Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/12/10 - Agenda Packet ,� Q frk ` 77 �GctC1.b1�� tITV`OF R1HOCLCA�YGA� N JNlJJaVNy ANt1RV: AGENDA if 197J WEDNESDAY " DECEMBER 10,1986 7:00 p,m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CU'CAMONGA,,CAT ORMA J i . L Pledge of Allegiance IL Roll Call Commissioner Barker_ Commissioner Toistoy I Commissioner Chitiea—' Commissioner McNiel IIL Announcements IV. Presentation of Commenft=.%.n lisr-Aution to Dennis Stout V. Approva:iof Minutes October 8,1986 VL Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversiaL They will be acted on by the Commission.;ai one time without discussion. If anyone has„concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-19 GABRIC -The development of a 177,000 square foot warehouse on 8 acres,of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial district(Subarea 9)located on east side of Utica Avenue and north of the AT&SF Railroad right-of-way-APN 209•-143- .. 05. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES:MENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVMW 86-30 LANGE- The development of_a 12,700 square foot ti 6 , story office building on .79 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan Distri Subarea 7, lot 2 •of the Office Tennis Executive Center located mouth of.'ASPen and west of Red Oak-APN-208- 002-13. i C. ,ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-32-LOT 5 PARTNERSHIP -The development of a two-story - , office building of 9,743 square feet on .59 acres of land in the Industrig Spccific Plan D sgtrict Subarea 7, lot S of the Office .` Tennis Executive Center,located at the=north:west corner of C iiz. Center&lied Oak-APN 2�1-062-04 D. ,ENVIRONIANTAL ASSESSMI'NT FOR DI',VELOPMENT REVIEW 16-33 OLIVERA The development'€a,�Itwostory,office building U 11,565 square feet on.66 acres o f ar.; .in the industrial Specifc Plain District (Subarea 7) lot #8`vi %E Office Tennis 11eedtive Center located north of Civic Center and east of Utica ;APN 808-052-04. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 10827 & 1.0827-3 RELCO INDUSTRIES Review of 'site plan and building i architecture for TentativeTracts":10827 and 10827-3 consisting of 98 lots within apkoved.Tentat ie Tract 10827 located between haven and Hermosa Avenues,south of *11son APN 201 181-02, h L, 12,13,14,63,65,69,79. t F. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 36-25 - PATTON -The Design Review of modifications to the existing:.shopping "center' by l replacing'he approved awnings with green fabric awnings the a upgrading` of existing landscaping with additional accent trees, one veneer entry wails and,planters with seating for a shopping ucnter located at the northeast corner of 19th and Archibald. i' G. :;REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION PARCEL MAP 8901 - k,ELBERT PARTNERSHIP-Located on the north side of Foothill, ®b`st of Center Avenue. Vlb Public'<Rearings The follo'Wina items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the:Chairman and'"uddress the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shalt be limited to.5 minutes per individual for each project. H. ENVi2IONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-15 - MESSENGER/CROWN COACH The establishment of a motor home/bus assembly business within an existing 168,000 square foot industrial building and the 83,000 square foot expansion of the existing building on 1.3 acres of land in the general Industrial/Rail Served District(Subarea 2),located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue- APN 209-12-15. (Continued from November 12,1986). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-13 - MODIFICATION MESSENGER - The:request to modify the previously approved,Master Plan:by reducing the site area of Phase III from 4.4 acres to 2.9 acres in the General Industrial/Rail Served District(Subarea 2),located at Aftk the northeast corner of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue - APN 209-012-16. (Continued from November 12,1 86). k k I. 'TE -MTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENI,ML3NT 86-02 - WESTER T PROPERTIES - A,request to amend tha Tura Vista Planned t;omin� tni�tty by'estatal3shing a Business:Park c�vexltsy Zone for ardas designated as�Office Parir, Commercial and Mixed Use, within. the Planned Community boundary - AFN 1077-421-06, 1077491 17. (Continued from October 8,1986). J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-2 r- PLANNIN4:GROUP' - he development of a / 12,000 square foot convenience sales and service center on'1.18 t. acres of land in the General Industrial/liar. Served !)Ntrict (Subarea 2) lr}c&ted at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Vineyard Avc.iue r APN 20,1413 15. Related to the iirc posed development is",free Removal Permit 86-61-A regueat to remove an existing windrow along the northern property boundary. , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 66-68 - PLANNING {STOUP-The request to reduce the re 0red average 25 font landscaping on 8th Street ranging from 15 feet to 22 feet; to eliminate the required five foot interior side yard setback for a 12,OO4 sq. ft, convenience sales and service center on 1.18 acres =; of landAn the'Gpneral IndustriaijRaxi Served District located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Vineyard Avenue APN K. PARCEL MAP 5786-10-)DIFICATICN-CROWELL BROTHERS- Auk The request to elimiri 'S,a condition .of approval requiring the installation of a six (b,,,rfoot,`h2gh,masonry wall and additional landscaping•along the south boq✓xdarj line for an approved office park`subdivision located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street-APN 207-031-28. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'PARCEL MAP 9897 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A subdivision of 14.93 acres of--land into 1 parcel in the Terra Vista Planned Community located in the southeast corner of Church Street and:Terra Vista Parkway-APN 1077-421-06,1077-091 17. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 1023$ - CUCAMONGA l, COU_ �iTY WATER DISTRICT - subdivision of 3.49 aeres of land into 3 parcels in the Flood Control.,designation Iocated on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego Avenue-APX 207101-43. lift ;fl! ^ . ,., 7 T7 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN , AMENDMENT,'86-04A'-CITY OF RANCHO DUCAT MONGA-An r applieation 3o amend the land use elementof'the General FIan as a. (Pak,&U:.,e „aael a 2) Fire acres of Lard, 260 feet to 660 feet�. west feet to 585 feet north of the northwest corner of Haven aft Highland Avenues,APN 201-262-28,portion of 30,201- 262-31, 41, 43, 201-262-01 throug< 25 from ;medium Residential (8-14, 'dweUtng, units/acre) to Low Medium Residentlni (4-8 dwelling units per acre),and, b. (Pa=ipet.b) 1.55 acres of land oa Haven Avenuev665 feet nor*of Highlas d Avenue, APN 201-262-36, 37,from Medium Residential (8 24 64elling units/acre) to either Office or Lox Meffluffi 1?gdd�atial(4-8.dwelling units/acre),and; e. 3.90 acres of land at the northwest corner of Haven '; Avenna and Highland Avenue, south of the future realignment of Ii.ghlfd Avenue, APN portions of 201-262-30, 311 and to.-from Medium:. *,sidentiai (8-14 .dwelling ,units/acre} to either, Neighi orbood'Commercial or Office. ' ENVIRONMENTAL °ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMEND:TENT 86-08 7, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-- An application to amend th! Development District Map as follows: a. J. 'areda.1 mid,a.2) Five acres of land, 260 feet to 660'feet west 280 feet to 585 feet north of thenorthwest comer of Haven ,and Highland Avenues, APN 201-26V 28, portiorx of 30. 201-262- 31, 41, 43, 201462-01 through 2 from W (Medium, 8-14 dwellb- units/acre) to "LM" (L, w-Medium, 4-8 dwelling units/acre),and; b. (Parcel b) For 1.65 arms of land on maven Avenue 665 feet north of Highland,Avenue, AP:1 201-262-36,.37,from "M°(Medium,8- 14 dwelling units/sere) to either "OP- (Office/Professional) or %MM"(Low-Medium),and; k c. (Pared W 6.2 acres of land at the northwest com it of Haven P Avenue and Highland Avenue, south, of the future realignment of Highland Avenue,APN portions of 201-262-30,31 and 40 from"W (Medium, 8 14 dwelling units/acre) to either "NC"(Neighborhood Commtirclal)or"OP"(Office/Professional). y 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 10366 - RE-NUA1D-A subdivision of 4.5'acres of land into 3 parcels in the General Industrial District, (Subarea,3)located on the south side of 9th Street,east of Helms avenue APN 209-031-03., P. ENVIR014MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13425 GLENFED DEVELOPMENT-A total residential development of 71 single family, lots on 15.43 e"res of land in the Loud-Medium Density Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre),located k, ;he southwest corner of Highland Avenue and 19th Street - AP1202-211-45: a c; � dig Q. COIiDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-26 CITATION-A request to establish an off-site model home sales office complex onlots,11- 4 u 15 of Tract 12238 located at the northeastt coimer of.Church Street and Whitney Court for the purpose of lilt sales within Tract l 12830,located on thr-west side of Beryl S?r{pet,north of Lavine Street-APN 208-07341,12,13,14 and 15. R. VARIANCE 86�-07 - A request: to reduce the number of parking ' spaces"required for a fouo 4stablishment in ji developed-"shopping center in thc?,Neighborhood Oommerciai District(NC) i®cated at the northeast corner of Archi6 ld and Base Line-APN 22-731-12. ' S. ENVIRONS,1ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 1OU37-�B. €` C T. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC.-A division of 18:55 acres into 0,pareeis within the Indua'trial Park!District (Subarea 7) located t;etween White Oak Av.e , Eueaii*ptus Street W'id Elm ' Avenue-sE'N 20$451-29 ,Aelatad Protect.'.R 886-23(Item T) F vim New Busing ` T. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-23-AJ,4 The developmEZt of an Of iee 1t and D Master Plan with a central te)inis facility on 18.55 acres of land in the " Industrial Pmrk District (subarea 7) located beStvee:i'White Oak, Elm and E'ueaiyptus Avenues in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park-APN 2087-351-29. = U. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86-65 Mrz CARENAS - A consistency,, determination between the Foothill.:orrdor Interim Policies and , a proposed commercial office building located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard on''the south sid4 of Foothdi, west of Heilman-APN 208-241-09,. V. VICT01UA VINEYARDS NORTH AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY Consideration of an Area DFlvelopment Plan for the Victoria Village within the Victoria *Manned Community, located south of Highland, west of Day Creek,north of the railroad tracks and east of Milliken. UL Director's Reports W. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION STANDARDS X. POLICY FOR UNDERG'ROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES-POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS X. Commission Business XL_ Pt"CICOMMents ! This is tr". tirttetFand place for the general public to address the k Commission,; Items to be discw-sed here,are those which Rio no already appepr on this agenda. XIL Ad*jrnnaent The Manning Commission has-adopted AftGgstmtive•Regulations that —A an Ix p.m.adfournmeett:time. if it;i;ns go beyond that:time,they shalt oe heard orEty with toe consent rthe Commis'on. v, �4 k +g it r - to j I it � <1 x VICINITY MAP � t I -- --- - - _ - - --- SPHERE OF INFLUENCE NI SID { Wq S, l 1 (' e _ , SUM tT TNNIL FR EWAY � 4 , °• e t VICT R r l 1 R m BE IALIh9E xa i I. l WW CHI, CH MILLER, so 40 ARR f O le ® 6th .� � TthNi .— Ic ® w a 4th <t -w < j m SAN O RNAHOIN FREEW Y CITY OF RANCHO UCAMONGA r' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIAONCA c��o STAFF REPORT {i a 0110 F $ Z DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ` FROM. Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Westman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-19 - e development of a 17Tj_000 square, o0 warehouse on 8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial district (Subarea'9)_located on the east side of Utica Avenue and north of tfie AT&SF Railroad right-of- way - APN 209-143-05 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. .Surrounding Land Usr3 and Zoning: llor are ruse, Mlnlmum, Impact Heavy Industrial (Subares. 9) South Warehouse, General ftdustrial (Subarea 10) East - Yacant, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) West - Mini-Storage (under construction), Industrial Park (Subarea 6) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site Heavy Industrial North - Heavy Industrial South General Industrial/Rail Served, East Heavy Industrial Test` Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The project site is approximately 8 acres. An , square foot metal building and adjoining 8,400 square foot covered storage area are present; however, they will be replaced with new development. The site is generally flat with no significant vegetation. Curb and gutter have been constructed along Utica Avenue which is on the property's west site bounc;,, ITEM A PWkH414G1-CDW'iSS1d4.STAFF REPDRl DR 86 1g - GASRIC December_,10, 1485 g Page 2 a 11, ANALYSIS: A. General: The prcdect is a single story 177,000 square foot l u—p concrete rla.ehouse'w,ith dock high doors to accommodate both truck and rail transport. The building is being built as speculation and is designed in such a way that„with interio, alterations it may accommodate three separate users. Upon approval of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner-will grant final approval of the project based on conditions recommended by,the Design and Technical Review Committees. 8. Design Review Comatittee: The Committee reviewed the project ana recomme a approvTbased on the followi"r conditions: 1. A screen wail should be provided on the north site of the project entrance on Utica Asenue in order to screen parking and loading facilities. 2. The colors of the building should be-'reviewed avt approved by the Design Review Committee prior t�, Building Permit issuance. 3. Heavy landscaping that meets with the City Planner's approval should be provided along the Utica Avenue frontage. 4. Employee plaza areas should"be provided at both office entry location' nd should incorporate such special features ,fs'benches, tables and specimen size tree planting.:: 5. Screening of the employee plazas from the parking lot and office entries should be achieved through wails sand landscaping, 6. Additional archit0ctural articulation should be provided to the building on all sides in the form of vertical and horizontal color banding in order to create more architectural variety. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee e—qu r�6 a 1. The project provide one truck/trailer parking space for every loading door as per the industrial Specific Plan., PLANNING COMMt1SfOk'STAFF` REPORT DR 86-19 - GABRIC r-, December 10, 1986 Page 3 2. The existing' overhead utilities (t21p' commi,;ni cats oni) , d el ectri cal)"on the prd,Pct side of Utica Aveni-�, including the services`=io the existing building and the building on the opposite side of the Street, shall be undergrbunded along the entire proaect frontage extending to the first pole, gffsite (north and south) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The 'cost of undergrounding from future`deiel opment as it occurs> on the opposite side of the street is not feasable because the property is presently developed: s 3. Ionstruet a modified cu,-de=iac per City Standard -: No. 206 at the south terminus of Utica Avenue. D. Environmental Asseisment: Part:: I and II of the Initial Study nave been. completed and no significant environmental mpam s,, have been found. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Tae proposed use is consistent with the ,General an and Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed b%a30;no_; design and site plan, together with the recommended Conditioni�,, Approval, are in compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan and all other applicable City Standards. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend_ that the Planning Commission issue a ega ve Declaration for Development Review 86-19. Aestfully fitted, uller _ fi City Planner' I! _ BB:CW:vc Attachments: Exhibii W Site Utilization Exhibit °B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" : Grading Plan Exhibit "D° Elevations Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan r�_3 M1w, E �t a i i it ,,yam. I •� 1' } 91YyW7 At►9m�MA.t 6Nldllfl9'IVI�15f1aN1 is� xxwM S Mis V i` �L 4�q M.rni 7 r lot tf— N • �y..M� T MV v-JILn j ,. _... •T_ ;._,~ _._—�— ~'�.� � 1. • i -�� I � �i of , away nvIll MO ool I Ja- IN of it '�:i.0}%-i� ��4�`�. ��S / �. �-Ti'.'�y �"\t.- .R� � •�.� �� l a I �' ti i a��nre�eti®+aeon sNimlrni'iv�lsrr�vi p b 44 ate 3 z g= M1 c �aKl�t®AM16tAMtSi ®NICI-1171fl -M2iL5fY7Wl '' e ' s r $ it d 8j 5�8 lilts y I03 qq `r$ i .. ii Ul ' ---- CITY OF RANCH)CUCAMONGA ` 03c STAFF REPORT G � r �I O E Z q i DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City'Planner BY Chris'Westman, assistant Planner SUBJECT - ENVIRONMENT& ASSESSMENT FOR DESIGN REVIEK 86-30' - C. P. eve opmen, of-a two-story o ce building' on 9 ,acres or land in the Industrial Specific Plan District,'Wbarea y, Lot 2, of the Offiee/Tpnnis Executiv^ Center located south of Aspen 'and west-of « a-Oak - APN: 208-062-13. I. PRWECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action,Requested: Issuance of A Hegative Declaration. 8. Sur ?unding Land Use and Zoning:_ North - vacant; n us r a ar South - Vacant; Industrial Park East - Vacant; Industrial Park Hest - Vacant; Industrial Park C. moral Plan Designations: i"S'ite InsN1usr3-a ark Industrial Park 5�. . Industrial Park East Industrial Park West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and rough graded. C-u aan gutter have been installed along Red Oak Street, j however:: sidewalk and curb cuts have not been completed. 1I. ANALYSIS: A. Gerseral: The proposed building is intended to be used as offrce:space for lease. The project is in major conformance with the intent of the Industrial. Specific Plan. Upon approva'; of a Negtitive Declaration, the City .Planner will grant final approval of the project based on--onditions recommended by the Design and Technical Review Committees. i �' � ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAM REPORT x DR 6640 C. P. Lange .r Decker 10, 1986 Page 2 B Design 8eview C-smiitC4e: the project has gone before the Design evrew. ;3t'i;ee and approval has been recommended based on the following recommendations. 1. A 'pedestrian connection should be provided from the project to the public sidewalk at Red Oak Street and the texture of that connection should be of the same textures used within the proje-;,on Lot 2. ; 2. 3n order to provide f& a tiuildfng en ry statement, additional pedestrian ;amenities such as seating benches, attractive 4andscaping including free standing planter boxes, aechitectural t6'eme/accenx ligivting, street furniture, drihktng fbdntain, etc. should be provided primarily at the northern plaza area. j 3. Special consideration 'should be -given to the landscaped area along Red Oak Street by providing berming and treescape adequate to screen parking as , J determined'by the'0 ty Planner. / 4. The landscape plan should be in conformance with the master lond5cape plan for the Office/Tennis Executive Canter, C. Environmental Assessment: Parts I and II of the Initial. Study have been completed and no significant environmental tImpacts have been found. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGSi The proposed use is in conforrance with the General Plan an -"n ustrial Specific Plan. The 'building design and site plan. together,with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan, the Office/Tennis. Executive Master Plan and all other applicable provisions of the city Standards: IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the 'Planning Commission Issue a Negat Declaration for BR 86-30. 4Retfully Brad Buller City Planner BB:CW:ns PLANNING COPME:SSIN STAFF REPORT" OR 86-30 C. P.' Lange; December'10, 1986 i Pagp 3 Attachments: Exhibit °A" - Location Map Exhibit "9" - Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Elevation, Exhibit "D" - Grading. Plan Exhibit "E° - Landscape;Plan i / rev"��'iee M'v A• ••� µ•::•me Is A3N�I139Vtl1 E 3Q �\ v +r7o e a m o�ror a+ainims aatds agar : untr ►,re 4ID ,;. 1 �Ul- 7, ilo M Sr i l � lf117011�/iW6� .. v 0 w T MINE 0 3 I100 *1011cle VGA"Mma"Mao Al a�""er- t ' 3 g tit Jl, i i ,r .44 own it 1 y �MOW AS an y G 1 r' r � a ... auaM•oN iorns t 101 ]OE) a�ax+arw ww .77 f .+ �sAV a zu I It , 1 Rg���� La � ���w � • � , t u r T y1"d IA Alp y mo ,� _i i��I� a��•�, � vv �•a' +Ij r 3 ri 4`• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t STAFF REPORT s r DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 > TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FRONT: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Westi ;R, Assistant Planner `. SUBJECT: ENVIRONNE NTF9i.\ASS ESS0ENT.Fit "aEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-32 - lXT 6 Int developmentor a-W,743 square oo , wo-s ory`�i"i'ce buiTding on 59 acres of land in the Industria7k.�' rk District,(Subare&,7), lot 5 of the Office/Tenois/E �eutive 'Center located 'at, the northwest corner of Redi;Q."tk Street and Civic Center Drive - APN 208- ���tl I. PROJECT AND-SITE DESCRIPTION: ;f A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 0. Surroundin' Land Use and Zonirdg; or vacant, n s r a ar South - Office, Industrial .Park East' - Vacant, Industrial Park West Offi(d, Lndustrial Park C. General Plan Desi nano r,: Pr-Qect Site n us ri a -par► rj North Industrial Park South - Industrial Park East, - Industrial'-Park West'- Industrial .Park D. Site 6aracteristies: The project site is vacant and rough graded. At 5—e—s-RuTr*ast corner.,-:ii the site, the intersection of RPd Oak Street and Civic Center hive, is a grade separation between the building pad and the existing street of approximately three feet,-Curb and gutter have been installed; however, si dewal kr and drive , approaches have not been constructed. ITEM C T PLANNING COMAISSION STAFF REPORT - t OR 86-32'- LOT PAReNERSNIP pecember IO, 1986 'q Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The app7cant is requesting Environmental Assessment, oTor a-T,743 square foot building. The project is intended as speculative,,office. space for lease. Upon approval of the =- Negative De+;laration,; the City Planner will grant final approval of the project based en conditions recommended by `he Design and Technical Review C'o'aittees. B. DesigA-Review CoOAIttee: 1qe project_:has gone Wore theJ) Design-KRIERCUFMIENThd clpp coal ha—vbeen recoanlended based on the folIo0ng conditions: 1. Vine pockets,`shoul,d �e pl anted,do west'elevation at the support pillars Kgr the colonade and in between and on;,the sides of the garage and trash enclosure doors on the north elevation. 2.. Free standing planter boxes should be,provided along the col onade and in_t played plaza area.' 3. The employee plaza area should be moved away frre the street through an increase in the setback area. s 4. A grid pattern should be used on the garage door and trash enclosure as decorative trim. 5. Mounding and shrub planting should be provided along the south and east elevations of the building and along the—patio.wall. 6. A nea,.roof the texture shall be submitted to Design E Reviby,zr approval prior to building permit issuance. r 7. The landscape plan should be'in conformance with the Master Landscape plan for the Executive Center. i ►' Staff recommends that: r S. Free standing or integrated planters be provided air' the pedestrian connection between the eublic sidewalk and the building as shown in Exhibit °F , C. tnviro►enental Assessment; Parts I b II_ of the Initial Study ave been completed and no significant impacts have been found. 4 02- PLAWW iu(lMISSION STAFF REPORT t� DR 86-32 - LOT 5 PARTNERSHIP December 10, 1986 Page 3 :nw III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use in consistent with theGeneral an and Lnwstrial Specific Plan. The building design and a site plan together with the reromended Conditions of Approval are In compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan, the Office/Tennis Executive Mast Plan and all other applicable City Standards., ` IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the. Planning Commission 1 issue a Rega ve Declaration for DR 86-32. Resp tfuliy s itte , Brad Bu ler City Planner BB:CW.sgr Attachments; Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 08" - Site Plan Exhibit 'IV - Elevations Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Pedestrian Connection i I 4 p c_3 -- _ 40 MWASSMINAM ,yam y. p op Z"I JW go LLL SON= own-- v •. •• 0� _ :et to i • r � � NORTH CITE.' OF ITG\I: OWL, ' RAINCHO CUCAiVIONGA TITLE: LeaGAlwtj PLANNING DIVISION EXHIIAT-.__A_SCALL-��.� L—� I j full=�►r.. '. � � s Y eq' { moo• �law�.� �• .�. h r1� w fr. ,. 2 .�\ .a8 r.r■ r1." 'r r(F 4� rr4 yi° if 'W � �ew -eri-rr '� •t Iw�.a rr.��i{1`�T}II([[i ■ r■ HH Ir, ,. ..111�� � .#f I�iii���_ I�fli!!,�;i�iill I �`il Il �►�"'q�hi�M •'{�`St IIIIIII"' 'fl'�tl�'ili »rf�■'{'f 11�, nrl r4~ • ■fir ■as a�` �< R w■ r err antra r �`i4r{( s . ?... r �:�,.r r.:..TR"•'-rp*, P.=T sai .,.,a�. r3.'•`�F-t' --- ,rt � .. �� �o tl 11at ''dtrar r>trl •r � - 1 r M.a, ■ra ■1T 'aal ■t �� �k;,";. rsas' ,.a►, I�i1f��l _ fllli��l��� fhe'!� � _='i i. Russ -arse.-•° .. «k = "1 ilk `♦y �-1. yrf rra st:71 »tar i r ;a l■ � rv■ r.lr■ �� a r,ail r r a ■a � �11�t WSW 0 } AF s ..' 73. r r t • 1 .: B L C' L47 T aaraqe r O i NOlrrH CITY OF ITEM: RAINCH® CUCTIVIOI GA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISON EXHIBIT- SCALE. r,102 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA £UCAMO A. STAFF REPORT A fY. � Q 77 F_ V _z. U y DATE: December 10, 1986 1477 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Yestman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Fog DEVELOPK NT REVIEW 86-�33 - eve o °o azwo-suV7. lioou square"foioi o'rffce building ok,.66 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan District (Subarea 7),.. Lat 8 of the Office/Tennis Executive Center nor$h of Citric Center Drive and east of Utica Avenue - APN 208-062-04. I. PROJECT A0 SITE DESCRIPTION:. A. Action Requested: Issuance of'a Negative Declaration B. Surrounding Land Use and 7orai nj: North - Office, n us r a ar (subarea 7) South - office, industrial Park (subarea 7) East - Office, Industrial Park (subarea 7) West - Vacant, Industrial Park (subarea 7) C. General Plan 'Designations: Industrial vark North - Industrial Park South Industrial park i East - Industrial Park Il West - Industrial Park 0.. Site Characteristics: The site is a vacant parcel located north of Giffc--C-effe—r Drive and east of Utica Avenue, Lot 8 of the Office/Tennis Executive Center. The site is rough graded and curb and gutter an Civic Ceater Drive have been completed. Sidewalk and driveway improvements have not been !; completed. 4r i li II. ANALYSIS A. General: The proposed project is intended for office use. 'fhe prod`ecE" is in major conformance with the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan, Upon approval of a Negative Declaration.., the City Planner will grant final approval of the project based on conditions recommended by the Design and Technical Review Committees. ITEM D PLANNING CowtssioN suFF REPORT DR $6733 - OLI1 ERA _ DeceMer 10, 1986 Page 2 B. DesignRevvieew�Cornnitte i 7►ie Design Review Cosa ittee has reco�ne— n—mat: 1. The building should be adjusted so thata wider planter area of varying widths ranging from 3 to 8 feet can be provided adjacent to the east building f elevation. 2. A six foot wide planter area should be provided\ adjacent to the south building elevation. 4 3, Additional landscape such .zs an ficreased number of spec man size trees, shrubs and. appropriate ground cover should be providbd within the planter area along the south and east elevations. G. A;pedestrian connection of a material-to match the existing sidewalks within' t'?e Executive Center should be provided from .the patio area to the tennis area. 5 ..;17he building entrance hardscape should be Continued into the parking lot to serve as a landing as shown on thv site Plan': Hardscape material shall be relatively flat such as brick pavers, colored salt finish with brick banding or exposed aggregate with concrete or brick banding. b. The rear patio area should use the same hardscape material as at the entrance of the building. 7. The trash enclosure should be moved to the north end of :the parking area as shown.in Exhibit B and be treated architecturally to blend with the building. B. The first parking space adjacent to the project { driveway entrance should be eliminated to mitigate potential traffic conflict as shown in Exhibit "B". 9. Texturized treatment should be provided at the vehicular entry from Civic Center'Drive-and sham be the same material as that which exists elsewhere in the Executive Center. C. Environmental Assessment: Upon completion and review of Part I and Part 11 of t e nial study staff has found no adverse environmental impacts related to the development of the proposed project. I i PLANNING 00MPi1'SS1 STAFF REPORT }�µ. OR 86-33 - OL VERA December 10, 1986 Page 3 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS. The proposed ise is consistent with the ;snare an' an n ustria SpecifyP PAan. The building design and rite pTan,7iogether with the re;e nded Conditions 6f Approval, are in c iance ari Specific Plan, the. a Office/Tennis Executive Center aster Plan and all other'app'licabl-- provisions of the CIV.Standards., IN; RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ' issue a egad a Declaration for DR8643. r. fResfUllY,i4,9u ted, l r � City Planner SI a BB:CK:vc l_ Attachments: Exf4bit "A" - Location Flap EWbit`"B" - Site Plan Exhibit 0& - Elevations Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan A o i rim NORTH CITY Or � RAI CHO CLCATMO GA TITLE: G02W22 rn iO PLANNUNO DI`'ISIO.N EXHIBIT:--A-SCALE- IRS ..''�. 4 LOT a r , sow a r _ I � Ke 4r amw s G&a aftel NORTH CITY OF ITEM- -610-99 RANCHO CUCANIONGA T1TLE= a-An PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT. SCALC r K ► � e r _ ,i�,i��1NIII III_ 1111'llf llll 'Id IIM1111111I�i. iiit, (JIfIIIJI+�'"' °M t A or■ ��,t �acr �■ �:N � ��a ;�� � 4.,�� _ _ _- _art�T— _., ♦xb Y. a�jL.F'. A�� f ,lull �l�((1IIII►� � � ��illt 11(IIIIII IN�i,��^ a J NO ��f:�,il�ll�$i +•._....�.�..—�y` Alr��.tf IL�1� Rr' f_.!> ,t�i^a i� `�',A!: Ism .it -��rr _ � +'•- -� L ( 1111111111111��!��ui�!i11� 1i1111f 1 , t } S i CrACCEMMORM . r1lllAtmlB MMMf'AM. ��Y Q641f WFAAW COMM NORTH: Alft CITY or RAINCHQ CUCANIQNGA, TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION E\Hliwr. scALE:,_,_ f � ? r' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�Mo cot STAFF REPORT U DATE::,, December 10, 1986 tvrr TO: Chairrtan and Members of the Planning Coanission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce hook, Associate Planner SUBJECT; DESIGN • REV16 FOR TRACTS 10827 & 10827-3 - RELCO INDUSReview of rev1sed site pan and Dulloing arca�i:ure for Tracts 10821 & 10827-3 coo—zisting of 98 Lots within approved Tentative Tract 10827•located,between Haven and Hermosa Avenues, south of Nilson APN: 941-181- 02, 12, 13, 14 `63, 65, & 79, 1. ,PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Review''of revige site plan and building Auk architecture .or a portion of a previously approved total development residential subdivision. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: Tentative Tract 10827 was reviewed and approved by 'the Planning Commission on July 25,, ,1984. The Commission approved the project as a total dev% opament package, i.e., subdivision map, site plan, grading-plan, landscape plan, and building elevation. The approved building architecture included 5 house plans, i.e., 3 single-story foot prints and 2 two-story foot prints, with elevations characterized gs contemporary in nature employing use of wood siding on all house plans (Note: For building permit purposes, the developer has. eliminated house plan 3, oiie of the single-story w..:tsj. Relco Industries, the project applicant, is proposing to revise the architectural program for "Northwood West", i.e., Lots 184 through 222 of Tract 10827-3 and Lots is3 through 281 of Tract 10827 (See Exhibit 0). The proposed revised architectural pcogram includes 4 house plans, each provi Jed" with 3 varying •elevations. All units are two-story; house :plan 1 is designed with a 2 1/2 car garage, and house plans 2, 3, and 4 are all designed with 3 car garages. Architecture can be described as "Contemporary Mediterranean' employing use of heavily detailed stucco siding with the roofing. ad ITEM E PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT OR TRACTS-10827/10827-3 - RELCO IND. December 10, 1986 Page 2 s B. Design eview Committee: The Design Review Committee initially reviewed this project at the meeting of November%6, 1986 and at that time did not recommend its approval, The Committee expressed concern as to the potential impact to the street scene due to the , ntroduet An of significantly more concrete resulting from 'the increased number of 2-cair garages shown with the proposed revised Architectural Pro,,)ram.. The Committee directed the applicant to revise the p''ans to introduce some form of mitigation to a'lieviate the;,e expressed concerns regarding street scene dominance by drivvWay. The developer has submitted revised plans to mitigate the impact of the driveway on the street. scene by incorporating one of two methods as follows: 1. The use of a 3 foot wide planter island designed to break up the mass of the driveway located between the 2-car and single-car garage doors (See Exhibit J). 2. The elimination of the single-car,parage door on some units. Where the garage door ham' e'en eliminated the driveway will then be a two-cat--aide driveway and this additional area would then be provided as front yard landscaping thus reducing the amount of concrete in the front yard. One of these mitigation measures would be used .on all lots plotted with a 3-car garage house plan. The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised plans i the meeting or November 20, 1986 and recommended their approval with the following recommendations: 1. 3-car garage units plotted on lots located at the end of cul-de-sacs should use 2-car drive approaches that flair out to a 3-car width, instead of 3-car approatk., with a center planter island. 2. the center island in the driveway should be planted and: irrigated by the developer. Ground planting should be a form of ground cover or shrubbery deAgned to provide a vertical massing; avoid use of lawn. '3.� For all units, a planter area is to be provided between the house and walkway. These above listed items have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval in the attached resolution. PLANNING COMMISSIOR STAFF REPORT DR TRACTS-10827J10821-3 RELCO IND. December 10, 1986 Page 3 Ask III. FACTS 1,Rk FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to consider approval, e followi.,19 findings must be laade: 1. That this project is consistent with Development Code and the General Plan; 2. That this project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties, or cause significant adverse environmental impacts: I 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with applicable provisions of the Development Code, and City Standards. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this request. if the Planning Commission concurs with the Fact For Findings, then adoption of the attached resolution wquld be in Oder.,,, Aetful7 ubmi ed,anner BB:BC:sgr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "$" - Vicini+� Map Exhibit "C" Area Wilization Exhibit "D" - Approved Tentative Tracf. Exhibit "E" - Approved. Site Plan Exhibit "F" - Approved' Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Approved Architecture Exhibit 'H" - "Northwood West" Location Map Exhibit "I" - Proposed'Revised Site Plan Exhibit "J" - Driveway Planter Detail Exhi b�.t "K" - Proposed-Architecture Resolution No. 84-69 Resolution of Approval with,Conditions 3 r 3r 0 �d�fttl:tip O O O 0 0 qqO O SSA � � O e 1 :'HAFt'tY" " a COLLEGE 000000 16tiol 'end Tm 11.04 TRAL SYSTEM ..........EXIST1 CCAMWJNITY •o a o OROPOSED COMISIItJSET'Y NOWTH CITY Of, UrNit lot RANCHO CCANIONGA TITLE- _. PLANNING DIVISION E.XHIBre: " SCALE- 1 7 i Q i i FT i NORTH CITE' UI' Tat: I o'CHo C CA IO�'GA TITI.$: PLANNING DI�'ISIO;�i �XH113 " `� MALc; I i NO KTH CI'�`�' I ITEM: °a' WL PLANNING; DIVISION E- S R, �•�. �' J f U '1 9 I 1 s gig ro• s: y iP : i•1a. .ice ', L k, o !1Y• •'S:3f� Frdl .••t '�• � t �. ! ' � 'p: r`= _ r - F + ! !� r .b J .. �C�. ! �fit• t :T •♦ '( i./ > ` J Y r 1 i+ .tha ' k �'9x�'4 PIII � �f � �.✓ � C. 'Yell, k� Frl, p. r � � i' rr.t t S•�� : +� d .• r ti a Irl�d rsa,.ca, 1 a A O m --- � �� .ems, �,� � ,�t� :•`�i� L kk K NOR MR rs .vu Got at ' � ii �t lira, __ "='°-• .It WAY V V'�J a O Oho O U �® �'�' �O ilt!ti•.! � cc 2+'4 _. ( 1 J + 4' y...� -•y �k'Y� Ili�ll�illl?1Iif iti� j HIM Jill 311H s gn v ro G A. � l • ti t 4Y ��.v+i W y 1' �. , !� J•J ICJ ` ���1' /'--Lty,r.e- t4:Y ,_� •;i 4 + "Q �1y11y.f a.. if lrll=...III Irs, �- — � '. is ,� �;� �' .,Y` w•h<.'�, 4 �� !;leyi! u�!j!!' � J �^ f u+ R ly it »4 A .• .a � � r`'��. I g lam✓/(^Y". r y-- crrY^� i rt iqp Ems. 4 '� 1 P !� 1• N W i el- . 0-4 Ld f P-E0 r OW �t ^�\ •' i t e U' U � A { - a.I {Iliyl{',` Ilif�illili�{ alb �'1 t t d t{1 s l I'k f; u, • }�'CF3llpff I A�• 1 Al:a. a y fir[ I : I 11 = 1 � ��: it ,.�i �►?�� ,wall i r i r i 'Irtt�yl ��►��:Here Mt jj i s r' t1l�11V4-{ CY tn w _ ` 1 ¢ Z., fl 73 1" loo � 4 f i .______anrrsnb •fx�ort�t�H E-15 f , IA � � y i�1� €►en�+�1 �Nc� _J wk ��rre� t+r eao,a walls- IL � ��mp - \ t ' min WAR ODOM% NMI ME. �t ' MAR 14 Mal "" � p �r 01 '`��;����`'1,.,, �+1�''`r►,- tea.. ®ice ,�,_� �►.�_���` rook" ter•_--_-"'-,�,® s • 3 r. r ,f W,Uri WA NORTH •PLANNING OnrisION r►' r �� RANCHO CUCADOONGA TITLE- e y . R•/ 1 � ii f► � .�, a�r i ate. -.�r►' _ t, ., FBI IT'lit ° _ s - .,n,. AR �it{ =-: �7��ca�� : tlt"1111^"u :-#i■l1►' �w �`a..t,.'"�'�'jt NAM Nix j # . ti s ' t u. t .{x ex s • � ,� D � �,; ���" . ,, ; �l; - � , ., �; r_a, A �'t j���,F � 1 ,4i ...�� -�, r .�-,j° .G � �a .;. ';i � r�r ��a� �� �rr � J .ram �� � � :H�� .� � � y�� ;. 1 1 .'�� a ��'�,f` • a �� N'• . Y 1 I .� Y •^ . ' w + � I rr - F OWJ qW 1411 a� Jr f �r � - �—�= �� l ►mod � 'I i— _ , i ~ f ka 1 I no 4,1=J POOMWOU - ' �-ors �•it, �4ii l Lr3 � f r� Y i. -r { } ..a µ r � N • ♦' ti •'1 • .ice.� .. �• � ,..- .. '� +'._� .. �..°. . � .,,.. icy 1 `s �� •� I/tia�Y ps L it .ly 4. WIT I• a INUM !! u.: Y m a is■i! r � , e a: 1` 7 'L 7, 'mow'• '�� rj 41; •�4 .M' i � f PWMUUM c.; 103 �f 5 ;A 1 Y ,,� • �c • Y 9 a tPJUI POOm4PW satµsrtpt�''o� 4rP!"►,ppb� � SAW El . .. ..� �•� C4 Yid * i � �. - WA..: � �2�� , � ,..►� .�•+'w '�. � �_ .moo V /'1 �• �?-�,a �.�`' � O J i it • IS -4 ` t Aug U Sr'p'0*1 f LLI C e y U 1 4 � „�L� M � 4 r^ �,. ,.. t ��` i�` • �'� �,a �' 1: 'R �E � �l�i �� a s -,�� .� � �; .�1 ...+' r,, �y..t� �, lam` 4t ;� �..�. .: „ ,_ _� . ...� �,�. a.r 'r.! �� � A � � r , �'/: V � �� It � �� a' �._ �, ���11. } ` •�« � x� r :�lu ' t r, '��, �irr • :.: -. _�� ,n f �, -; �,, '�-16. ,,° ,.. «� ���' G �Y � a �•�4 �+ t., y ..�. '+ �.`' 1 !e'+ ,i/ _.I ;�r" �.Il�r `'� 'r�� e ,. .4r ++ "+ s� s � •' Y pK i. �� ' ti`x �t � ��- �.�i, �� r�l' '� i' i �+ ;�- _ �`���e�ll�i ■ �.� �_E�O rc . -�; • _ `L_. ���. �_: `[�' � .�.: --�x �:� ��, • =.� �� r i- � ��.:; ae•' r .u '�'"� not Awl ■►AN e - "lose ®a { .4 "�•� i1w T: i! ra rim ehq I i iEFJ FM r i iEE BLU 27 a i ® V i r + U-T , ` RESOLUTIO,i NO.,8"-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MA7 NO 10827 : WHERcAS, Tentative Tract Map ;No. 10827, hereinafter "Map" submitted oy Pacific Lighting Properties, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of. San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of ' 57.7 acres of land located' between ,Haven and Heromsa, South of Wilson,,into. 321. lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on July 25 •_1984; and WHrAEAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject ��. to all conditions set forth in the Engineeringi and, Planning- Division's sports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered to i Engineering and Planning`Division's reports and has considered other evidan�a pre anted at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION lr.,,The Planning Commission crakes the following findings in regard to entat�ve Tract No. 10827 and the Maki thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause' substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; fe) The tentative tract is not likely to cause,serious public health problems;' (f;+ -The design of the tentative tract will not-conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. • i i Resolution No. B4=6s s Page 3 T. PCTI slopes and Fcomnon open-., `areas and andsza�rilt 'of saroe =:troll be perman Y ed b�—a he awnars as;iociatfon M_,. ot1Fer✓ ins 1 acceptable: to the City. Such proof,-'F maintenance shall Ibe submitted to the Planning and Enginee:-ing' Oiv-icl6s prior to issuance of building permits. _8. A publicly dedicated Community Trail shall be provided along Haven Avenue in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan- indicat4m widths, maximum slopes, physical condit ans, fencing and well control, in accordance with CAy trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved' by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. 9. Details and typic,.31 elevations of walls and fences shall be includeu in the final construction packet to the satifaction of the City Planner. 10. The emergency connection between cul'-de-sacs shall be constructed with a layer ofdecomposed granite,. compacted to Foothill Fire District standards, and covered with top soil and turf. Details shall be included in the landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 11. Street tree pfanti;ng palette shall be developed that provides individual identity for sub-neighborhoods within this project. Details shall be provided in the landscape plans and <reviewed by the Design Review Committee. GRADING 1. Provide agreements with adjacent property owners for all off-site grading. Said agreements shall be submitted for review by the Building Official prior to approval of final grading plan and issuance of grading permits. 2. AIT Tots on the south, side of Street "A" shall be designed to accept runoff from common slopes. Details shall be included in the final grading plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 3. Top of slopes shall maintain minimum 2-foot .and 3-foot setbacks from interior lot line and exterior boundary of tract, respectively, per City grading standards. s Resolution No 8449 Page 5 Ip APPRQVEO AND ADOPTED T4IS 25th DAY OF JULY,`1984. :. PLAN` COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ,.r � . Dennis `L`. out ha rmars^- ATTEST: �--� ' c G'me :`Oeput;} Secretary i% I., Rick Gomez, I deputy; -''j, retary of the Planning Commission 'of the City of Rancho Cucamongr'. do ner,e4y certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,,P;14sed, and adopted by the Planning, Commission of the - City of Rarichfa Cucrmohig. , at a regular meeting,of the Planning Commission held on the 25th ,Jay of July, 1984 by the following vote-to wi,:,e AYc COMMIikONERS: BARKER, RF„MPEL, ,CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMIaSIONERS: NONE i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE _. J � O d>� gCOA oD aS •..0.'O NV L- ea dd aq p L O(G.N d 0 V C �.G d G O� •y Q$��Gt y i O._V w. E)a IN Z: G=4'60.9 uj �� �O q.6G�0 ddy `CLOG Y�A+� N l �J-' 4 C �u.LC=,C�9• O C 6 p q 67� p N��� _�O A y.4 e L O O O V T I-W v LC?Ya. yM6L. G6 qVd 6�Y .�G EE O G 6 00 tC'O :�N L .•.L C.wLO. OO' O TO A� bs�> +^ IL E Lga E� DLO uo�oYo a'mo � d u �� o,c td"� c�.�fi w:gw uN •=dam ��YL oe. 4dN. � so 4o o4a ~ ae � N tt„• cu �o�yy� o�N.. gou4i GLANy`.. a¢ r'. `%�i dot• d day no.r Y"- G "+ M •,;apN m�N•��+:. ��o a N„d, td "Nip ad•" .. 'i ,�+, o p_a ny A. cNy c T vl ti Ao witgs Jq=„ «d' .4nd> w=� p� �cc ^'`•eygm� Y44o N " N a y■ i.� C{@ C� 7 y 06 .O Cq` r^6Nyyd � L 3dYLO i C a Oie• �CLr•yYy A= A 69 2 N i 4.j O F•O O O N Kd-Y y 6 a w V6`y L Y gnu 4+ O O IRE, Ctl I •G O m i 4 f 6 m ' � � T •¢a £.S� 'ppp. y.6 i'�v`>a..CY.r.:oL - ci > G O. pA y A O YZ Y C N yC O O O Op{) N C1� F• .. � N S.00 2 O 6 6 'rL-` dv SOONn Ntw�. O t K d�r,u PY>I. .� .w Ysaqucu aoM v c_Po Mp«.ggC LY YC vo L aAsk Y C c d w EN L p Yyy LNL O` Y:2 ppLA D=. L C ON LO tiL d6q O'vYi �RE Op Eq O RLA.. q.« «o 06y Su� VCG C ..G36 �EpVpw�=�. : m u —.o •' VN yLq AC Kd JFGU =.AOVC1 d0. pp VtlY t u������jjjiii .D. y�'Ro c u �oN uA:ao O .tee GOY V..a VCi UA- w6G `o w Z�Y pG p _ gA iCiA B d �O E=CCCTp Cb DS wN "R. o�E R �M.VAC N w YTiO ^GO Yd Y= CYLC p.D. ��i`8� N.:9.y4 A LCj iDeY Y lw V_Ny V` C A L E ND L J'N N C�s 6 G6 q 2-2 y �— c,u� r $ 14 pE 1 �D 8\T !l�.� }� A. K •rw O�N.� 4 Gam` •v rLY ��t a. ,i 5 A.i. z CC ui dw: C gg ZN Dr..c+ c awLu ob—y s. 2c _N. '`t YY'v•••loud.p V 9 a0ii.. �.h✓ . •M gaN W w rT V c'pQ NSOO! •P^C. �..0 CO C�p6� GOAaI d A L.4 N.G Q� O ✓b t «^O R o •u.. y V..0— •u O N N$ c'Y� aznq �o GY»uNt n'w_� `«xq N`i''L'•-GP 9euq aV Z 2Cd GCC'.a it..' 9 c•^C. .—.+v. =,'n. u�«jc� v 9 c a•� V:�yJ_�. s c`p9 ✓ A A �9 tl N1A,OD Cam, �'a qOV 4`I~ _. � A'Z.• oNA �G O cYw 9.G MEa a A r 9C P N G Na U -uo= S op C CI CY IG Rio Y uE. i G N-GC �'n v YE 0«6� A ql�.d� R. •7 C. GN l L d' 6Cn 3.o t4.L pl.l LtLiC Eq A ✓.S NU 4 A d ON N'� M py pNW L` N.E« G Y « L C 4 •� C 4 O • CO✓G. E 49 �d Y .G. .•• CiCq •�C.~60 •D q E YCC �J9 V C ^ t `O P VE OUiCe a� S Ta OaQliO vyn ZklV V G.q.O✓R+ CV CGp ^., 6 rL NO 6—wa NAA 6.V. �9 RCCiAL P.C.6 .L..d CA �ACA6 E-q1 'graceC Lr`Ap T�/r Z 8.Y 6M 41. w St �G N '4 N F LZ. .S.JC� II N+Sy t Y Cr. ), fi m n "'C.. i 4.^'7 w.m•.. rV 3�S}+a m L c tl A cY. a�..Aa. tlNy II aV'lo 3 q la..b N .QaLY. n^u4'•n Ar s.w �=4II.Q 'yyJYJL 3uV p m.>, Y.ALA G .r J✓C sloe Nct..aca'. m4gVp s� as✓ i. ii O .+9• G 4 a."''N "4 �'4J.•m C O Qr• Q'V��. � ..Ni �» �pA tl Y V � 4M O.rq� 'y UL°� 3 t:..tNi. i11 3 Cqp r NqY 'S M.G+S. mC.Ca, ?yM1w'rM tliRA yy.sw.' �pp M4..NK.w,'wrt' ap a"•.n q sz�,,^ a a.. tl,.. <•M«-.d "' 1* �3 a „'a yM;" "!�. wp.t A� A 0�� �,q alc NII oe Ate` bJ y Y•S y 5\C µ � �p♦, � � �A�M a,w 5II.01 Ct-12 yGNMf i6'J'1 IL r5 4�y 0,3 Ik a"x a ims lo=d. ~-Ia Rry a R NNR Gyww+ G�A N dL Trt',�a4U �NrM•YC _ IImAAy. 'j$. sa yes NN YF•'•'eJ �Y ar• w �..� « ,.. w a �+"" ;�•a � N`2,b "`$ s..+ ..wvv•. aN .zt ts 1w° ;e `^ a csr v q w m ^�•.ts�, r tl• Tat CMM:V1a - N v a c��. s ,c c`*.A .. $�,�..��o Via. onG• $+2,r" N x' yy 1. � r 1t{ M p.• �a• �f1• Y pLQ �Y�} .M�q4}� ut���:II� �yrt�•�.�N� N j• y,�y XI y. N .wY sw. .^. '9r M9� w0. yu�fTY•ir Q tl L yld q t .LN Yyg.�'e ,e SZ rM y Yl 13 +0• Y"..N wro'" 4 N bx ~'�4u Sri Ma Ny Napg4LC1 ua1�$�g9,. .n .�ii %µ& �aaa0 Cs L MII �.. A063 4A 4Q YaAJ VLJ uIIw 1Nix x �Qy4. G o...agy rta•.uII`m P S,yNG w: N 4 N q.�a. LNY �Ca 4:YM•Tm�y .A 'rC L�y qy 4 rpG Vj _ _ M9 A y af 4�a7C LNY 'O�aAC YREA N�� �4 N>„ ?.Ki t�Jw 4ilt i, GA NrL% Q A N:�� •Ya QN ��.. S YtlO. „d • O 4+•• a ai •o fY..IIq L A. Vt SW a.Y+aF 1p %. Gi,� .mom 6� 6i1. rd o.Cp A»¢� £JN a�4� pa M'r Q„ M N.Yia • asr+. N GS .MJ wMS' 43 iY0 py X �4fJ L'm . �Al Y.M1y« SS9N U. 4 GN'd •f tl�.O.a Yy nu NN4rt�N Za— }i iGp rt Y ~FV ,+CFf, m wN VgVV rn+txF~ MYNtY LM. W'n4pt.. III SI t AY42 t.?3> �WP �p�V II'4 p' N6'+w OMM..Sr M„3y�T KNM 11x 8 w~ hlza% C..S�.SA! y,y ,< •^ U M µ Wk L + :.+. LII �y w� pW. CM ✓ 4N"' XN% A � 'a 'LQN o $ na wa u ani$ umaas v. N`a JA M fi V EdYg _ Ask C LtC>- p LL OqCL . U w yyy yLY 9u 41 ®��.. C, � q� 2L Lu ✓O: �O "7 S `�G L 3 A O C O G�:• m �`. �O G y `G �JI �fl.Lf xYCOB� gG4`Y Oq. 'C� w� Y- �1C<C Zll L .y•. a °. au .F.� Y�.: o.�.�.� COL' ..CltY a� L��� Y�Y✓Y i�paE M tlY NM «u dL wV GY Ly U LV•^ VG G C. �C IS1 Gu •.O q6 Y..0 «.y py g 00_«O C 4. u Q ✓u . aa1��n ft=��'� «.$a wa > N 6 VC WNyT W .7 t C' ZC ✓ryry 'n� CCuc d «� z G� U� E C p O C'(.t V C CISo .Z u� Ly • aCCg. p. ` c •3 lug pQ C 00"u. 160 � 1. � gam. • j....n C. S ■L N �Y p p V:q 1 V y c= C.O uu ■ O« G u u Rya cd�..a uo Y.o' OY C 6. yy«« Y 4�@EOy O GS 2 � C eON �N ate- eye QO� �< -A00 Nui tlO.«_P _aC GR <.L i•G6 ya+ �E 6� aV,.tl N^. � ... T. .a ; �r eC.•� i O s;.O N�_ V 2 i. u`u grnO 1C• Y .y. G e.. a u CC A {. r d i V G y d -• 3� r E.Aa c _� Ss Y J N6 o� • w e. CC CC.�. = �!. lyvn. pa0 6 O ti tl O Y a N J O C=E Y V q a r n C?z r \� a .. .d. N etl C e c h.i. o g c 2.9 .=,,,.,�a s a w _ n N N L o f c c » 's� zt �« d.C „' Z' N S h►d at- e A ... CuE I.LO.�. S< �2O i• si 'a np rd+� mwa� uom v a�y N� u-use As VN c ��y y LL Ca .�� nw` • Y6 wN. Yu� yY yy Sro Sv4 gI. Q. coq�rvoo �'a`c. •ua u....i`Ns .[� Y 11) ie a rj. a aq Ln 1[ v` L to O«.yC rjoo rd C.oi Pq Yv�Ng jag 4 Swvuo uu ^` 0A yy �C+ C O w^ Yy Oft �04`� .Oi rr YN L Y non a. d o.o '^erg dd�.o. w Q ?'m A r L O y � q,qqN C e C CT wO `M Ydy.% a bbe nv.✓ �L O« C ea. N 9 • 9 S v�dd L�ff `W + C Lg oil ei JLa6 .°.ayLL a�iR�6 eie��r O—. .• 4 a :O a CL 01 6 .; �=:Y C n 6r.C� G `,z�4` < qg =� ._`o g a.ug jy�a.c. n�ti� a• � v�v __� °.gg do�A-Y, crr rN$o�E� ' 97 a p $ u Lay N iV Via ^ O O Y9V 01wY. EV •" L x Ne w O N yp 9 N �� } y G w u 0 N F ;u Z 1•s Y s 4 q V N L C~� « qy .�.i•9 b Cy y q. OgCaw Y` u ffjj gN wF L .t..C.0 y01 YL ■4 G tj •- O Cabi '' p`+t L 08 4 w.•.. uv .•'. 'r o q..O`A � 4 W a w V` •V O q. pU O.p G,G LY GYMpq • S.2 yy V C CC OQI N > pp LNw wW iN: '^✓ia yf. '�L LN Vp 6�. � GO Cw 1. Yam` p.j Y S t � N,y�u L O.C. Va V L w. _ !"4.V wa NLy, ti W4, Npe,a!l WCR a Y yy yag OnN•�:� � 4 ..Oil`y 4O a r<C -w•. G' Y LwC Z.LNC^ fa` 1. Y4�Y '`� E k L�.:� g r �Ywp V N^ ^a C• Q �W+G ■c w tl i pC'crt A�.� CC O ff q p0y,4 � e €c � $ m n.44`q `U•.�..�. ~ b � w q Y Q L L. C N 3C � � � a a 5.Y 6 P�w � b O 4 ✓S L� n P P _ G 4 G G Ors Y pG 4 4 ` Y;6� y j. 2 9 C V Q a:N a lip V i ri L..O p 2 `J M.U N '7%-0 T R N u v {� Y � Y _M N as y 1ty� DPW iN�i w. rq w Ml g*yg D 3yy .LL$ c� *wiR o O mac$ � M 4Ys4Q Y µ .L+ s6 :4 wD wi YO. ell �.n`u ♦ �.4 iu sY '+en �4 n1 14 9c�c gt VY9 O N�u fJp _6 .'i M .a i. n� C y.Ty.G �1Y D1W � w p14 v.� �� N~ �C �.'y'• � � �T4q`p. ��. NM Aim M- K YNi wCi4w « as A3 R N4 6G2 b CQ at � �l+j ��j♦t M t �i � 4 4. A<A a ♦ jry^I� +)+rjjj()M/y 4 RESOLUTION NO. � { A RESOLUTIONi OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN (20IEW FOR REVISE9 SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR TRACTS NO. 108274 10827-3 LOCATEO BEEN HAVEN & 'HERMOSA AVENUES, SOUTH OF WILSON. WHEREAS, on th ;15 day of October, 1986, a complete application ►vas filed by Relco Industries for review of t`e abeve-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of December't'1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning. ,ommission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: Tha.'$ the following can be met: 1. That •-+he proposed pi;cject is consistent with the objectives of the Gen("ral Plan; and 2. That the praposQd' use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in:which'the site is located; and R. That the proposed use is in compli€,nce with each of *he applicable provisions of the Development Code; ann' .: 4. That the proposed Jse, together with the conditions applicable thereto: will not be detrimental to the public health, sa,fkty, or welfare, or materially injurious 14 properties or improwiments in the vicinity. SECTION 2 That Design Review for Tracts 10827 & 10827-3 is approved subject to the follOwdog conditions: 1. This approval is on y for the proposed site plan and - building architecture submitted as part of this application for Lots im through 222 of Tract 10827- 3 and Lots 223 through 281 of Tract 10827 r,l Conditions-of Approval for Tentative Tract 10827 per Resolution No. 84-69 shall remain applicable with this approval for Design Review. i 2. Detail site development plans, including, but not limited to plot plans, landscape/irrigation plans, fencing plans, and architectural plans shall be submitted f­ the review and approval of the City Planner, pi1br to the issuance of any building permits. PLANNING !qMM`SSitIH RESOtb i:J.-;: OR-TRACTSJ1�0827/102T 3 = RELGO IND. December 110, 1986 Page 2 �y f 3. On �11 lots showing units with 3-oar garages, a 3 1, foot wide planter area shall be provided In the area:, between the single, and double garage doors." This r. planter area is to be, landscapedand, irrigated by r the developer. Each pl,anier area shall be provided with a 15-9ailon or larger size tree and with e7ound cover or, shrubbery designed .to provide a vertical massing; ;the use of lawn.is prohibited.. Details of ` these planter areas shall be included with landscape and irrfy Lion plans:and are subjected to the review` f; ' and approval of the City Planner. 4. 3-car garage house plans pl otted on 1 ots 1 ocated at the Pndr cul-de-sacs shall use 2-car drive approaches tk3t flair out to a 3-car wide.d iveway,i instead of a 3-car wide driveway provided with planaer island. .5 S. For all lots, the wal kw:ay from the driveway to the front entry is to be located so that a ruinimum 3 foot wide planter area is provideC between the walkway and.the'house. 6. Window upgrade treatmerr s shall be provided on any side or rear building zlevation that is exposed to view from any public H&tt-of-way. Plans detailing the extent of this upgrade treatment and to what I- s there are to be applied shall be submitted for the review.and approval of the City Planner prior to r the issuance of any building permits: APFqOVED AND ADOPTED THIS IdTH DAY OF DECEMBER 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: T—Ta—vid Barker, 0airman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary PlAfdNIW CQ ISSI�O E RtSOLUiION NO. x K TOCTS�-IIAO/if-W-S RELCO IND. Deciiber 10, 19P+t Page 3 AA ;,:Brad Bulleti<Oepnty Secretary of the Planning Cotniiiiqn..of.` the:City, of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and fgjd'Ariy introduced, passed, and adopted by thei Planning Commission'of ;(the City of Rancho Cucemonga, at a regular meeting of the P3anring Contn;r'ssf n held on the 10th day of December, 1016 by: the following`Yo$e'-to-wit: AYES: ,COEitEISSIOMERS. NnES: CR9 SSIOPt&RSA ASSENT: COMI'p SSIGNERS: ` M R f ✓7 1 a ------ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gv�ra STAFF REPORT 0 0 T ; DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 t' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM- Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-25 - PATTON The Design Review of modiffcatfons to an ex s fig snapping center by replacing the approved awnings with green cabric awnings the .veneer storefronts, upgrading .of . the existing landscaping with° additional accent trees, stone veneer entry walls and planters with seating, for, a shopping center located at--tho northeast cornet^ of Archibald Avenue and 19th Street.` I. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: ,r A. Action Requested: , Approval of Design Review for modifications 9 i ications to re approved . sign of the shopping center and the upgrading of the existing landscaping. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: or vacant, OOWWSiden a -District (2-4 du/ac) Soulch - Existing Single Family libmes; Low Medium Residential District 4-€rdu/ac) East - Apartment; fledium High Rosidentiail District (14-24 du/ac) West - Vacant; Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) C. General Plan "Desi nations: Project to e g ar ood Commercial North - Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) South Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) East - Medium High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac) West - Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac) D. Site Characteristics: The project is a fully developed s opp ng center a e northeast corne. of f9th Street and Archibald Avenue. ITEM F ifE d l COt�ISS�tl STAFF REPORT MDR 86=gS - PaTTnli December 10, 19e6 page 2 Ask 11. AKAL1sIs: ` Al:I, General: The original-Site Approval was appraved by tie County and built -before inc,)rporation of the. C?ty.. The Planning Camission. at .its regular meting of_dcj;ober.22, 1986, had reviewed a mcOflcation to this Site Approval. At that time, the developer had :Propc--ed to upgrade the center by repainting the building, adOng `,irelliscs and adding stone veneer to the existing plant.rs. However, this modification was withdrawn at thi reques . of the developer. Tye reason was`' that the tenants within the shopping center objected to the } added trellises as it would block their sign, rather than the objection to the added condition, according to,the developer. The devel6oer has decided to replace the red"awnings originally approved by Abe County with a green fabric awning. Pastel green tide has already been added to the stare front as shown on the apprryed plans and to-upgrade the existing landscaping with additional trees and added stone veneer. low entry walls and planters with seating. The above described routine maintenance of the building and the upgrading of the {s landscaping would require a Minor Development Review. Staff has met with the developer and discussed with him that all exterior architectural modifications including materials and colors should be reviewed and approval by the Planning Commission prior to commencement of.work. The developer has.•; agreed to the recommended condition added to his Site Rpprovai- !rar Itho shopping center. An application to such modification" j to the Site Approval has been submitted by the developer- and will be scheduled for the Planning Coi pission review on January Id, 1986. 9. Oe3,.ign Review Coittee: The Design Review Committee has- rev, ewi an'a re'c'oiwendtW approval of the upgrading of the existing landscaping with the additional accent trees and-;stone r. veneer low entry galls, planters with seating. 1f1. RECOWENDATTON: Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve e Design eR �iv ew of the proposed modifications to the shopping center and the upgradingof the existing landscaping through minute action. PLANN146 Co yIF S>YQN,$7tIFF RCPORI' , MDR 86-96 - PA] W December 10, 1 6 1 ,age 3 if Res fully suCted, � ller ' City Planner 4 BB-NF:vc Attachments: Exhilbi,t "A" - Site Plan E Exhi_bi:t "B" County, Approved Elevation ti Exhibit "C",- County Approved Landscape Plan Exhibit "o" - Addition of Landscape A Low Entry Wall. Exhibit:"E" - Awning;Repl,acembnt j �-3 E„ a�oau E� + x t Tr va b .e ty rAaT- f1 sAna Poo a MLN�f6E"fN o NORTH CITY Or, ITEM: R AIINCHO CUCATMONGA TITLE= PLANNING DIVISION EXI-ilBIT=_.��_SCALE: tl L, { f ib'ra1. �. ar ���JjA^4gq�. Y 4tT J1441Lt1 , 3 ii4l�I ham( 3�f.�lrf }}Ii.i 11N� }Fc 4}f tlitf t t11 i'���'s�vara.s v+rM w,ti a�! � 'vvsvgYrY Ua..a �.+.R.l;lr it dw r .�{.y t �f I14E I t 1 ftl '��Il��. � „ t'.tjr k �"tll� �# �� 11 ( �- t T• rum 1 t 1��tt� t I1 if 1 rt 't[ �tJ1 t 1 t r t i� e..aw .'t P�} I�l � � i�7 1{ � f� �i;��'���r}r���'��� 1 ���i t f {k�� �1 1 } ��t t .�>R iF1Lr� ��I L � v; � ���� t• �I t Y,�r!` .J��, rt��1 _'"S.a.""r � `i'�� A •:#��� 11 x�� 3 rf ..'��!}l��! ,Yr;. � .vpl:.�. k 1 s � f,r r _ a 1 ALT.ti LC_] ��ALI"'Crl f3iNlE�. f' r7Lf i i r r r r J STATER OR= f SHOPS SHOPS, � R SHOPS �........ I , �-PowSHOPS am ST. Vrs'ae ILJI CIS OFTI'Eh�t: PLANNING DM%N LXHW- L SGAI.E=- �!'' OHM ............................ ..-•---•.. ...... Rag I tt auac III ws�eteums sr. �✓1 I 1\tO 'I'H CI7�"L'OF &-AK = ��or� b r� E .. NOIlrE•l (CITY CF rTEmt ' ]RANCHO ClrAMONGA, 7TrLE% i 14.ANNM 1DiVLRON Exuma=� �9 NOW i • 1 3 n. y RANCM C _ r - CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NC STAFF REPORT ft t z �► �a r ° DATE: December 10,A936 o z+ TO, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commiti!;11b11 1977 , FROM: Barre R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Associate Civil Engineer 1i s SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION - PARCEL, MAE 8901 - KELBERT ?y. _PARTN H - Nort si e o or?t 3 ,—eastW center, v�en-ue 1 i` BACKGROUND: Teate:ive Parcel Map 8901 as shown on Exhibit "C" was intially apprnv;ed' by the Planning Commission of January. 9, 1985 for an initial two year period until January 9,_ 1987. The applicant is now requesting the first,,-of a possible three one year time extensions. The' letter ,of request ('Exhibit "All) is attached for your reference. RECO41MIDATION: It is recamended that the Planning Commission, adopt the at£ac a resolution approving a ene-year time extension, for Parcel Map 896. The new expiration date would be January 9, 1988. Respectfully submivFed, Barrye R. Hanson: Senior Civil 'Engineer BRH:dlw Attachments Exhibit ("All) ITEM G Cewer -1101 iv, FOOT'NOLL LVD..PPL AND, CA.917M 714-981-8741 December 4, 1986 MY of Rancho Cucamonga unginG�ar`ng Dept. 4. - P.O.Ift, 807 R4erdcho CUCA=nga, Ca. :-91730 RE: Parcel Map No.8 01 4437 Please accept this letter as a requq4t for an extension on the above parcel map. We have been granted an extension for the project (File No. CUP084-37) Aft and we need an extension for the Parcel Map too. u Please find enclosed a check for $62.00 for the extension fees. If you Reed any more information, please contact me. RZsully,'ar. Kelbert - A Partnership ; 1 i d { 1 A i I s ; I S d I { o rj� _ I C.PPV O RANCHO CUCAMONG i' v fr►nt t t'Y c��,a ENGDZMMG Do ,, -TENUTIVE PA110EL MAP NG,,,8901 ■T0.Q CtTT60'+1iU019 i1�1i06Si aov artlMY�Lf•!Lo@t�1lYrliteOC:.. �, �, I1V• "L 6 a ' -7--�- - - ----- -- -->- T. i ' ) � 11' ° �° ��_ � •ram �.��Ig'. 1 - EXHUMM, « 7 RESOLUTION No. n,RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 8901 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for" the above-described project, OUrsuant to Section I.501,8.2 of Ordinance_28-B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally ' approved the above-described tentative parcel map on 8901: k SECTifyA 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the a. following_fiovtngs; A. That current economic, marketing, and 'inventory conditions make it unreasonable to build at,. this time. I � I B. That strict enxorcement,of the eonditions,of;,.approvai -� Ik regarding expirations would not be;.,c€►?sisfent with the intent of the Development Code. ri C. That there has been no. significant changes to the character of the area in which the project is located that would;cause the project to become conforming or incon�'vstent.with current standards. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning,Commiss ion hereby'grants a time extension or: Parcel Man Applicant Expiration 8901 Kelbert Partnership January 9 1988 � RESOLUTIONS PARCEL MAP' 8901 DECEMBER 10, 1986 PAGE 2A APPROVMVAND ADOPTED THIS LOTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1940. PLANNING COt�iE sxON OF THE CITY 06 RANCHO CitCAAi6NGA l 'BY; E.David Barker, ChairmAp ATTEST: Bra Bu er, eputy Secretary r: I. Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary ov t.�e Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly avid reg.;iarly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho,Cecamonga `at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the loth day of December, 1986, by the following vote-to-'Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COM;hISSIONERS; a 1, CITY OF.RANCHO CIDCAMONGA !ICAAfo STAFF REPORT is x r DATE: ('jecember 10, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ' FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner 1 BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDIS°10NAL USE PERMIT 86-15 MESSENUER/CROWN COAL"-, e es a s en o mo or ome us assembly us ness within an existing 168.000 square foot industrial building, ands-the 83,000 ;squae foot expansion if the existing building on 11.8 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 2), located Lt the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard revenue - APN 209-012-16. (Continued from November 12, 1986)._ rt DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-13 -M DIFICATION --MESSENGER - The request o modify the prev oui"-sty approve as er an by reducing the site area of Phase III from 4.4 acres to 2.9 ' acres in the General Industrial/Rail Served GYstrict (Subarea 2), located at the northeast corner of 9th Stroet and Vineyard Avenue - :APN 2O9-612-16. (Continued from November 12, 1986.) I. BACKGROUND The applicant, Crown Coach International, is reques ng that the Planning Commission table the above described Proaect. The reason being that they need more time to assess the feasibility of the existing buildings for their bus assembly operation. See attached letter of November 26, 1986 from-the" applicant. II. ANALYSIS: Staff, in further review of the request to continue this emfit fias determined that it would be more appropriate to continue this item to a ;date specific rather than to table it for up to six months. The currant application must be acted on before March 10, 1987.E ITEM H r 4 P6ANNI'NG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86-16 and OR 86-13 - Messenger/Crown Coach December 10, 196E •, Page Z III. RECO*EMDJkTION: Staff recommends, with the con&snt op the a cant, that the ;3,�7ni ng Commission goatitiue Chndi ti ona i;;Use Permit 5E-15 and the relrZed Develapwi nt Review $643 modification to Febw nary 18,E 1987. Res ctfutel( il�itted, Brad 8uli er City Planner 88:NF;ns Attachments: Letter from Applicant 4 I E - a Y� . MESSENGER FNNESTMENTCQMF�;;�i= r"r' f8,4 ti � �u11 1114t�tb' November 2$, 1986 < Mr. Bract Buller Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Post office Sox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 9173o--os07 RE; Conditional Uze Permit Cz4�_,Coach International Dear Brad: Pursuant to your conversation with Crown Coach and myself, we are requesting the above. referenced CUP be set asides for up to 6 months ,_.atil Crown Coach International provided us with a firm commitment.to the facility. it is our understanding that, if and when we want to bring this back before the Planning Commission, the only requirements would be fat us to give proper notice to the City so that the City may advertize for the public hearing and we would then be schedu7',ed for the earliast Planning Commission meeting. I want to thank. you, Nancy Fong and all other Staff Members for their cooperation on this project and should you have any questions please don't hesitate to call. Sin relY._ Dana S. Sanders Vice President Southern California Commercial Development DSS/cl cc: Nancy Fong E. G. MCMah.,n William S. <Messenger, Jr. 16912-A Von Korman Avenue,Irvine,CA 927/4 714/,74-1300 CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA GJCOAc STAFF REPORT �'�' j �� 0 0 �- z DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and K-mbers of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY' . AMENWENT a- Tne request to' amen 'Terra -Vista PlannedomunIty by 'establishing a Business Park Overlay Zone for areas designated as Office Park, Commercial and Mixed : Use, within the pnlanned commiunity'h^vndary. I. ABSTRACT: The developer is requesting for recommendation of aGpro-vT"for issuance of the negative declaration and approval of the Community Plan Amendment to create a "Business Park Overlay Zone." II. BACKGROUND: The Planning Comuission on November 12, 1986, continued this proposed Planned Co*iunity Amendment for the second time to this regular meeting,-at the request of staff with the consent of the applicant.. The purpose is tG allow staff sufficient time to review the ;atest revision to the proposed land use _ amendment and to 'report back'. 6 the Planning Commission. The ' developer has been diligently working with staff in_developing a list of-wore appropriate land usef !n an attempt to comply with the intent, '; the Terra Vista Planned'-Community and the General Plen. Attachi .for your review is a copy of the latest revision to the Planneu ,'Community Amendment. The following section is staff" analysis on the proposed amendment. III. ANALYSIS' A. Establishment of a. Business Park Overlay Zone: _The purpose of this overlay zone accor ing to 53 developer, is to provide` -for multi-tenant projects fostering small business development. These types of "incubator" spaces would be targeted toward small business uses who rt9uire a combination of 'office and warehouse type space, wish the office use expanding over time to fill out most of the,�bVt1ding ared. In iTEM 1 I P ►iG: 'SION 'STAFF REPORT AMENOMEOT 86-02 ' WESTERN PROPERMS December 10t 1986 Page 2 .pAft addition to the uses permitted`�;,by the base zone, "the Overlay ` r Zone "would allow other land uses that range , from. administrative and professional use, retail and service use to custom manufacturing use as listen in Exhibit A. Staff Comment: This proposed amei!,dmant would allow, subject off"a.Conditi nal Use Permit, BL4ii ess Park Overlay Zone in areas designated for office„:= ercial, or Mixed Ilse. Exhibit C shows potential areas wit the Planned Community where a Business Park Overlay Zane could be requefft-6 The Development Code establishes a procedure to es�ablish an overlay, zone in conjunction with abase zone. A ne eftange ,a process, rather z,.n a CUP process would be the; proper } priz-,.edure to establish an ppverlay,zone. lost of the hand uses proposed within the Business Park 'overlay Zones are already permitted or conditional?;,,'permitted�,'within the commercial or mixed use zoning designations. Therefore, creating a Business Park Overlay Zone withih Oese commercial designations would be redundant, except ?br_; eas designated as Office Park and Comoerciil Recreation. Tree primary issue, then, becop those M1 new uses proposed that,�would be in addition to t613e uses a`T"readv allowed in the base zone. A large cRdrt with comparisons of the land uses ail owed within . Office, Coercial, and Mixed Use will be available at the mmeeiting for mm ,your review. Recoumdatton: the proposed amendment should allow, i,,biject to a zone c ange , Business Park overlay Zones in areas designated for Office ,Park only. This would eliminate unnecessaC . redundancy and maintain the integrity of(1the Commercial 'and nixed Use zones. In addition, the proposed languii,� of "office and warehouse type space" be.%odified!,with the intention of discouraging warehouse type in6itrial ls'4 by changing it to read "office and limited storage area". B. Uses Permitte�lin Business Park Overlay Zones 1. This section starts With "administrative offices" and ends with "automotive service station (CUP)" and as listed below: o Administrative offices PLANNING:CO*1SkOlt' ST4F REPORT AMENDMENT 86-02 - WMTERN PROPERTIES December 10, 1986 Page 3 o Professional offices including, but not limited to, professions such as accd�nting, . law, income tax, insurance, architecture, engineering, . medicine, optometry, chiropractic, podiatry, osteopathy, F dentist y, real estate, escrow, financial brokerage, securities brokerage, and interior-'design. o Retail land service businesses serving the needs of office�kpsers including, but not limited to,,,printers, - stati6brs, secretarial services, office supplies aind equipment, office. machine sales and service, and messenger and postal services. a Commercial recreation facilities -compatible with cfi':ice use, including, but not limited to, health clubs or gyms iCUP),, racquet bail courts (CUP). o Banks and other financial institutions o Eating and drinking establishments o Automobile service stations (CUP) Staff Comment,,.* A review of these types of proposed uses n ca es �.7-they parallel those uses allowable by the City's_ Development Code within the Office/Profassionai District. Therefore, the proposed land uses as listed above are acceptable. Rera®endation: Approve the above list of land uses. 2. 7his next section starts with "studios, stores, and associated workshops" and ends at "interior design" as listed below: I o Studios, stores, and associated wor.;cssh�ho__p�s_� for the design, fabrication,'-atd sale of Ba W—oor custom- made products, including, but no m ed a e foTTowing which embody customized design and/or handcraftsmanship rather than mechaitized production, providing such use does not constitute in using to adjoining uses by reason of vise, vibration, particulates, odors, hazards, or -fragrant or large scale transport: Jewelry, wearing apparel and accessories, stained glass wares, picture frames, quilts, ceramics, glass, leathergoods, musical instruments, pottery, housewares. gifts, art and craft items, photographs, fashi a design, .,,interior design. f AWL �-3 PA �I Gs I $ 'd AF RePQRT itt!T 0 - 4tET&R�1 PHAPpRTI85 December 14, 1986 Page 4 Staff CanimMU.. The applicant has attempted to deii,7,1� more wecificwmy, e scope of the land uses for the pt'Jposed strtdio, stores and associated workshop, However, -alloying a workshop set up for the express purpose of fabricating custom- made r products as listed above is o?�iectFanat' l��e, as it is inconsistent with. the intent of the Terra y'sta�iowunity Plan and the City's General Plan. The custom-made and fabrication v, types of 0.'oducts e,re specifically defined by the Sity"s Industrial° Specific Plan as custom manufacturing. Allowing F` these industrfal uses within Terra Vista would violate the fundamental tenant 'of zoning; The separatior. of incommpatibl* land uses. Certainly, a : +1aign,studio' .or- "arti,t studio" would not be objecttonable, it is the fabrication of these products that is of„ concern. The applicant could limit the 1 scope of the above proposed land use by defining further t°A c this type of land use .involves office use., showroosF t associatr,J workshop that is limi ed to custom-made sample " showroom purposes. where manufacturing is at a different w location. The list of products for this type of studio and l stores should be limited 'to art and craft Items .,such as ;,ewelry, quilts, photographs, pi-,,ture frames, ceramics, potteries, and, specialty small gfft;-,-; Recammeadationt Staff recommends that this; faction of proposed use changed as follows: Studios,'stores, and associated vmrkshops for the purpose of sales office, showroom, design with worksho�p for custom-made samples of products for display only in tha showroom for the following types of art and items: Jewelry, picture frames, quilts, ckra*t.:s, potteries, specialty gift items. Custom made consumer good within studio, stores and associated workshop may be 4lowed provided that the custom-made consumer goods are ancillary to the studio, stores and do not exceed 20 percent of the leased floor area; and subject to City Planner approval. 3, This section started with "small business retail and service use" and ends at "ticket sales, etc." as :ollows: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMEND�,' T 85-02 - WESTERN PROPERTIES Decent. 10, 1986 Page 5 o Small business retail and service use, inciudi q, but notjImiteil to, appliance stores and repair, p1�Ymbing sh(f/s 'and supplies, television and radio sales and `. repair, floor, wall, and window covering sales and igxstallatiorr, paint and,!home decorating stores, hard�are stores, cateri 'e**,ablishtents, contractors (excluding contractor's--yards), beauty supply stores, fabric stores, shoe, repair shops, antique dealers, -0,curity device sales and service, telephone sales, luggage sales, pet grooming and supplies, dance n.?o stus, opticians, medical supplies, sales and rerUjaL electrical, electronic, data- processing, and. t-lecomunitations sales and service, audio/video :ties and service, furniture sales, upholstery ships, apparel shops, and similar businesses. o Convenience retail and service businesses such as ford and beverAtte sales, newsstands, bookstores, "N r barker and, bravty% ._cleaners, travel bureaus, photo. devel ing, tuxedo 'rental, bicycle sales and repair, locks ith, ticket sales, etc, Staff Comments: Thes`l type of commercial uses are either pemiUdd or conditionally permitted within areas in the Terra Vista Plan'had Community designated as Commercial District, Community Commercial District, Neighborhood Commercial District and Mixed Use, etc. except for Office Park District. Therefore, allowing expansion of these types of uses only within the Office Park District would maintain the degree of distinction and balance between commercial, office and nixed use type districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community. 'Further, staff determines that the following lists of land uses'are incompatible to Office Park type of land- uses: o Appliance store and repair, plumb;-- _ shops and supplies, television and radio sates aa=,trepair. These types .of uses involve large household items, service area for repair and waretiousing which is indicative of intensive commercial use and would not be compatible to office uses. R o Floor, wall, and window covering sales and installation, paint and home decorating stores. Ahdi @ iENI 86 O VEWEU PROPERTIES ,D ember 10, 1986 gage 6 r Altai.;/ this type c; land uses Gq�j- Involv.e large SO .,00ms, and; warehousing which is- of an � tind,14trial use. However, these type of use � ' r are closely 1, rel ted to interior designing, therafare,`by changing ft to iinterior design office with siydikom, but without warehousing of products, coyfd be acceptable. o „yardware stores. This tpoe ot....and use is more indicative of intensive 4, commercUT w and would not be compatibli to office 1. � uses. cr" a Upholstewb shops,,,1 This itt a of find lice could ranee from household items 111 such` as furnito,re to automobile- upholstery and Is indicative of an industrial use wKi h is incompatible to Office Park type of land usa` o Dance studios. f Dance studios *hould be' classified as commercial recreation facilities and a Conditional Use Permit should (r' be required to insure its operation rild not affect the... office park type of use. Lacom ndation: Staff rec=wndsijthat the above list of uses, ao—m-path to office type of is^s, be eliminated from this ►ist., while dance studio shouti; be moved to comercial rerreation facilities as a cciditionally pert ;ted land use. 4. This section starts from "commubitylfati*lities as specified' above"-and ends at "parking requirements ... approved by the Planning Commmissfga as follows:" a. Community facilities as specified above. b. Acces5ory structures and uses necessary or customary II ti incidental �s the above uses.. ., c. Other uses whicV� .are found by the Planning Commoission to be cons stent',Vith the spirit and intent of this land use classif�eatfor. a A, c PLANNINI& .1 1 1 SSION STAFF R£p02T AMENDMENT 86-02 - lfWERR PROPERTIES December`,10, 1986 Page 7 k' d. Parking requirements for business parks shall be the same, as for Office Parks, unless otherwise a%proved s by the Planning Commission. , a Staff Comments: The above land uses languages are acceptable. Reccmk Watiasia Approve the above section of the land uses Wifi n tfie 9us mess Park Overlay tone. k IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM6 : As a'result°of the initial study, staff Has determined thate proposed amendment may have the �ing potential significant adverse impacts; 1. 7 The proposed amendment by adding cVMos manufacturing industrial type of land uses substantially alters the present planned Twnd. use of 'cite Terra Vista Planned 4 Community and the General Plan. AWL 2. The proposed amendment would conflict pith the objectives ` and policies of the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan. S. As a result of the proposed amendment in adding custom manufacturing industrial.. uses within tl*e residentially _-planned; conounity, truck traffic would increase substantially, adding traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. 4. '`As a result of this proposed amendment, people:,may be exposed to an increase in health, srfety, and nuisance :I fawtors such as noise, odors, or industrial ectidents Famever, with thha suggested changes by staff, a negative 04- oration could be prepared as the above land use adverse ..%w.t would be mitigated, V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering the proposed amendment to the erra •Vista PlannedCommunity, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: 1. The amendment does not conflict with the land use policy of the General Plan, 'f PLAN LING;COMh9I�SSI�N STAFF REPORT yro Wig' AMENDMENT'8b402 - WESTERN PROPERTIES- December 10, 1986 Page 8 Z. the ameno4llt does promote the goals of the land 'use elements 'l 3. the amendm6'it would not be materially injurious or / detrimental to ,adjacent properties. ., VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This is `a continued public.-hearing item from October and November 12, 1986 regular-meetings. VII. itEC_)MMENDATION: Staff recommends that tt,� Planning Commission can uc a puMc hearing to review the•proposed,amenftent, -:receive pub',kinput, and consider the following options: 1. If the Commission cannot support the facts f 4 findings, a Resolution of Denial should be prepared for ;four ie review. ` 2. Should the Commission decide to consideO the proposed s amendment'and`concurs with the recomendattons of staff, ; then the applicant should be, directed to prepare a " revised list of land uses for the Business Park Overlay Ah Zone;;. Upon receipt of the .revised amendment, staff i woul'd prepare a Resolution of Approval ;for Planning CmAssion review on the next availab3e agenda as a ; cons-no calendar item. Res tful y cvbmittso, Brad Buller City Planrer BB:NF:te Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Latest Proposed Text from Lewis Homes for Business Park Overlay Zone Exhibit "B" - Office, Commercial and Mixed Use Land Uses Exhihit "C" - Land Use Map for Terra-,-u{sra Planned Commni ty _ - ! ' November 5, 1986 \ AWN S DELIVER BY MESSENGER ' = Planning Division C;tY of.' Rancho Cucamonga N 932O-C Base Line Road,t Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ATTENTION: Nancy Fong Ir ,. SUBJECT., Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 86-02 Terra Vista Business Park Dear Nancy: , Enclosed are three copies of our revised text for Amendment No. 3 to the Terra Vista Community Plan-. dealing with the Business Park Overlay Zone. We have substantially rev3ged the list of permitted uses in. response to the comments we received from Brad, Dan, and yourself. Specifically, the uses dealing with .asembly and fabrication of products have been eliminated, with sales of th6se produotys-Ii.ncopoa?aced as,a permitted use in the "small business" category; and the category-'of uses dealing with artisans and craftsmen.gas been redefined in an attempt to clarify our intent. We sincerely hope tha_'these changes, and+ other minor modifications (such as prohibiting contractors' yards), will allow staff to now support this project. We are anxious to have this project reviewed b the Planning Commi p j Y g �,. ,h at the earliest possible time, and we are equally anxious that the staff report which the Planning Commission will receive in advance of its meeting reflect this new material rather than the. mendment language that staff found so objectionable. Therefore, i.� there is any way that your staff report can be re-written in time for inclusion in the Planning Commission packets being prepared this week, we,would like the new languages reviewed by the Planning Commission on November`12 as scheduled. We realize that this may involve extra effort on your parts.and .rill be very appreciative if you can manage it. However, if there.is 'no way to have-a new staff report ready for the Planning Commissioners" Fackets this w?ek, we request a continuance to the next meeting, which we understand will be on December 10. - - 1156 N Mountain Ave PO Box 670 Upland CA 91786 (713)985.0971 Developed w.-eA,s Homes T-. Ms. Nancy Fong s,�.3 irr City of Rancho Cucamonga Noventb,er.5, 1986 Pzg�Z AN Thank you very much for your assistance a,ld cooperation. Cordially, � l WESTERN/PROPERTIES Kay Matlock Project mamager 4 !,l /km Enc.(3) AMUL - ,f s n i 2 5 w: a LL o� C' M a c a v z v o ZF c rE =.4 J15 N a ay C x w4 Q fY o W W � �l•o- Ask cn c� aoai w Cj a?' 0 tu a L1'� ri viz o m a loc z - r d m 40- a� flo 0 V ec m Bla E� HL++ E C V C.. L o 7 C > vta J a+ O C C i 'o a� 0� O m N+' a CJ Gt uy tt�7 to.0 7- 4)7. 3 C m .O.'G. . O G C$ v ig 9 y Cv7 m +�+ c O co LY C C� U � OQ. � GL C C1 c � C d.� C C» a)_0 a c pL a ai cco s CLX �0 a c L in u 0.� in'a _ as 61 id a tJ L. c J ro ".,. L O L•¢ C w .—L C L N' L N N i (n 07 L' N t0 V O •O. h N (0-0 'O m L , C to 0 O O O O to v- O 2 L a0+.C cC �° �p •O. 'd t0 3 C e+ L V V N •L 3 ~ S m M 4 • C p L u1 G 07 w.,C N y v (a � c -' a� 6 mwu. to m0 (AC1 E. d) oGEy 1 caufla�wr„_ ainvr00� ,,Ew xa c N N e o V� m w ni' O J2 qq 0 Lo—CL.0 C.0 W N_m ate.. w > m 10' aI LEC3 �0aiL6OC.L0 p tor0 tn N « d m c > > n y !a figN0 0 0 r- � C 0 Ny E ma x E to L'O in Vim•. d CMCL c to LC O � tn wM V.R0S 4C' ''aaC.... .� Qu7L N LO ;%- O yCNyN .CN '� yOgO . UC COSm O Y to 2'. �'' O 47 W C. ►+U �.d :J N Vl xi ! = m O'UI /fl LPL. �(y� G "+ C: "0.r 1'M'1' �.L. x ,— .°-� Lw.G. „�a61p� O L. L.a m oo 2 o "Xc+ •rn V cr N 'a mC00 t Ld �0,d ES0) O0 o O aCO E .C1.d o m A L. cicC E � c r¢o Q LUomm w°i ul Mw ° Q« � F LN O U L uaEv °� G ¢ a m am `o rna a 01 cd— CaCOiLR > CN " Q. C L Cs O1C 01 Ct ' G cNn NJ m O.0 � �C we x Gl COJ 13 07 +' a) V 61 a ` m L. � p� flu � cco d00. w 5.0 w � s = M C 9 E O y ul 0 .L 00 y 1 N C ONE aLi E C N UgaQ U Qv O'Uc C.« � ycaV; tm �OtmC1 �A aAm134) N C N-p C L- O C Cy,� Qc08 t1c`+� s L ON.� L" mC OC > E mNlm y LCV pC d C 41 U NULC O N N N ,. c C O O CL �aac OL--L Nit 0 a L a) l9 7 N.3 O C E N+O.L. O1 dJ U , « � Lh Oti � y � OrvA w..+ �al0 _ 0) C N•5.. U y 0�0)a a C 6 t N G.C. 01- QJ i 0 O L O N LM"a to 0i w U) U N m M f0 O N >2:N.V•3.c N �a L 61 u. .a.� CL A .02 a 3� N 0. >..o �9 tt) C a Q 0.U) U N A 07 O O B. CL CLU aLUta NU�yCty,� z`t°0 tN0 0«fl.7 . L 4avri �a.aHd:N t = NG=C — GC1 M Uj0 — 0 a0i N Ln R Ca� mf3 C 34.C!n° L �N L m ' 0 ) M w E G O. 10 in 0 Ndm0 ON la LL.0 y 0 N Q.CL N w L. N v o ) E N M>, = Qcawam 'cocm � 6-4 N C0 L. — NMaCDRCLNV s. NS C7 OflN m ` 7N0 .0O qtQ 0�V 0) 0 0)p O �m Lo 1 S3L� ' dpaN ( to Q. E C Or 0 >> 01 U > M z °) L. .NNN U to 0 Ln LL N in N. - -13 CL •r c U m a a �. N N N 'G �. ` u tn a = 3 us r m L a - y p a J•`� � G m � a� •ut L '^ N N V y L.., m r� « L• J II > 1 G Y CJ O N (C V Y C O b v � L a c L «. - cz y V L INw B« N ,fA U1 ... tJ ^N• f11i O L —' J•=: O O If. t0 ..4 N: V•� U N •� r C.1 H rJ r. X .T.� `•�-V :^) C >. f0 N fl •> a «.� R O.G 1 �.3, i C rE N N C O 67 C. C) a 'O O N. N N.� '�N �• x C c 6 L'. tri q < E of G a cy 'N 9 w U � ¢ U � 3 ¢ r`o O•E o cu tn t �_ Qr Q 3 y _ O Q W. T C. .0 N' � -O' L O J �. O '�J y. N N N N _ CO tj N .n c L LG. y J O_ O. L v Cif U .�.. tn Az N x C CJ y L � N J S. N N a.1- VV d N d tt-�. O QNj (n ' O� n O O c. N CS N h G N L N'7 O L W U n) C1 G y tn L O p N O l c V O 4 �3 j .— N. a w W O N,.`• .n �. N C?G N �. a C N O N n L tll c. ., v 7 CJ� y ar mL. LL 'us v^ EaO N >..^�) yC '''. 01« « � G> C� a101LL01"'.• ap C R ram N ?i .. D u L ..�.� C N C N L N. O 4" d« G+a+ 3 N y N O i V it7'� P ^ O :J. eR)• V Q a!l� C) O `.L O �« C V u N.Q L+.. > 47'CS C '..•`' Ci.0 7 [J C L.v C_C L O r a y tU C.�• O A �' C Q!L O"' :! 17 � ? .-- n t :n v O 7 _ ul tn th n to •• a N W L J c o U t N _ tR v. - N " CJ N N L N w Zj .3 � Al CN1 y O p N N N U'R 7. r �' N Ln < C). N N i O M1 O � C.7 E N ',A y L C V.,N 61 C O a Q.L L Q1 + tn ' '1 ry V i M` 61 N tn R N C Q. 'UGJN� CC iy — .3 C L r" G �`+SF_ 7 N O•� C L y O ,'h... U. �. "V G '� c _ y O O G `. 2.^ O U y 3 6i.in G O a.+ L N co Et- n"ra m poGj�y � =y c }= Sa c r A C m ggmL 7 , N •C `J N a a j n r • 3 s tj .' N a rCv N r a•E i a N :. 1 m CL C-d O. Z CD ci N j•.� J - m N +. N L N•^ ^ U .� N tam/ m U R ggg N _ U Vif L. Ol m a a O A C a a cai o. L � D V -n- C fa v X > > 4t L J w C a G O L d 5.7. m C. N a N C a CIn a CD L = Lt Gam,`+ C I- � m ) J a 'V m - 7 C �.+ o. U3 v62DCivm V = 3 C i L � m m '^ c C ¢ � CLCaa aiCa = y L.- v ca a) m a s U �.,��.W 2r fr EL UI u V 1!n to U -•-Lr C v a N iC E C _ m m JJ"" YYYJJJ a c L L O L y w'd L �r •.t a �. a a. t0 i C P1i c v' m: O ul N p _ tii C R is v �° i 0) n U t C o y c •a ty N t ° `° N S O N L ° : O 'n._ y�O.y ' G cai 3 Li tn v ., _tm� 05 tn N its asp L~ w C. L L a L ..' a to ri 4 c r a v ttn c t)_ p Z tn w a y a :l th _ n G u a a v L a..+�. r a. «+ L .) a.0 a•. a �.0 • _.. - 7 a iA T y.1C .^i. .^ tr 0 i N. � c.:r � s C CCL O a ` • `. Y,!' I'"_j J .1 to`-0 to Gn y r y Ln V ... # J ; 1 v O ri LL y O _ ` W� 1 1 1 1G0 u O y i(N�1 E a) of Go C w H 4 C n� a c ' c t7 c N L m o c ag t o 40 q vVA yC G �m m •— ` u a O ,a ar c� II ciao,c s y— ayi ci`E p f, o E c> > ai y 1=— u u.L N'- 4ti QEo Z16- t cn N 61 L U VOi C Y G N Nin rA n ;C C :: O a .O. tn vt m CD _N Pyj U N ` C .fl C w.. � U i a7. N C � i �.•'�� A N t Q Vl L mtn a O• as of �LM . N o. A _ Ln AA tn G.yra+ •_3CC:�'.G—�.U_.. Cya7 Uy L C_C.CCJ7 LN mN.0 tfC �CrU QCc) N. ito L w m V N nC t-,C N y L InoilG ON Ln U C CS.0 L U t t C L L. iL 0L)7O^ � L. C _ t = N .. � d c c q 3. N: fJ d N d•L II c woal t i C.V c N... c C 0 v 11 O ^ A O d d Ow (Y! Q G r" r C N L ~ ra U1lF v ap+ = � V C V fi c � !. J .n C, 4 Cci CH u+ > 0 _ _ c fm N y a C3 O C3 C a �q I c f i a Y k. � U 7 4 CITY OF RANCRO CUCX-40NGA r PART ZI INZTIAt STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECMIST E ' DATE:� APPLICa,�a'n:a/ " TILT2IG DATE _Q`•f�r . LOG NUPlBER!� °A�i/ r �CfFD tag? PROJECT. fO'vg'dVt%'�$'�►�*l �� INab PROJECT'LOCATION T.tlAulaS# csr�,rn,-,,,.s I. � ENVIRO\':MNTAL IriPACTS 7.Ei�r4 n74 1 1 (Explanation of all "yes" and,"m-4giz sheets). en answers are required.on attached FES MAYBE NO 1. Soils „ ,,ol2M- Will the proposal have sign results in; :I a Ae ground conditions or in changes in _eeelogic relationships? b- Disruptions, disp];acements, compaction i,r burial of t1e soil? c. Change ::n topography or ground surface ncntour interials? c. The destruction, covering or modification of, any unique geologic or physical features? e• Any potential increasa in wind or-vater erosior_ of soils, aff%� ting either on or't s sate conditons? it Ar f. Changes in erosion siltation, or aepositicn? g• kxpesure of people or, property to geologic '-hazlyds such as earthquakes, landsliA_„ mud slideL, ground failure. or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or r use of any mineral r^source? 2 Hydrnlo¢y. Will the proposal have signi£+aant results in: Page�'x. YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currentq, or the cou se of direction � of flowing streams, rivers. or%phemeral stream �j channels?- b. Changes in absorption Sates"drainage pa ttetns,' or the rate and amou;t of srcxfar_e water" ,..off? V C. Alterations Y' the nourse or floc: of flood watars? d. Change is the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge Tito surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? 9. Change in the qucntity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with drawaIs, OV through interferencQ with an JjJ� aquifer? 'fr Quat,i cy? L Quantity? h, The raduci^TIr.,ir, the amount of water other- wiF-1 available for public water supplies? I. Exposure Of people.ebr .property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air ua'ity. ?,fill the proposal have significant results in: r A. Constant or odia air emissions from mobile er indirect-sources? Stationary sources? — fir Deterioration of ambient air quality and/'or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? / c, Alteration of local or regional climatic d conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? v� k. Biota' - '— 2lora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diveesity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b: Reduction of the numbe s of any unique, tare' or endangeted,apeates ofr plants? { ''Wage 3 YESc `.To c. Introduction of tew or disruptive species;of'` p;aatis;into an area?x d. Peduc,ion in the potential for agricultural productic,t?_ _ Fauna. Will the`proposal'have significant results in: _l Change i-s the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers- Of any species o; ait�1157 /� b. Reduction �f the numbers of !,iiy unique, rare., or endangered species of aniaeals? C. Introductions of AYE or'disruptive species of anir,is into an a;ea, or result ik'a barzier " tolthe migration or movement of enimals? w d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or x -Aldlife habitat? 5. Population. Will--the proposal have significant results in a. 'Will the proposal alter _he location, 4`stri bution, densiiy, diversity;, or growth r.',ae of the human population of an area? t_ *Till the proposal affect existing housing, or �r create a demand for additional Dousing? */ f. Socio-Fconomic Factors. Wii'1~the proposal have' . significaat results in. a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or ^ommercial diversity, tax reie,'and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planninc Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the;,present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, / Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental Alk entities? c. An impx,ct upon ;;hti qul.kity or quantity of Yexistir,'l cunsuwpnive o= non-consumptive recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES ` MAYM NO 8. Transportation. Will,the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular t movement? b.` Eff#cts on existing streets, or demand for nellfstreet construction? c. Ef',ects on existing parking facilities, or dj and' for new parking? d. Sujstantial impact upon existing'transporta- 4� n systems? e. AliFerstions to present V patterns of circula- tiri% or movement of people and/or goods? ' f. Alterations to or effects on present and »otential water-borne, rail, mass 'transit or air traffic? S. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,' bicyclists or pedesttlans? Fr 9. Cultursl Resources, Will the proposal have significant results ia: cAINk a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, S; fety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal lave.significant results in. a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of-people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of explosion or release of hazarrous substances in tha event of an accident? d. An Increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenirl organisms or the exposure of people to such - f organisms.? a. *.-Increase in existing noise levels? f- Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? 9. The creation of objectionable odors? AM h. An incresse in ligtit or glare? 'Page 5 YES MAYBE NO r _ 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant s results n- a. The+obstructior, or degradation of any scini, vista or :view? b: The creation of a: aesthetically,offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated ar potential scenic: Corridors? 12. Utilities and "Public Services Fill the proposal have a significant neneed for new systems, or alterations to the followings a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communicetiors systems? d. WattLr supply:` e. Wastewater facilities? ✓" f. Flood control stru�tures'X i g. Solid waste Facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection?. J� Schools? �+ k'- Parks or other recreational facilities? c_ N I. Maintenance of p•-Iblic facilities, inclwiing roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? �s 13. Enerey and Scarca Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a, yse of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b.. Substantial increase in demand upon aacisting sources of energy? c. An increase 'Z the demand for development of new• sources :,I energy? d. An increase or perFatuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? £Y lr t+i Page ' YEs ':AYBE No Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or ' scarce natural resource? y 14. Mandatory £indfncs of Sielificance. , 1 , a. Does the,`pioject have the potential to deg the, �1 ' the, qu31)iy of Lee environment, substantially redetceie habitat of fish.or wildlife species, 1 cause Fish or si�.ldlife population to drop below selflsustai 'ng levels, threrten to eliminate a plant' or animal community, reduce f the num!vtr or restrict the ran,e of a rare �r ' �+ ' endange, d plant or animal or'-eliminate important "xnaples of thi! major periods of California history r-«.prehistory? i h.. Does the project have the potential 'to achy eve short—term,'to the disadvantage of long-tern, r environmental goals? (A short—tors impact on the emrtronment is one T+hich occurss in a Zelatively brief, definitive period o£ ti=while` ong k term tmpa.rts will endure well into the future). c. Dons the'project have impacts ufhish-are. individually limitAd, but cumulatively considerabl e?'-' (Cu�)latively considerable means that the ir2cr'emental,iffects of an individual'project_are considerable when viewed ln�connection with-the effects of past projects, and probable''future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. L35CUSSION OF EMRO* 4TAL rIALVATION {i.e., of affirmative answers to , the above questions plats a discussion ,_e proposed mitigation measures). ^ r I j o _ III. I1ETE$.'�INAThO:I u On the basis f p this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviranment, and .a 10,0ATIVE DECLARATIOii will; ne prepared. I find that alth6ugh the proposed project could have a si niii effect on the' g cant he' a&,ironmcnt, t�ere Will: not be a xsignificant ,,cant " in this case because th% mitigation measures desC ibed on an ' atrgched`'sheet have been added to the project. A VECu.TIVE" DEC.ARAxTpN WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect an'the envirnment, and an d is required. oor Date _° ' _ etUS �. Titla Alk a AME'IDED NOVEMBER 20, 19.86 ADDENDUM TO =INITIAL STUDY, ART II r FOR TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 86-02 Land Use and PlannipS nsiderations (a) (b) a) Substantial alterations of a planned land use of an area. The proposed amendment,would allow tight industrial dpvelopMent in,a residentially planned community. In`-.Aition to the base uses established in each of the zoning districts, the Business Park Overlay Zone would permit such land .,uses as custom mant0acturing; certain retail. and service types-of land use such as hardware stores, television and radio sales and repair,{ faod and beverage sales, barber and beauty shops. Exhibit "B" shows potential areas within the Planned Community where a Business ,ParY, Overlay Zone count-be requested. The proposal to allrtw custom manufacturing the of 'land use would not be consistent with the intent of the Terra Vista Community Alan or the City's General Plan. Further, such uses could a create land. use compatibility conflicts suchas noise, odor, light privacy, aesthetic, access and safety. -he Terra VistaoP anned Community is conceives as a series of residential rreighbor-hoods linked together by common recreational and institutional funct-tins. The Planned Development is divided into four "ighborhoods with the two northerly neighborhoods more resider, ially oriented, while the southern neigh'Mrhoods have a higher proportion of land devoted to conataerciai avid mixed uses.. The purpose of this commercially zoned area south of Church„Street is to provide transition'uses to the 'industrial area c wth of Foothill Boulevard and transition to the Residential .Districts north of Church Street. The proposal to allow industrial uses within Terra Vista Is contrary to t< e fundamental tenet of zoning; inco(apati.ble land uses should be separated to avoid nwisance. Further, Jt would erotic w intent of the Terra Vists Planned Community and not be in the best interest of the City of Pancho Cucamonga. b) Inconsistency with General Plan and Relationship' to the Industrial Specific Plan. The City adopted the General Plan in 1%81 with the purpose of . setting forth broad comwniiy., goals tip guide the City in managing effectively the complex intiegration of physical, social, culture and economic growth. These broad community =.goals are translated into specific policy statements and specify measures to accomplish the objectives. of the Plan. Some of the objective policy statements establishe±' in the Land Use Element stated that: p ' v o Land use should W'organized to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. _ v _ o industrial development shoul&-3e coordinated to encourage -and integrate industrial area with the,!maximum flexibility—dnd access to a t's' I ` regional circulation network: The Industrial Specific Plan provides nearly 4.000 acres of . developable "land that is properly zoned;-', the type e7 uses proposed. Allowing industrial uses, away from the.Industri'al ` Specific Plan area bouneary would erode the intent, of-this Industrial , Specific` Plan. The Amendment would also allot; certain commercial uses within the Business lark Overlay' Zone. These uses include small business retail and service uses, such as appliance stores and repair, plumbing shops and supplies, television, and radio, 'sales arid- repair, floor covering :sales!) and installation, hardware stores, catering establishments and similar businesses,, convenience retail and service businesses such as food and beverage sales and newsstands. [ Iu essence, this would expand commercial land uses into acres t ' not intended for these types of uses. This would conflict with City-wide regulations of the Development Code and General Plan which establish a careful balance of commercial," office industrial and residential land uses. >r Transportation (a) (b) One of the objectives of the Terra Vista Planned Community-i-s to develop an extoJ:;Rilve greenway system with trails, bikeways and sidewalks, allotX09 community residents to eliwinate some t, automobile trips. The development of industrial projects would cause an increase in truck traffic, which rOuld increase the potential hazard to residential generated auto traffic, bicyclist and pedestrian.- Health,-Safety and Nuisance Factors' (b), (c), (e), (g) The proposed amendment to add industrial uses in d residentially planned canity co!jld have cumulative :adverse impacts to adJacent residents in areas of noise, odor, light and glare. i S s CITY CIF RANRM0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT it � ca „ U DATE: Dq embe r,1(4_19B6 isn Tom` c,airman and Members of the Planning Ccunissien FROM: Bra&.'!!ul)er, City Planner 1 BY: Nancy Fong, sssoc'ate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AS:IFSSMENT AND CONDITIONAL;' USE PERMIT86-24 - Tree'>.,_ve opmen of a( , square foot convenience--sal—es and se'Ivice center oni 1.18 .acres of 'land in the Genera'. Industri4URail; ,Served District !Subarea { 2), 'located at the northe st-corner of 8t',,Street and Vineyard Avenue APN 201-011-15. ' Related to the proposed 4 development is Trey Removal Permit 86-61 - A request to , III, bremove an existing wir.•drow along 'the northern property ENVXR6 ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-06 - PLANNING- GRCUP---7fie request o reduce the require�verage oo� aT-escaping on 8th Street Nnging from 15 feet to 22 feet; to eliminate the required 5 foot; interior side yard setback for a 12,000 sq. ft. convenience sales and service center on 1.1€I ar s of land In the General ;.ndustriai/Rat' Served 'District located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and lineyard.Avenue - APN 201-013-15 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action P.equested: Approva of a Cotiitional Use Permit for a iz,uuu sq. ft. convAnienc,e sales and service center; approval of site plan and elevations-, approval o:. a Variance for the" rcluction of average landscaping and 5 fact interior side yard setback, approval of Tree Removal Permit, and issuance, of a Negative D& .ration B. Surrounding_L_aind Use a-,I Zonin I North— - Exilting railf'o—aTIFIEk, Cucamonga Creek, vacant, Ge!neeal Industrial Rail Served District (Subarea 23. South - City of Ontario (Multi-Family Districts. E4st Vacant; General Industrial/Rail Served District (Suuarea 2). West - Scheu Steel ,manufacturing plant, restaurants General Industrial District '(Subarea l). ITEM J PLANNING'COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ✓ CUP 86-24 and Varia�cA 86-06 Dece&ter 10, 1986 Page 2 C. General Plan Desj ations: project ire-"Oe��rerV IndustrialfRai'l Served North General Industrial/Rail Served South City of Ontario •,i; East General Industrial/Rail Served West Unercl Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant except for Eucalyptus windrow along the northwa Property boundary. The site- slopes down 5 feet from the railriad track and levels off within the site.: Eighth Street is the City boundary line. E. Applicable Regulations: The pro�ind use, convenience sales and services center. requires a Conditional -Use Pem4t within General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The Tree Preservation Ordinance regulates the removal.of Eucalyptus windrows. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed development consists of a single continuov, narrow building a-rong the north property boundary. Two mail: accesses to the,; project are provided from 8th Street. The pruposEd architecture is mission style with the concrete mission tile, curvilinear gable, wood trellises and stucco column, -ind va, 'ed roof height. B. Variance: In conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit app ca on, the applicant has also submitted a Variance request for the following inconsistencies with the Industrial Specific Plan development stands-ds: 1. Reduction of the required average 25 foot landscaping on 8th Street. The proposed landscape setback ranges from 15 feet to 22 feet. 2. Rliminatior of the interior side yard 5 foot setback along thQ railroad tracks. C. �Desi gn��Re__yiew Committee: The Committee reviewed the project on offer 20-I986. At the meeting, the developer provided revived plans to address the Committee's concerns in the following areas: 1. Four parking spaces have been eliminated to mitinate traffic conflict. r J � I PLANNING COMISSION.STAFF REPORT CUP 86-24 and Variance 66-06 December 10, 1985 Page 3 2.- A monumentation for GdIi:vway° 0 the`4iU, at the corner of 8th Street and Vineyard Avonw,i :shown on the site_plon and elevation. r 3. Sufficient quantity of trees has been added to the revised landscape ply.. 4. Tree well s have been added along,.the arcade of the.front, elevation, S. Additional'arrhitertural,�elementst such cs curvilinear gable has been adder to the rear elevWon. The Committee reviewed the revlsi d plans and recomaended approval with the- condition of adding vine dockets ;md/or potted plants al,ng the arcade of the fromt, clevatip The developer has agreed to the aod_•d recotmenfsz';1on.. t _ D. Tree Removal Permit: The',�ipp�icant is also proposing to remove mature uca yp us trel�t and one Canopy tree,a,t shown in Exh!Vt OF". There arer othe,` Eucalyptus windrt+ws in -this neighborhood; therefore real would not `have a significant impact. Further, due t( the size and shay,»: of tou site, replacemeitt of, new jwindrow would not be practical,. T'arefore, staff recommends that all required trees within the parkway on 8Ch Street are' vineyard should be 24-inch bow size or larger. E. �Existing Overhead Utilities: The proposed pro36ct is burdened with over ead utiPties, ca 3 sides of the parcel. This particular parcel already has zany restrictions due to its size anO shape. Though the current policy requires the .uhaergroundinr,of ut ties within the railroad right-of-way, it wrocid appear that the time involved in obtaining a permit to underground the telec4aimunication lines in the railroad right-- of-way (if it is evert possible) and, the added expense of de unrgroundi„s, of it was permitted) Mould be an v1due hardship on the development. Staff is recommending that the Pianniag Commission Mete Engineering special condition number Zli ) relieving the applicant of undergrounding the overhead utilities along "he r0lroad right-ci-way. F. Enviromental._ Asses:.ment: Staff has completed the TrI : s ,pan has determined th:rt the development of this project �y e:cpose people or property to water related. hazards Such es flooding, However, a drainase study, was submitted to the City fofa review in order to determiii- the mitigatior meastires for alleviating the patsritial probli� on Am T— r, PLANNING COMMILSSICN STAFF kPORT � CUP 86-24 and Valiance 86-06 December 10, Page 4 I site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Therefore, staff has determined that there will not be a significant impacc in this case because the mitigation measures have been added to the 'Conditions of Approval. If the Planning Commission concurs with these Findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission Ito approve On anal-Use Permit 86-24 and Variance 86-06, facts -to sgpport tha following Findings must be made: A. Conditfiron_al Use Permit 86-24 1. That the proposed project Is:donsisteni- with the objectives of the General Plan and the Industrial , Specific Plan. h 2. That the rroposed use, building design, site plan. �I togather vr',th the recommeneed conditions of approval t, are in zompliancr with each of the applicable provisions of the development Code and the. Specific Plan. 3. That the proposed use, together with the conditiows applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to vhe !j public health, safety, or welfare. or materially fl injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. B. 1A :ance 86-06 1. That st-ict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified. regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardsnip inconsistent with the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan and Devel%went Code; in that, without the Variance, the development of the site would not be feasible. 2. That there ay,,, exceptional or axtraordiniry civcumstanris or conditions applicable to the property involved z• to the intended use of the property that ct not 3p�ay generally to other prcaerties in t?;s same district, in that, the size and -shape of the site wonid cause difficultyin designin6-'a project :rat complies with all City's aplicable codes. 3. That stria, or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properti is in the same district; in that, without the Varian.z, the applicant could not develop the site. J- a �.. ,� s t ra q,�, C � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86-24 and Variance 86-06 December 10, 1986 Page 5 1 7 R, w 4. That the granting of the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the saw districi in that, a similar size and shape of parcel has been developed with a Variance. 5. That the granting--of the Variance wiit _not be detrimi ntal to the public health, safety, or welfoire, 'or materially ; injurious to properties or improvements ±n the vicinity. The applicant has submitted a letter providilg Justification for the Variance request (see attached letter). IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Renort newspaper as a Public Hearing, property posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomrisends t1lat the. Planning Comission corgis.,: r the Issue of-.deleting Engineering Special Condition 3(c) regty-t1ii9 existing overhead utilities: If the Comxaission concur; with staff's recommendation, then approval of Cendfilanai Use Permit 86-24, Variance 86-06, and the Tree Removal Permit 86-61, v-i lssutnce of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Re „W1411a Litt d, �f rad Bulle `. Fity Planner BB:NF:ns Attachments: Letter from Applicant Providing Justification for Variaj,te Request Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Utilization flap Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F Elevations Exhi bi.,,: "G" - Tree Removal Permit Resolution of Approval for CUP 86-24 Resolution of Approval for Variance 86-06 a140)im,ai oma q ; u W a sdl i v a w r[ 11 N u m fu rY 1.. u 2+ ar a r. 44 C a K ri �m 1�l a. Q tm 4A-A O k 0 6 u w G O L C 4.F O GI 14.0 C W m 0 �m'quma ,� � a. ua� (D9 Cl W. G u m'u 01 m a a.m 4 $4 m ro iV "40 !6 Ot O m 7 r N u O.tl O u m m A:.t O'41 -rl �i 1-4 C {51 N G 41 r-i 3' D,4 m 9 OmaAO.+.ri 'w M 41�44 pCd CID i co F W JJ ' 'O 13 •'>I 00 s0 1044 O G.Fie m u W G 4f an d 1` 4O m G G > > tle to > �cM-A uro woro0-0 0 4J'a 0 M'OC aW-O i i•t .h.+ M iGt'MU r 1l Z 2 M L w fine L �+ O) m m N 10 t0 m w T }� m a•i 0 i'Oi 50�0'O d Oi A +C VC w am O a q 41 4d m mo a 0 C-C iL L O 41:. 'O 0 Z iy,C C m 01 0! 0 ri 00.0 w W oG >a w 144 44 a 44 ci.G 4) ri jr A C }w 0 U m G'.�r-i 0 r 4 03 14 O @.0 O E" 61 u.miA 41 MW M U N-4 ca � m rq O H mO-H Y O4 y w ri '�J" m 4) 4J 00 41 ri d'A 14 m m of � m41Z�.e a a d '4 .0 .i a [U it F3 G W M F4 M M-i4 a m 3 G o 44 41, 41 13 4') U N.!d 014 O G w m i.F '.4�0, Q! m P.�•1�M CI Q.y CO 4J CO MWri W-@ C 3ei- mei m•4 m vo p6~: 44 A0I0:0 cc V A m Cl u 9 - M ?' i1 ? yyba OO M. m. m 10.M m W'.jai rj'b. �7 m vl Qn V OHM FM NCO t� z LC �. AR 0,WOC x 0 0 o t•-f-t , o 4 subarea 1 0 `a c subarea 3 061 j 0 �. Fenn subars NUI'd=i C;I7'T' OF Pi- 1 C CWAMWA TME: PLAM vc SCALE.- J- J Aft C]nGR W W WZ1 A C,in ; _,tea m i 1 NOM cb 1 g o A'i'Cm, 6r '��f/� ��ff &W = t �� t.?�. er• - r Si AAI a c a Sf . �it' �f111 •�'�t ?,� � 'Ida. ( ` ` i•Itlll tl;u S OR IJ�f�Il�t 'lP 'c M fit r i ( � C iJl•!; j t i r ail tl(tl I11 `� �i t `1 Hill j1JI I�•\`I I, r.i f r gad 3 I j 1.I --- 41 A t i CS -0'499 M 71 n I -- -- --- ��;�3t;i onarH. aruepin J=1( GM VA E- .c: �Fj a r o 4 0 3 f ' F Q J e _. n i Q i o pia � U e� „ :. y i A�_� Val it i curianga . ,:x � '� _ z5"' .�'p �� 7 0 aOrdinance No.278,pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property,requires the nit person remove or relocate any woody plants to ercess of fifteen(15)feet in height and having a single trunk ® circumference of fifteen(15)inches or more and.muiti•trunks having a circumference of thirty(30) Inches or more(measured twenty-four(24)inches tram r jund level),without first obtaining a free Removal Permit from the City. z q�n -£OCiiTION OF SUBOOT SiT�-: a NAME,ADDRESS,TELEPHONE air I.PP�iCA 435 Court Street, Reno, NevaidatY8956��`' LU NAME,ADDRESS,TELER(iQW v 7372 CL hire F; =3 J REASONS'FOR REMOVAL(attacfi °r `1�r:-T t E. to utralyptus treea 40-50 feat_In he ft fh,t a:Q gam q'i�. U �Q and an LLJ umbrella 2O1-3a, foot in djawwtai TR `�a sn�y &X:W n'r.,rar IwoQ tft! hali" f. ot�. r PROPOSED METHOD OF EMOVAf: 'tat darer=��Dtrt F.Rtlmoe APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ' � ° a "`Oetober 11986 i ' rxfa �'•:yf � oY (� This applicat' abaft Inonft p •placid#�atiss �tooatteji�ftg�i trees jvb®retnovad andstatned. The species ,and s 'of fate treeatra be removed shall be so designated:if a tree is dtaessed, ! then a written stI!lalment from'a tl~cenarad arborf stafirg the nature of the disease shalt be required. f W APPROVED DENIED, ~ By Reasons., Date:CL _ W The permi+shall be valid for a period of nine tY(90)days,unless'anextension Is requested fourteen(14) i days prior to the expiration of the permit. 1. Condi' n of the trees? 2. Any safety hazards to persons,adjacent property or utility InstaltatRonsT ` S. Any conflict with proposedImproveme+044 igi�" it aX/��lit �� �• °,� `�� s2�"- �rk�.r�',({i�9' 4. Proximity ofothertrv4*4 r4 AWA 5. Effect of1rm removar4ok .afat*&4ul'e it SM 6. Are any of the tress re6fred fo he p ' ►f" ff Misr` 4 p rltlstoric landmark designation?' ban --.1A' ,•. 4 �. 7. Is an arboeiat7equlred? r- � - • Mot �1. fi4f�aDt�Yt '� es@�. �1 fidi�lL I J-1� Continued Pape Reasons tuz-Remov_al J1 along the north prooerty/line of a currevctly undeveloped site. The uronerty has aJ idith of approximately, 90 feet at the west property line. approximately 80 beet at the east property line, and is approximately "510 feet in leneth. Th//6se dimensions make for an unusually It;ng and narrow site, which by themse4/ves make this site difficult for reasonable normal development. (` The location of the trees and their large branch structures reduce the developable width of thesite by approximately 15 feet to + 75 feet at the west and + 65 feet at the east. Subtracting parking stall Cepth (19 ft.), driving aisle (25 ft.),,and required lands cap ng,along 8th 'treet (25 ft. avg.) leaves only approximately 17 feet of developable building depth. '' Removal of the existing trees would allow for a developable building width of + 30 feet, New trees and landscaping will be added to mitigate the impact of removing these trees. TECHNICAL INFORMATION I, SPECIES: Eucalyptus Rudis NUMBER: 13 SIZES Max. 30", minimum 14" - others HEIGHT: 40 50 Feet I & , -,�/ f, 1 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCANONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-24 FOR 12,000 SQ, FT. CONVENIENCE SALES AND SERVICE CENTER LOCATED AT THE ;( NORTHEAST CORNER OF 8TH STREET & VINEYARD AVENUEIH THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL/RAIL SERVED DISTRICT d AP# 20I-013-15 WHEREAS, on tine ist 'daay of December, 1986, a complete application was filed by Planning Group for review of the above-described project;, and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of December, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a,public hearing to consider the ahove.4es6ribed project, ' NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Planning,Commission resolved as follows.* , SECTION 1: That the following findings can by met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Phan, the objectives of the industrial Specific Pi an and the Purposes .of3he district in which the site is located. 2, That the proposed ust,, together with the conditions AWL applicable thereto, will not be detrfmontal to the public health, safety, or welfare, _.or materially injurious to properties or improvements in _0e vicinity. I 3. That the proposed use complies with each of tne"iPplicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That th-Is project will not create adverse impacts on the environmen an at a negative Declaration is issued on DecemV r 10, 1986, SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 is approved subject to e o _owing conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Vine pockets and free standing potted plants shall be added along the arcade of the front elevation. Detailed design shall be included in the detailed landscape and irrigation plan and submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits 2. Detailed design of the monumentation sign located at the corner of 8th Street and Vineyard Avenue shall be submitted for City PlannE.r review acid approval prior to issuance of building permit. Resol°ution.-No. a CUP 86-24 - PlannfWraroup December 1U, 1986 ,,— ,) ' Page 2 3._'Textured pavement,,such as brick pavers, exposed aggregate, -or a combination of both, shall be provided at the two main project entrances, aqd at building entrances. 4. Wood trellises should be-\of substantial size such as 3" x' <<j 8" to the satisfaction of the City Planner. f 5- The approval of thisi rvoditional Use Pemi't is ' for t� Convenience Sales and services land use only. Other types . of land uses are sub3Ltt to Subarea 2 (General Industrial District) of the Industrial Specifid'Pian. 1, 6. All trees planted along 8th Street znd Vineyard Avenue shall be miniwim 24-inch box siz6=or larger. „ ENGINEERIN6 DIVISION n, 1. A permit f eom A.T. & S.F. railroad shall be required for any grading within the right-of-way. 2.. All street improvements, expert:_ sidewalks, shall be extended easterly along 8th S re, `rom the property :line to the concrete bridge over thll',G'uozxonga Creek Channel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Existing overhead utilities. a. vineyard Avenue - an in-lieu fee as contribution To"-t u ure undergrounding of the :existing overhead utilities (electrical, except for the 66 . electrical') on the pi=oject site, i the " Vineyard Avenue shalt be paid to the :ity prior r to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the adopted unit amount times. the length from the center of the A.T. & S.F. - Railroad right-of-way to the center of 8 Street. b. 8th Street existing overhead utilities e ecommum cation and electrical) on the project side of 8th Street shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage and extending from the first pole east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel westerly to the first pole on the south side of 8th Street,,prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. Reimbursement ,of one-half of the adopted cost of undvgrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is not feasible because the propertyy is preseni.ly developed and in the City of ontario. t Resolution No. CUP 96-24 Planning Group = December 10, 19$f Page 3 �r 4c. The 'existing overhead ut lilies ,(telecosamuni- csti6s) on the project side of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way shall be undergrounded fi�"om &. the first pole on the west side of Vineyard Avenue to -the first pole east of the Cucamonga Creek. Channel, prior to public improvement acceptance ,, or occupancy, whichever occurs first. Reimbursement of orie-half of the adopted ' cast of undergroundin9 from futuri? development as it occurs an the oppoaite side of the railroad right-of-way is feasible, because the propoerty a is presently undeveloped. 4. The sidewalk shall be extended along Vineyard Avenue to the k railroad track as approved by AX. A S.F. Railroad. S. A periwit from the City of Ontario is required prior to any work within the right-of-way including the stogy drain connection. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS LOTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1986. 4 - h PLANNING COMMISSION OF T44E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy SecrUfary I, Brad 'Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning,Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Coi ssi on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the loth day of December, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONER& NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: �" COMMISSIONERS: I x RESOLUTION NO. r. A :RESOLUTIOk OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING: VARIANCE NO. 81-06 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED AVERAGE 25 FOOTr'ANDSCAPING ON 8TH STREET FROM 16 7EET TO ` 22 FEET; TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED 6 FOOT INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK, FORA 12,000 5Q. FT. CONVENIENCE SALES AND >' SERVICE CENTER ON 1.18 ACRES OF LAND IN -,THE,1ENERAL INDUSTRIAL/PAIL SERVED DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF lA STREET AND VI"`EYARD AVENUE - APN 201-013 is. WHEREAS, on the ist day of December, 1986, `an application was filed and accepted on the above-described proje;t; and WHEREAS, .on the 10th day of December, I986, "th ;.Planning Commission held a duly advertised public- hearing pursuant to Section 65854- of the California Government code. SECTION -1: 'The Ranchq Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the fol'fawing iRZTngr. ' l 1. That strict or literal interpretation ieid enforcemen":of the specified regulation wound result in praMial difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development wode; in that; without the Variance, the deve'opment of the site would not be feasible. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances �.; or conditions a,4alicable to this property involved or to the intended,-'- of the property that do not apply generally to other properties it the same; district; in that, the size and shape of" the site would cause difficulty in designing a project that cr,ipl{es with all City's applicable codes. 3. T,at strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the soma district; in that, without the Variance, the applicant could not develop the site. S. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute at grant of special ;privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified, in the same district; in that, a similar size and shape of parcel has- been developed with a Variance. 5. That the n-anting of the Variance will not be 'detrimental to the r,,uuiic health, safety, or weli've, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 41 Resolution No. Variance 86-05 Page 2 1. SECTION 2: The Rancho..',,Cucamonga Planning Comission hereby approves ar ands -06. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TO DAY OF DECEMBER, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSIfW OF:745 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA =� BY: E.Dav ar er, a awn ATTEST: ro ';dTTi", Deputy eci,-t-Ta",r,Y 11 r- I, Brad BuT:ler, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Cgwission of the Ciyy or Rancho Cueamdinga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was du1j,-;snd� regularly iatroduced, pas,,,,qd, and. adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranc o Cucamonga, at a regula;r,,meeting of the�Planning Commission hold on the 10th diay of December,. 1986, by ""the following vr�e-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: �.UMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: j ti� • d��azxw.X�uO Lay,.. scow '-c c a4 :=$: oaa' �cmwi« �4�Op■�M Ya �yy d a'f�o O '.i$ap 0 .. ■ � '�9L�gGa L=aYi yG40Y YJ:A uL Ng �Opp g 1 G VM L LC 4Lypl Q±A4 x9.N bng n��O C4N puyG� �GY WgY�O tlwY ECryC � y$�CL a]. O.w„Lj 6i �yA y0.A2Ld �,M„ub Ep'« �Lg�+yjj, tlg .Log NN � o C GA.� G g`tl YtO.+� Ht�oJ^• allIc L4V Ca Y J� W C gpy. ut �+a 2 �'�..w-4 r'•} cu�� i �w� .'e wo.•� w�go' N �NQ 1$1 wga�aG ?Yw» $a�E`o d$eg $=�mw ycn. E�utc. 'L g k3gtloEgG�w,� t IcN,.�vvGq$' 'fig"-g EU22 .ycu 9U� pps"tl.=ogz ET, PY.N. �Ly SGN a �• � EY./L dQfY �O �A p-.. p � � BO N Oy.� . n` u 34 a'' y a Rw s g Y ,-N V 4 4 L Y k$: Ap4pYi..nrJ i�fi tGYGYGYaN a�� 4H �N +Lnp YG.A! - .n tl A N Y�1� •NCO L it ad C m� q C t�-. �Y a Ypp C GG Y G Y^ g$ Y Gµ 0fl. w F G'N Vy w �u •i NLU Y� 4 c%s T o•°..�" .�i �y6� o w _r am. ow. KhL A N G S M Y Y N lE psY . Cyr yv N 'l�$ U...Q G>V ir. dLn 4AA9q p JC W U C g Pyy ... A W Y b,YxxQQ L) 4 Y V 6 C Y ,.y. L;b 1t V Y.0 O tl 6GR a Yy s^u4Lw LN E+^ u v � A m 3E15nboo w 19 9 6 i.t g: • N Y Or. A 4��^^n a m C .'Cy ��4'y V�V4Y GrY p, pp yO N p J • L �.4nC g0 L�y C p.^A.EY� 9 Y� V Q Se q W d C= µ Y G. � � tl N1. • »1r A B Zs-. Cbg� E" L C'•+NC Iz S N Y y R Q.a - QwG� b�gg YCAL�t d3:Y~� 6•�:Eaq N:.�atlaw u N 1.1 Y Yf I G SK + +4 OL C �. ULY�L dN.YoY nL �s c u d N�. `N Y U S� gtlq dv U '.O. ApouC 9 E9ve f.N L pp Y u+ U 6 LpV OpY LS YlR G, O=. Wes. ^.0 U O�q G�OOO NC.' . ly 2 L AAA « 900 V.0 5.1 L JNgp.. t Ss z y qY� C:. �A�OQ.N` •;69 YyLwC �k LCQ U .9 u.dPi � dN ^� og' ao-'Q$a.� a � �a z uwd 9Au any. ;e A c�+Cd�rnIlpapw �-aCCT +a cGtNaN •O ~ Y U M �I. G G Y-'G n d v U fir b U N`C. o d d C A' ACM n a cu Ly p aNO offU/ p �a:. �rnY� Y N` Y.U&s sQp D J1 U G ga O C Y+CC i Y 9 C+�w.+NO6+01� otYpMU ate- LpN'O90 y= Y Lr� +C L Y I�e+8 L pI NV �0� N Lbw Y.•. UNU U WV. N gyYj. 9�Ci p� ^pY. y�t 6i �Y � LV+OQOUp,O.N C y. _p @�« 1,-N K3 M 1Y O� N Y NL N V NAC'.`R196 lvry1..�__. r C:3 • �O6Y O+ I pN i4Y.Y + L• '�U�dH.04! C+� 6�^t►C A �OibJ dC6r� 6rj.1AjG �p.: yN dy of y- 4. L1.. Yt�M <N+ <N =NG YL•NG .6N Y��0Y 6r NH 60 `A`r V6 +CYO.Y.O»6NLN CCYZ CC C C L A CC Y O D•T� A b 0.9 A.Y O�+ YL9 N E°�uA ��.,• V9 �1d� NCO NN K 9l$� 1I O '1 q9G L. >^ q� �nT L+aa =�Y O• aYoo 4 o1e u g�.7Z ry u. ua' wv�v 9{L. oa N oN�6� dK' L Lr pN Y� Cam^ AO Cp•Ypn.�' L O.Op,U A�. C . N N+ M Y b 9WE 4 G+ G V y9 Y ML Y+ GO�=. S-LuS A •n VN„. y O L G 6 S f S2"N YR a 9 U. 6 O �r NoG� �+ 91-�A U bCCLO Y E�� CC.byy Vy nU +4!�{Y�[ q«� Tn C ^�' Ut 9560 L Vd.�.A • NY`L . a N O w ✓� tl N6..:6 �U Y �yOa lS0 N9 NO u LL Oro G'= V�Y Ol Ca u N M� Hr^T py+M+ aY E L9 Gy+ =3� YO.+ t ^Y� UL. + �-�• �4.OGU SV O Kin C� WLGM.NUVO. 6wN0 KNY.Q1 > <9 N 1� 6U <9 ON+9 tl +t.L4'/ oqi s.a u of .. '.�cc1d ^.oiled pi+"ii ec wr= iy Ove A yayu O�=j a L� xa Nil g:G d�w Ga G V J,[ �•O ,,,,{{ dp„°+pd W L yPy I ..CC O d.G�n' aNiU vn Q J i'u.N+:. Q mEo'a L�wJ ra ..rd -X G OHO C S O Y G.'C1L Y 12 Z. C BE s W / w D Y N O M V r C E IS a. �y {y{ MLu �rnto groN 1t4 � q Vr� ^$ tluC. N S r. LGL 3. YY ti- loY G C A L Ate'/ ry.M tl Yqit q0^ L=GT�pyygy(� UYLY Y }gy HO S^p p p 1pU�; fY_ ��1mb n y� J.: nLG; tl v M N �!a M &E�3v yN�P�.g'� tlen i$ Ns`i.eaea'11. y5 �aiu�y �b4fi r° yx uAyY�e.N� »O A I� p M 3 L Y.N• q A r W A ��6O 4S.Y! G^G'b�L L L Z Z Li p V LAI Alft Y ar C� d6 �^ NV.WO •Y� t qd .0 S1 a G .9 d n� As N. U pvyN y Aj NAj '2g ^.. . aci g,.. �G tl xq i u �n 90 � 1 uZ L eMq k g "� G LL o L !SC Cy OIL yy OI LSY«. fit...Or GE O CSV .i. Y Ga d6. B 3Mi.. PL ■LN�.ti'V.pN 6yM p iqd may. II A...L ^O L� C NytO G Rv q VOl yn'j �N iGd yS. °A dq � y6.0°^ W yyyy P �I' y6. xL.r GAS Lam. yC1 t �y. dC; y-d d�Q tlq N qpPW —,!.9 YN LG,t 01P9�pCG G G OI O O JLydy L G1--- e9e Nude S6 g� CO kid-Qa UTN./ .��V n�NZTgN 42 . CC 'AU Lsp GNjVp cOfi y T s.J X N N C o` D cNM u a uN.. �aa .� fir}Si A G G.=u ... N Y� Eon.et � .d.tl I + _Nd L W a 1�1rC q G aGCLu RaaS rul+. 9LC L NY.�+ 5yOd.N W �a dNYV cuN+. � a3 a4 tl ws I� .4 �UtleeJ. OiY Y L pp S 4 r. R y •� tl s. y 6 o. a $ grr - p L E - $_ 4 A I� s _ y La yy ri o„N$c+ sv. tj O c O U A M q O S S 5 ® �."-r` �Y90rytt iN OYY Y n V �q .a$l� � OO .."G. w V -•�O. Y:V �'' Oka- v Paa- N� "emu>� 3 N .� sot54Sae $$ tigra y �g�r s IMI m� Se 'o Los o -a c .. u.La.53 se o�r e S n- mp yy $q. eS �nunqdy qY dp� p S _.. a YLY aNCN A.aiTL t gYry,,6 Y Qu $N U 4 Y Y N:Q C e4rL=i L 6d c.^! O� N� a �G.y�u``a aONE Oppq_``L. LI NyQyC Qom. "■G MY t w p L. Ly G.CC� a.. GCO ••6Y '^ 4�-t N'.rV y� OO` e.y Y N. 0 Nam' i9..0G O�~.C@Y4 Q C_ V..Gt+ PL.O 4 L N NO W'uu � 63 <wt t0 4PY St Y N UZ Y tl _ p4-= 6Q �N N w N yGh. Y �4. C •rr^L Y� yP�Ra' 7s Lb> Co « YR.. Q� 6{yyp - LN. -NigL�Q.. � N cClw uYN e� jY•e 0O L 'T z.. M yj 3 W i ^.. V^ �i�ii • Y N V O Y L os&j y g5 ,+ � �Z ES, ^y 8= py Wes, S� a oZ X , g LyiV3 _ Y $ oE o �1 55 a4 py1 a �` o. C 9CC a p Ga� �q L �2 Qom, L d19V�L V Vi ^S rw. �. v`+ SaLi tr «o<'bY.. 1g ca NY ' S ems. "W3.ur u. e s 3 0=x G Y wW Y. Y yWy a Y VLO gyp' O y CA 3 91. <�3 O R� .1 9w� Qpc a,-5 SE 4.. ;d • VTw �� N� Y Y// lj � � nN. eyC C6 EA q gc. is `=LQ CEY�=.`CL to_ y Ny GG p -Ci. l '�Q(YC `W N `Y O� Y � +Y YY LAW ` 6'•L Op~ CO Y OVNtl �C -9L t«Y V O O 1 r ' i V L W L vc� ■q � y V r^y p C� i s p•H Y M L q y p �`•� i L Y .YyC =Np` G N Y. N 6 W;� K Gtu d � •a IF`t L. 1. + i 1 1 n lYy•` V�^ g x ZZ gn I wyYi .rifles u u gg oA H-t •a.'`�ppr 8 strt Q aa`YPw � �``a•» `yt3 v va �� »y` Y• TiYY LY S •4 QV V 01'�4 �OD� VT •MYt� �� C �a uC CtL®. ��p 6c �9C N 6pC ?Y C ' _` ..ra_�' •f yy" ^CQ YO. yaY yy 5 N" �' CSwt. ws ng, y eL^V p vQ ww yY �T�{y4� Fes N (atCL R� �4�0�� �NQ yyV� N1. ` .. CCaE aC T�y YK `tl IYry y •* OU Y V You C +C.6 !�+• 4J�A Xvz si+w V I ' a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT a � a - o F $ Z - (? > DATE: December 10, 1386 1977 NCI: Chairman and Members of the Planning C&-mission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy song, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP 5786 MODIFICATION - CROWELL BROTHERS The rtpgies ' o eliminate a Condition ot Approvalrequiring the i iostallation of a six foot high masonry wail and `adds tionai landscaping along the south -boundary line for \gin approved office park subdivision locai.jd at the �'outheast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street - A�td 207-031-28. _ s I. ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting for the elimin.Ie on of the co�3tTon as described above. } II. ANALYSIS: A. General: On June 13, 1984, the.,Planning 'Commission held a uP—rTE Rearing to carsider, Parcel Map 5786 and conditionally approved it. This Parcel Map was granted a one year extension to June 13, 1987. In response to residents concerns a ` Condition of Approval was, added to require fratallation of a six foot high masonry wall and additional landscaping along the south property, boundary prior to recordation of. ,the Map. The purpose of this condition is to provide a buffer for the adjoining properties to the south from sound and light. A copy of the June 13, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes has been- attached for your review. A site inspection along the southern property boundary indicated that the shrubs such as oleanders are over and the;trees are in a mature state, however, there are gaps where additional landscaping could be planted, A height differential exists 'between the residences4and the project site, whe=-e a 3 foot to four foot high retaining block wall--runs along the residences side of the property boundary. To date, the applicant has not su{xnitted plaEs showing the desigrlind height of block wall and landscaping fi,:r staff to review. l f` ` ITEM K r PLAHI�THC, O ISSIOH STAFF REPORT PM 5786 CRdWki BROTOERS December 14, 1384 Page 2 Aft III. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Daily Report newspaper, public Hearing notices were sent to proper ies witnin 300 feet of the project site and the property posted. To date, staff has not received any comments from the surrounding residents.. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff' recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the on tions of Approval. Resp ally su ..-ted, ra -ui l r City Planner BB:HF:vc Attachments: Applicant's Letter Requesting for Elimination of tle Condition of Approval F June 13, 1884 Planning Commission Minutes Resolution f84-50 for Parcel �-v,5786 and the Conditions of Approval Exhibit A -Parcel Map 5780 t Exhibit "B" Site Utilir-ition Man C: y a r CIL,INC. October 21,1986 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Attention:. Brad Buller,City Planner Reference N-ltative Parcel Map 5786 Dear Brad: ' Refet ring to the "Recommended Conditions of Approval' dated May 4, 1984, under the section titled"General Requirements and Approvals",item #13 requires us to instalt a six (6) foot masonry wail and also additional landscaping along the southerly boundary of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 4869. I feel this condition can be eliminated in its entirety, without compromising any of the design standards of the City. Alk I am formall, requesting the ellminr tion of this condition. I will complete any processing that you would require to waive this condition. The photos that I have enclosed,show that there is currently a block wall along this same southerly boundary. In addition,the landscaping has matured to the point of providing an excellent buffer between The Exchange building and the rlsidences to the south.. Please note when this parcel map was originally applied for, the landscaping located at the southerly border was not matured to the level it has now attained. There was a concern for those residential units,to the south,having to be Impacted by our commercial development. This is no longer the case. The block wall In existance, along with the landscaping, Is providing an extremely good buffer that is practical as well as having a pleasing appearance on both sides. To require additional block wall and landscaping at this time would, in our opinion, provide no additional benefits to the residential,comes nor the City. Furthermore, it may create just the opposite affect for the homes to the south. Any additional masonry wail area could create a negative appearance for those residential units.: I feel those residential units would not want to be 1C oking at a 10 to 14 foot blank wall and that is exactly what an additional 6 foot wail would create. Your consideration in this matter is appreciated. If you have any further questions,please call me. Si ely, �IlididA. P Director of Project Planning 3 BUILDERS-DEVELOPERS 521 No.Mountain Ave.,Suite A • Upland,California 91786 • Telephone 17141 981-1041 i -C 2 replied this is correct; however, under this President there does not appea, be any money for subsidized apartments. Mr. Tarry Bliss,'l developer, explained how the Lesny Development Company obtained its long term sing for this project and indicated that what the E City attorney has atated is eat. Be also advised of the difficulty of managing Section 8 housing. s Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, e d unanimously, to modify Resolution No. $4-49 to include the statement relative subsidized housing and recommend approval of the Noosing Element to the City Coun se �o- bf division of 7.287 acres of land into Z parcels in the Office Professional District located at the southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian - APN 207-031-38. Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. = Chairman Stout asked that the specific division be outlined on the map. Mr. Hopson stated that if the developer wanted to enter into a ground 'ease for the parcel thus it would technically be a subdivision under California, law. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Hines, representing- C/L Builders, stated his concurrence with all � conditions of the map. He indicated that the Exchange, Which was approved through PP hrough a. Conditional use Permit'sdveral years ago, is completely improved at this time. He indicated currently they have a proposed restaurant which would go on this site. Chairman Stout asked what kind of reataurant it would be. Mr.. Nines replied it is called Zaks and it would be like a Michael J. "nairman Stout asked if this site can handle parking. Mr. Hines replied that this was fully developed several years ago, and was able to accommodate parking. Mrs. Linda B.irsch, resident on Colima Court, spoke for 14 other residents. She related the problems that have taken place since the Exchange Building was occupied and indicated that she and her neighbors have even propbaed a block i wall for which they would pay one-half the cost. She indicated that this was +u. refused by tjr. Crovall, and he offered to swap them a home in Sunnymead instead. Mrs. Hirsch stated that this developer has never lived up to his commitments for landscaping, the drainage ditch, signs, and maintenance, ,�',nd asked for assistance from the Commission. Awk Planning Commission Minutes -11 June 11, 1984 Chairman Stout asked where the children crossed through their lot. Mrs. Hirsch pointed to this on the map. Mr. Mitchell Hirsch pointed out that the only extensive landscaping in the back is oreanders and expressed concern because of their poisonous characteristics". There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Parker stated that the Commission does not have the original Conditions of Approval. Mr. Beedle explained that the Commission its dealing only with the parcel map before teem tonight. Commissioner Rempel stated that if he remembered correctly, there was supposed to be some type of retaining wall because of.bhe height Al fferential between the residences and the 'Exchange Building, and a low wall to prevent light from shining into the homes. Commissioner Rempel stated that the parcel map could be conditioned to have some type of barrier.-n?ong the property line. He indicated that this would do two P.hings: preva,it people from gbing through the area and ys not be unattractive from the'komes, Commissioner Barker expressed concern with horn that would ba hai;dl6d_ He asked if this would come back through Design Review or -Z-hpough staff. i Mr. Beedle salted that if the condition is placed on the parcel, then the Engineering Division will make sure it will be completed. He indicated that tho intent is to provide for adequate wall design and staff will assure that the condition in made a part of the parcel map. Co"mmissioner Barker asked that dense landscaping al3o be required as a means of sound attenuation. Commissioner Barker stated• that there should be a buffer for sound, light, a retaining wall, and upgrading of landscaping that was expected originally. Further, the access across the adjoining prororties must be r,,otected so tit; there is no further trespassing. Motion: Moved `b Rempel, seconded by MoNiel carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. -5Q with the additional cocm ition that the . area map s a be conditioned to re wire a barrier design at the south Property boundary, 1=c°om the east to West on uarcel 2, that is aesthetieall compat a with both residences and the existinge faeilitY. and landscaping be improved t4 trie saint where it is.an adequate barrier and will provide light and sound buff ring to existing residences to the satisf�eation of the City Enginva�. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 13, 1984 d TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, PLANNING COMMISSION Ash FROM: RESIDENTS SOUTH OF PARCEL MAP 5786, The Exchange RE: SUBDIVISION OF )PROPERTY OWNED BY CROWELL- LEVENTHAL �eGp,uest 44,4* CZ11a Regarding the proposed changes to the property known as the` Exchange, we wish to protest any further changes in the land area in question. When Crowell-Leventhal originally arranged for the zone change from residential to commercial, residents bordering on the propertywere not notified as prescribed by lair. We never received indk.:-1dulal letters. Thus, we had no chance to make our needs and-desires known until construction was begun. There was no provision for=a barricafle other than landscaping. According to C-L`s agreement with the City and with the land- owners, "extensive landscaping" was to provide a buffer zone between the parking lot and private property. However,, the area is not consistently maintained for weed control or trash pick-up. Furl-`her, when 5 trees blew down onto property at 8792 Caluma Court, C-L never replaced them, leaving bare holes. and open areas. They never responded to phone calk from the homeowner. Traffic in the lot, use of the lot' as a hang-out fzir local youth, and the problem, of people cutting s4crc3s private ' property for access to Vineyard Park and Baseline Road via the Exchange parking lot have become a daily annoyance. We believe additional development or permission to divide the lot with no specific plans in mind, as the City so states, is. viewed with mistrust by the'reidz is affected by suchychanges. Our property values and privacyhave been diminished b the building it;,self and we do not wish to suffer further losses- 1 or lack of privacy, t /'; P.J� 0-fjCr-- `^a.�0> c Jr' II 26-e6�I .mil- ,` r a RESOLUTION NO. 84-50 A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITP,­�OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NU4uER 5786 (TENTATIVE PAKCEL MAP NO. 5786) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE AND CARNELIAN STREP— WMF.REAS, Tentative Parcel Hap Number 5786, submitted- by Crowell Brothers and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the southeast corner of 8a• Line and Carnelian Street being a division of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 4869, '� recorded in Parcel Map Book 44, Pa9es 46 and 47 record, of San Bernardi- County, state of Cal"fornia; and WHEREAS, 'on May -4, 1984, a formal application wos submitted vaquesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; b.nd WHEREAS, on lung 13, 1984, the Pi'anming Camrhission held a duly advertised public hearill5 ow the aeove-described map. FELLOWS; NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO 4UCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1c That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the propose development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and. improvementy will not cause subst?Y• -: .i environmental damage, public wealth problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Oeclaration is issued an June 13, 1984. SF,CTION 3: That Tentati.^°e Parcel Map No. 5786 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984, PLANNING OMMMSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGf (( r BY, Dennis L. tou , a rtnan A-TEST: Ri mez, beputy ecretary Resolutian`No. Page 2 ,, I, Rick- Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Comission of the City of- Rancho Fuca"'ong'a' do her.by certify that the foregoing Resolution tilas duly, and. . regularly introtlucedy .passed,. and ado ted,.hy the PlanningCcs isszion of the, City o1 Rancho Cucamonga, at a reguiar meeting of the Plani,r�g ommissian held on the 13th day of Junes` 1984', by the following vote-to-wit; +-t AYEr: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL9 McNIEL, BARKER,.STOUT ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE F:r ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOME tl f yfi' 1 j 1 ti `1 r CITY OF 9ANCH0 CUCWNGA e RECOMMENDED C04affrokS (F AppRDHAL " r• LOCATION:� Southeast corner of Base Line' TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP' NO: 878 6 6 and Carnelian Street BATE FILED: Ma 4 1 4� `I y 98 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map fdU94Bt OF LOTS: ' 2 48592 as recorded in Parcel Map 49, Pages GROSS ACREAGE: 7.249 46 & 47 Records-of San 8ernArdjnorC6Unty, ASSESSOR PRRCEI. NO: 207-031-28 III a state o a i f ornia � ,kiet**�t*#:k� *t*dint#•�rk#*��A'�+Ir#***�*AraF#tirr�r*R#ira�**&t1�r**,kttY*irt,r�§ir*trkrt�lk,�###*** Ili DEVELOPER ONNEit E1t6ItiEER/SURVEYOR r' Crowell Brothers same, Asso:.iated,Engineers .�. ' 521 N. Mountai' TuFf t7e 316 East "E" Street Viand, CA '91786/ Ontario. CA 91764 4 IMPt"ovement :and dedication requirements in, accordance with Title iFi of the ,Aicial Code of t91e City of p y Rancho Cucamonga include but maynot be limited to, the following: ti , Dedications and Vehicular.Access 1. Dedications ions shall be made of a11' interior. street rights-of-way 1 and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights,of-via, on the ,. folTowing streets: --------- additional feet on _=additional feet on additional feet onI 3. Corner property line radius Standards. will be required per +city 4. All'rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: X S. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance-agreements ensuring -- access to all parcels and Joint maintenance of ,all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map: _1_ ------------- X 6. All existing easements lying within future, right-of-way zre to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map pair City Engineer's k requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the _ City where sidewalks meander through private property. surety 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and `City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recording for and/or prior to building perm .. Issuance Tor A Tien agreement rust be'-executed prior to recording of the map I for Base Line Road. See condition #11 on Page 5. l 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing, completion of all on-site •drainage f" ilites necessary for dewatering'all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety pivison prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building perm t #or Street Insprovepents Pursuant, to tie ity 'of Ran'th Cucamorga Municipa',�'Code, Title 16, Sectiop 16.36.126, the subdivider mayenter icto an agreement and post security with. the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including,''. jut not limited to, curb and getter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive ,approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minim}en of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-font wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. 3. Construct the following missing improvements: + Prior to recordation for Prior to building permit issuance or ur ea Drive tree ree ( A ."—` M e-a ion Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Waik Appr. -frees Lights ,, Overlay Island* Other *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter -2- ( �f 0 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the:City Engineers Office, in addition to any other 7 permits required. 5. _.Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a` Registered Civil Engineer and approved. by the City Engineer prior to x issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the F relocation of� -any power poles or other existing public utilities as .necessary. 4 7. Existing lines of 12KV ow less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. . 8 Fngiall appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, st;=.ping and markings with locations and types approved by the " City Engineer. 1 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City.of Rancho F' Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shad 4z,'submitted to and € approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards., Drainage and Flood Control 1. Private drainage easements fur cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final'„map. 2. Adequate :provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The f�ilowing storm 'drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. a. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- Dradlin Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with-the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The, final grading -plan shall substantia?f conformance with the approved conceptual,gr ding r plan. X r�I$ report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer, t < ensai'by the State of California to perform such workarior to issuance of buiidIng permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qual ified engineer or geologist and :,submitted at the .time of application or grading plan ciseck. 4. The final grading plait shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the, final s{�.i?divis on map 'or issuance of building _permit whichever tames first,. Final grading p'ians for each parcel are to be submitted'to the Building and SOety Division for approval prior to 'issuance of building permit. General Reguireaents and Approvals z X L Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: gh CaiTrans for San Bernardino GOO y F nod o ter n.ro zstr c ; Cucamonga County Water strict for sewer and wa San Bernardino County post Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Otter 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions Iand Restrictions (C.C.&Rs) approved by the City�Attorney is required prior to, recordation of the map, 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. N 4. .Sanitary sewer and water systems shale be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is , required, Easements to C.C.W.D. are required for sewer and water. j This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of 'approval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. -4- X 7. The_rili'ng of the tentative map or approval of same does not �. guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available rat the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County rater District wixl be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will t not be issued unless-said certification is received in writing, u4 � 8: Loch and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance ._� w1Eh the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan"indicating widths, m Aimum slopes, physical conditions, fencing 'and weed control, ivl�accor4ande with City trail standards, shall be submitt%� 10 and approved by the City Planner , prior to recordation for Viand/or prior- to building permit issuance or S. Prior to 'record ng,0a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 8?-1 among the ncwly created rparcels. X 1Q. At the time of final map submittal, .the following shall' be submitteed.- Title Report, traverse caiculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and ,deeds used as reference and/or I showing original land,division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 11. The condition requiring aj lien agreement for future, construction of a median islrand on Base Line may be waived,, pending resolution by the MY Cpuncil of the median island's policy. {. X 12. Access easements. through the drive or parking areas designated by "Not A Par';. on the map shall be provided by the CRCy&Rs. 13. Prior to recording, a sik'4foot masonry wall' shall be required' along the property line between Parcel 2 and property tq the south. The wall shall be compatabe in appearance wtW the existing office building and'residences. The landscaping on the south perimeter of Parcel 2 shall be augmented to provide a significant thcroase acceptable to the City Planner. X 14. Prior to recording, a six foot fence shall be provided from the southeast corner of Parcel 2 a sufficient distance to the north to discourage access to residential property to the south. I 6 - CITY OF RANCHO WC M'YW'M LLOYI) 8. EDS,1,:.XITY ENGINEER by: ' 1�-►3 / flb/df y 1 OF 7771 TENTATIVE a RL KAP NO. 5786 al P{;CM Gr $Ai1C*C1 00000 3 SEIM A ZSM(F PAXEL 2 OF PN M Wly#0 4069. AS IECQ°.0 YK PAXEE iMP OOCF(49.•PAGES 46&v.WCDR5SQFW CUM OF SAN IONAW40, STATE OF':ALI—r�Li -.SN'E"..O T!�li rfG�'.A'At �8i.�T•I/.BdP:L f•Yi•d'i ;�; _:.... "= � • /p''.Et!cRy'Fi fdfc Ca.§watt d.:n!„�••nlz`..�rrs:xNs,t»1 ` a�C /4Ate. j f i As�✓+E'u�a.w fYCiTFtxO`..ja � �Y2/N.M?ON:A/N.�V.E,:'SlJ/T.fA p go• • i lNLifMO Gr6/r�'QpiMGi' 9/7oS \\� 4i1' T+'tl� �! 1J lu! BASELINEsi asso7a /sf+sa• r ¢' .. •fuis'rraq 6uacrc cva .�t•�• '$ a rc+ a:.o• wrrr sr y r 9B' �i j'�acis�ays ' )NOT�A� a �.• . �.T i s�ofT� PAasot rl:.r `eye• V it 43 _j�l7yJ•_ �.raG• ��` �k\ \ �-�f.fenesro aro wr 11��%a4��" Pi� �' .� y.; � tax•i+anv.r >^ Y1 41 pmS,.C-fd6� 47 t 0 i� �rrorra „ P GEL evswn.<s 71. tsaa wr'1 + J ,.� NA '(' w.ifawi s-. ♦ vac, ,Ns'r `!� i oss/.ewes ♦1.^I w.(1«::,r��/ $ '+•• 4 � ,i�7/�' ' / �• ..h., ✓A•, ^`Ci'"'N•"b0�/' 1 w►3✓..Tr. •. }1 t, fw/I'►� tie.,+ JJ,q�►) ((�/! i J w..' Ar .1791PlR tWBJ9/4 •E Y~fj p• ' . '-2 1 :♦. , ' •r T �A-4491w vo JJ'wkr}f1 NURTH cyry CF rr EM PLANNM DIVIMN EXHW SCAU: ll� j i w � Al t Is L U111, g: is O !IE j a A r P !a ,. rl JAM( W*fftl- "o CO3 0 6 j NORM PL.ANNM DN'LSM EXKW, _ SCALE:.......- ��"1, — CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CoCAMo STAFF DEPORT ���� = .. 0 4 _ F- i�. Z t U V a -"'TE: December 10, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission l FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior CivjT Engineer BY: Joe Stofa. Jr.t Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESVENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL--MAP 9897 - Western Properties - A subdivision o acres of land-into one parcel in t_e erra Vista Planned Community, located it, the southeast, 1077e09ICI7)ch Street and Terra Vista Parkway (APN 1077,�421-06, '• �r r �f E . i. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested; Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Neap as ` shown on Eli iit "Bit t . E B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - 12.58 acres net C. Existing Zoning: `Planned Community - Office Park D. Surrounding Land Use: North Residential South J1Vacant East lacant , West vacant 1 E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations., North - Residential South - Office Park East Residential West - Office Park F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes approximately, tote southeast Ask qW ITEM L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _ 9SCE MBE R 10, 1986, PARCEL MAP 9897 ° PAGE 2 II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to create a one lot business r. park w in the Terra Vista Planned Community. Then public streets adjacent to the site will be constructed to City standards 'upon development of the site. In addition, staff is recommending extending,Town Center Drive to Haven Avenue as a secondary access. :. III( ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant Completed Part I of i{1ie Initial to y. to conducted a field investigation and comlpietedilPart II of the Initial $tudy. No adverse impacts Ripon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of 1egative Declaration i-s appropriate. IV. I;ORRESPONDENCE: notices of Publib l aring have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Oaltil Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. wf V. RECOMMEND TION It is recommended that the Planning Commissiam. consider a nput and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map. If after such consideration,' the Commission can recommend approval, then the edoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, i Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH.,JS:cg Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A"?Tentative Map tEr}hibit -Ba), Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval nv�br iweu�>c s,p i eM~ � l \l J Iy sew 61rof I CITY OF RkNCHO CUCAMONGA 'ram v 1C I N I r►�► 1WG-9TEEMG DrVWOx SIT: G-3 I or I sum TENTATIVE Y PARCEL, MAPS NO. 9897 i��®Y�R m lRE CtiY 01 smew r.Uww".4e cumam ltslit.sus"d 0l1 am=a al 3.u{a11 a."AM a.am.a VM .ram►{a«mra�n�ana�'ia a w�i'.t g•iWi'•a eaersa >aa+emr 1tlN/a�aa1 i nw rwr®a ae Mn►m ��•i�. ' .t.•tt Ilt u®ta a tss a d itlr.eta t.a 1•arna.a to a�1�waein ar ua.cmltr. /1 LOT AU"OT 1906 41 _ / 1 'L, -ter r�..�...1 �•• lk ten/ l ✓•'/,�`— _ / _' �op�•C'�. . / a ��4�, t1•eceiia�ill�' m'�'aw+setaner, { '�1 i •n.. Ilk, 9t {aara�cucraaa,, ma■1 OW 114-1361 {u acauvm,u x !SFa2YSt 3R. G7S7pe tallgt LVYMe.3 . ut fot7i/amts X-a-t{a � 94a.O =vt t710111-in{ G YMf LLIA tt—T P7 LYca//GlCil R fw r ift K0 Ca iS{ttS ORauO,Ca 7 fYN AI• 94AP. MM' mar, 17111 Nrntx e •PJCIn ewm, ,etw• ft- • DI'Oelt jvor Self, ew- 3. II-i1R flilhp.R Ildii IYi�mtiO1TS. t • MlFl NtN' t111I• HI' 3. [a$QOt.Yalta.tSItSi1t R'Taa. xl • MSY'I /NN' Aww" 1!A' a'. Till taam mttum /ICJ ®ti aQlt. 1 Sr•a:Y M.e' m/l• NII/ 1' 1Qt{a}�L RWeua I IaiCil, Na'tf•4Y� SSW t. Rf�eNSLeYSL mRAia�-Gt.or It OIiCJSO 7•tYfN 'iV 00• ayS}0. X./• {. t'i colas/fnt etiw.a t{tt., 7. am a am Rlal.lt3att/31• RIt•M WV6 a.. ►tl wnm Wa aui a mMaQa teeult A mtl'�L Hufia. IeQ iaY1l.SSIf �I.. i. alii.M Q7.Tite . 1 ta1/Si{a1t9Cla1l1.IC. ttk9 m Rt i,'l.mttr M ita 2W�l�D3>� '•i✓ y ..girt of m aiN m c® I am xnm. l{{ n 10a�a1111 al9ia is f7a1q ne Mi1L Rue. x�ael mu•.t-iM1 t RESOLUTION NO. A (RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 'OF THE CITY O RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIY' PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9897 WHEREAS, Tentati,/2 Parcel Map Number 9897, submitted by Weste'*n Properties, applicant, for=,che purpose of creating one parcel, the real property situated in the City, of Rancrto Cucamonga, County of Saa Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 1077-421�0';,I0i:7 09 -i7, located in. the southeast corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway; and WHEREAS, on Det: mber 10, 1986, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing fir the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, aHls RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESO!»VEO r. AS FOLLOWS: C SECTIOfr.1: -that the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent-vaith.the General Plan. 2. That the improvement rf;the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Alan. 3. That the site is: physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Parcel Map Number 9897 is hereby approved subject to the ettac ed Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Notice of intent to Join the Terra Vista Landscape and Ligt•.< ;ig District shall be filed with the City Council prier to recordation of the Final Map. 2. The develc.ppr shall construct Line 1-3 and portion of Line 1 of the Terra Vista Master Plan of Drainage from the site to Deer Cre^k Channel or provide an alternate drainage dispcsal solution as approved by the City Engineer prior to occupancy of any buildings. 3. Town Center Drive shall be coJstructed as follows with the first phase of development: a. Portion from Elm Avenue to Terra Vista Parkway: RESOLUTION PARCEL MAP 9897'� DECEMBER 10, 1911' PAGE 2 ) (1) ..Full improvements to the cente0ine of the street; and(2j An additional 23 feet wide'pavement on the south side of thC-1 ' centerline for a left fiur^n lane and a thru='lane, b. Portion from Temp,Vista Parkway to Haven Avenue (2-thru and 1-i;.kft turn lane): (1) A minimum 231 of pavement north of the centerline';(2 A minimum 23' of pavement south of the centerline; and (3) Full; irters$ction at Haven Avenue .1pcluding the transit ons for the thru lu>ies. ; r 4. Church Street shall be zonstructed from Elm-,V nue to•Terra Vista Parkway as follows with the first phase of deveioprr4k: a. Full improvements for the south roadbed; b. Full median with landscaping; c. A minimum 18-foot wide pavement for the north roadbed;`sr�d t d. Drainage control devices such as paved ditches, -A.C. beams or curbs E shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 5. Terra Vista Parkway shall be constructed from Town Center Drive to Church Street aj follows with the first phase of development: a. Full iprovements for the east roadbed; b. Full median with landscaping; c. A minimum 18 - foot wide pavement for the west roadved and d.. Drainage contc"ol devices such as paved ditches, A.C. beams or curbs shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer., 6. Elm Avenue shall be constructed from Town Center Drive to Church Street as follows with the first phase of development. a. Full improvements to the centerline of the street; b. A min m<mm 26' wide pavement within a 401 wide dedicated right-of-way; c. Full imnprovements for the "Type BG trail per the Terra Vista Community { Plan. RESOWTIOM P=. EL MAP 9897 DECEMBER 10, 1981; PAGE 3 APPROVED AffD ADOPTED IRIS IOTH DAY OF Df;CEMBER 1986 PLANNING COFe1+i SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO fI'UCAMOt q BY: E. Gavid Barker, r. airman -�: ,ATTEST: ra u I:err,,Ye-Puy Jicre ary F I. Brad Buller, Deputy Secret ary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing,,IIesolut'on was duly and u regulari;` introduced, passed, and adopted :y the Planning Commission of the City of hincho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission htit1d or. the 10kh day of Dei:ember 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES:: COMAISSIONF.RS.;; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: P , -22 a.cs ur Mtl :5,61 v� y n per,.`■ c�$ *� r G 'y r'4� �� V,�: _211 C Cyt LYyy_pp:. � YC !i 4YYI K q �J O C� � n F:�L �/ Vem Vq6 i`r NYC aiY.�".G MY MYiT.[` Y tv A 4 Zq �4 c Sr $ ' q@�" w. gy �.3 mow: w 4rt (�6L g o� Qv vu 3 gOt— ��Ilii � L bEZ M.• f_ y.C .Sg� C C@■ 1y ram . CO +,f iiL d W 0 i .1 Y L. YY. �� it.z'RA <as wV ♦' u.p.R, u IZ I I G- . f ..'ir.L.'. fie$ .pr > st �e 8p $ - u 0 V N m 4 a■ f1 aw M Y N K. J.: g p u= +n �.�. U•w rY�Lr YN�.. VyA 4 LbL rL ♦ W. . G Y $F pqL e VCO �pga y �4LLa p Ng gTig. tea,.. C L Eli O b' L Y aY 1•N 4wY.V u Y py L 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cVCAyO STAFF REPORT � �f h DATE: December 10; 1986 i9n ,. TO: Chairman and Members of the'Planning Commission t FRCM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer By: Jce Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND'TENTkTIVE ARCEL MAP 10238 - Cucamon as ount ater iStr.Ct A su Iv 5 on y acres cf it—d into parce s n the flood'Control designa".}�ion located on ;,,4 northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego Avenue APN 907-101.43 . Staff is requesting a continy,7nce of this item�'ttn the January 14, 1987 regular ' Planning Commission meeting. `The purpose is to`iliow staff sufficient time to review alter ate proposalsfor`San DiegoAvenue;�� � • Attached is a letter from Cucamonga County Wain r District agreeing to the continuance (Exhibit "A")a RECOMMENDATION:_Staff recommends continuing this item to the January 14, 1987 Planning Comm%slpn meeting., Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:JS:dlw Attachments: Letter from the Arplicant (Exhibit "A") �II s ITEM M Ronor NtuFtw CUC1"kM NGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LLOYo w. MM-^9L 914l GAN 41CRNAR61N0 RO. - cUCAMONGA.CAI,IR 11730 +. 8.0.alm 41t 197.2$04 SARLE N.ANDEASON VIC'IIOR A.CHERYA@C JR..P+setdKxS 9MRLY 9.MRADEN CHARL4SS A.WEST u D6cember 2, :1985 ,f n City of Rancho Cucamonga Plgnning Commission P. 0. Hox 807 RMicho Cucamonga, California 91730 r Ret Tentativa Parcel Map No. 10238 commission Members: This letter is to verify that the-Cucamonga County Water District agrees to a continuance of the December 10, 1986 Planning Commission '' Meeting to the next, regularly scheduled meeting. Yours truly, CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT h am H: Cline, Engineering Depa trdent Supervisor JHC:hf EXHWr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ° f ti°q 0 0 ' DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City. Planner BY: Mtn Warren, Associai- Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-04A' CITY OF 9ANCR0 CUCIA14ONSA - An .application to amend the land use element'af the-General Pan as follows. a. ;Pars aa,a.1 and a.21 - .Five acres,of rand, 260 feet to 660 feet west and 280 feet to 585 feet north of the ` northwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues, APN 201-262-28, portion of 30, 2017,262-.31,,41, 43 201- 262-01 through 25 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) .to Low, Iiedium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), ,and; ¢, b. (Parcel b) 1.55 acres of land on Haven Avenue 66�feet north of Highland'Avenue, APN 20 -262-36, 37, 1°i•om Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unity/acre)l to either Office or Lour Wedim Reside' ntia4 (4-8 durell�ling units/acre),�and; c. (Parcel C) 3.90 acres of land at the northwest,,��-dornar of Haven, Avenue and Highland Avenue, south of the future r#alignment of Highland Avenue, APN portions of 201-262-30, 31, and 40 from Medium Residential 18-14 dwelling unitsfacre)-to. either NeiShborhood Commercial or Office. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-08 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to amend the Development District Map as follows a.' (Parcel a.1 and a.2) Five acres of land, 260 feet to 660 feet west and 280 feet to 585 feet north of the northwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues, APN 201-262-28, portion of 30, 201-262-31, 41, 43,:,201- 262-01 through 25 from "�!° (P4tdium, 8-14 dwelling unitsiacre) to 'LV (Low-Medium, 4-8 dwelling units/acre), and; b (Parcel b) For 1.55 acres of land on Haven Avenue 665. feet north of Highl=' Avenue, APN 201-262-36, 37, from "N' (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units/acre) to either 'OP" (Office/Professional) or `LN1`4Low-Medium), and; c.. (Parcel c) 6.2 acres :of land at the northwest corner of Haven 'Avenue and Highland Avenue, south of the ITEM N PLANNING JC( MISSIDN STAFF REPORT G A 86-04A AND DDA 8548 Gecegber 10, 1986 Page c �• Jp .3 c. ;%aakel c) 6.2 acres of land at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue, south of the future realignment of Highland Avenue, APN portions of 201-262-30, 31, and 40 from 'M" (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units/acre) to either 'NC' (Neighbdrhoua Commercial) or,110P" (Office/Professional). Please refer to the exhibits for clarification. I ABSTRACT: A General Plan Amendment and Development District` Y is requested to change for separate parcels from the present Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per 11 acre) to Neighborhood Commercial, Office andfor. Low-Medium (44 1;` dwelling units per acre) for sdlected':sectioros of-12.7 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues. This is-a City;; initiated application in response to a A City Council request. At this meeting, the Planning Commission should make a determination on the proposed General Plan and Development D.i::$rict changes. Staff analysis will center on the ,+ General Plan Amendment and any recommendations on the General Plan will also apply to the similar Development District categories'. Aft II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Location: Rorthwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues. B. Site Area: 12.7 acres (gross) total. Parcel a.l - 1.76 acres Parcel a.2 - 3.20 Acres Parcr'( b = 1.55 acres Parcel c = 6.20 acres C. Existing Zoning: Medium C"M") Residential D. Existing Land Use: Single, family homes and detached reslaenfial con o- n ums with the ma3ority of the property vacant. E. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: or 1 - scan. land in ne Neighborhood Comercial ("NC") ? District. South. - Vacant in the Low, ("L") District. East Shopping center (under construction) in the Neighborhood Cortenercial ("NC") District. West Single family eaveiopment in the tow (°L") District. A, N� s _ PLANNING C62fi 1sn"ON STAFF REPORT SPA 86-04A ANID ilD 86-08 December;10, 1986 Page 3 F. General Plan Designations:_ POject Site -alum (4-14 dti/ac). North Neighborhood Commercial. w' Svuth - Proposed freeway. West Low East g(2-4 du%ac? rcial. " G. Site Characteristics: The subject site is predominantly vacant w w 'grasses as tO primary vegetation. Topography is generally flfat an slopes slightly,from north to south. The ccndominftnu project ab the northeast corner is heavily planted with mature'eucalyptus trees. ,u . III. ANALYSIS: ` (% Black round:1,This application is a result OF City Council review of r enera bri Amendment 86-03B. In r.Asponse to a Planning ComOssi'on recommendation . for denial of the above mentioned requests for this site, the City Council requested that the, Planning 'Commission consider. a modification of the original application. Instead of retaining the entire si�< for residential purposes, City Council requested that the Comission consider the following: Parcel. a.1 'of the site be considered for Low-Medium Residential, and; ,-J ` Parcel b be considered for either Office or Low-Medium Residential:,` and; Parcel c be considered for either Neighborhood Commercial or Office. Major issues which were important to the review of SPA 86-038 and ODA 86-03 are essentially the same for this application with s few variations. These issues are as follows-, A. Realignment of Highland AvI wog As a result of future ou e�-3333 d e o g a venue is to be realigned northeasterly through the sitt., \is actual result,in a major division of the vacant P_. bns of the site• into three separate parcels of approxln tely 1.55, 1.76 and 3.90 acres (See Exhibit " °). The Commission should take into account the resultant parcels size, shape, access and location. } PLANNING GOt4ISS0 STAfv REPORT GPA 86 04A AtO HbA 0-08 Decembers 10; 1986 - } = Paged l Parcel a.1, 1.76 acres will back up to an exi.stina • single family tract to the west and existing condomin?mi project to the north,,. and has a 560 foot frntage on the ?future HighUnd, Avenue. This site will have a tr,'fan ular shape and will be set back from Raven Avenue approximately 300 feet. P rcel b. 1.56-acres-, will 'front on Aaveri Avenue wittoLa_,��­ L. 200 foot depth,, bordered ,ok the side- by, a realign,ed>' ' Highland Avepue, s%gle family condominiums to •the west y and a vacant commercial garcel to the north. iRi a location may not lend ltsOe to a quality residential site unless combined with t� condminivai project to the west.—This potential seems'very unlikely. Office ujFes may offer the Abest alternative from a land fIse relationship standpoint. Y: Parcel c, the 3.C' acre portion will be bordered on i three sides by major roadways (Wen,. F639hiand,, and a freeway on-ramp). Such an arrangement does not lend itself to an optima living envirorn ent in a residr�ntial development. Regardless of e ;wo the . .e, staff ' uld, strop ly recommend against a ' direct access from-VW parer on a Haven!.,y ecause ot Ine near y future '`r aew`ay on-ramp. Parcel a.2, '`1n the'--no'rthwasterly corner ,er apolication sit4, is resently developed" as a risidential conflominium, at a density less than the existing 8-14 dwelling units- .per, ,acre, . land -.-se designation. It lts bond f"'.sa:_the,-rest. by-,single family residential developmenri land l;; vacant_comeeecial property to the north. ,x.;» L*-*;,a in a -re4few de each parcel, the viability of commercial or office use as opposed to multiple family uses sl;ould be considered. B. Need for additional commercial land: Ar. stafi'�s request;Meant or prepared an economic analysis of the lard use change to help M datermine if additional commercial land is warranted for this part of the community. The conclusions from that study appeared to indicate that additional neighborhood # services could be viable in the imwediate area. r {�� 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 86-04A AND DDA 86-08 December 10, 1986 Page 5 k C. Relationship to General Plan: The General Plan defines the neighborhood commercial designation as a rand use type that "incluQs shopping centers and convenience commercjal close to provide essential ret4fl--Cpods `and services to Vha residents or occupants ' x�e immediate vicinity." The office designation is descjibed 41i "Integrated complexes shall be encouraged *s provide areas where related and support offices can.46 located. The intent of -this land. use category"/ is to prevent the proliferation cx indivi;dpai isolated offices. u.`.Vercial use is permitted within 'the, office use category include administrative and professional offices; business and support services; financial, Insurance, and real estate services, supportive commercial uses such as a-restaurant; and medical 6arvices." Since this site is adjacent t oa portion of Haven Avenue which is commercialized 6-ucky's Center, gas SIX station), an office development in 'this immediate area would not be in conflict with V the General P�;an provisions, and could provide sup,,t?rt and ancillary ,ervices. The Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per are) deslgnat on is characterizedby typical single famil$,, single family zero lot line, duplex and other certain :`(epditions up to 44 townhouse type units. This cataory would be appropriate within the Low density areas, ,o encourage greater housing diversity without changing the single family character of the surrounding character. The potential for the parcels, a.l and b to be developed in- a single family character will be limited by the cor3traints of the parcel' sizes and configurations. At a "LM" designation, site a.1 would be limited to a maximum of 14 units and parcel b to 12 units, Conclusions:• aarcel a.1 which abutts a single family development in the condominium project appears appropriate for a continued residential designation. Since the condominium project (Site a.2) is developed to "LM" density standards it would be appropriate to chang(, both "a" parcels to the 4-8 dwelling units per acre. This'arould form an acceptable 'transition zone PLANNIRG;C"ISSION STAF,E,REPORT DPA 86-04A AND DDA'86-OS> December ,10, 19� Page 6 I to the single °amity "L" ell inq units per acre) district to the west. Parcel a.2 fronting on the condominiini project is situated as a potential land use buffer along Haven Avenue. This site presents same difficulty in residential development due to V. small size, shallow depth and limited residential appeal by being off a major arterial. At the existing "ka� density 21 units could be developed, and ;only 12 .units i'F the "LMO designation is applied. Since garden office complexes are . generally accepted as suitable- transition uses between residential :end more intense ,uses, an office designation may be more preferable at, this location. _ If the Planning Commission concurs with this office alternative, it would'be appropriate to note any development measures desired to mitigate potential impacts to the condominium prG3ect (i.e. substantial building tatbacks, and/ur limitation of second story windows facing µ west, etc. to protect the resident's privacy). Parcel c is the one area, from staff's view, which should not be retained in a :?esidentlol designation frok,,a land use relationship, either neigh6—.hood comet^rcial or office would be appropriate. Concerns about traffic and access issues adjacent to the future freeway may "tip the scales" in favor of %n office use, IV. ENVIROLMENT+L ASSESSMENT: The initial study has been completed by sWr an?"revieee in the environmental check list, Part 2 of,the initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts to occur as a result of-.the rroposed-amendment and district changes. It is :anticipated' at the issue of vehicular access adjacent to the freeway right=vf-way can be successfully mitigated at the project level. V. FACTS FOR FIIIDINGS: Shc_nld the Commission upon examination of the General an a amen and Oxveiopn­ant District Amendment decide that changes iwuld promote the land use gcils and purposes of the General Plan and kauld not be -.atrimental to the adjacent properties or eause significant adve,r�e impacts as 13sted under the envlron;mentai assessment, the following findings are necessary for approval- >J'(d ry PLANNING GOt iis_116 $.,l'WF REPORT GPI. 86 U4A AND DDA 4 E Dec"er 170, 1986 Page 7 e` ku A. The- amendments��da; not conflict oy cria,of-th with the land use � p ,e General. Plan, and �. B. The amendments do promote the goals of the land use elements; and C. The amendments would not h4 materially injurious or r detrimental to the adjacent properties. VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public 'hearing n tne Daily Report newspaper, property posted, W,.notices sen±; to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. VII. RECOM14ENDATION: Staff recommendations ere noted beia� » Parcel a.1 and a.2 (a total• acres): Approve C•eneral Plan V and Development District of.ldments frond Nedium Residential to Low-Medium Residential. Parcel b (1.55 acres) Approve General Plan and Development Dist i amendments from Medium Residential to Office. Parcel c (3.90 acres): Consider approval of General Plan and Devece�nt District, amendments front Medium Residential to OffiIf the Commission concurs with this recommendatfoa, adoption of the attached resolutions recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan amen&nent and Develi-pment District amendment and issuance of a nega'�ve declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted; ABrad1 City Planner BB:AW:te A t-3ckments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinit�v and Land Use Map Exhibit "B" Vicinity Land Use Map Resolutions T L'€.rrf aw 4y"i,,,,r VAz"W, r �C JVc�: 'kBD.�f!ald0 VAC,4N;r P. ✓�JNC miN/l.Y AV / 0. ,Y „. "Peel, 10. . ��✓ ' �� 'r4i .•.RK'Ot�..q/rtJ/�...4A1�OWi�.�sY�,yP..�.. ..�.�� Proposed Land Use Change EXHIBIT "A,. E r 39g,. ..� L LM LMF� Site: D.D.A. 86-08 FC ,1 6 —LM ! T M® Fc wA MN m DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP College = =� — ♦1 _— 7 . — Site,-. G.P A. 86 00• •.° -- smajam HOKUM as="mom am .•• •••• •e is oii ii•o••i z^ •• • t •6! t • •♦ •�N•. • •!O e GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATIONS CITY ` F �/�y� IjE\(: G F.A. 86-C4A. D.D.A. 56-08 RANCHO CUCA� IONCA TITLE;G_reral Plan 6 Development Districts PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:— B SCALE: 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF TtIE_,PLANNING., COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, U-11FORNIA,-,RECOMMEMD'ING APPROVAL OF ' GENERAL PLAN AMEN.7�95NT NO. 864AA0 AMENOING THE LAND USE ELENEkml OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GeMEERAL` LAR FROM"AZOIUM DENSI Y' RES,IDFiTIAL (8-14 DOAC)�1`0 nFFICE FOR 3.9 ACRES, OrFICE T Oi3 1. 5 ACRES, AND LOW-KEDIUK FOR 5 ACRES OF LAND LO"ATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND RVENUE AND HAVEN AVEWE - APV,,'201+262-28, 36, 31, 36, 37, 40, 41r �r 43 AND. 201-263-01 TNROt GH 25: WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has held. a duly adver+sised pubs.; hearing'to consider all cminents on the -proposed uenaral.Plan Amendmer.',;.11o. 86-04A. SECTION 1 Thf,,Rancho Cucamonga Planning Canmission hereby makes the fol'owing n ngs: A." The Amendncnt does tot conflict with the land 'Usa Policies 6i"the General Plan, B. The Amentsen", promotes goals of the Land Use !, Element. C. The sdmen4 would not:be materially in3urious or (" c'• x. Vital' to r,he adjacent properties,:;_ fpllowsr SECTX.___2: The General Plan Land_, Use Map shall be amended as I` A. Assessor's, Parcel Nuv<,ers 201-262-23, 31, 43, 43, portion of 30, and 201-263-01 through 25 k aporo*1ma3:ely 5 acres in size shall be changed from Medium Density (8-14 du/ac) Residential %:a Low- Medium Residential ¢4-8 du/adi" B. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 201-262-38 and , 37, approximately 1.55 acres in size shall be changed; from Medium Density '8-14 du/ac3 Residential to Office. C. The portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers` 201-262 30, 31, 40, 43 south of the future re-ali rgent of highlard Avenue and north of the fsture`%,freeway right,af-way, approximately 3.9 acres in maize shall be changed from Medium Density Resi:dzntial (��14 du/,ac) Zo Office, +ai PLANNYMG GQ�lh11tiSSIpti�RE�QL[►i ION Pig ' ''o' GPA86 Q14A eivs.OF RANCHO COCA[',;MGAY j c Oeceibie 1Q, 1986 M1 Page' ' SECTION S' � A Negative: Declaration 1r, hereby,recommended for, r adopt#on y ie y Coaancil for`,1hi s Ger3=Jal Plan Amenda'erit , based"upon the completion nil findfggs of thole 6itla�l;rStudy' THRV69 RESOOED, that the Rakbo CucamongeNOa, . Planning Comoissionk s Steveb.r ,recon end. approval of General .Plan �_Iwndment No. 86r. City Ccunei E. _ APPROVED D TfiIS 1OTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1086, � PLUNI & COMMISSION:,: ITY OF `ARCHO CUCAMON-A BY: F� ATTEST:"bra uI'ler,76.pt cry ary 1, Brad Baaller, --D uSkretalry o{ ha €1'�/sorting Commission of the,,City,of Rancho asr t­111 - r?: certify that .the foregoing Resolution eve^. Jul.y and re�7M i ti e'd, pa , and adopted by the rlanning Comwiss an of the City of Raaic6Yf'Cvc fat a retUt& meeting .of Lthe Planning Comieaion held oto the 10th , •oe c� r, 1g&6,, by the following vela-to-wit: AYES: UMISSIONERS: NOES': WMISSIONERS� , . ABSENT: COMiYSSIOtiSRS: Fes. • r% -'C RESOLUTION NO. A RESO01`I64 OF THE .RANCHO CUCAM4fNGA PLANNING CO MISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT-,DISTR14T CHANGE NO 86-08 REQUESTING , CHANGE IN_Tr!E DISTRxrT DESIGNATION"FROM MEDIUM-(M) TO OFFICE/r 4ESSIONALJ(OP) FOR C2 ACRES, OFFICE/ ft')F.ESSIONAI. (OP) FOR 1.56-'ACRES, 'LOW-MEDIUM (LM) 4-8 DU/AC FOA 5 ACRES OF LAND. LOCATED ON THEiNORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND HAVEN'AVENUES ArIfkd `=c62-28, 30, 31, 36 37, 40 .41, 4?; AND .201-263-01-THROUGH 26. WHEREAS, on the 19th of".lovember, 1996 an;aap��ication was Vil" and accepted on the above-described pro$ect; and r ;r WHEREAS, on the 10th day of December, 1986;- the Planning Commissfon held a duly advertised p'ublt: peering purscart:sto Section 65854 of the . California Goveriment Code a , SECTION 1: The.Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commisilun has made the follow ng n ngs: 1. That the subject ,©roperty is suitable for the uses permitted in Irthe p.Jposed district in terms of access, size; do � ompatibility•with e,0st`rjg land use in� the J. surrounding area; andfAML � r 2. That the proposed district chat?gig would not have significant impact on tW_environmert nor the surrounding properties•, and 3. That the proposed district change is in carrformance with the. General Plan. SECTION 2: The Development District Map shaiT be amended as '' fCllows: a. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 201-262-28, 31, 41, 45, portion of 30,,and 201-263-01 through 25, 260 feet to 690 feet west and 280 fegt to 535 feet north of the northwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues shall he changed from Medium (M) District to Low-Medium (LM) District. b. Assessor's Parcel Number 2r1-262-36 37, 1.55 acres of land fronting on Haven Avenue, 665 feet north nf,.Highland Avenue shall be changed from Medium (M) Di,,.-rict to Office/Professional (OP) District. I I PLANNING COMMISSION i SOLUTION NO. 1 DOA 86-08 - CITY OF RANCHO £UC{tiMONGA December 10 1986 Page,2 c. The portions of ;Assessors Parcel -4umbers 201-262-30, 31, 40, 43 south of` the future realignment of Highland Avenue and north;; of the existing alignment of Highland AvFnue, approximately 6.2 acres in size shall be "changed from Medium IN District to Office/professional (Op) District. SECTION 3: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that �tk' s project r11 not create a significant adverse impact on ,the environment ai`fd recommends issuance 'of a Negative Declaration or December 10, V�86. NOW, THEgORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. 1'hat pursuant-to Section 65850 to 65855 ,of the California Goxerimaent Code, that the Planning Commission of the City 1l r,'f Rancho Cucamonga hereby reeoKwds approval on the 10th day of December;: 1986, Oistrict Change No. 86-08. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt District Change No.. 86-08.: 3. That a Certiffed Copy of the Resolution and related material hereby adapted b; the tiPlanni'ng'Commissian shall be foniawded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY 0e DECEMBER, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION (IF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY- E. David RPM,, V aF irman` ATTEST: - BraahruTler, Deputy cre ary - 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Cif of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the Ci'.Y of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting cf'the Planning Commission held on the 10th tray of December, 1986, by the follow'mg vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: -- NOES: CO''MISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AI- �f CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA vvcaWQ STAFF REPORT �� � "��� r c o A WITE: 9eczmber 10, 1986 1= v z �> 1977 r t TO: Chairman and Memkers of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hansom, Senior Civil Engineer B?: Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND,�TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP-10366--,Kincaid - A su div pion of 4.5acres''of 'land into parce s in t e General Industrial Ristrict; subarea No. 3, located on the south side of 9th Street, east of Helms Avenue (APN 209-031-03) t k 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION; A. Action Re uuested: Approval of the praposed Tentative Parcel Map as. shown on xExi bit'IS" B. Parcel-Size.; Parcel 1 - 2.31 Acres Parcel 2 - 0.79 Acres Parcel 3 - 1.40 Acres Total Acres C. Existing Zoning: General Industrial', subarea No. 3, of the Industrial Specific plan. D. .Surrounding Land t`vse; North Existtng Industrial South Vacant - East Vacant Wast - Existing Industrial E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: 1 North - General Industrial, subarea No. 3 South - General Industrial, subarea No. 3 East - General Industrial, subarea No. 3 West - General Industrial, subarea No.,3 j F. Site Characteristics: The site is covered 5y are existing grove and slopes from, north to south at Dproximately 1.5%. Parcel 1 contains an existing residence. ITEM 0 Planning Co issgon Staff Report " 4 Parcel Mai 366 = ncaid Decembew 10. 1986 Page Z tI. ANALYSIS. � The purpose of th s,parcel map�is�`�to divide 4.5 acres. of lend'))into 3 parcels for futur4'%odust);ial development. Parcel No. -1 dantains an,.e, t, q residence and a citrus gnive. There are no'plans fe;-+adevelap�7tg t of this parcel at this time. ;\ The street improvements along the 907' Street frontage a_^e being constructed as n',-part of a City prmt.ect. Feron,,BouIevard will., be constructed at the time of development of Parcels ?-,,and 3. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The �,pplicant comp ettd Part I of the Initial t�gutted a field investigation and 'Completed Part II of the Initial Stutry.: No 'adverse impacts 'upon the environment are anticipated 'as. c resu�t;af this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative . -Declaration is appropriate. x IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Ngtices of Public Faring have j`ien sent to surrounding . prcp2r"�y aw and placed in the Daily Report H4wspaper. Posting at the e site has alsy-been-completed, V. RECOMRENDATION: It is regk*nded that the Planning fgmmission consider "aT3`ina elements of ...the Tentative Parcel W4-i. If after s"h >" cons dera#ion, ,the {,dmm#s ibyl can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution a d issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:DK:me 1I Attachments,. Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") 1 Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and 11 Recoiimnded Conditions of Approval i Cal: � z j +rM�M. yKa�r�a.�,rr»�_!■«L.�+•.'t}t►H.�t4� rt,� ;,i y a S7.? t 4=��� t •Z h q y 1 y }py lip ilk B�'7iVYt��,Y 7t V x7r�• 1. t{ � s�v alb. � Y:wt�'. $�1 warms• 1 Di C ; 1V w Al t 1 a� _ x RESOLUTION NO. A 4; SOLUTION OF TPE PLANNING COMMIS5ICN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO, CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVF"PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10366. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map lumber 10366, submitted by Sterling Kincaid, applicant; for the purpose of subdividing into 3 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 2Q9-r;`,»03, located on the south side of 9th Street, east of Helms Avenue; and WHEREAS, on December 1%, 1986, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RAHCHO CUCA14ONGA 1LANNING-COWISSIOP RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS. SECTION Is That the following findings have been made, 1. That the map is'consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed 0velupment. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2s That Tentative Parcel Map No. 10366 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the fallowing Special Conditions: 1. A'storm drain easement along the south 20 fetic of Parcel 3 shall be f j offered for dedication to the City on the final map. 2. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (teleconwinication and electrical) on the apposite side of 9th Street shall be paid to the City prior to the ! recordation if the map. The fee small be orie-half the adapted unit amount times the length of the property frontage. 3. A private drainage easement shall be provided on Parcel 2 for the ' benefit of ?arse 1 and shall be noticed or dedicated on the map. t APPROVED MO A[ kEO THIS 10TH CA-;-';i3F OVtEMBER, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSOR t-OF THE CITY OF RANG 4 CUCAMMSGA BY, ZE�,Zavid Barker,, airman J� ATTEST: ra Y err,"'�`ps,fy"'�c:cre ary I, brad Buller, BeN4`� Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of "f Rancho Cucamonga, do hewer,, cart fy�hat the, foregoUg RewgiAtion was d ly and a; regularly introduced, passel,_,and,adopted by the Planning, Commission`�; the x Ciiy of., Ra.- ho Cucamonga, at a regular meting of the Plan�ing Com. fission held ti on the 10ih day of December, 1936„by the following vote-th wit: AYES* -COMISSICNERS �( NOES: COMISSIONERS: t ABSENT:r C"ISSIONERSt m A li r y I:" .4 41 .V.+ !r+ I w C :6�. ■y N w oil 4 M a.W N VN ;ter wN i c Sao $ gr =I' N1 y` .74 s w ! lit 1 t I 8. 2 it, $ of�ty ;w T y � Y�.. 0 �ty.• E.� � i g 1 w j` N IpV '�r'— oOun b og 1y c Y A i 44 4V N V Q 38. E y o AT& v r r a N ws k a yySW! yyY j••yY COC; ypy w > fit )� Tp N uY. r Y o AAA y^� $pCy Q Y Npp L L L 1 e wL L ..p6 wM•w =Y�gn �� tlY L.J _ L O GY IT i,or. a 'al Ll g c$ us �Q y5 oV cCi—y ?5... pZ±arV' i a`� $o a..� •cs ..u`o &.5� —$ny � �.mq < o a:i�ul` I a. . 3 --- CITY OF RAN MO C'UCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 9( Q a F Z DATE: December'10,`1985 rgra TO: C",airman and Maters of the Planning Commission w FRW-z Brad Butler, City Planner SY; St ott %rpV, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEW AM TE '1 N7ATEYE TRACT, , -development - o res en 'Ta--ieve opmeT nt of 717,r. ng e 7a�ry tots on, 15.43 -actas of land in the Lq�K;rMediux Density Residantial District ,(4-8 dwelling �.,,ts Per acrt: -1a..ated ct the southwest corner 'oi`MghltrA Avenue and APN; 202-21-45. " I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Actien.i1equesa.O: Approval of Subdivi'aioii Design, Site Plan, oncep ual-"Gra3fng' Plan, and Conceptual Landscape Plan and issuance of a Negative Declaration.; Ir B. Project Density., 4.6 duelling units per-acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Propose:d v4li;i-family residentia, and vacant; Medium Mnsiry Rettdential,(8-14 dwelling units per acre) So: t Proposed 6x:ale-family residential;, Low-Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). 4 East - Proposed single-family residential; LOW-Medium >, Density Residential (4-8 (Wlir,4 twits per acre). West Single-family residential; Low 9asity Residential - (2-4 dwelling units per acre). D. General Plan Designations: ry ec 51tS ow meciui3 Uensity Residential (4-8 dwelling units oer acre). North - Medism Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). South - Low-Medium Density Residential (4-8 d ailing uk,.Its per East - Low-Mediu* Uens'ty Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). West - Lc4 Density Residential (k 4 dwefiing units per acre). G E 4TEM P a 4�. t r p"C AliNLN R S QQi StAFf REND T€N'PATIV ,;,TRf T�TNU. . Dej,eadser 10,,,1985' kle 2 E. Site Charzcteristi-s• The site is currently vacant with a 1 s ope .o apprtsx.ma e3y 4.55 from north to south. The,-.project will gain access, off of 19th Street and,,from the existing single-fait 'tract to the west. Along the -north property boundary, tt'. .project will back up to, Highland Avenue and the ,y future freeway right-of-way. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The aNistent is proposing to deveiop 71, single n y restdepce's o'n lots Clanging in size from 5,3m square feet to 18;460 square feet in- area , e. ave.-age lot size . within the project is 7,200 square feet in ;area. The units proposed for the ar site e ideptiFc to those-being used in tracts 12952 and 11606, locate( to the south. The units,range z' in size from 1,640 square feetito 1,864 square feet in area. n'« B. Design Review Committee: The )esign Review,,Commiittee revIewed and approvedeta pro ec on Note+eber 20, LlB6, `subject to the., followi'ng conditions:' . 1. Tho cul-de-sac at t4a tcyesnm of Street "A' shall be shifted to On soutt; in :;cyder to eliminate the retaining wall on tha north side of the street. The Commitf o fe'Gt that, as proposed, a two-,O-one slope W�'t,ft a one-to-three foot rett,"ni g wall betweaw lots. 32 and 33 would become a nuisance area due to t f difficulty of the homeowners maintaining the sloped areas behind the retaining wall. 2. The committee expressed, concern over the large number of similar unit types within a relatively concentrated area. To mitigate the Committees concerns, the applicant proposeC an additional -building elevation for each fl; ,ir plan. The, Committee reviewed the new elevations and recaermended approval on all but elevation 2D. The Committee stated that 2D lacked the variation needed to create visual interest. The Committee recommended that elevation 2D be brought back for further review and approval prior to the.issuance of building permits. 1 a ti PI AN(3IwoomI ion sfAO REPORT TENTATIVE fiki 13425 4 December 10,1986. Page 3 k , 3. -.,The Comdai e ee noted that e black wall treatment O ong 19th Street was not j' cork►-=_teK"i with the . approval for Traat 12%2 .on the .oath s; a eaf 19th t Street- « The :Committee states that cAnsf,?enc bio0weh the` tracts should :ae provides.- ? The C�4mitiee felt that this :could be kC omp iwhed ti;'rough thy,! use of 'similar plant and landscape materials.i``. The Committee recomendedi that the perimeter wall tregtment be reviewed and approved by the, City Planner prior tp''=the issuance of !_ building permits. As part of the filing requirements for this tract, the applicant°submitted_an acdoustical analysis to k address impacts of" the future freeway. Recomendations of.the accoustical engineer stated that, a 16 foot barrier must be provided=:m3ong the ;:northern.�.,)roparty boundary to Beet C noise r Wtigation reda,i har rements. This would result in a 9 foot black walk on tap of a 7 foot slope. The Comittee felt that a 16 foot barrier was aesthetically undesirable and recornded that the applicant be regeired to p6t a cash deposit for \`,►Se Future construction of a wall adjacent to the f"°away anA that a 6 foot perimeter block wall be rigyired 1i ng the northeen property boundary. Other issu6s"addressed by the Design Review Committee consisted of the requirements for detailing around windows, the upgrading of corner side elevations to match the front O'evations, and the installation pf, decorative :block walls on corner side yards. C. Technical �'....evtew Committees On November li, 1986, the n ca ev ew Committee Ret to examine the drainage concerns assoliated with the proposal. It was pointed out that the City is in the process of trying to establish an Assement District for storm drains in this area. With the establishment�of the District and the installation of the Master Plan stoma drains, many of the major drainage problems will be"eliminbted. In the event, however, that the assessment district ct has not been fo-med by the time the building permits are requested, the Colmittee stated that protective measures in a form of a aesilfing basin should be provided along the northern portion. of the site. a PL`NMI,i0 GOi iIw 11ONI STAFi: REPORT 777 TEP9TATIBET�tACT-13'425 December 1fi, 1996 Page 4 Y i 4 `LY The applicant has subsequently submitted plans for the r . desisting basin: The basin ails cover lots 45-48 and 68-71'. The water w,Al- theoYbe�-carried by the Piaster Plan storm drain located in Street "C" through the site. The precise design Of ry the desilting basin will be further reviewed during the plan - check phase.D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant has completed,Part I of the nor ronmer ^, ses;zert. 5taf has completed Part 11 and has identified two (2) 'areas that' require further review i . and analysis: (1) noise and (2) drainage impacts. In that the property is adjacent te, the future' freeway, right-• of-way, noise generated by vehicular traffic using the frtwAy could adversely impact the site. - An acoustical analysis Fees, • been submitted by th+e applicant that estimates the impacts of the future free+vay. The analysis states that the freeway will be approximately twenty (20) feet above the existing grade of. Highland Avenue. As a result, the anticipated rnoiSe levels can not be adequately mitigator( -it the site boundary. A 1e faot- barrier at the northern limi-"-of the project would reduce the exterior noise levels beU, ;the-o,1 CNEL (community noise equivalent level), maximum �ohif�� in,;,s limited area - within thirty (30)_ feet of the barr &Y,. "As the distance increases from the wall, however, the noise level exceeds the maxi exterior level;. Therefore, the barrier at the northern boundary will not mitigate the anticipated noise level. In order to achieve the desired. reduction of noise, a sound attenuation wall would have to be installed within the future freeway right-of-way. The second area of concern, drainage, has Been addressed in a` report submitted to the City,, At this,point in time, a large amount of water passes through the site from upstream properties. To mitigate this concern, the applicant will be required to install a master plan storm drain thror:jh the project. In addition, if the City does not establish an Assessmenht District for the installation of storm drains to the north, the applicant should be ;required to install a' desilting basin to provide protection for the residences within the proposed tract. The California_ Environmental Quality Act requires that where potentially significant effects are identified (it this case noise), a Negative Declaration cannot be issued unless; 13 .y } `.! PI AWI1 C�°"C4Ffr1I,'SS+I6�I STAFF RERap ,¢ TENTAT1FE-1RACT:'1B425 December'10, 1W Page S Revisions to the project proposal is made to mitigate the effects to a paint where clearly ;no significant effects would occur. Noise mitigation would require Caltrans approval % the.aostiri4 of a bane for,-.the construction of a sound attenuation wall in conjunction wrath the freeway. Therefore staff,would. reccaamend centi"nratnce for the _ap7icant o n ear,.: n�ap�rova from a cans ." - no,�",tt d orney concurs rev•tom s ar, s � ec erg a on rqr,,coniptnuance. III, FACTS FOR FINDINGS )The project is consistent with the General Plan and Wyel9pmen Code, The project;,. w1th the added mitigation measures„ wiTI,not be detriaental to the public Kealih or safety,, or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental imp;cts. In addition, the ;proposed �se and site plan, together with the weco nded, Conditions of-Approval, are in compliance with the . app`ticable),orovisions of Development Code and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDEikE: This items has been advertfi,pd in the Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing and notices w�se sent to a proper'— owners within 30 `= Feet of the project site V. REMODATION: Staff receme-nds that Y,e"`Planning Commission continue tentative Tract Map 13425 to allow £he applicant to obtain written approval of the noise mitigation measure. 4Brad ctfully sulsnitted, B er city Planner BB:SM•vc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Maip Exhibit-OR" - Subdivision Map ," Exhibit C Site Plan Exhibit 'D" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit."F" Building Elevations b Fr!;ibit "G" Desisting Basin Plan i ri - i \ _ i �''� ram✓ +'�✓"'. !' Ask A ' it I ^aarRse /�/�. raeem � tea.., .✓'J`�j,.� ��t �`--�/ •�°` .�/''s -,�.�-- s bd g! L° CITY OF x rrmEm.. RAN ' CUC-4 lMQNGA TrME: PLANNIIVG t)IVISK)N Esc H tMT::,,r� Sc�1LE. • Ii6W1 1118[K MAyyp iORd ..I e NORTH CITY OF crE�c: Jos RANTCM OI..1C&MQNGA T ru. PLAN ING D VISM e�> 9 F-XHIMT,—�.Y S+G1iF t , tL�RMO E�! AI�NIJE _ -1 t it i� y •; i s. � � }� is � /- � � p' �. �'d•{• '_ dal �.y/ ~ a 1 s l NORTI- RANCHO C7 T�MONGA 'l7 u. �� .✓!5/C.YV RANKING DRrIMv - FYHIBIT• Z SC,%LF. ' r a S r FORTH CITY OF rrE\I•• RANCHO CU-CAiMGNGA PLAIT rI G DrviSK�►'®t E3CHI�3iT: - _ W A IL .tea - ig It { _ \ �j a NORTH CITY OF rr>=ti(:.�' PLkt>1NM QIVEM ,�),/�D EYHII3rC L-/ 5Cr\I + «9 x 4 NORM- CITY or rrE:«: RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'rrrLE PLANNING DIVtSIQ e? E�CH[t3rP: C`2 SokLEt P ate♦ � � .1 p�00.1��4M n��� •� «i �� is'«la�.�... � I or vat ni to s• • f it I�. 1 �����#,•g��/'"'�+ ram"t' j�„ �` nr ±e: �.... . ram- i CITY QT erF.;«: t'I. Nt tilt, DTVISICJN ` / EYNt8M Y f F � t op a i 00 41 t NORTH Ciz'T or- rrE.Nt: _lo�z-s- RANCHO CUCA.11�ONGA. TrrLE.- R.NNNING DNISiCxt r EXHtt3t'1": �— 1 SGx .F: s �� aw �- t �f � � � 'y� � rwm�t.saatrsv+erarAss a.Now } �;.ws snaa�ner.ra.rrnr�ca+ .rrsrre TAN �r�lAiRprY��Or.®1.0�IV aye � n,.a w•�` 1. ltJMTJA LSKaors rose...�.�.�.o...ww.r.. 9 MY Or PLANNING DRrETON r lino pa�lirt �0 ems''x � ■�llltil will e� A I r N � } �IJ [ .o • y x. IM 41 lI`. EWE ��,is r{ , r+d ni.r t 1 y ' i s �'�� •� ri ti; to y' w r l d � i J .� .ra�� is■ c ��� i� �l � 1: �,ft JCS: k�iu k 41 FAM— FAINI fz- F �r Ft f� r { IGer� � d lYs)p `t { 1 • S ;jr .,` .r vY111fj►� 'Y Yw 1 � 1 ' � s i •.LaOY®tiq cmm y '� icnm mo'oc�. r . fVE1Dq GCjAl�taif 1 ry�'mreset,i,v cam. �,, OUR e..w.s a. Y• _�+n xtecn bi '• � v �� �; > !4 •Pobe �60J e�OR9 �f. `�• � i •��- 1tJ t1mE7"'rl 4 '®ie1®Ra0 %mqY � ®n .i A w, ^t !` ovo7mI1+17. i \ i •h t� • 1� is Ron n ` ®�'rq a„ asp o� C.° r� • � r s i, J rrfa. r Y 1 i � � � .ram`• '° � IL J rA It w � w N�~ r '.i _ 1 •w, .ter ♦M �• ,� \� p'•�'4 ., �R iV r � 1 .` tr.�r r r a,. • •w w w.. It t•�.f ! .T u. . _ g.. CITY or UEN1-. RANC;�0 CUCA.�1�aNGA T rrLE: t �L�✓rV �i.�t I'I."NNtNG Drvlstot r SCkLE- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �a cu MOA. MEMORANDUM a r o z u DATE: December 10, 1586 t977 TO: Chairman and;Members of the Planning Commssion FROM., Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT; EHYIROHMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-26 C - A, request o es olish an off-site model ome sa qs mice complex an Lots 11-15 of Tract 12238 located at t`te nort6eas'4;cwrner of Church Street and Whitney Court for Elo ' purpose of i of sal es-wi thi n Tract 12830, located on t5t side of 6eryi Street, north.of Lavine Street APN 73-11, 12, 13, 14, end 15, Attached please find "a letter from F.G. Linton of Citation Builders : 1 requesting a continuance of Envirorw-entai Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-2F to the first Planning Commission meeting in January. a.eased on this request, staff recomends that the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 86-26 :be continued to January 14, 1987. rr f` i /3 EE Attachment f � ITEM 4 9 fiV0 9LVD.,Suite No.201,TUSTIN,CA 82wo JX"4y 731-0141 C!r!0 fmnc.yO � -fin y December 2, 1986 Brad Buller, Planning Commissior(`� City of Rancho Cucamonga �� Post Office Box 807 r; Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ��� r,�" TM REF. ` C.L.P. for.Off-Site Sales Office Tract 12830 Dear Mr. Buller: We were recently notified that the hearing for the C.il.P. for-our off-site sales office for homes in tract 12830 is set for December:10M. Due to a previous.crnmittinient for that time, I will simply be unable to attend a December 10th meeting'= late,';ould appreciatethe,,bearing beiyg " continued until the first'meeting in January. I hope,t�is does nett inconvenience the commission. ` i Sincerely, _ CITATION BUILDERS. a partnership F. G. Linton Development ,'-hager FGLjr:sf ` T. . 49 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT �� f O C� DATE; December 10, 1980 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: bad Buller, City Planner jJ BY: Chris Westman, Assistant Planner 4. SUBJECT: VARIANCE 86-07 - MOBERG - A request to reduce the number of pa 9 spaces required for a food establishment in a developed shopping center in the Neighoorhood Commercial District (NC) located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Base line APN: 22-731-12r I. ANALYSIS•. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for a 1200 square foot Frozen Yogurt Shop. Classified -as a restaurant, the shop use requires twelve (12) arkin" spaces using a ratio o n -P feesa 9 p space per 00 r 'g p 1 square a feet. I of gross floor area. The center was developed at a parking ratio Of one space per 250 square feet of leasable area. The anti re site, including the southeastern portion required 202 parkin spaces. Although the entire site was overparked by 24 spaces the approval of a Round Table Pizza eliminated twenty one(F(21) of those extra spaces leaving a net surplus of three (3) spaces. Further, the surplus exists in the southerly portion of the site and not in the immediate vicinity of the yogurt shop. The applicant is required to have 12-spaces. There are 3 "extra" spaces for the entire project and 5 spaces provided for the shop. There would b+= a net deficiency of four (4) parking spaces if the Variance were approved; II. FACTORS OF CONSItaRATION• In reviewing individual cases for a ar ance the M a ng cry eria should be considered: 1. Special Circumstances A. Is the property unique with respect to size, shape, or topography? B. Are there exceptional circumstances applicayle to the property or proposed use? R r 2. Preservation or 'Property.Right (Hardship) A. Can reasonable use be made of property without this Variance? ITEM R R , tiPCANN ...:GO I fArF REPORT �. E YARI C 88-07 -'tl08ERG- 0ec,�:mber 10, 1986 a Page 2 s B. Wl- haut this Variance, i_ the applicant denied privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties 1 n 6 the same zonol G. Is the hardship created beyond the control of the applicant or was it self imposed? 3. Damage to Others__ A. WTI the Variance be detrimental to the- public ;(,health, safety or welfare? S. -Will the granting of, this 'Variance be a special privilege inconsistent with the liaattations on other properties in the same zone? III. STAFF RESPONSE. Frozen Yogurt whops are smilar to a fast food opera t a custonrr is usually served in five t61 minutes or less and: consume the yogurt, off premises. A customer eating yogurt in the store arav,. spend less tK'o fifteen minutes. The number of parking spaces`°required for .`,,restaurant is based on a square footage formula. The applicant hail«,+h submitted a traffic stuffy to ividicate if Less than twelve t121 spaces would be _ necessary.,.. Wherefore staff has the, following concerns with the k Variance request: J. The applicant contends-_ that t shopping center's location, surrounded by the Sycamore Springs Apartments, presents an exceptional circumstance in which many of the .enter'3 patrons re "walk-in" traffic which creates a lesser parking d i nd than q. Typical strip center. The applicant has submitted a letter from the property manager of the apartments who concurs that there is foot traffic to the center from Sycamore Springs. Staff survey of the site during peak dinner :hours indicates that a few spaces are usually available at the north end of Retail 'A" building and maple parking is available - south of Del Taco by Stop N1 Go and the vacant f",ure buildings "g" and "E No parking studies or customer surveys have been submitted to document the amount of pedestrian customers versus vehicular customers in the center. It is fair to assame that some of the customers would come to this center primarily to rent a video tape, eat a pizza, or shop. Howevcr,- thv+'e is no_practical mathod to limit patronage of the yogurt ship or other tenants within this center. Otherwise them are no other unique circumstances to the site which affect parking demand. PLANNXN6 COMFpI"S_:TH "�!I, REPORT VARIANCE 86wU- MORM „ December 10, 086 page 3 � . 2, The applicant will not be A �� I pp granted a lease in thl- shopping center if a. Variance is not granted accordip" *n � ., the owner of the shopping center. However. proposx,rs .4, use within.a site that does not have adequate parking is not a hardship. Firatiy, it is not a hardship to the applicant inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code becaus'e_the Code is not intended to r. guarantee that a commercial use may locate' in a site that does not have adequate parking for that use; The- ,Code provides for a wide range of ;uses that have' the opportunity to lease within a centr r! ovided adequate parking exists. Secondly it is also not a hardVhip to the property owner because there are nlscrous uses that sue. can legally occupy this space= ,thdt dOhn,t require additional parking bhyand that which is available. If a hardship does euifst it is self-imposed by the;appiitants selection of this particular shopping center.' 3. The granting of the Variance could �-_a detrimental to the public health and safety by;creating a congested traffic situation wherein too many, cusr`osers vie for too fe►t parking spaces. Unless the Commission can fine exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site, the granting of the Variance o +enuld constitute a_special privilege incorisfstont with `zing requirements, on other commercial properties. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before granting a Variance, the Planning omawtss on ,aus ma a t.:'e following findings: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcemeht of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by th owners of other properties in the same zone. .. 4 reail�lls 1 STAFF-REM17 � t9ttBERA, is December_rad96 L 4;age D. That tae granting of Variance 'will not constitute a / n, / grant of special privilege inconsistent with the t' limitations on .other properties.,,classified in the able ?wne. Ee'+ That the granting,of the Variance wiidiv,rot be detrimer.tat l to the public healtth, safety, or welfare, or materially njuriaus'ta properties or improvemtnts -in the vicinity. - IV. CCRRESPONDENd" TC,is it-rA has,been advertise as a public hearing; ort newspaper all prop�;ty oWners Within" 300 fleetr of e su ec "stte have been notif 'audition, public',• hearing notices have 'bean posted an the subi�, -;,r� :�. Round Table Pizza contacted staff .t t# questisns regarding the Variance and hog an apprJval ma,7 effect'ttheir parking. V. " RECOMMENDATIN:,_ Staff requests that the Planning Coax ;�stont deny Variance request. If"the Commission feels that the required ' findings,.can be made, staff should be directed, to prepare a Resolution of Approval for adoption on the next consent calendar agenda. ` Resp fully's tted, f" Brad Buller T City Planner B8:CAI,5pr Attarhmer.•tiq: Letter of Justification Letter from Sycamore Springs Manager Exhibit *A" ­ Location Map Exhibit "SO- Site Plan Exhibit "C" - User Location Plan Resolution of Denial 1 Ar'7. " Barbara Ann Moberg 3630 Barham Blvd ##Z201 Los Angeles, Ca 90068 (213) 851-7491 To Whom It May Concern: I'am requesting a parking variance for my Frozen Yogurt Shop. I feel that this is warrented due to the actual nature of retailing Frozen Yogurt and the circumstances at the "Center, Aj the pedestrian-oriented J design, and B) the unavailability of parking spaces required by the strict enforcement. of the Aevelopement Code, I would be deprived of opening my shop as my lease is contingient upon obtaining *-his variance. In the Frc.en Yogurt business aproximately 35% of the orders are taken to go, they take about 3 minutes to turn around, as a result that would reduce the number of parking spaces needad. In addition, I;plan on offering a free of charge deliitnry servicF� to the immediate area. mainly to accomodate the Senior Citizene, his would also reduce the number of Farling spaces needed. Frozen Yogurt is a: quick serve-and-consume product, due to its frozen state. If not consumed quickly it ,will melt. The .' average store turns its clients around within not more than 14 minutia from the moment they .walk in the door until they walk out. Moreover; I will equip the store with more than the necessary amount of machines to facilitate fast customer service and furthar reduce the normal service time. JQk The Shopping Center was not only designed oriented to pedestrian traffic, but also by virture of its location it will create a larger than normal , amount of foot traffic which will support the pedestrian attitude of my health corgcience clients. In the immediate area ht,Lsing is dense. There are the Sycamore Springs .Apartments that hug the center on two sides, a mobile home park directly behind that:, across the street a large seniors apartment complex, directly north of tht a townhouse developement, and another large apartment complex. It would be accurate to state that the majority of my business will come From these locations. The compliment of my cus,,omers will be piggybacked _from the Round Table Pizza Restaurant, the suntan salon, and the ,video store in the center. Not many of my clients will be driving to the center. The only option I would have to accomodate the parking requirement for my shop would be to reduce the square footage of the :"iou yet built building so that the entire center would meet the De`±elopment Code for parking.. Doing this would not ;effect the actual amouw� of stiaces avail- able for my clients because the additional spaces would be in an entirely different part of the center, and would not be used. If the parking variance is denied I would not be allowed to open my Frozen Yogurt business. The landlord stipulated in the lease that it would be cancelled if I could not obtain a variance. I plan an crsating a high quality Frozen Yogurt Shop that will not only be aesthetically plr-°asing but have the most curtieous customer service and o nLy the best product. I am in the process of buying a home in Rancho Cucamonga and relocating. As a merchant and homeowner I want to help create and support, a successful community. Thank you for your o sideration, 4��-+ SPRINGS OcWber 23, 1986 -_ Barbara Nbberg & Yen McKee 3630 Barham Blvd.. #Z201 Los Angeles, C}i �006? 'TO Mom It Nlay Concern,* Sycamore Springs is,a 240 Unit apartment c oMlex adjacent to the ccx=rcial center at 7201 tirchih7aM Avenue.�.jhe ccarpleX provides access 't<:,the;center via t�Ao foot pat2+,,tYs"*fays and see€isx3 t1e" s developr�nt of the dentet to be a plus fo✓ see residents as they f can, and douse,the wosss5 paths fregdq'` ,tb visit (:is busir-5ses in the center. T! 1�E ning,:of new bus,`_ in try center is an .b added convenience fol otw residents. We do refer residertz- to the various businesses for their shopping convenience and'we find the feedback from both-e_�xxent'and prospective residents . . t to be very positive as each'new stop opens<up. € tr Sii.icar�elly,- Ranee%Paladin- Manager — Sycawre Springs Scott Management Cco any I r 7127 Archibald'®Rancho Cucamonga,Califomia 91730 m 714/989 7866 PIS-CIO •CL1 mom 1.7 ~' a 1 „r r. • MWr e , x r� oti n.d.. eU 90, r 60, t ! ! f S Ask let • �; ... .._.6AOC LING P+O:AO�' _ .`J gYC,ITYCT iOst TRH x vAq 6 / 07 ��� �LMI Gwa+Y tit �svatrNWT �� h {�P OZO2-7-3 Z/ r� 'Fi..�s�Ttii 9 �c 1500 AVAILABLE Sri: AYMME �. 1500 o- RANCHO POSTAL CENTER AVAILABLE 1 i ° 1 1500 #t 1200' � AVAILABLE GIFTS FOR LESS - t ROUND TABLE PIZZA YOGURT lit TANNING SALON ��"' j 4•- ! BARBER SHOP - 01 . ryq; i • ti9 4 VIDEO FLICKS ..Y ` _ w BUILUIBC "Ao FLOOR PLAN r t„ ESO R LUTION N0. gft n A RESOLUTION OF THE'PLANldING COMM35SI N F m • THE CITY OF RANCHOI'CUCAIMMGA, DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE A REQUEST FOR THil APPROVAL OF VARIANCE 86-07, -TO ;LLO'r! A REDUCTION IN THE// NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKIN` SPACES FOR A' FOOD ESTABVISMENT,IN= A DEVELOPED SHOPPL CE TER N LOCATED AT A 7201 /ARCHIB AVENUE, #11, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD - ARN 202- �,: 131 12, WITHIN THE. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF' CALIFORNIA, r. A. Recitals. (i) Barbara Anrt •Mob r e g has-ffledan application for the approval- of Variance 86-07 (ii) On November 19, 1986, the application was reviewed by the Planning and Engineering staff. (III) The subject site is in a Neighborhood`Com mrcial District— (iv) Upon analysis of the application it was determined the the shopping center ryas developed at a parking retie of one space per 25O sclaare feet of leasable area. A min±mun of 202 parking spaces were required; ho�ever_ r 226'parking spaces were provided. The approval of a yogurt shop restaurant, which requires .one parking space per 100=.square feet of gross'buiiding area in the center, reduced the total number of surplus parking spaces to three (3). As a restaurant, the 1,2CO square foot yogurt shop:is required to Kjver,,12 parking spaces; however,, therla are only eight (8) spaces available. Therefore, the Varfancp.requests a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from twelve to eight, creating a deficit of four spaces. M The applicant contends that because of the pedestrian oriented design of the center and the proximity of three apartment complexes to the center that the yogurt shop patrons will walk rather than use a car. ;. '(viI Parking studies or -5urveys supporting this contention have not been submitted to the City. Further,no parking studies have been submitted to the City that wc*'�'tJ indicate less than twelves parking spaces are necessary for the proposed Use, (vii) A staff site inspection during peak dinner hours indicated that the majority of parking spaces available are located at the southeastern portion of the center that is primarily undeveloped. The proposed yogurt shop is locatedat the northwestern portion. (vi'll) The applicant submitted a survey of tenant occupancy within Building "A", which has been verified by staff inspection, that indicates four units are vacant for a total of 6,700 square feet of gross leasable area. F �,1d a 1 Y i B. Resolution. .. ., A18h NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND: determimed and respived by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: (i) This Commission hereby s0ecifica*3y finds that �41)r.of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this P.esoliition are true and correct, 0i) That there .is not sufficient evidence to substantiate the appi-rcants claim that the yogurt spaces required. shop does not need the full number,of parking (iii) 'that the approval of a Variance would constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same district. (iv) That the approval of a Variance would increase parking congestion and therefore be detr�`nentai to the health, safety and welfare: of \ the General Public. , (v) Based upon the findings anU conclusions set forth above, this Commission hereby denies, without prejudice, Variance 86.07. r ; (vi) The Deputy Secretary to this::Commissipn shall certify through the adoption of this Resolution. Aft APPR&ED AND ADOPTED THIS 1011H DAY OF DECEMBER, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David araer, chairman ATTEST* 711F-a-d Buller, Deputy Wretary 1 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wis duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the Clay of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of December, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOES: COP-MISSIONERS: ABSENT: CDli ISSIONERSc f~t \�rl CITY Q 'Rt1NCQ GiTGAMONGAo �f STAFF REPORT E � r DATE: December l0, 1986 1977 i0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Coiimiss.ian FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY Barbara Kali Assis ant"CivilEngineer r � x� SUBJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP'10037 - B.C.t: " Development Incorporated,-- su vzszon ,Of ,acres of land into 10 parcels in the Industrial Park District, Subarea No. 7, located between White Oak Avenue, Eudaiyptus Street and Elm Avenue. ' (APN 20846149) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action ReRe�que-sted• ; Approval -of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as sown on Exhibi F"B" G; B. Parcel Size: parcel 1-1.61 acres parcel 5-1.63 acres parcel 9-2.18 acres parcel 2-2.57 acres parcel 6-2.47 acres parcel 10-1.03 acres - parcel 3-1.83 acres parcel`7-1,58 acres' parcel-4-1.71 acres .parcel` 6-1.34 acres Total 18.55 acres C. Existing Zoning: Industrial Park, S°' -rea No. 7, of the Industrial Specific Plan. D. Surrounding Land Use: North -vacant South -vacant East existing industrial West vacant E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Desiggnations: North -Industrial Park - Subarea No. Z South Industrial Park - Subarea No. 7 East Industrial Park - Subarea No. 7 West ,Industrial Park - Subarea No. 7 f ITEM i.,-t P N 6 �O r'. PART, 7" Ten �ative P ral D MCI - B.C.E. Development Incorporated ' December 10j L996. Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: d Tile site is vacant-,,and slopes a southerly direction. �r II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of tis parcel nap is to create nine (9) Tbuildable ' parce and a separate parcel for recreation purposes.. The Master Plan for this'site is on tonights agenda for approva :as DR• 5643<i': The street i proyem nts have been completed with' the exception ,of 'tldewalk, street li'ghts., drive ap14 on andscaping. hse missing improvements will b_e comdaseachparcel is develbped.l 111. ENVIRONMENTAL REIN; The applicant completed Part I of the Initial .�I yci 'S£atff con ue-ted a field investtgai:ion and-completed Part 11 of the Initial - Study. No adverse: impacts upon (ye" environment are +:. anticipated As a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative + Declaration is-appropriate. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding + . property owners and placed in the Daily,,Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOlS6tENDATION: It is recommended that the planning Commission consider a 1r1— ,per uu en elements of the Tentative Parcel Map. If after such consideration, the :Commission can recoMmend approval; then the adoption- of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would " be appropriate. P� Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BK:cg Attachments: Vicinity Map jExhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval b Ott -..si.rerr `�E'—fQQ7niltt ABIL s--gss�'�._`.'r.'i �i 3 eGa•Ev `_�. If t pal t t o. • Pas i� t e' • NAM �_ .� re '•• 1 � d Nclbe .S i ! 4 tu.o PW pa z — -- 3.MN.6 ———— 1I-�, "f■:, -,/rca �'� 'isalcf — [�.g1�}f� qm♦ IK hlf tt•' +� r0, •� K� _ • msme 4 a u `� heM �• Z4 �W� OO li.Y I/Wr. .. CI'I OF N RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENG +� CY DIMGN EXMBM. S-� TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10037 ••!� BEING A SMIVISICN OF FiYiCFl...to OFF PARCM..he 7 No.57ES.AS FOI IW+FILED IN SW 67. PACES 4 TFRU.7 INCLANIVE. IN THE OFFICE OF THE MCGIM OF THE COIARY < - OF$AAt SE*LWIhO, STATE OF CJlLUMNIA.. �%"---- b y can` MT.IM oath.. a:c.E.t>EVEl:trrl�n t1� �.RO Ytlp IfMMN.LITE•Im LE7T tatfl'MET ITT fElr(!tT aE1a.u.s�aa•Itcs1 942 80LSL.1tE..RiiTL t0/ N®L OIAI 17F&7aa.. /atJfIKTtM REAOt.CA am* hOE 0111 ii]-9W1 rv�r uY,r.AACt,MAP lETEi R.MMLRitgl R.C.E..17aa! No _ c Alf- 04'k. 1 i Or— s 8.0 a a W- to 1.0 14* TT'It.Y.,ra79ELi,.,•,tes �• pP"'" a'E \ +"''CR w,�,. • S _.... in ar+��=III..MINI 6 pppwaisa r PARCEL 3. 1�IM liaryla R!I!C y �.-t.'iYs• I. Mit II/INaBN,r owl.. CATA ' aEll0/NINE• !� w 1a1Y lrV tl`�.l,1,.y1 �n ra,Ala laa.. al.la.IlFa RIT..III&.= .rr+ t IRO LIRA '��G'^�Qiaftla W LUI r—�•--�QltittMt W4R111R. s —^�•--'^Qtalr trtP3r Iw.0 1.11` «--f QIRUa a.wm Uart IfI14t Dart Y QlRlla)te-NIOlyllj. i 4MAW ra Io•nna a";1VICI IITY � ! �f xF a, RESOLUTION NO. � 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C"ISSIONCOF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAEOGN, CALJFORNXA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10037 WHEREAS, Teh 'tive Parcel Ma Number 1 37 a P 00 submitted by B,C.F Development, Incorporated, applicant, for the purpose"-of subdividir�=j into 10 oarceis, the real property siivat;d in the City of Rawho Ducaftiga, County of San 0--enardino, State if Caliri'brnia, identified as APN(s) 208-351-29 located i. between White Oat Avenue, Eucalyptus Street and Elm Avenue; and WHEREAS, on Decenber 10, 1986, the,Planning Cowi lion herd a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE,11THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNINq COMMISSIDN RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: lliat the toliowing,findin9v have beefs made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan, 2. That the improvement of the ,proposed subdivision is Consistent i)ith the General Plan. 3.'z:1,hat the site is physicall suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed, subdivision ana`�,nprovements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health Problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 10037 is hereby approved subject to a attached Standard Conditions and thi following Special Conditions: � 1. Lot 10 (to be a lettered lot) shaj1 'be noticed on the final map for recreational purposes, 2. Reciprocal use and maintenance agreernts for the recreational facilities shall be provided by the C.C. Ask d APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS loth DAY OF December 1986, PLANNING £OMMISSI'CM OF lip,;CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONOA r _ BY`' a £. Da)fid arkerR hairman _ k � A �ATTCM Bradu er, Deputy Secretary 'r I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Cvmiiission (,f the City. of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoin�ti Resolution was.duly and•. regularly introduced, vassed, and adopted by the Pldj�ining Commission of the, ' City of RancWeCucamonga, at a regular meeting of the,Pianning,,Commlission held on the loth day of December Y986 by the following votLi4ti-wit: AYES: COhMISSIONERSe HOES: COMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: \l, l Ma r I ,l « ICA V' no pp♦ ` a 9 l {{� €fit =a ig ds 5 B8 Q � Y �a C Y < p �w�9 6�•t C� 6 it rr w� Yy pO pVY 7 � ! € 4 p� E 4 • i{ � � � u_My �•� spy. ��� N i • 'da v 8 3�, sxd sa Wu a .S.Q.o svr L Ql r � `o �~ N y•. gg `• L N �O L & y �� OZZ1C 91:11- Y�.. LOLL MO { C V` Y WOO � ��` Ri. •�i _O L � ^;.i' C yOO It H� xC w b _ -JE JY d� Y W ,,.5 �� �� 3r $ IPA« 3 •• � o "'a � a Cid yn fitly 6 1 �O ►_.Y 61`1' !]t ` i Ir. ^ppd�� �4 g L C t U p `�C Y O •A Y pp �' Y G 1h G}t y y s- CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONCA cvCAMo STAFF,REPORT r DATE: r December 10, ika sn t TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning romasission FROM: Brad Buller pity Planner BY: Debra Meter, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMEP-TAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOP14ENT REVIEW 85-23 - 7 J ue ecevve"fa nen o an Office/R&D s er an a centrtfi tennis facility on 18.55, acres of 'land in the I Industrial Park District (Subarea..7) located between White ' Oak, On and Eucalyptus Avenues in the Rancho Cucamonga Basiness-Park -%PN`2O&351-2g. I RELATED FILE: PARCEL MAP 10037 !# I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: A+^-oval of Piaster Plan/Site Plan and ant escape conce�, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: 3T►r�i scan Tnd PS"ubarea 7 South Vacant land, existing industrial facility$ ASP subareas 7 & 8 ` East - Existing R&D C-`'fice.; ISP subarea 7 West Vacant land (proposed cerporate plaza); ISP subarea 7 C. General Plan Designations: ro ecsite , Yn us a ark North Industrial `Park South Industrial Park and General Industrial East Industrial Park West Industrial park D. Site._Characteristics:,.. This parcel is within the Rancho Gucamonga usTness a and all streets on the perimeter of the Master Plan are improved. Parkway Improvements. will occur as each parcel in,' the ,Master Plan is developed. The site is paesently vacant and void of any significant plant materials. All parcels directly north, south and west of tt* site are undeveloped portions of the Business Park. East of the site are industrial warehouse developments. ITEM T PEAAfNIti& �SSiO ST$F REPORT . i r DYEL#�PMEh'> RF�YYE852 m- AJA December'lO, Page 2 F , I. ANALYSIS: A. General-.. The purpose of the Master Plan is:to create nine lots oi�r - navidiai .development of research ,and development andi office "tall-dirigs as well as a lot used in coVdn for recreational purposes.. All lots will-, have access to the ` _ recreatton area through direct pedestrian connections or along a 1 andAcaped pedestrian acc`esa:easeiaent Vnrougb the interior of the site: Each lot will developed under separate,:` Developmant Revfijit applications & Planning Division approval. " B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has' rev ewt project and-found the intent of the Master Phan to be in comfitiance.'wi'th the Industrial Specific fq1an. The r Committee .has recommended approval of the Master Plan with the 4; a following conditions:' ' 1. The Master Plan should emphasize pedestrian. orientation to the .tennis fcziIity.; The future development of each parcel should have pedestrian R access and orientation to the tennis facility or ;W the easement. Potential developers should be aware of this as a design consideration from the beginning of the design process. The applicant `Y indicated that provisions would be included within ti the Master Plan ,CCAR's and that -a consistent walkway and texturized pavement would be called r°} out. ' 2. Landscape standards will be developed by the applicant to provide a cohesive landscape pallet as well as standards for plant size, quantity and piaoement to be incorporated in the Conditions of Approval -for the Master Plan', _ C. Technical Rev>ew Committee: The Technical Review Committee has rev sale '4 projectand determined that with recommended Conditions of Approval the Master Plan is consistent with applicable Standards and Ordinances. The following conditions are recommended' by time Committee.,,:, 1. In the evt-nt that security fences or screen walls' are built on prDpertY lines between bu ldings a 1' man game will be required for fire personnel access. The gate shall be openabie witP/a knox key. i M } ekAItG REPQR7 )j DEYELOPt�PGNT RAY#IIEW M 3 - AJA December .1986 Page 3 _2. An address monumentation sigr'shall be posted at t the main entrances to the project. z _ _ D. Environmental .Assessment: Upon revi! of Part I of the Initial u de an comp.,e,, on o art II of the Environmental Checklfst staff has `found, na significant impacts related 'to the fir velop�aent of a proposed.K3star Plan. . III. FACTS FOR-FINDINGS This project is consistent with 'the Industrial pec is �an an the General 'Plan. The project;will not be detrimental;: to adjacent properties or cause significant environmiantal •impacts. In addition, the;proposed Master Dan, 1/ together wig^`the recoi ndod conditions,. are in COW,,ance with,'i the,I�ndustria Specific Plan and City. Standards.- IV. RECOMMENDATION* Staff recommends approval of Development Review 86-23 tnrougW the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval and issuance of a,--legative Declaration. Res tfully tted, ler City Planner t A$•D�t;vc Attachments: Exhibiv.:A' - Area Map Exhibit "V Master Plan ,4hibit 'C' Conceptual Grading R.lart `xesoluti;on of Approval with Conditions 1 n i I i -7G FOOD PAoRK ..FOOD PARK fH0?OFy D� PROFESSIONAL OMUS OIOT OURDPO) \ R 6, PROFESSIONAL OFF7CE' CORPORA Te Pu►zA f R 3 D%fgT USTRIAL r� R 8 6 roETmDvmS A� uar oemooear NORTH CITE' Or. iTEN1, a PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT e SCALD E` HE a) �� •�^ 1 .. {� coIV er 4 CV Ir 51 P- , a :G CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAjNjONGA TITLE.- PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- 'SCALE: S I k \ �• `•- � �• :`eat � `�' 1 0 � , a j :_, /r CITY Or � / ITCJI• RAINCHO CL'CAIMONGA TITLE, PLANNING DIVISIO:<I EXHIMT. SCAM. „yam HP u W { o CITY OF, rrc`I: RANCHO rl�/O ' `iA TITLE- PLANNING DIVL-'Oti1 EXHIBIT: SCAI.D�.,,' J'� „ rsr�f } 4 y ` RESOViTION, NO-1J A RESOLUTION 0. SHE PA;* CUCAMQNGA PLANNINf. CO1914ISSION 4� APPROYITNCa ,QEVE rQPtiEN! REVIEW NO 86-23 LOCAT.@`8E'PWEEN ” WifI re OAKS', ELM. IDr Eu AL fPTUS AwNUES IN THE IWrJUSTR•IAL PARK-.DISTRICT H 2O8-351-29. z, ' WHEREAS, on the Ath day of Sepir;, 1986, pTete appl(cation was filed by Gilbert Aja for review of tk,abrw-described,project; and WHEREAS, on 1Ot6 day ii'f Decesber, `1986, :the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Ccimisston heldee, a mttijto to,` sid lQQQ�r con ,the; aha �e•described project, NOW, THEREFORE the Rancho Cucamonga Planning, Commission resorted as follows: �) SECTION 1: That the following can be-met: `' 1. That the .proposed project is consistent witik the 1 F, ,objectives of the G(a?ral Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord withCthe ¢' objective of the Bvelopment,Code and the purposes;, of 1Che district in.� ich the site is located; and `l 3. I Thrit the proposed use is in compliance with each of tWa applicable provisions of the Develop�,.ent 'Code F and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be'°detriment,l to thet,__) public health, safety, or welfare, or ntater'ally injurious to properties or,.,.Improvements i,:i the vicinity: SECT' ,e'2: That this project will not create adverseAwpacts on the environmen a�ry at a Negative Declaration is issued on December 10, 1986._ SECTION 3: L.That`Development Reviev No. 86-23 is approved subject to the follow nag conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION: r 1. That the Master Plan and landscape concept are approved in concept. -tivelopment of each lot shall-. require separate Development Review application and approval,- < 7. t y PLANNING COt+F1ISftbA.4580LUTION NO. Ai DR 86-23 -.AJA, December 10, 1986 Page 2 s 2. The Master. Plan shalkl_&phasi��a pedestrian orientation to the tennis facility. The futuve developmant of each parcel, shall o have pedestrian access and orientation to the tennis facility or the access easement. ,Provisions shall be grrvided in the Master Plan CUR's for consistent walkway _end , textured. pavement eatment. 3 L$ndscape standards shall be developed by )l;he applicant prior�,tio recordativr;of any parcel map, to the satisfaction of the t ty Planner, to prov de a cohesive landscape palette as wel71' as standards for plant size, quantity and placement. The f/, ure i development ' of each parcel shall be consistent witj all landscape standart, as set forth in the GM;R's and the aporoved conceptual landscape plan : 4. in the event that security fences or screen walls are Wilton property lines between buildings a man gate will be requirtid for fire personnel access. The gate shall be openabie knox box key to the satisfaction of the Foothill Fire Protection District. 5� An address manumentation sign shall be g posted at the ma entrances to the_project, and shall conform to applicabl.,- crI",erfa in the sign ordinance. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. Lot 10 (to be a lettered lot) shall be noticed on the final map for recreational purposes. 2., Reciprocal use and maintenance agreements for the recreational k facilities shall be provided by the CCSR`s. S. Thg driveway between parcels 2 _and 3 shall be redesigned to be ; 90 to the street for a minimum distance of 50 feet frax the curb. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY Of DECEMBER, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION Or THE CITY OF RANCHO C;'CAMONGA BY: j E. David ar ,er, a rri�+,ri I ATTEST: ra u er, Ueputy secretary / !g 1 • PLANWNG* Is5 r 0 86-23 — 1 A s December 10, 1986 f , Page 3 t Z, Brad;huller, Daputy Secretarjk--of the Planning Camisslon of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, �o here!.. ertify thAt the foregoing Resalution was:duly-and regularly introduced, Passe, and adopted by the Pi, {ring Commission of the City of Rana. Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the'`11anning Commission held 4 on the lt3th" y of Cece er71 i986, by the fallowing vote-to-wit: AYES: COMISSIONERS: NOES: COI+RtI5SI.ONERS: r ABSfNT:: COMMISSIONERS: i y r n �+aoiK"�.~ticoi+•»tl' q$o^n agpa m, tl.1 Y�~? tly :..rr-L NC`O „uY yOL L0C 0� 1.Y Y p'y t A G t A 4 N G V y ^ L R a utl[O Coy Y S 4 g$tl ^CL N. 'gAr Vm`CU-i l . a Yak C�gi% 3�•Y `L LCY c •opQ�+ saes yy%S+'. � `�+o-ti-�'o�+g`•:.L+c.4 Ya�•^•V cL..Q'y. s+o--g��. QQ»�= `�aoa-- l -, a'""•� �r c '� 's«yA "o"+! aka S'. 8.u+ �� agiwM< 3''y.• voga - 'P`n ac�'dia$ rytl ac y=� V-2 25 _ „ix s g��MgtltlLa"��{N u�GC�c«+y E� 4 q�tlY�Lo�G qa� '^p`�� AP 4^��i C^L a Ya4Ytlppp: �V. o�`�ioaK C ^ t 4 {■s� is • •mP g,�yC'.ma 6SY.�.pC,,Ypp to—e66V.. µ`L ppH•�No v,.M �,tiC�••yai. ieiy'��Ti�M=p� yQm^C^aQ H}CC 9neq^s6s6J� a ^� •R�. .. �«.y �dl R.�rN DLO yooc Niw.Yip. Y �Y L��9` p{, ■C oV• S. u<C� A Vy • CN � N y 4Y �;4sn8L�o S r ma$ s Nm� Vs -Iss Cgo �i u >i..'Lc .Cacc sm ' r� Lg pGi.LLq LHgoioa. (; _ L4i+ tlOi1H .K V+• <N y]6. <Oi� p�...asI b r _m yy CC r g Lpt~�L'$Op J. `� • Otla tl Sy6e`u GG NN O. Ly T. Y. V qY Yi gg a+O u'.s CO YN A ; yrj ' ZZ c r uCN �� V NO C > O y{{tlM AM OSr kl LV a C ' 11: tl N u rT � tl Nt,A V. s yC yy pS�C g •• o L "•8`. ^4 tl6 NL OD 33 ` .. 5 pn, > AS H a4 .fiV LN L N v9 M�.a A.,.x � S9t � � h..v: O.r T4 � W W 3 J� CY��� Q 3 mm LY F i a.'ti a`.-p`, p- E«� N 4 i•V �y• v 6t Gu w�G. -aO.j Sn �_ C D V O UP �. u + uaY YUYtOY n >L Y yy a+Ygg u. Y O �Si '.et+ NN Y OL Rtl y d^$ _ «mg—�Nidv Q�-^+-y"'' qn N«mX «s 78 Ya� Ail ^� ...� .,; aj m9` MgY�� •�L.'Y�e3 � �++��'s 9gg+V 'Cato �q0 yY yc� V N ca att i €A91+� s9¢ �Cro Nu5.3 tr$tl Bp �M o 4 4 yQ' L D• ,.. 62 �`YwY.y� D�c« s�� gu'�' S` C~ .. VS. 4 yq1 C pp j p� _ Y N YY tj +aNv r e .'YFN � }_�eq k G'YVc �uk 3 ,Ju$�L ._ 5 •Y•A � aw� � 'yw tlii ii C y$1 Y ^M4 yy +y§�� iys� y ¢N$ �'sN.M'NZ''a'Fi.:ia 8 -1'nS.4 i3 ' ytlYCp ^veey 33 1 O yl g C �y N. i p ff�p :• o5-1 LY u bp, ^~,S2{ $.A... yyys ....q.I RL m! ^S E y Y Y L V. L�.y 3 .,.S N tl ® m a+ L ' N �u �p+.9. v. �p`Gp +qZ a� C LC � et� wpy[, y43a n'.�'.+Y. n^ re$ ��o �Gypy� e� ��'�'�ispyOm^ v'ugpp.g� o�Ra?`�f'�`•�• aUx qL C Y. C�+ .•?S. '� C Y�Lp~+:Y ti�.■Yp V 1? �t$m�i, ��pg!p�'^ j.'cc.pp+ °«.' 2L L p n •G a C L CW 3 R z C p C 9 +ST 4p F =.�. {V.a V1 C.■�m rpr O 1 PR u f;., rlp� `�L $IL +L qC.y cNC $� CC• YT� OS.��+��6 J C �Ye m� yC y y..0.� 'YO OS U"y •�2.� p NC nLp F4c. Ly O j.1 is 7082= 4 1. � as n galO` ea V. L�a� OlSV01 yC'1 it �~ e�+lOYci�30 Y � �Vi Clq)GY 4y Y E O a 4 L01 S.. 6e-N e LY ^n' L m i V ppGp, C m L i N Y M T •C t L <q 6L N:q� : aow�. �o n oc o"S aaoo4e�a{+syy�yyd cr�.�c � p�wr.. C Y Y I% Y.. �F p P.E. >>�L l /.N:•r C 2 V Q..L. 212 Y On N MYpp V SSG Y.r U ftp Ni 'F\v� G �•� ~N SV: Fm L0 OIp6�04C • .`A�L.CC ,. «C'C 6.. �HC tl! F �Y YLOgpry ODVy y��.V9 « pSaro it ' �. Y2�` ��.w• L w�uN �ywy Cc^g.OY N%.�Nq O �,Ca ��. S«V�.. Y �t 4-3 u W7 CJ u tyya>1' tt4 rt >C ,. 0 Q1 Y d S` YI Y x F. C1 p RI^C ti Y - 4f f g S •w C V F q`� w P&'^ G�' � �p LL NT GECe qC f'. Up ./.F�..Ix+:N� y�� '. >Vyp6plN1Hy�V..l v,� =✓p�� y dt y &� N�+L Lw• O�«��OahO GT V3M pVOCVY«.. ��Na C YC tC YGh ��O t'.�s.SN xa+�y.:� �C�y66 y. ypuyl• YpO�T N - CatL,. Mom^'_:_ Or •V,.)w '$O V LC Y.`qq^�ONYn upa,M 9r i� N4" CWO.I�.... O V D G,q f' C u 6 14 f9 0 Y w�( � b Y N T Y 4i (L..,._�Y Y ep'�"o ISaa�Y'Y' �.w,c .ay. Y a+,.� c. <. ` r�4 c:�.� �n�, C .'V Hit n`.ppa Leiipt a�NNO�p�,�C� Yp'54�q V«iIA W V 01 V yYC Mopf a{Oa,�6 o�LY pY1 - �pV,V %Yj ■A.w !! N YLiie 1.S+LiN C. O� �le.C.yµ���,[� +rpcc OCOCpwO-•L`. N%Z <N^ .<H. 7M4. .r N.0 <N .r >O�«M6 Z., iu L'O�. C «.rd�. vai a ye cl 4,13 >.:':Y Vpaa V« � N ri w0 Lv6« Or 9ta{.. C WOi cpG S'p_= L,1 ,.. Otp NNgr •N « 4 «NL v., m✓ law. Y ^ Y tl� «�.e pp�Q u`.j Y~p% :QV Y. • V 9.a/i. ay'Foq aC L��w td � Y.Vy« =' Om. Co: y.Y+ e"6°,4u■„ .,cO «+u ,.. os pi fir8 = �'• w, G 6rQN. ±' Gqq V ..r A tl Lq C«V �6Ttr 4z[G6`' '^ Vag. O W Nw L LSD N-Y'. .1t; w9a V3.ON bi••� C YA�Lq any 6.j O:� Vb.idi. O„H,.^ w Lu>O Y y�y` 6,+N.V <Vam T 1pM HQYai :R LY <O ' A 1 � r 1 O N$•�. «Q�Y'� � .✓ a 1 d N i Y C i d A L� C I •Ti.'.K 6 Ta.� f40k y ' 04 �S �, et�•rpr Cid pU�d i4 yp{Apgsq � n p� .. Eyy,• �i4 U � aOnA 'MSRYm.G fi AL� •a �6C" § 6 Y m 6 r �i L ..=Cyyt C�antw O�O $ p $Q djNhCC� p dYT b •Sj.'•. ~ti � IN aC N P L G mm m Loma 4J to p). . a1�. Lgpu'o$ x :r3�. Y,u 3 .- �.y •' �.9'� �u. 0. C LL g+m" �' piJge rp u^ s3s+. YVd".:'� pmY O . A4. NJCTO�p 0���,� ye(=� G�s4j �y�F �qd�> •yp60:�. N Cud NVa 90i LQ�Q•�O M�fU y•Ldm O Bj0 Jw mr 76 �J -'tlC _ ov v,�'^" �u Y� Y 1q. m cd�uw �� ,,,•�'N :+N•��T� m $.N • musi3c nyyh� "L`a ., g-• $ �`og�'� a:. 'i'e pwprNp ate. a4 LSig... Spv4�;Iyw, tt21yp• pC JJJ�3��,{1(7j sypm3 �y.C+�W� CaU{~... S L ^ nLY $LLLMY MAV. O' r- LF 67 d:iY. �r AA+o...N m -Ca UT 9y FO 4$ M Am in OI CC uL � : CpN AU • Y m AC r by M�. L{�`. m. G yyr 'BM �6 dY yY IZ N^0 L D N Y5.2 Y yN C •.i . O O� .C. JE E yLL 4 1,6 Y y M - = 3 as m.,• ass L �N.c N} pu$ p twCJ�. .p^,'C�.(N�. at it: A gpp zcm a'S ^a a•7 c c tl�c� LVpN.A.. zz-q w C6. L.01 `p r 40 SL iS.. ^w• C yy w G ~a^ i N pn �N•1 L An N N n N a s M p�''� `Y Il D• O mq h , $ Ct- .�qrd 4k, �. ♦�C6t a.Z`O C O•�Ma•Y w.Np L.z wA •� G�" V:..O p cP e�.� 1NR� J G, a cd ag "s _gd ANa T� +.. ✓!✓C!/Ytq�tpi.N� y�� A� O4 ` �] P w V. E U !l e aO1Cw OQsY NO q�+� y�j �u'~ « aSIz, r 3j{'. y!1 eY ym IF_ \ - clum CO�i uO.Oa� ;•,,.� } ^N =� � LC Cl� Rey`� �„ _w Y OT yy� T ''QQ yyyl TTBB Cyy CqCq N.. 4 VOp t{�t � �! - O Y S. � f�•.w Ob. � �K �V ZN CAS OYLX W�.. j YJ. AQ 4a ix- =iuZF Y Y$O � �.�� C9 � i Ell i9tlf■Gj Y82 $V W N a �fl Y Cp ay uz�.Fl LJ Qa q Y.2.:N C; �Q, �.�, �j ��1r LV�-.� wLO. Y ' $ a Y Y rF f� � i K CV� C 2-1 9 ^O `u agtl + <'.6♦ yWw�e Q6�ba Y� Sow 1q.. W 6° ¢Y�+ �40 of L g —o Le. up!� a� wm=`.e L �p 6Lny CC. Y w L. 6 Saq 6Y P i r O w,0 ie`40 AL L ._u'n uw �' ♦ ~% Nw $�Y�Z NOY? grn'a � CO y C y o O _� Y ' aw6.`OI tea °Oey= a g ai_«� qqO �� tiL ■ OOwIICC{{�� O C Oy +le N Gg OONo b4. p q Y N ,YC +a T■pY Ta'^ p0 4� Y�CL.C`N S O O0 tl.l Y�G �! ai.i $�. KO � YOV7M}} fc4c♦Le~ C1�LT.4p NY9N i <Oq6 Opp.wp..y 4Czu u e Sao, Y o $'",+ s4. all `. e_r '8C"yap$_. a at QY L a N, n iV9 wM e, a L W 0 H R y g 2 {{11 4 J Y vg 4. C $ GGGp LEI n $� so ;u _Err .� L- 14 •., 'I_, 1:6 .r.�p .�'. .'rd g.'°S°„"tla $w.;L' b3 8. $i gg �wYN a� w•o N g'� ��V� .� � � aE +� �gw too �� Yp\..O 4yi �p6aNy� �A Q=��i �O � V♦ = � �. � q43 �� O :i C 0CZ A �� ar 'Cya �i 'V, s S. Ell W' -CLSN.. q. Mc 0 aV fp.J V� w �yO Nam. =„4A,GL4 �� L Y K ap $ r�G b� 24. Al E S i ^Q ptlY�Te �s `4y pGt+Co all pg� is �- y. L 1r M 6 0 a s $ N w La y C L .� p 4 L f.�H <T� n im■ : LC yti i yy G r M Val wy Vt Mw 4. Yy •�� OO aBrV it v.ex u�9 M. 'VY. fa C' OG YNya„ LQ�yri 6�n r' uu E Oa OW t'u NQ ZZ Z»y iNr <Of ^t M L1 M�• _ I.J w G c a <G�w n C.> I I � A `V nn u 4 l r I +rL ✓�� Y qt.✓ � ✓ Y t Cyr b ,� MY N u04 ✓vim a�+ V S Lyp. �a ue +�'N"+ r -�a•s uo + o. Diu a` wa oo �'uv �r�9� `et 'arS�.� L. ✓p 3". �_.G �_ u Mc N„ p 3. N✓ ✓^ Y✓ '.GGs p.✓o$`3 �p a. �o `�'" to �Q �jV� pa� % W.. aC+L L CT - n \•�� {pp`L O � 6w CC q.G d�� Yq�@ 6Vd 1 M�L Ask, y.CYC D✓ pig+ ..GGr .: aU. � p'O Ca yJr. ✓� Yid I w` C Y � . CITY OF tR1vcH4 JCAMONGA �cn STAFYREPORT 3 a 9 O 1 .` U - DATE: December 10 In8ki;i 1977 TO: Chairman and Memb�)•s of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buries, City Planner BY: Chris Westman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PRELIKT.!ARY RUM. 8645 - MAASCAREkAa _h-,consistency e ee . d n e oo i I I Corr�i dor InterimPolicies a�id`a proposed commercial office bui'ldiny located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard on the south side of Foothill ,. Boulevard,, west of Hellman - APPi 208-241-0g. PROJECT AN'd SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundin2 Land Use and Zoning: Project - es en 5. =-s ruc urz;Office PrafessioHal North Retail center, General Coszercial South Apartments, Medium High Residential (14 to 24 du/ac; East - Apartments, Medium High Residential (14 to 24 du/ac) ,West Apartment, Medium High �Residential (14 to 2S du/ac) B ` General Plan Designations: Me lsrrofessionai )1grth - General Commercial South - Medium Higgs East - Medium HiSn West - Medium. High C.. Site Characteristics: The proses:t s Ve- Is approximately 6 acres. Ther^ is ari existing residential structure which the applicant has proposed I to remove.. The interior of the structure has been modified to accomodate a day care facility previously approved by the Gity under a Conditional Use Permit. The house is presently vacant. There is alto an improved parking lot with spaces For I roughly 16 cars. The pad elevation of tha house is two to three feet higher than Foothill Boulevard', There are mature trees both as street trees and as interior landscaping. 1 11`EH U l P�. 17 a.I SS'IOti; TAFF'P.EPORT Pk, R $.5-6 MASCARkEIAS : x December 1Os 19E6 Page 2 i enera? ` 713e a± 1i"cantproposes to detnoli^(t the existing Tiufli'rng to build atwo-story, 11,GO0 square'}lpot comercial • office building. This type of project is;appropriate for the ; Office/Professional District. l+ktte'rials"used ire stucco,facing and glass-with f l at concrete 74e geacrajssi ng and can#'igurt on .:+af .the ' proposed office buildfwg are, . cohtpatib`►r wita 'the existing apartments which 'surround the Project site on i to east, west and south sides.", : . B. Issues:'` In order, Vor`the applicant to, be able to construct as'' etFe'y'-ill in their proposal, several variances of requ s; The api icant 'Q snare of this and woteld like, f#e Plan"I g Cowfs, ion to piovide,grelipinary input regardtng these ratters at this ti p:-; At issue are severa? setback req#,revip6ts as J well as a height iieairgaI i ,% , A 46-foot, building''^setback is required along Foothill Bo"W evard and, a 34-foot setback is provided'. A 20-foot..side yard setback is requi.ed to the west and a 5-foot s�tbafik. s provfdt:d. A 10-foot p'ai-aing setback is r required to tie south: and a 5-foot>,setback is provided. The height limitatirm on i6 'building is 23 feet. The building as l proposed is 30 feet'. C. Interim Policies: Czetain guidelines for development along Foothill Boulevard have been ',,tdopted by the "Planning Cission. The fol'lowing'. are applicable policies and comm.erws in response to those poiicies.rogarding the proposed project. 1, Coapdtibilit�j All land use and developetnt proposals i shall��ca�tible wMAltimite uses on surrounding s -jarticularly residential use� .and to witicia'tie jm ttial ,conflicts to the exert:lttxactical.. V11tigatio:n '.*surer W typically iinou&,' pert'are not likdted to, master planning, transition of,building height, architectural form q dansit r, iarrdscaly - buffers, sound attamC'On, redurtton of wind , turbulence, visual barriers and/or' 9•&d pg conditions to disrerpt line of sight ccvwlarns,. and alternative circulation access. Count: The ofF:;s use is appropriate =for the 3fffce7Teofession&l district. It should be noted that this parcel was recently rezoned and redesignated in the General Plan to Office/Profess onal. The changes were 4nitiated by th- City. : /tl .. ��.Ir✓ '\1 of PL,4NkINCa CQ IAIS_YDY S7A"T,"tEPt IV , PR 56-65 M1�SCAREtd�S December 10, 106 ' Page 3 2, Arc it ctnre fire architecture of a bew cwstructlon shaali PO sensitive to the heritage of RZeiuo Cucamonga am relate to nearby structures < co®uniiy sig�rifii'cantie. Design alerts•aa� itu:lutfe9 Ibait'are not I Hosted tcq,. rivef rack/ffild stone wvs', entposed beast fworki, grin arbors; eurW. ;*d Apet Wails, covered lmalk*ys or arcades. Comment: The building's form and general massing is C s m�#`M r`to the architecture of the adjoining apartments {s that were developed -prior .to these Intc�Am Polictes,.. 4� However, this style does not reflect the heritage of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Pedestrian Orientation: Site planning.* including oul nn ffen �sd parking lot comfiguration, Brill �rhwe .pedesf'aan connections tar and -*if site. A continuous pedestrian listen is required. in all new pr�a3ec rtitti torrr�ec'�itrtss between buildings„ parking_ areas, suet latent sidWks. and.,transitstops. Amenities shall be ,provided such" as, plazr§, 'sladekd seating`=alcov*s, expanded W hays W10 Y'surface Alk treatment, texturtzed Pavement across rdri4e aisles, raises planters, trash receptacle s, and deirki,rg fountains. In addition, outdoor eating a�.rr' » are encouraged. Comment: The project has,a pedestrian connection to,: e s_ awalk "along Foothill Boulevard.,, Tetturized pedestrian connectia;t across the parking lot and amenities could be 'provided that would cn�turage; outdoor'pedestrian Activities: 4. Strmtseac6 Desi Streetsrape desige elements, for a pro it be, Coordinated for consistenq` . et 1 guidelines for Foothill Boulevard in effect at time of d eveel t, including intensified lan�scapf,1, wilt Specimen size trees, beraing, S.,End .w&ndering,­ sid mIks. In addition, street furAit.ire an:I alluvial rockscape and monument signs my I e LmVired where appropriate. Comment: Street trees and a meandering sidewalk wartr prov deir at the sit, as condituns oS' approval ,for,a ;._previous Conditional Use Permit.: The landscaping has not bee.4, maintained and will, therefore, need to 6e redone as mentioned In the` "Issues" Isection of this r+apart. The project, as proposed, does not provide the full ,,✓.g-foot required setback or landscaping required by the .Foothill Corridor' Interim Policies and the Development. Code. • � z��c � �i'�A�EF PR Bb-S r S§ REHRYT a Dece*ber 10, t9 6 {M-aa�4 3 St I11. CONCLUSION 'Staff recomends a determiration of consistency with the Mthi IT 6i4-,tdor Interim Policies with direction to modify thy• pe+o ect's desi!Tt:-,to comply wfth the Interim Policies. J .J, Res tfully'su tted, � ;. Brad BulTer City P1aQ_-cr OB CWte Attachments: sxhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map .ry 6Abit V -11_te Plan. Exhibit 801,) - Elevation-Plans 4 li ;T a U- , i 3t1i� Alf NvW113H cc � n toocc I j9c r.mQ k W t! �t3Za fj Ask Ic � <3 - S b Q c 1 I. 1cMj cc � 07 r UP dc 1-0 Lu m W ? a0 W e 0 [o� 3 a 2 W o cs � i ti a 3nN3nV GHVA3N!A f 1 ��7 OZ(fyam' �• „�Gam" �+'J; y or, i f�+t^e r r�U" a'r' ��i�.,. :'C�pflt�'.�4/✓R(. 1p NEI I i ,1 r Of t� 1 t , 1 1 1 .71 U�I z. 11 ry _1 s CITY OF RANCHO CU AMONGA STAFF REPORT -n O � DATE: Decefter 10, 1986 1977 ,S TO: Chairman and Member4_of the Planning Commission 4 k FROM Brad Buller, Ci•*y Planner BY: Dan Coleman, : n3or Planner SUB4ECT: VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH 'AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN - WILLIASi LYON C014PMY - Corsi deT-Atlon o an--Area Devel opmen an T-r the Weyards Village within the Victoria D?�anned ( xnunity, located south tof dighland, nest of DayCreek `-- - Boulevard, north of the railroaa tracks and east of Milliken Avenue. c I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIOM: f t A. Action Requested: Approval of a conceptual area developwent ' plan Tor the,vineyards North Village. j B. Purpose: To establish the future land use and circulation „ pa erns for the Vineyards North Village, C. Surrounding Land Use and Aonin North vacant property tfu ure Foothill Freeway);Caryn Planned Communitf South - Vacant; Victoria planned Community East - Ranch and vacant lard; Low Medium Residential' West Vacant property (fat,ure Groves Village); Victoria Planned Community D. Genera( Plan Desi `nations; roje'T i e ow e'l um Residential North - Low Reeldential South Low Medium Residential East - Low 14edium R'zi`_;:tial Wist - Low Medium+ R�sidontial and Medium High R"idential E Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and con`iins no structures or signiticavit yegetaion. II. BACKGROUND: A:central planning concept of the Victoria Planned ommun y s the creation of a series of �:aall village. Each village is to, function. as its own unique neighborhood, complete with its own central open space (parks) and community facilitie3 (schools/churches) as a focus. As a result, Victoria has been I, further subdivided into four subplanning areas or "vzllact': ITEM V A P PLANt XNr--/COMMr IwOk5,TAFF REPORT Victoria Vineyards OI rth Area Development plan 4 December 10, 1986 Page 2 The "Vineyards" village is the largest of the four gill i ges in terms of number of dwelling units and park acreage. ,The original community Olan for the Vineyards Vitligp indicated that the village would focus on a central active use park!with combined school and community facility adjacent to Victoria Park Lane. A large flood control-retention basin operated by the San Bernareino County Flood F . Control District occupies an area in the northeast portion of the site. The Southern Pacific Railroad bisects the southerly third of the village. The railroad tracks function to divide the Vineyards Village into two distinctive subareas. for planning purposes: Vineyards North and Vineyards South. III. ANALYSIS: The area plan tos originally review tl -by The' full 7Tannci'�r Commission at a Werkshop on July 1, 1985: "he mwor issues identified by staff Were privately owned land not under k control of the William Lyon Company, circulation, land use relationships, and park/school community facilities.. The direction' of the Planning Commission on each of .these issues is summarized in the attached minutes. The WfilliaM Lyon ccmpany has reused the area plan to address these issues. A. �utparcels:_. Sin:.e the approval �f the Victoria Coa-imuntty Plan, It as been discovered by the William Lyon Company, that an additional 40 acres .,of land in the northeast corner o" the Vineyards Village is bot under the ownership of the Wiiliam Lyon Company ;see Exhibit "0"). The Planning Commission's direction was that the approximately 80-acre outparceis should be annexed into the Victoria Planned-,Ca*,-. tnity-.for planning purposes and to ensure that deveTopme(a,� ° 'consistent with 'Ne design guidelines and standards of ttF :Planned Communtiy text. Tl-c proper procedure for an annexation would be for the City to int,_k e a Development District Amendment. Staff is requesting rt!,4nfirmation of the Cr omission's d;:rectior on s `si sue prior o s arting a s sic, en iin, process., B. Circulation: The original Vineyards Village plan indicated Both s.ree%: and trail connections to the outrarcels. The Planning Commissrrxn directed that streets shall be used to �nysically ron-ic and relate the outparcels to the Vineyat ft Village and traffic away from Victoria Pdrk L*ie. Per the Commission's Jlrection, a traffic study was prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer•. The previ6us trail connectior, L *,e cutparccls has been upgraded to an easterly entry road. C. Land Use. A key element of the Area, Oevleo ent` put 'Plan process is esEab"1'ishing land use patterns consistent with the Community Plan text. At the July 1, 1985 Workshop,, the Planning; C%mmission determined that ..wj_ on gi'nal area plan was satisfactory in terms or density_ distributions, density i La @ @ { i?eCS q PLRNiiil 91C ySs74 TC 'ST"AF'F REPORT Victoria`t�inwyards #frtir Area.Development Pan Y.' er I0, IgB6 Page 3 k ., r, fie transitions, and number of dwelling units per density I category. The proposed dens ity distribution in the Area Development Plan is cop si:stent with the original of:ia. plan ::1 concept, „both In terms of acreage, location and 'density transiitons. D. Parks/school s/,,Goxunu_n_i ty Facie i ties.' C�xrsnunity fa;:i cities are a primary Focz r po n an wT es a lisn the -tk-,Patic character for the,binhyardc Oftagd. ►4od"'fcations to the ci,f u"JAion to the community. Cur iij the Work��sIkN the Piahning 6 ission and land use, lam chum ea the rel `tionshi of these fa ilities had determined that the peroposed confiquration and locattorts of the parks witli csanbined facilities wa�i satisfactory] subjec is providing atwo-arse parcel adiaceht tb 'each school,7ac ea for a Community fii"cilii.,y .J! `day care center, church),; The Co�unitir Services ' Departmant and school d struts .have '.; conc-eptually,ppproved the size and location of the park'and school sites. In addi t ilpa, a 6 acre site has been.reserved,foie community ;,,use -adji�sent to Highland Avenue. Staff feels that' a_.5 acre.,site is more conducive to development of a preschool oKchurch use tha..�-two separz�6 acre sites. E, "'trails: The ma,7j0r ob3ectfve of the l�iceoria Community Plan is -o create a recreational trail system that encourages pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian circulation. . The trail , system is f6tended to provide uninterrupted connections from one residential area to ,another and to Lonnect with the t' Y'ictoria Park Lane Trail, and the regional. trail; system.° The following iftonsistenciles with the Victoria Community Plan were noted•, L A trail is required along Rochester Avenue to connect Base Line with Highland. , Z. "t.t'ivatell trails are proposed r4ithin two Medium Residential tcreas, whereas the intent 'of the Community Plan is to establish`a system of public trails. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission refer the, trails issue to t with the milli am Lyon Company Drier to submittal of individual tracts/,, aithirr t_he Virtayards Villace: t Y�� PLANH�ICD I� 0SaT,' F RENRi V i c t OgYi:a ineya ds" Wo�°th.Area Development P]an- ! rk Page ii > III i'OCOMMENDATIQN• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the"Area',1edelopment PI an for, the Vineyards-North�',Vil1ag6 and'refer th4rAa"is 1�'sue to: the Trails Advisory Committee.' Res fully s i. itted, Brad Buller Xity Pl anrrer l BB:DC:ns Attachments: Letter from William Lyon Company `l !i Planning Commission Workshop ilinu Exhibit "A" - Location Map ,s Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Plan Exhi btt "C' -"Approved Gommtlni ty Plan J Exhi W, "DI"- P;roposed;area Development Plan _> Exhibit "E" - Road Aligment 1' Exhibit 'F" - Street Sections` " ' Exhibit`"G" - land Use Summary- Resolution of Approval Aft a . tN' LYON of 8540 ARCHIDAID,$UITE'S RANCH(!CUCAMONGA.CA 91,730 • j714) 980-2244 � �x ,r September 3,1986 A z� 1VED. C{7'!OF R/1tiGHtl CURAMf?FiQA ; PLAN14ING PI ION A Dan Coleman AM City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Sox $07 7180 0tAVII-20AI46 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Subject: Victoria Vineyards North Dear Dan: Transmitted herewith are five sets of the area development plan submittal including a three hundred foot radius map and three sets of the adjacent land owners labels for any notifications theCity may wish to g le during the processing of the area development plan. { As we( }cussed briefly there is no application for this submittal process so we',, Jld l' klt to request the following,approvats as part of this submittal r land use designations and locations specific road alignment for inErestructure roads " - street sections for infrastructure roads ry land use locations for schoolfpark sites and community facility side i As you will recall we had a work shop on the Vineyards North last year. At this time it is my undersanding we would be proceeding directly to design review and from there to planning commission. Following your review of this submittal please noti2y me of any queations or additional information you might require as well as a schedule for design review committee. Thanks fot your help. Reg)ieetfully, f" Steven Ford {( Project 14anager F SF:sn REAUESTATE DEVELOPMENT V,5 SAti IaERN.4RDINO DWISICN ¢I P.O.Box 248,Etlwranda,Calif9mia+91739 F143.899-2451 .: November 2,.,1986 i Mr. Steven Ford The William Lyon Cotapany, - - 8540 Archibald Avenue Suite B R:.ncho Cucamonga, CA 91.730 p1 Dear Steven, Relevant to i'lur meetingztith Bill Holley y on Friday.(,Avedbe-r 7rh, t would like to rr6ff3rm that from my perspective the placement or,:th6 two school sites tend their adjacency to city parks seem to fill the`t', ` ✓— ' of the Etiwanda Si 6cl Dis trict. We were sa encauragtd by ''h e fact.; that the cityand txae school district wtl? be involved Wit)i T = Lyon Comany in plann'_ug the layout of tl:e two park sites. ,_'^his it particu- larly important to us so that we may.-,enter into an agreement with the city, and ao that it will utilize the land development in such r way as to fully-facilitate the'-needs of,both entities. As usual, it was I a pleasure working with a developer who has a genuine concern for the needs of the school district which will be serv- ing the children generated by the homes of The William Lyon:Zompany. Sincerely, f*t Carleton F. Lightfo Superintendent . CPL:rg t Board OG Trust R.G.(Jerry) Bre . .: . ;. Gary.R.Collins r;Y David W.Long Carleton P, Lightfoot Marshall S.Pruitt Superintendent Cecilia Sulodo tf> I PLANNING C"ISSIUN WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 1, 1955 VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Issuer Dutrar�c-e—l�s. How should outparcels not owned by the William Lyon Compary rR to the Victoria Planned Community? Options: a. ueselop outparcels independent of Victoria, subject to requirements of the Development Cvoe. b. Develop outparcels per Development' Code Standards, ?ut inrx,ude Master Plan Overlay designations to ensure harmonious development between the outparcels. c. Annex the catparcels as part of the Victoria Planned Community for planning purposes in conjunction with the area development plan for Vineyards North. Future development of the outparcels would then be subject to the de 0 gn gui del i nes and development standards of the Planned Community text. Action: The outparcels should be annexed into the Victoria Punned !.o riity fur planning purposes. Future development of the outparcels would then be subject to the design guidelines and development standards of the. Victoria Planned Community text. 2. Issue: Circulation. The adopted land use plan shows both street and trailconnectlons from the Vineyards to the outparcels west of Rochester. The proposed plan retains the trail connection, but no street connections are shown. Should or should not the Area Plan show street connections from the Vineyards to the outparcels? - Options . a. Develop street system to include an east-west connection north of Victoria Park Lane between planning area 'knd outparcels to the west. b. Strget system as proposed is satisfactory. , Action: Streets shall be used as a means of physical connection to relate the outparcels to the Vineyards and to divert traffic away from the Victoria Park Lane. A traffic analysis of the stuck area shall be completed to address the outparcels ana the: change in the circulation concept. L � t j Y 'E i , Alk r io r .,. Issue; Land Use. Are the proposed density dist ibut ns approp-IAEe R teraa of land use relationships (i.e., density 1 { transition) and numbers of dwelling units per density category? 0 t� ions• a. Revise land use relationships (i.e., density transitions). - b. Revise hand ::se distribution (i.e., acreage .and number of F dwelling units within each iand, use category). F ; c. 'Revise both land use relationships and land use distribution. d. Proposed plan is`satisfactory. Action: Proposed plan is satisfactory. ' 4. issue: Parks/Schools/Community Facilities. As stated in the lanned Commun-RY-TeUt— the par s sc oows M=unity facilities;are the primary focal point and will establish the thematic character for Victoria Vineyards. Aith the. wproved plan, parks/schools/community facilities are a major' element along Victoria Parkway, but with the amended resulting from the reduced Land area, the relationship, of.,_these facilities to the ccamunity and their impact on the image of Victoria Park Lane bas been changed. Does the current parks/schools/comity facilities,. network as proposed for amendment achieve the desired objectives as expressed by the Commission, or are revisions necessary? Options: a. Emphasize a strong centralized page space focal point by concentrating primary open space along the Victoria Park Lane per original concept: b. Disperse open space throughout the Vineyards to create sub- neighborhoods with the intent of having the community facilities equally accessible from all parts of the village. Action: a. Thp"proposed configuration and location of parks with combined facilities is satisfactory. b. A 2-acre parcel adjacent to each park/school area should be designated as a community facility and withheld from development for future use as a covr,,i ty facility (i.e. daycare center, ANk church, etc.). MW V-B t� 9 Y t TIM;, �Aws7 s I ^rY -�? Pam•a 00 ¢ UN 1 Aqo rT l rr� z �✓ 0. z CL 0 .000 it cr -el �,� 2 i t r. v P> /000/r t J. VWC MH +9 r ^,M •. LM 3 !tilt i C r. rM Lid LU K t t tllt y ,} �, ��-,s.:..irc - •�""�'""'.�,�""�� _ M .�yc+L .v �� h yeti L � ��``�\".•t�`4'� '( _LAND USE Lr-GEND RESIGO MAL La WIN 2-4WA LM \\`\� au. .- BON i _ ! Y 'to 4-2.'g07n COMMeERWL r �.KARNK k:LLTW OfFKt7COMiYlrppt' . , Ytiaif[COYMIRU.t 06NTtFT - OTMA UM - 3 �sWW1�Rii�i lUultaNTl.�]..�TION�� =3 o-oa O: VICTORIAVINFYARDS CCMM�1NITY PLAN t la ict r1a A Ptanm,I Community Ran cho ncho Cuc2monq> the aura TWO., aup land plannc^fs, s'^ 77 Ash _ LAW UM TAW—AM RESEENTIAL =� �-- ; L m4 AC9E4 SA fAWS �\ �^ ME w4o 42.7 AC.u 24CWAC i 1 LHw 126.48 At:. aia Arnim ^ SMS AM yl I d-i4.WAC " Lm ..rm�om.m 1 I �' bkLi4wa uA Ar- _M i j �.acAMM Kc 4''�� '--craw - T n s.�w° ! 9dG.CJTAt Y..5.:.A:. so AQCT fist^•M _� Ae USES Ati•.� ,� i j .scxaUtarlc s 28A AC. cawukin FlILlCS7`! $:9 AC.. V; ;v , ` a l I SUl"MAL LM LM Pl�B M STREEIS VII A� M.A MLLIMH �„M t91L�SSNiD ?.aOAC LM ;` i 3 °°CCU'"" off ° * I am" 2AA At:. St ACJCt 1. .~ ^� t7d5THt ,.'P RQAD 5.27 AC: 4-e CWAC �C j aaa ENW :bliAG yp m rArxm i ljiD Soul"IAW ROOM L IAA X S'UOTMAL XLW Atx • _.--� Lin q ` x�aoecc ,il A09M 3US ACAEd ru A7 211 rOAC 4M MAC 6-M I1YAC ..rGEM FU9tA'iE 7ilAi. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN � VICTORIA VINEYARDs No y `_ T NVILLIA-M LYON ,C®�ANY 8W ARCHMIM.SME B RANCHO Cuca-m zA,aimmomu 91730 omm.r.n. uacmAstasweuc: All Y ! �E f - MiloX. + v Las, fie 1 9 G � Z PZ6 1 a z � LU Z9 -- 2 31 rL R-1 Cl) AW `' '/ Q m 17, a Y co LLJtiff,'� . G; P VAEYAROS NORTi? ORIGINAL PROPOSED LAND USE AREA PLAN AREA PLM Total Residential 241.5 239.14 Low 44,0 _ " 42.7 Low Medium 119.5 124.48 Medium 58,0 58.56 '. Madius High 18.0>. 13.0 Schools lO y 11.0 Parks 15.0 15.0 Comunity Fecilities 4.6, 5.0 AMh Public Streets 1$.O*k 38.09' Total 284..5 308.23 s Includes .47 acres for freeway ,* Victoria. Park Lane. only Condssion required 2 acres atUacen't to each park/school area 1 ff ftiUltT-i' I CITY Or, j/m RANCHO CUCAtiIt7\GA Trr� -r--- I PLANT`UNG DIVISION EXHIBIT._ SCALE RESOLUTION'NO, A RESnLUT10N APPROVING VF,NEyV C THE THE R% CUC t� p NORTH DEVELOP�DNGA PLAN EAST OF M CLIP OU`EVq VILprE LOCATFO OUT PLAN FOR COMMIS 10N FN Ab'ENUE NORTH OF THE OF FROG H th ,1 WEST and by The wi)jfanm a loth day AND Planning WHEREAS on Yon Company°fOOceVi of8the comp, °m l' a ab°y'described p o n was Protect. °�issian .held loth day of � a Public hea�c mter, ,sect; I98e it follows: NOy, THEREFORE consider the Ra►tc the to the ahoy°,Cucamonga l SEGTIO Cucamonga Pl a described fill --" ��2r That annin I. the fol7awin g Cgs"Ission resolve it That O find#ni d as and eObJect'ves Pur of the Proposed canis in ss `an a met; 2. That Otsn�; and poses of thetoria accord district in Which Unity Tekt aPPlicabl Proposed a the use is Pub1i a they se, to viethe cl Lur- Useatah°prsafety,)lO�°t be etrimr with conditions y, and Pert;es welfare mental to 3. the t the prOpos or improvement the sa 1�ia�y C applicable ed use irovislos i the 4. Th"�nunity Text and De el ns of they V ct with of each Genera the pia rOPosed ode; and a Planned Villa SEA tION 2e Th su4jat Area pr0,�e_t 1s' consistent With 9e is PProv P—�ING DIMS�N� to theef jj0w�n9 Conn.for, Virtu the I• That i~� condition, ria Vineyards cone North Ss�ignationptual approval] ]ocation for a Ions locations l0 location's specific for the All °unity fac o sitPhooljpar silntsand an d ResolPertinentilitor road rkignments d ution gl_z� shall aof approval tes and conditions Pply, as contained in Restd14iton Na r , o Area_ �er�elpment Plt for , Victoria Yinbyards North Village Page �. L l 1 i• APPROVED,AND ADOPTED THIS IOTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1P036. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THL�-CITY_OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: >E. David-Barker, Chal roman ATTEST: area u er, epa y;, cre ary _. I, Brad Bigler Deputy..-,Se cretary of ,s Planning ComMssion- of the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly i6trodgced, gassed; and %iopted by the Planning Commission of the City w:°-Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the:PlanniC Coission held on the loth dar-of December, 198.6 by the following dote-to-wit: �. AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Ask NOES: CCU ._-t_ONERS #( ABSENT: CONHISS�QNERS: i A /J J ` E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT t O O R E_ Z R DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the 71arning Colnnfssion FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior P?annex SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING Fi IRRIGATION STANDARDS" I. ABSTRACT: The City of., Rancho Gaca!rronga is one of the fastest H gr9—"wing cities in the Ste+e. Not surprisingly, meter Is becari:ig E an increasingly limited andcostly resource.. The City's General t Plan zalls for the encouragement and ,nromotion of programs to conserve water.C,' The General`- PI-0states that the City should continue to support the Cucamonga `,County (dater District's efforts to encourage water conservation by promoting drought resistant,` c low-maintenance vegetation. This .report presents for your consideration various techniques that couid> be implemented to conserve water ir, the landscape environment. fr 11. BACKGROUND: A_ great potential exist'. for water sartligs through the r use of water conservingplants and irri i p , gat on systens. Certainly one of the most effective and simple means is .by requiring appropriate, landscape materials at installation. - Fortunately, t Southern Cal.-noenia 'is one of the leaders in developing attractive " new plant varieties, efficient irrigation equipment''and techniqu4', to minimize the consumption" of water in urban landscapes. r_. Developers and landscape architect; have a wealth of local resource available iu help them comply with low water use design standards., Landscape architects and builders should consider Tow water using pis nts, reducing the areas of unnecessary turf (a particularly water thirsty component in any landscape), placement of plants together according to their water needs, using appropriate irrigation systems, and developing a seasonal watering schedule based upon the plant's actual „eeds. III. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION: Due 'o the increasing demand for water and the mi a supp y available in cur ,ounty, low water usage landscaping should be encouraged in rew developments. ` Specf'fic means to achieve a reduction in water use in landscaping are outlined below: ITER W rV hFF Ri PORT > — --�-�. , �:1-•� Laadscapi�i44jrrigatir*r Standards rµ, December 10; 1§86 4, A. Low Water Usage Plant Materials. Two important aspects of it wa ter,-onsery ng an scape are; —ill pl accarent or groupings of plants;"and (2) appropriate locatien math ;respect to slope and ur, exposure. , many :r'ants,,that are 'nott strictly 1 ',, grater using, can be grouped together in 'confined:&eas, or Wf'zed in 0 the shade, to reduce,#eir water needs. Plants must be`grouped ,y according to the `aaaqunt of water.they need, and irrigated acq�,dingly, to;Assura actual water savings. The servicen of a landscape architect" can }provide the expertise In this area. r R r`ne attached plant lsi (Exhibit mA") contain, car+nonly availaole low water using plant watiirials suitable for most areas in this ^.ity. ioder lcv water usage plant varietiet 1 could be considered if tecomended;py a California Registered r; Landscape Architect, B. Turf.Areas, Turf typically re,quires.more :water than leer waiver usage ground covers and shrubs. Marge .areas of t4trt should therefore t%y discouraged. Large areas approved for turf would require the use-of lower water usage turf varieties. While it is recognized'that a lush green appearance As desirable, turfed areas should be used as designed "events, in -the landscaping rather than as a green carpet upon which' everything else ts`" placed. This concept could be achfeved by framing,the turfeP, areas with ground cover (see Exh;bit T'), This practices weal greatly reduce the turfed urea` and result In a er & .greatsign importance to the turfed area. It would be sir,,11ar to mounting a small picture with a large frames. The frame,in'tonsifies the importance of the subject. This concept Mould result in smaller turfed areas of much greater design significance to the overall theme. G. Hardscape: City Rol i y encourages, but dees riot require, \tithe Use o ardscap� elements within the landscape. HArdscape areas, such as natural alluvial roc*,,, can be used effectivei.y_ to conserve water and reflect the Community's natural environment. Hardscape can also be used as a framing element for turfed or ground Cover/shrub areas. A stronger policy regarding the use of hardscape can significantly reduce the area of lanuscaping that requires irrigation, D. Irrigation {stems: Low precipitation heads properly located o m n7m..ze an -cape water over-spray onto unptanted areas and areas of dissimilar .water needs shall be encouraged. Drip irrigation is now a viable alternative suitable for irrigating the urban envfranment. PLiItINI G,-,COI�P9 �. ONs AC:F REPOO Landscagrofig &��°r g�l�,i'�h �ta�►.i,�rds - Recember`I0, ��� .'� , Page 3 . E. Maineodnce and, Matt: Schedule. A post instal'.dation ma r. cnance pt'ogran� a mg,-er ng' schedule,, for,-the ongo{ng. iruenartce qqF 'faiIar need areas is er,, urage . Similar need refers tO pl�ltite� ar as with simiT r characteristics viffecting water need, (f.e. sun vs: shade., flat ws. si,ope's, toe vs. ground covers . Time`schedul'e s, - d con'f`der water beods'based on, average seasonal`'con-iittons. °'Again, the seriieas of a 1a`Nd4zape architect can provide expertise'in this area. r IV. RECOMENDATION: ,'To address the need for water conser�.tion and to eFi1'p'-dYr—e-cT�ie mature of ia6escapinq is the Ci$y, staff recommehds, that the Plann-0yg an Div#s ,prepare a d"etai9ed set of landscape guidelines that vncorporat4-,the, de's'cribed-abave.. .. .:� fully' su ted, du%er City Planner p, BB•OC:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A° o Low dilater Using Pi anjis Exhibit "B" Turf Area Alternatixe� .i I i i r 3 f i Alm t JOJ4 ra ++a +qaa I + t- I ++ ellas®ulm, aaa '4112 a+Co+ + t oC +0+00 2.11maulinm coo ffss LU altos sulm I lace I + I I I C7 1 I I I 'Jtti o++0 4 +c sf1oll+ 11'nilQ 1 a a a tat + I + t I 3ii t t + i Ufm I * + + I + +.b'+ I #+ +0. PUNM i ++09014 1 , 1 I t I ,-i Z WOOM ++ ++ y +to , c + ++ to /lt> rah + +a + ++j 9 0 JUL luft" to jq fill v LL N c�q c3 W z n Lu C. 2a.w 1A a E ® rH c ui tj tn mww a ..� 4 �ti - o-o o a o +0 0 0 0 + i + s114y�El� 30 i oa ( oti o000o t 0 C o t co I + +' 11 I. t y e , sll�auli�lls o000 + + l o+ oao I + I ++ +oo t + + I I t + w Pulm o +eso + 3 ooa a000e++++ + o + ++ oe�oo Unalinl + ++Oo +-o+++ +000 ++ ++ + I ++oo ++ + + I 1804 0 +00 + +000 oaoo'o + +++ a+ + ++Coco + v!i �61IV�(4 + ++ + + 1 10 1 + ++ +00 1 1 I + + + t + I + +o + + + V uGwD*.'0064 + +tbp+a o I Q c® -'ca + I '+ ++ + +Oo + + 1 + + + 104U00 uClEo�a t /sedols 1 + I l c ++ 1 0 +o + 1 +0 + + 1 1 + ++ +o ( J G uaatr:•{Dads Isnwfpul'waaas 1 0 + +:,+ 1 I + + 1 :+o 0 0 1 0 1 + t 1 1 t + t + slapAg +la c 1 1 1 I 1 1 + i 1 l o t I + f 1 1 i l l '1'+ 1 aCL l t K � � U s CL = e �t2o w a to LL z u. - +0 1 U 9 s 00 Cc qp1 E G C E ti i40 e b d � ear 'air mgJag '� 3E �� € � 2 � Id a` a I'stS `c VV-8 lu :1 a P— OF- U qtaa Agp i ailuQetNlas � + ti Una IN + 3904 C+ 4 eiE t?jml4 . ,.Qa �ss z + U Pulooa uo + t " UWAROWds r larl+�lpul Wwoo Z� c3 Cl aem yam . a � 6 9 $ o v IIo+ Iri + Itol + + +o I I I- I. "M + I t + I I I I O > e � ME 3 e ? a � 0 $ c e � ® �o L° e i ME cp v sE c � a o E'E W-& a .vy AIL a Q 0 -o �o 0 a 0 i e oe i G3 Y�1 N all"491* 1 ++o oaodo + +a® 1 I t + t+ +'I + +aau I �IK>s�lRa oacoo 97c+ + l o +o a®O + ++o+o 0000 BIRs$0111Wlie +ODo o " + + + O C+ O O+ + + i-+t +ut d +A++ Is 5owt o ++a+OaOaa + ++Oo ++an+ + '+ + +a +0++ ' I_ UIIaJIM +OO+ +t.+oo + o+ + + + +++ + +.+.+ + +++0+ + IG04. "PUMA OOOQ + 1Q++ 1. +++ + t +OO+ ttO+O + fOCs f W. UM195- +qt9 r? } 0+00 CO +'t ++fit0 i 10a0 1 t IO ! L a I �o 0 ++ + + +O O O +.+. . . .t +cc I t t+ t t,+ +O + IL L LL. VAIF 94md +00 ++ +O+ +'+ + + I 1 t + +oo + +o + ++ + + I + + Qa � z AmLQ " o &0w� pe 1 2 ice-• _. .�. [own" Ell, 1a+o 11 I ao 1 100 1 1 0000 $Iiftsult" I oao 0000 1 +,1 a9 1000 +-aoo, *coo m Z e:Iitx Sulhlt� 10++'. ++++ aO0 + tOoa + .+ t 0000 t +Oo} ,y.000 •hO + •#0+ + + OGo.+ um11ni #+++ + }+ ++o ++ + + + +i• }} + + ++ + + + }o + ]sad Coco O O a +O 1 O o}+O + +O O O}+ ++ 1 1 +O ;UTA4 0.0 +0 } + +.+.J.z 0 + + t . + I } I 0 ++ + +GrOo + t � Llp�,t`p o ++ I o +o'o,o 0 1 ++ +o a 1 +O J 1 I o •h 1 o i 1 +.aOO +oc+O } + L + + I + +11 1 + .1 1 + to UISWIDO&V `� •ice }++a + + �a+ok ++ t SUMW;glxtlai cc 1 + + 1 + +t + +a I 1 P�+ 1 + ++ } i � a ci ama C� 4 a= $■aWLL Ita. �; f EE +o I 3aaia` m I. 3 - IfEl bM.SE ,gam ■ _& � E xxaa 0.9 Of tic Yaz B ac« a �mma� fat=3 t C, STANDARD DESIGN 9A iNG VEF-M-S ARE ACROWS TURF To SHH"3 r AND BUMqjNG 'RHRUDS AROUND R ri VIEWS ARE �PARKING®RAW ! TC TURF AREAS SHRUBS RF GROUND COVER j/ � CITY OF CHO�CUCAMONGA T"F RE, OT t n _ z DATE: December 10, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the 'Planning Commission FROM: 8a r£�;#e R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engirt--r E SUBJECT: Poi1;, for Undergrounding of Exist no•'-,Overhead Utilities - Possible lrxCeptians ••r- I. BACKGQOUND: On November 12, 1986, staff, presente'Vto the Commission repot on possible exemptions to the general undergrounding policy. The ., � consensus of the Commission was that a list of exempt projects appeared to be an appropriate methad to be use's Commissioner McNeil requested th opportunity to explore possible methods of a6taininr, at least a part ialcontribution from exempt projects. No progress oh'this proposal has been made as of the 'writing of this report. If available, an oral.fpresentation will be made at the Planning Commission meeting. II. DISCUSSION: The proposed list of exempt projects submitted to the omm�issi'on is contained on Exhibit "A". The consensus of the Commission was as follows: 1. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 should be retained on the list, z therefore exempt from the policy. The 25% and 5000 square foot I option was preferred for item 2., l 2. .-Items 7,9, and 10 should be removed frim the list, +,nerefore subject to the policy. 3. The intent of Item 8 was not clear''to the Commission. Staff was directed to attempt to rewrite it more clearly for reconsideration by the Commission. Staff was unable to detielop what was considered clearer wording; therefore, hot,)fully an explanation of its intent will suffice. The purpose of item 8 was to exclude small residential subdivision (parcel maps) which are located" in developed neighborhoods where there is little chance of existing utilities on adjacent property being undergrounded by development contribution. A revised list reflecting the above comments is contained on Exhibit "B". ITEM X �•-�eiar�^m?�,.'m. s�,�r ..- ��s� y .tea.- .. -" .-n"�`' :..,ti',, Planning Cammivsbn Staff Report I Policy for-`Undergroundi,ng of Existing Overhead Utilities +' neebmber 10, 1986:a: Page 2 ;r III. RECOMdENBATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider an appropriate approve the proposed list of exempt projects. Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH`dlW Attachments: (Exhibit "A" Previous List _ (Exhibit "B") Revised List I r - u - _ GA'1'.7Yfit TfiWGl+ir ��s�-- " i. The addition .of functional uipmartt to exs,ing developments, such as loading docks, silos. satiite �ishs, antennas, wafer tanks; air conditioners, 0661in9,.Ao�ors, encomium of an outdoor storage area., parking and losdinoiareas, block galls and,.+er�ces,. etc 2. Building aQ<"eons or nor frO standinq Guil'rdin��s of les-";i,;:n, ? % of the floor area of,the (Misting ,biuildlr�d u,oa tFx saw assessor's,Qarcel, or ? SAv*r a .vdsicha++sr`i9 as z' a NQT�ss i�`� 40, 00ks. 25V and A t}0g siiusre feat versus. 50%,.ao'd 1Q;f00 1' square felt ,� way tkva ep�ent U;Ma. 3, Exterior upgr d,*, u -ep Or,of'tkisting developnkeoets, -ruch as: reroofing, addition_®f trails;. +rtIs, landscaping, equip�mnt screening, repainting and exterior finis6i'6,�, Qt-� c, 4. Interior ienant i*pro&M *4.ts. ,5. Non-constructions .: 0. 6. The Al ctvtstructlaas o� i'zr f � v residence on an existing parcel. fµt j?&Vtte -�7. The Design Revie :: tnrW"-40"1V,-ipproved siflgle family res^idential subdIvidions. �1 w8. /e%sds ..—�— *eatk0dWs. iwer tit Tim ex at least,,foor or Mir � isilslts+A both Week the pa�ecia; is eodar4; and the adjaao ', is�etat likely to CW"ibute to Aftre hUndrerg /& �a--,9.. Thoso,parcels a of 'sutidivigidn which are devejped and 9" acen�:puht� , F street improvements are existing to City Standards. --0 10. Time extems�s ?or previously:apdroved projects. 11. Euistirog'wisOb i utiNti linens_ loca$ad, in-�trails, alloys, and utility easeoeents idth a heavy a enrLratioe of services to,adjacent nt developments, WA the=utility iinvs are 5@0' or more from,the right of way lice of a }.cpeeial Ilouulg�hrcE. Exempt Project Lis" 1• The addition of functional equipment tj existing developments, such as. loading-docks,' silos, f/atellite dinh­, antennas, water tanks, air, C conditioners, cooping ;lowers, enc :.4 of an outdoor storage area, parking and:lvaftg areas, block walls and fences, etc. 2. Buildifloor ng i the er new free stands buildings 1 g g � cf 'lens than of � 'sting buildingts� on the same assessor's parcel, or 5,00E square feet, whichever is less. 3. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing developments, such as: ' rsrooff'ing, additii- of trellis, awnings," landscaping., equipment screening, repaintirfg and exterior finishes, etc. 4. Interior tenant imptovamdhts: ; 5. Nan-construction CUPS.. 6. The construction of a rIngle family re0dence on an existing parcel. 7. Existing overhead `u'tility lines located in trails, alleys, and utility easements with a- heavy concentration of ` services to adjacent developments, and the utility Tines are 500' or more from 'the right: of way line of a Special Boulevard. 8. Residential subdivisions= of four or fewer single falliVy residential parcels, where the utility lines extend at least: 6001 'offsite from both the project boundaries and the adjacent property is not likely to contribute to future undergrounding. • i List reflecting the Commission's preferences.