. established, et'tiulc 'tie 'traced where aopropr e.te.. If,desired. :for cosmetic purposes, wound may be treated with a thin coat of wound dressing. g. Where practical, all visible girdling rants shall be treated `t ,{ as follows: 1. Cut root at either"did. y 2. Notch roov in center 'with a ch*,sel. 3. Remove entire root without injuring the bark or parent stem. !- structur- 1 weakness'.. 3isease conditions, h. The presence of any , decayed trunk or branches, split crothes for branches,; should be - a supervisor and/or the, owner, and reported. in writing to t L '$ corrective measures recommended. 1 C ? " `+. Inspection during site development K� It is highly recommended : tf�.'A the all trews be inspected by a qualified arborl�ft both during constrict"ion and'.,post con3truetlon, kr . phases. ' t� 4 'i •" / ' fi.�'�2: �,J a�~� l µ 9� .M �d L ." il' Y 1113 k Y 10 { tih r k r fr 'a �`k �J'' .,r,�r, "ct ��,� -F,;+ti}��' '.,J w• *••a aex� �. .� of x `"t 'CITY OF RANCHO CU(-,AMONGA ucan MEMORANDUM s DATE: Apri 1 23, 1986 W TO: Chairman and Members of the PLann'ng Commission FROM: Brad Buller, Cisty P1"anner a tj BY: Hoytard FieLd�, jRss;istant Planner ,. ,. a j SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8542,= ,EDWARDS. CIM:MA. - Modification to the approved butlding::011eVations — i1 ' The modification re4uest4lris •scheduled as a "r."egular item. at the Design Review Committee meeting of Aarl'1 '1c', 1986. The Committee reviewed' and deliberated '. on the issue and after,coh§s�derabie discussion, decided to defer this item to ` the full Planning Commission. Attached. are Development Review Committee comments, staff report, resolution of approval, and minutes to familiarizerthe Commission on the background. BB:HF.ko Attachments: DRC CommenjLs Staff 'Re o ResQutiorbnS 85-112 & 8349B { Minuf'es q + ITEM N , .?. d DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS ' 6:00 , 6:30 Howard April 17, ` DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8542 MAWS'CINEMA A,.request to modi ey;the approved' building elevations for+a sirXfplex movie theatre of 25,188 square,,feet•,within a an approved master plan (Virginia .Dane Geater), ,Located on the northwest corner of Foothill and Haven_ 1n thJ General Commer°ciaT (GC''D strict):a APN< 1077-104-01 and 03'. _- Related File CUP 83-07 i Issues: The appIica!' prop�osedi.to delete•the^.'!furred-out°' stucco rdetai l ;on ' side and resr elevations dice• to•'cost. This modificatiom�would significan -!Y' affect the shadow patterns and rel 'ef'i;at this stucco 'detail provides.ip an otherwise stark building elevation. l Staff Comments: �( Architecture: Staff feels• this modification .request to the theatter's 4 elevations would effect the projects �,-sign in a detrimentalvway. She-stucco, detail provides articulated planes to•highlight, and .accentuate the; bandsAof:* -- horizontal 'color changes Whichi occur in the building elevations and pr4v�'de relief to the large building mass. <Staff recommends that the Committee.'uphol`d the approved elevations. Design Review Committee;A4 ion: Members Present: Staff`Planner: Howard Field's `6% s �p r .t A, tA ice. Pz. •�� )�€� \ '� � R ct ha ? �. _ J i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiv1ONGA STAFF REPORT �°`UCA�'�^'�9 C C _Z r FDATE: July 24, 1985 ten TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director BY; Dan Coleman; Senior Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-22 , EDWARDS CIP:_ a sfeet ix-p.lex movie theatre of ZS EMA - Development of thirteen acres of land located on the northwest corner.Z Foothill and Haven (Virginia Dare Cente-e), in the General Commercial (GC District) APN - 1077404-01 and 03. Related File - CUP 83-07 Z. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reguested• Approval of site plan, elevations and review of shared parking concept. B, Pur ose: Development of a 1.800 seat theatre. C. Location: Northwest corner of Foothill and Haven (Exhibit D. Parcel S%ze: 13 acres. E. Existing !bni_ M General' Commercial F. Existing Land (Ise: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North -- Vacant, General Commercial South - Vacant, Office Professional East Vacant, Community Commercial West - Vacant, General Commercial H.' Site Characteristics: Former Garrett, Winery site which has «. Bee regraded and Phase I i_.i under construction. The site slopes at approximately 2% grade: e. 'sr PLANNING COMMISSION S F REPORT Via` OR 85-22 - fc'ward�_r nCm Jul 24 Y 985 Page A2 II. ANALYSIS• _ A. Seneral On December 12," .1984, the Planning Commission ? approved a revised master an for the Virginia Dare Center which included the proposed 1,800 seat theatre (Exhibit 911). ;This change in use provides,, for considerably more pocking demand than was formally 'shown under the orig.i'nal concept . ,plan. Therefore, it was tteeessary to consider, a:shared parking -" program under the theatre proposal consist At wiith the shared parking provisions in the De�'elopment Code. In, addition,"the theater sii, -,plan proposes, to 'OiMinate nine parking spaces in front of i-he theatre to create a'c.onveni,ent drop=off point and larger open, plaza area:. In a0dition, the .Design Review Committee recommended that Staff 'analyze the shared packing concept to assure that .substantial conflict will not exist between the office and .theatre users. The attached table p (Exhibit "F"), indicates that if all businesses' were open at ( full capacity, a total of j.1,226 parking spaces would be necessary versus 784 provided, 1n other words, if the theater opened'mi,d-day, there is a 1001. shared parkinq overlap during "business" hours�� until about 5:30 p m. uonflict between office/restaurant users` and cinema patrons will reach its peak x$ during the=summer months. In response to this concern, the Christeson Company has indicated their' willingness to reserve an,office pad until such time as the theater and remaining uses { are fully established. Staff.would recommend that a new parking analysis' be provided"at that time todetermine if a conflict exists. B. Options: The followin options i tons�_ should u d b 9 p e considered. relative to shared parking: 1. Defer construction of an office building until theater) and other uses-are fully established -for one r year, or 1l 2. Limit matinees (eg. #screens), on weekdays, subject to annual review of+parking;, or 3. No matinees during daytime hours on weekdays. C. Design .Review .Committee: The Design Review recommended approval of the proposed elevations` as consistent with the design theme of the Virginia Dare Center. However, the Committee expressed concern,with the permissibility of the PLANNING COMMISSION S 'F REPORT DR 85-22 - Edwards Cirmma' July 24, 1985 Page #3 light bulb strip on the south elevation. As the Commission will recall, recent interpretation by the Commission and the City Council concerning the Video Zone was that a light bulb strip is defined as a sign and could not be permitted -in addition to the other wall signs proposed under the sign regulations for a business within a shopping centar. Whereas, the Sign Ordinance regulations for movie theaters would not prohibit—the light bulb. strip The Sign Ordinance provides flexibility for certain uses, such as theaters an regional d malls, to develop uniform sign programs. Further, the Sign Ordinance does not establish any limitation on the type, number, size or height of signage for a movie theater. The , Sign Ordinance requires the Planning-Commission to approve the conceptual sign program for the theater, as illustrated.on the attached elevations (EXi\ibit "D"). D. Environmental Assessment The Planning Commission issued a Negative Declaration on June 8, 1983. No further action is required. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. The project will not cause detriment to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. - The proposed site plan design and elevations together with the recommended conditions and compliance with the applicably regulations of the Development Code. IV. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review t`he information provided and select from the options regarding shared parking. If the Planning Commission can support the Facts for Findings, a Resolution of Approval is attached. Respectfully submitted, ti Jac �L, Community Develo n Director RG:DC:cv Attachments Letter from Architect Exhibit "A" - Location Map , Exhibit 9" - Master Plan ' Exhibit "C" Revi:2d Master Plan �+ Exhibit "D" - Elevations Exhibit "E" Grading Plan " Exhibit "F" �-'Parking Calculations Resolution of ,Approval with Conditions — y �� �'� ■ U111� _E= a rn� I//iIf p ,N elllle� inn Ilin/IR/ N - IIU/nlq �� OtlalY!/nfiiii i /1;111q ® fnntlfn/uelp � 1 pe!lWllflf/l�ui � CO3.1lt tsaa�fulaulnaa u �=•�/� i�a■ aa�laaalaala s. aN uauanrua■ 1llulfn '��. r� nftlaaaala Ifla fIt•rr r=r � f�n rr�r arap- i m w,ry ife�effla ■ ■ - - urn F a�st9 �ssnsrta + N IE9F f n- mr,• ? ��i�i.,�o�A o a •�c �! l oe 4 e g Op.� o • ¢ m, �. O ,-tywoq np O gOpw Op:4gwrroeg.q ggP4�iAo.so a.A p94" 1Y4 o.40P -4O QOCR.QQ40:D0 tl n •,a a•a 5 , a Q� °��_- � �"R'p a St enoeaoeee�flena0007 oaDag�na �$L Y y, r - 33 OTw f ��C. � i � 1 � f•.:7 Ertl'�y:�=�5``,�{ �,� � - -' •!�� t n �`y IcK a, VON- -It '•� •• �. Vuj e• .,1 iii� C tu LU .W� 3 Ul tu 17 tz W` r , RESOLUTION NO. 85-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CtiCAMONGAPLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 85-22 LOCATED AT THE>' 4^ NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AND FOOTHILL IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 12th day of dune, 1985, a complete application was filed by Edwards Cinema .for design review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of July, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. _ follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met r 1. That the proposed prnject is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2, that the proposed use- is in accord with the object1ve nf_;t! Development Code and the purposes t of the atstrict 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 tree conditions applicable thereto, will,not be detrimental to the. Public health, safety, 'or wetfare, or materially injurious vicinity, to properties or improvements in the SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environ—nt an that a Negative Declaration was issued on June 8, 1983. SECTION 3: That Development Review Ns, 85-22 is approved subject to the follOWing conditions and attached Standard Conditions: Design Revie:r '. 1. Al? pertinent conditions of CUP 83-07 as contained in Resolution E3-79, shall apply, 2. Construction shall include a parking lot with minimum of '�155 Parkings;aces within 300 feet. - `. u 3. Under the current, `Shared parking ,concept, the construction of �' . office structures adjacent to the 1<h,?ater, insofar as the same require more than 85 parking spac_s, shall be deferred until specifically approved by a modification to the Conditional Use Permit for the site. At the tiMe any-surh office structure is proposed to be developed, the aF, licant shall sub,nit a detailed parking analysis to determine) if there is adequate parking for all then operating and proposed uses. This study shall he reviewed by the; Planning Commission. if a conflict exists between the theater and other uses, then the Planning Commissian' shall consider a modification, to the applicable Conditional Use 9ermit to reduce the square footage of the unbuilt remaining office buildings in an amount commensurate with the parking overlay, limit the hours of operation -of the cinema, or other appropriate mear; of assuring adequate parking, T is condition shall be iAcorporated in a document approved by -.hc`City Attorney to be,recorded to provide Notice of Condition to prospective purchasers of the subject property prior to tha issuance of a building permit for the cinema. 1� 4. A textured treatment s,t+il be used in the pedestrian walkway underneath the arbor that runs through the site, including across the parking lot. The arbors shall .be plae.�,J'with vines, and creeping varieties of wines or. ivy shall be utilized against wall surfaces ' throughout t1j41 project reminiscent of the original winery. 6. Adequate lighting shall be provided nn all sides of building for the safety and c -:ity of theater patrons. 7. Proper crowd z?trol f7zi1)ties and management shall be provided for ,waiting liner to ensure that theater patrons do .,. not block access to adjacent buildings o► conflict with vehicular circull`ion. r 8, Grand openings and, other special events, such as movie i». ,. premieres, shall req re review and approval of a Temporary Use Permit by the Planning Division. 9. crash enclosure/transfowmer location shall be modified to provide access to the satisfaction of the Foothill Fire District. a 4 c Engineering Division:` +i 1. All pertinent conditions of:PM 8303 shall be adhered to. 2. A lot line adjustment s�all be recorded to eliminate the lot 4, line t.!tween the two parcels, containing the theater prior to- the issuance of building permits. APPXWED AND ADOPTCD THIS 24TH DAY OF JVV,:.14D5_ i5 PLANN G MMISSION OF T EyCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: vvlo 3 Dennis L. -tout,'" F a r , Jack Lam, S2.rEt " I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission oi- 'the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resc'lution was duly and regulari,.,-Antroduced, passed, a0d, adopted by-17'he Plannirg �ommIssi.on of the City 6f Rancho Cucamonga, at~a re gular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of July, 1995, by the re-flowingvote-to-wits ^YES': COMMISSIONkRSi STOUT, CHITIEA,,BARKER, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ASSENT: _ COMMISSIOW'S. REMPEL Am L� F V �• I .&"JY[SS.f$. •d^k m }i ui Yh6T�C� -RESOLUTION NO. 83-79B_. f A RESOLUTION° OF THE' CITY OF RPNCHO CUCAMONGA PLArNING �• . COMOISSION AMENDING CONDITI6NAL USE PERMIT 83-'17 TO f REVISE-'THE MASTER SITE PLAN FOR iHE`VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER LOCATED AT TH1, NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,.AND ?HAVEN AVENUE ON 13.1 ACRES OF LAND F -ON 1077-401-01 ANDki 03. WHEREAS on Zth day of June, 1983-the aancho Cucamonga Planning -. Commission approved the Environmental Assessment and Candito^al Use F,�mit ` 83-01 for a Master Plan at the Ui rginia Jai a Business Park Center, and WHEREAS on the 12th day of ­�cember, 1984 the rancho Cucamonga Planning commission `eld a public hearing to consider the above-described' amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolves as follows: SECTION 1: 1. That the proposed master plan as rey' is in accord With the General Plan, the obi of the +` Development Cade, and the' purposes o, vistrict hi Which the site is located. 2. That the proposed revised Master Plan together .with the conditions applica le hereto will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or walfare iE or ma4erialt� injurious-- to properties or !'- improveme-ts ,i i;he vicinity. 3. That the revised Maetet Plan complies with each of + the applicable prov •;nos of the'Develcpment Code. SECTION 2: '.That the Conditional Use Permit No. 83-07 is approved subject to conditions contained within the Planning Commission Resolution' r!a. '!. €3-79 and 83-79A, and the foliuoing conditions: f 1. The owner shall provide for implemertation of a . shared oarking program cor,:ept through: cxecutirq all necessary packing Vexchange betwaen all property owners th',the of the City Attorney prior to b. Under ,.,re,_ t shared parking concept, the land use Ofx­ annot *provide for any greater intensification of parking , demand through modification. of land use types. 9a ' __.. - - Y Resoluti oil No. 83-796_, Y � Pa9e 2 C. Assure through. an executed agreement with the County Flood Control District, a long term lease agreement which prnvides for the use of the area shown on the western boundary of the blar, for parking,for a:minimum of fifty-years, ` q d. Provide ,for a 'greater'aistribution of' lompact parking stalls. ' 2. (assure with further detailed � Site plan,, the enhanced opportunity for pedestrian orient4ition E features ,-round the restaurant cluster ad3a' er'% to *• Haven Avenue. 3. Pravide a conceptual landscape plan ,ub4ect to Design Review approval prior to the submittal of any �. detailed site, plar. 4. Assure that.. the architectural stateent for all remaining bui'jdings will be com ate'p able, with the overall architectural program currently, appTwed for the Virginia Dare Winery office building. 5. The fast food use at~the northeast corner of the site shall'.be �ele6-d from the Master Plan, P?PROVED AN. ADOPTED THIS 12th 'DA%" DECEMBER 1984. PLANK COMMISSION ,OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' BY: /' , Dennis L Stout,_Chai an ATTEST; ? k Ric�C Game ,, Deputy Secretary -4 40, .. t. r T MUL Tcr L V T OT -iT1' O a L. Y� •.b u-•t� •,• 0{+, 6G Y� U L a y0 L G O a y 40 O :E N O.L a A O E� �+ 2.p E Y C _ C c$ -o.o r bo F O.0 La vY +E Vy O Y"0 `OICO and IY.0 vpVi9 a. U q N b L C we .-. S q�U E G r . Orvz L .Or2S �LL4. E.'bO O aN Syu L Cpi G6:Y Olw .dL C.ON CL•y GO _ u,Bb N^oLG: gc.. Ne L EE uo COI uq.A .SAGO : O'q-.0 qN-6 �EE:0..7 a1CY a .:JY N q,G YaN n b 0.10 L"Olw O.O p. A v+iE LO"' H aCO•d + ZO.6^..w0+ u« + Eli , a,os in a:.Lom ma owv o. qe per 6�y ZEEE LEA L _e d W c tUy O-v� •'oE y ur 1409 p, G AV N i`l O.C�V L E¢+ QC� E:G+CL O Y E.N GA Y�OZYL �.0�6 Oq.. � 96 9 vt w `. �a 6C•... UV O O p tt d+Vg2a'SN142� i"•OC�N O:Uy ¢.�.T.aG1�S 4i1�"im 1�L CL 6U rm 0 tJ uwpi� •I. � L O.c V O+ E�. O N 6 q L= ^ T t > W a d � �N o .•y q p. 7 F• ~ C u7..1 b O� A � �Y p V A �. '. .. F• � O T 'u� j Y {YF�`��vy . tn}v N O o N Ask �'-�"" �d A N, `p x p� O a• C d'L O 6 r d, ^L L D o p. _4 V u O .ry prb M A b L / r 4 O O0 NW T Dw }] fi c r� me Ly. p aL OQq � vtli Y q yE 4' L _ A O Oq tTEE OO • O• V{l L V 1 'TO db p O A.L r d 4. b N �` , E.yy> 001 kt T CV yn�LL U.d n6 44 C bNd �� L Or E 4V�b 1 pbN �L b ap i q� / � Lp L u.N•"y 111000 d' N N /� O n.�� OI 6 p A� � ub OM _bV NC4 V M ..-. C G L L yqir RE �uf ��" 4'w G.M SNO I��Nt QN:api r�^.O�>OiAN60 44�00. `...C.L `• QY .q.046 • �./ �.cn CGd av d L 'r dG O o n '�� Dn �L>,•bb —r E>ELb.CN� �w 0 p 0 wS L q d 6�� n� C cc0=tom .3 ^L O y p' -.3C a a O p 6� �d •C.~ V Z n9 q y LAC y ud ^ 4b A.S Y ob N -y0 b ' TN 4 O ^ TY AV LO �6 Lw to �ub0 L Z N d 0 C t b b tlet L V u V q` uE Y �V C9ud V �t Y�O 1�yq u.�dGdS. CC YE yb. Ndy .0 ' 7 T.d C '[ �Y N. {TAb E 6b Or "✓ L L N O > d b d b u" O N D L iT V y b b. C^ T+ti �.404 %b OpEU.b V. n0 qb. U 4 T Abd ^ U. Oa Yd F'd. 0 C ^ O1 nd V Vp0 V Np•. �O: Y O n• a bu d 7O O• n�L b. L' F C u.: LYC Q N b �� V q L LO C�b CO N L. C _ d x d l 00 V O Ol nc u p dn.� u EG C Eb O. O V.ln n 6U^... i. Q..N4 Q.4•rm i 6bN FO.N QV i-y �-oN.^4 a.cn q4 ii'i n..i:a v c i} ^ q = d L W V\1 y 4 4 J. EN uq bs •r^ 9a Y T qa d E o = r d ny 01 a L c 2 7 < 4J nOwL `o�.o .,'-,."r Y '. .o 0 d C L V2. Y N' L r � f G o "• ... = y ... u t L z. H N a b u Y O li a tvq R 6y Si RQ •�-- T =iur oio aL " -pN d ^ o^ Di: IS. TaNW ua Y�2L 'HE2 r u T u O d i a 4 U r 9 r M 0 u« �N i C:=G 60 ' u N n v dt N d b' 00 S.�:DI arn• gg L p 6.rEE dbu.E L .q.N 06� r repE�:OTia .T6 4dy.Yr V L N G iC EyG.c ¢�rniub Nov uTiLiir a..o V .�w u2i N c ^o. 43=.-S. C�a= 'di o� ti etil I �� ^ _til EMI �� t•l N� S w,.Q i�r `Q''u r�. G w=. v F.D w d 5Y.=.. pv ucAi v _ '° Lc, m y �. zq u Hs...'' LD.e� Qd a' e s aD ns sia�^Y 6`�$E �y'row ««�•4 w N Ea-•, L c e'Ni D P w=_ oru Lam.^ ¢lac T o 'd m`^^G gNAorY n O wo: E.. M V 9y it Pv S.d. .D...l y Jq^. <. .a0^a .O O,pL ARC L E. a aOV Y L. p K�yL A•Y tlm uu a d«. OL O f; .Ono. WS «4DaY Lf a.Hd ^n.NO b0 N= 6E =D_ bq _ rEo msn e.1. rVa+O qmu LEY:o UNu,p R N 2 p Z :a a .. p=C + b C O y a N L a 7 W C L q d R a d d a b z at c V9A nbb N�.du P. qVY q i qt r n a J T 69 a .n.� YHR ^ cE L Gjq aorZQE pu^ LM d.-. b rns '� p M •Nn= D n4 C 6q«u 4 L E d n 0 C d w.= 'O E �.i+vbr�,CN`ee :c^�na Yyi.a 1a au.. nw oy D��_ ru.ei'xc cey .^y' x a <.Yp c; rn < rt� � r � « E. nY tVi rE. V q' E Cw ?,.• �+•Ep nd 7.1 41 FY :� •'�L dat _ .� � Uo.0 cn Y.LL �i�d 4N jWUSm, LEU u J b Y ^EE T N=O O,.N tJy^r LL E •L S uY C.. N� � cE �La q6 u..Q 4^ �.yN. •V� 4J 1.y\ 1QG aN tqL — N h. ^. c L6 Wd _ qb. t:.l aaa a v, �Asuz E. n va. 4 `NdN �( «00 CS O,CO AT O 2tau" ut �U apd C o. jq t) O d a Eon� � •vim LL'y n y? N 4 .+a OY 4 �^N bayYi o �o ,znC- Oo 4 ^ L. A 4 y git M u U a >. m OyH eE em 3Nc Va L CL GU O` c.` c� y� .d •p O C« OIC.Y � rn r n L C A«u L C n L d rn `.L'L'tL YiG ham. '� •O FOWL iO4a 49 VI C.Ma N � A� tl a• N 11 Z o , - II qN da u d � O « c^ •p u w.v p • 6^C L �o ! y F • � L U y_ u 1 � bq ya V 'S VaOi �. 4 c Yy LYG. Y4 4 L ,.NT a cN.d. upp Y .o« Ea Cam. 119 �' 4 i « �• O a f C r V OLn Llcn M a U`.N L a LCU C .�T a QC UO. VrY ^••Gb t=, N d O t^�9 L� q N Et O Ny 4 = 2 bnL '.a z LL ,~i,.06Y L 4qV aut6 O w q • � � ^y L. ,. O n L c 2 4a 4 F y^ a O a aqy n. UpvJ. w a.0 O :C OG >V tl IN x� b.SJ c y a P Y 4 q O cUd t YA O �� .. L q T•.+ .v« vi« c «w Ac. � nh :�,.,p .,,,o M � D ^ sue-.: ..,Le— a '�-•^=,.a4m cY L .LEis He`s �as�Sr•� 'U - .'c.o f a o o b .n O � .�4.0 fiEd q y yo • e u n c Oq d yt. qON Dd d •+0Y ..om q. E N xa o V '`: Nd OIL C O L L bgNw Cv n � ii L b L D• a q L O y W V L6 �6 �" d�u Dr Eud^ o. O q, N m A E L N �. b O y T C E C a x q !17 ^ O O O b i•� q�0 O +. 4 OEate. � d`p ^ ' ; ,o L 01 d0 � d� i tgEq„ Nb Y aC qL "q E n N�• LL Z 2 ^ a= 6 c 'tLmaaai 4.0 4u00�n V=oi 4 bsc N 9^ m u p v d n ca a-%.0 ow .La cia �¢rt .o.'ui o ¢u.'c• 'I N 2 Ln J G C O� aµ C 0 CL �•• Y E{ gg MO f C L �� 'c. o y d a • � ba Ca �.r.q 2'.0 3.fi L.d �_ � V V� � d O d.B y� �. ^f 0�,••a•. `ti � V pq c y u O. iq CC `i.dug =t. V j u c a C ., i> �^ 'm o« oN•do o c;m� at E.y •'z- eq NV 9U<� D^u+y+T.. E c... �c Lq€ Aa a A.. v€o u o.0 �.a V a G_ N O N :r� •'�+ a.. w`:� mC� Wd 0... d �� t y••OL� L,t, O C. NGL i .• Na O..�T-�q r. -Q 4b d ONE V�. 4M i � 'C ui 01 O .a nLi Y N i °' e s c. wo ._a. V� i'• �"'.� nd 'c' c .o.G vN�$,.. ago a N mq. aN G �q LW St O. C E �. b; �. .. 'E u°i• N q s'S.. d o .i.p p Y ElI. 0 ` u' sot amoa .oaf e ` cE Kqo cq ' = n N;, � �� Y - - L Ld wy O� O .c0.00 O� E t d .. 3 C y dqp U k G d ip v o nr da. °' ,�d r c 0 pd L M^ wp Z cd tv U 6N, w S c 01N n.. o ca gooZo- o.- 1 G3Y a LG� 6� dc0 C.y E.q a.CiT g P i' qy. V aEpE C� y C A —V Pp —tY.qL d•p C g aY 6 V j OGd w� a d' pL� C�.,A � Yn y00 E 7 L b c d a q 'I E N W U ^N p d d�..• ; L c qY} �S— l�dbgE Y iW GU: dw QL E c t o Am- 66wM c'N lqp a w .. d T a w c a L. a d o c. L Vq _ O.TC� V L u `N _ C Fg V Y Y ^ S+• V �.O. � L c y y c Q wo i 7 c ~ 0 H N C wM p: N g LiT.,C �+ E Y �d C uA, 'c Y. F b a - c j u C a qw .0 oc .- O a a U w... 4p b L A PQ L Y wV Ip bi , O3 y L. iO wW. iY 1 4 c C w.0 Y Y E \ U _ �- 6s. '•G Ca W.3 a U.qq NO: 6L tip W y J w O y^A � - r ZE Y Y 4 A a•_ F ` 57 p o c a gy d L� AV N -a4 tl N Oa • Y ti ~ ' 9 N ` L N C L S. dp C L + o. N S •�aFi a L c'. m Au - q .c� L r � Ny N �• m9 - ;w �`a 'cvQ a vu o aq:M iU du �N LLN up d . 6 a 2�'. i1p�� d •-C p ` O D O.a may. 6 AYY ay .p. .- ua I N � n v a E O V w Y S D u ` L 83 3512 lz a wD y p5 Y � u tL 1LprY >Y Yj L` Rd M O. M 4u �Su cA �•�`, cL a d � -A�s. o �+ d O y,a p d V ate: a.'n4 I.e +•V .4•a OSD1 a�a pW • a� LL 1 p� 404 aoy YYy i _ a� u e f-v ¢o» ¢« .d+ia o aAG to I Ys- • a; -.• 4 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDU;iTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 35-02 - Amending Section E., Parking & Loading R?quirements page .III-26 _ to_ include defined interior building areas -,at can be deducted from the overall parking requirements,, Section E.3, Parking Spaces Required (page IIi-29) to include a parking ratio for research & development uses; and Table IIL-2, Land Use Definitions for research & development uses and identification of the applicable subareas (Table IIi-1) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CUDE AMENDMENT 85-02 - Amending ' Section 17.04.050D co ng off-site parking lots to include additional ! language to clarify public safety issues. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the rtiblic hearing. There were no comments, therefore the Public hearing was cloned,. Chairman Stout advised that these amendments had been discussed by the Commission at several meetings prior to this hearing and that they had been continually fine tuned to arrive at this point. Motion Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and 'ndustr al Specific Plan Amendment 85-02 to the City Council. Moti,nn carried b the followinq-vote: AYES COMMISSIONERS: BARKER,' MCNIEL, STOUT, CHITIEA Ankh ( NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment.85-02 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:.` COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BONE ABSENT: .OMMISSIONERS REMPE L -carried aerie d NEW BUSINESS i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW85-22-- EDWARDS CIN�AMA Development of'a 6-plex movie theater of 25, square feet on acr of land located at the northwest. corner of Faathi11 -^nd Haven (Virgin<a bare Center_) in the. General Commercial (GC) District - APN 1077-104-01 and 03: Related File:' CUP 83- 07 Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 24, 1985 ,. _ - �� . .- k - Dan Coleman, Senior..Pianner, reviewed the staff report:. James Markman, City Attorney, prcposed ar amendment to Planning Division condition 3 of the Resolution explaining that an overlap conjunctive parking use of almost 100% would exist assuming that all proposed office pads are developed. Because of that 'and because of the differing hours of operation, he advised that it is unwise at this point to deny a trade off of the theater use for any or: all of the office pad uses but also unwise to preclude other uses 'a second look at what happens when the. theater I operates. the additionally recommended that an agreement be recorded to assure that any prespective purchasers would have rstice that there is are approved site plan, but the office structures which could operate at the sarra time as the movie theater, at least.in the summer and on vacations, are not assured unless i't is demonstrated that the parking needs are met.' Mr. Markman then read the following imendment to Planning Division condition 3 into the record: 3. Under the current shared parking concept, the construction of each office structure adjacent to the theater`shall be defer-ed until specifically approved by a modification to tree CUP for the site)' At the time, any such office structure is proposed to be developed, the applicant shall submit a r detailed parking analysis to determine if there is adequate parking for all then. operating and proposed uses.,, This study shall be reviewed, by the Planning Commission. :f a conflict ,exists' W-ween the theater,and other uses, then the Planning Commission, shall consider a modificati *, to the applicable Conditional Use Permit to reduce the square i;oota; of the unbuilt remaining office buildings in ,n amount commensurate with the parking overlap, limit the hours of operation of the cinema; or other appropriate means of assuring adequate parking. This condition stall be iinorporated in a document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded to provide Notice of Condition- to prospective" purchasers of the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit for the cinema. ' Chairman Stout invited, public comment. Don Christeson, Christeson Company, Ltated that the Virginia pare Master Plan was approved in December after many hours of deliberation o".Ir ,parking with< City staff, parking specialists, and representatives from Edwards Cinema. He advised that financing had been obtained and building pads were being sold and constructed based on the approved, site pian. further, that he objected to coming back to'the .drawing board at this late date with second thoughts after the master plan had been carefully planned. He advised what the City Attorney was proposing would be financial disaster to the project.. Mr .;Christeson suggested that the theater be allowed to go into operation to see it there is a problem and if a problem does surface, deal with it when the last building is submitted. He stated that if a parking problem does exist, the size of the last building could be cut back eliminate the known problem.--, Further,, that the Christeson Company has been cooperative in the 2 1/2 years it had taken to ;. process the project through the City. Planning Commission Minutes -32- July 24, 1M .t X� Chairman Stout explained .that n it had taken: 7. 1t" years to th_ reason .. process the project is due-to the fact .that the Christeson Comparv� had inade two or three major revisions to the original plan. He advised that the P.lannnC *. Commission is -very careful in considering these types of projects, therefore - it was not' as,,3f it had taken 2 1/2 years to process this Proposal. f Dan Coleman :Senior-Planner, stated that the City is in concur-ence with wt:,t Mr. Chri,t.fon has stated in regards to allowing the Theater to proceed, which LL i is the reason the City Attorney was requested to draft the amendment. He advised that the only difference seemed to be that Mr. Christeson is referring to one pad, while the City Attorney's recommendation includes the two pads i adjacent to the theater. Further, that, ttia reason one offs ce 'pad was not considered, is because the parking does not equate to t W_,;--r`Iap. -I s Mr. Markman stated that the proposal wr Ad only apply t;j each office pad adjacent to the theater and that no one is suggesting pulling all ;uilding- pads off the market_ ' Mr. Christeson stated t)iat he did not understand why this project was before i the Commission Wien approval was granted in December. Chairman Stout replied that the;approval in December' das for the entire ,ite and that each time a building goes into the center it ivill be subject to the Development Review fru,-%, just like any c%.Tar building) in the City. Jack Lam CommunityDe°. I �^ apment Directc^r, stated tfihat a:,•, the condition a proposed by the City Attorney is intended to do' j,s Formalize what Mr. Christeson previously stated. Mr. Lam advised that Mr. Michaels of tr,e Christeson Company had contacted staff and stated thatIthe Christeson Company could not accept any of the options outlined in the staff report. Further, that a discussic:r ensued as, to what conditions would be acceptable to the developer and to the City, a-:j based upothe City Attorney was requested to .n that discussion with Mr. Michaels t a condition. Mr. Markman was d to draft a de�elop':r and the tycondition wh which would whichgive athe accomplished esomehamount of control.ectives of yet � stall, give the developer the latitude to . ret propose 3 building at :any ,e.. Additionally, all the condition does is put into writing that if there, is a r. problem, tR•I City has the oppcztunity to di4cuss with the applicant the adequacy of parking and does not limit the matinees or put a tame limit on �;. when the developer can construct another building. ✓ Chairman Stcut explained that all the City is saying is- that based' on apresentation made in December when the;oas5er plan was approved, it in good Faith believes that the appri..lnt s parking ,concept is probably right, but if it is not right. the City wants some pri,cection. Further that the City Attorney's proposal is the minimum amount of protection that the City can have to provide another a?tenative to revoking the.Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Mir.ates -13 July 24,,16 air I985 ni- +: 4 Mr. Christeson stated that his concern is that he had approval in December and ,�. now the issue is being reopened. Further, that the City had an opportunity to put conditions on t�Ye theater at that time. F Commissioner Barker, that a number of years had been spent on this project. Further, that the theater was not part of the original plan, but came in rather rapidly and almost at the last minute and the Commission raised € several concerns. He advised that no o)ie was trying to destroy or delay ti,is! ! project, the Commission is simply trying to do its jcb to assure that down the r line people aren't parking and walking across the street from the Lewis project or the projec' to the north. He f:.rrtver stated that the City is .+ attempting to act responsibly i,:x trying to take care of a problem now before it occurs and to assure that people rho are.;buying the office pads know that there may be a parking problem. Commissioner Barker requested discussion regarding the proposed lights around the theater and stated that he disliked them. Chairman Stout di'sitgreed with Commiss Mer Barker's comment regarding the lights. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she did nat, eei the light; would' dd to the overall project and stated that there ;night be other forms of lighting that might be more subtle and attractive. She additionally referred ?o condition 6 of the %eso-lution regarding adequate lighting, and suggested that decorative lighting be extended to the back of the building. Chairman Stout requested that the margvee design be submitted to the Design. Review Commnittee, .lack Lam, Community Developm,_eit D1r7acter, suggested that the Co.m. fssion defer �'iscursion on this item to later in the agenda to allow staff an LFportunity h 4o meet with the developer to reach a consensus on the amended condition. By consensus, the Commission deferred discussion of Development Review 85-22 to later in the agenda. ,. 1 ,?E, iCiR'S REPORTS P. NOTICE OF 4L?A 1OVA CGHOOL 4 STRICTIS PLANS TO ACOIfIRE PFDPERI:' FOR rl EuONU �?iNIOR H.6H SCHOOL SITE - Ali a ! School Distr ict• plans, to acqutir� the Opic�d Winery o;.nRg.<iy located at the northeast cornet of H ghl_: and Hermosa as a site for a second unior ;sigh school. Ottn Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed: the stafc report and requested ;that staff be directed to prepare a letter outlining the 'commission's direction, . Pianning Commtissior- Minutes „_ -14- July art, 19815 ` NNW t 1;. rw. ftendaw.- a, k gc Floyd Stork ) Y Alta Loma School District,, g�!.e ,an overview of the acquisition procedure. He advised that availability of the buildings would be a. minimum Gf 3'years. Commissioner Barker asked how many students would be housed at this junior high school. ,. Mr. Stork repliad that the District estimated a maximum 850 students. .. Commissioner Chitiea requested that the school not be made a fortress. Commissioner Barker stated that architects `sometimes deal with sound attenuation by putting in no windows and agreed with comment. Commissioner Chit_eu's r - The Commission directed staff to prepare a cover letter outlining the concerns regarding the realignment of Highland Avenue andthe City's request to review and comment on the school's design and off-site improvements, as discussed in the -staff report, and to also include 'a statement regarding architectural compatibility.with the surrounding area, b PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Barker requested that staff reconsider having two design review comnittes, one for residential other office/commercial, to provide review consistency and reduce the Design Review Committee load. C-tairman Stout agreed and`'advised that with the new budget :it was, proposed that staff be divided into those categories, therefore this concept might be i. possible. The Commission requested that this concept be discussed by the full Commission at a future vneeting. _'. 0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-22 - EDWARDS CINEMA (continued discussion) Jack.Lam, Community Development Director, ;advised that staff and the developer had agreed upon wording for condition. 3. He explained that-the developer has a proposal for one of the office pads; therefore, a consensus had been reached ,. to rewordothe condition to reflect that when either site develops, it does not exceed a requirement for 85 parking spaces. James Markman, City Attorney, read the f Mowing amendment to Condition Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 24= 1985. i 3. Under the current shared parking concept, the construction of each office structure adjacent to .the theater,: insofar as the same require,'more'than 85 spaces, shall be defereed•'until specify„ally approved by a rvdification to the CUP for the site. At the time-;any such office structure is proposed to be developeu, the applicant shall submit a detailed parkin analysis to determine if tf=ere is adequate parking for all then operating and proposed uses. This study shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If a conflict exists between the theater P,td other, uses, then the Planning Commission shall consider a modification to the,i�applicable Conditional Use Permit 'to reduce the square foota�,e of the unbult remaining offir.e,buildings in an amount commensurate with the parking overlap, limit the hours of operation of the cinema, or other appropriate means of assuring adequate parking. -; This condition shall be incorporated in a document approved by the City Attorney to be recordedto provide Notice of Condition to prospective 'purchasers ofc the subject property prior to the issuance of a building. permit for the cinema. Chairman Stout asked for discussion hegarding the proposed lights on the theater. y! Glen Gellatly, 3•issel Architects, stated that the applicant� 'felt rather a strongly about the lights wi.*ch oc cur only on the front of the buil in . He advised t'iat the lights. conjur up the very nature of the theater and reinforce the acce,it color band. Further, that they were important because of where the theater sits on the property. He further stated that the lights are-2-inches in diameter and do nct flash or move. '} Commissioner .Barker stated tkat this ro'ect started out with '` theme and had maintained that theme throughout; however, considered thee lights a blight to that design. < Commissioner McNiel stated that if they were tastefully done, he could conside the idea but did not feel that they were -aeoessarily appropriate for a-v this prJject. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that there is an element of excitement to having the lights around a theater, but was not thoroughly zonvincw' that,they are F , the best answer. Further, that she was not strongly for or against the idea. ;. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, asked what the intensity of the lights would be. Mr. Gellatly replied that they would be low intensity, 40 watt bulbs which would be clear. Chairman Stout stated that he liked the lights and •felt they , interesting and subtle idea. were and r. ' The Commission determined that the lighting concept would be acceptable •under a. those conditions.. Planning Commission Minutes -16- duly 24, 1985 gg} .. t�tYr Y t' &amLYk7i wmt a z .A,7*1u66ar k I\ Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding the decorative lighting to the : rear, of the building_as proposed by Coissioner-Chitie,a. r Mr. Gellatly, replied that ;she rear of .the building would be a very important pedestrian circulation area and assured the Commission that the lighting would be done nicely. ' x Chairman Stout ^,..xpleined that the Commission wanted lighting which is adequate = and architecturally compatible. Motion: Moved by Stout; seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution appro%�ing Development Revieyr 85729, with_ he second amendment Proposed by the City Attorney to Hanning'Division condition, .3, and the marquee design be reviewed by the Design >Ruviow Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS'.' STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMFEL -carried { + ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded Ply McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. The Planning Commission Adjour.�ed to the August 5, 1.985 workshop,;to be held at the Ranchu Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, beginning at 5:30 p.m. `< Respectfully-' bmitted, ec ry ryry .k Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 24 1*985 - x