Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/04/08 - Agenda Packet0701 -02 0 4-8 -87 PG Agenda 1 ' �%C t, 0 s� G ? CrrY OF R.ANC;r'c0 CL GibiC tiG (� j �! F U a ! ENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY April 8, 1987 7.00 p.m. LIONS PAaK COMMUNMY CENTBR u: 91611 BASE LINE , RANCHO CUCAN0141GA,, CALIFORNIA L Ple"ofAllegianft IL Ro11 Call • Commisdpner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Emerick Commissioner Tolstoy ILL Announcements ;i W. Consent Calendar Tlrf "allowing Consent „^olendar items Z.ra-expected Zo be routine and ' nora . +a"versial.. They 441 be acted on by the Com'rrdissiofi at one tiri'dr without discussion. If anyone has concern elver any item, it I should be removed for discussion. A. TilMIS EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12873 - PARAGON €1UNHI - ­A, total residential development of 30 singe family cue- °.sched homes on 60.5 acres of land in the Low - Medium Density Resideaitial District (4 -8 dwelling unitslacre), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, between Lemon Avenue and Banyan Street - APN 201- 271 -26, 30, 44, 45, 46 and 47. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 -2 BARNES he develos nent of a 1 -story 10,560 square foot multsyenant building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3''.` of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the , northwest corner of 9th Street and Helms Avenue - A 9 209-022 - 12. C. RESOLUTION FOR VARIANCE 87 -02 - DECKK DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce the side and front yhrd setback areas, and to exceed the height limitation for a proposed 11,000 square foot office build °ng at 9113 Foothill Boulevard in the Office Professional District located on the south side of Foothill BJ ulevard, west of Heilman Avenue, and east of Vineyard Avenue - - APN 208 - 241 -09. "n L, 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION 3'O CONDl'1IONAL I3SE, PERMIT 85 -37 - MASCARENAS „- ,The request to &o`v a 1 approved conceptual Piaster Plan rom one restaurant pad to'�fha�ywelopment of a 2,100 square foot fast food drive- through resaatw 4t and a 1,750 square foot retail building on 0.84 acres cf land within a 9 acre approved shopping renter in the General Commercial District, located at the notthwest corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive - APN 1077- 401 -22. J. IyIODIFIC'ATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - GkRN ED - A � request tom a condition of approval requirilig the addition of one floor plan with elevations for a previously approved tract consisting of 172 single family lots on 34 acres of lani1jn the Low - Medium Density Residential District (4 -8 dwelling ;" its per acre), located at the er.,d of 19th Street, south of Highland 7enVe - APN 202- 211 -36. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13443 - WILIdAM LYON'- COMPANY - A residential tract subdivision of 31.28 acres in the Law - Medium Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), within the Victoria Planned Community into 144 lots„ located on the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park I;ane -.APM 227- 011 -01, 02, 03, and 227- 081 -01. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13444 WLLLLAM LYON COMPANY - A residential tract subdivision of 46.91 acres in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), within the Victoria Planned Community into 176 lots, located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN 222- 011 -01, 02, 07 and 227- 081 - 01; 08 09, 10. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13270 - LEWIS HOMES - A total development residential subdivision of 24.19 acres within the Terra Vista Planned Community (Medium - High Residential, 14 -24 dwelling unit` per acre) into one lot for condominium putposes for 384 dwelling units, located on the northwest corner of Hilliken Avenue and Church Street - APN 1077- 421 -15. N. TENTATIVE TRACT 13342 (REVISED) - PANNON DEVELOPMENT The development of 72 single f amily detached hones, on 11.6 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and i9th Street APN 202- 193 -13, 23. (In addition, applicant has requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove 6 Eucalyptus trees.) / V. Public Heerings . The following items are public hearings in watch concernetr.'JividuaLt may voice their opinion of the related project. Please' wait to be recognized, by the Chairman and adaress the Commission by sta irg your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited`to 5 minutes per individual for each project. D. ENVIRONMEN'i'AL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-08 (AMENDED) - P'ET AG A request to waive the maximum height requirement o 50 eet for an extendable radio antenna to allow an existing antenna to be extended to 72 feet on a..47 acre r parcel in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling urdts/acre) located at 5327 Carol Avenue - APN 1061- 111 -19. (Continued from March 25, 1987) E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL NuAP 10393 - KE H /LUSK COMPANY -* A subdivision of 79.2 acres of land into 33 parcels ill the Industrial Perk District _ (Subarea 16), located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 4th Street - APN 210- 062-13, 11, 02. 26,, 33, 22.. Related �ile: DR 85 -37. (Continued from March 25, 1u87 nteeting) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86 -30. -BROWN LEARY The development-of-0 80 bed acute psychiatric hospital, approximately 53,000 square feet of floor area, on 6.12 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northeast ^orner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN 208- 351 -42. (Continued from February 25, 1987) G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 10208 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -A @vision of 13,.56 acres into 2 parcels within the ro-w- Medium (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) Development District loce'.ed on the south side of Feron Boulevard between Ramona Avenue and Turn Dr Avenue - APN 208- 085 -02, 03,, and 14. Fl.. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12830 - CITATION - A request to delete a condition of approved requiring a modifled cu1 ue-sec to be constructed at the north end of Garnet Street for a previously approved tract consisting of 103 single family lots on 21.41 acres of land' in the Low - Medium Density Residential District (" dwelling um s per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, north of Base Line Road - APN 202-251-0.1 1 O. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW' 84 -22 (AMENDED) LAN UNTSEN .. MASTER PLr_N - 'TAU 1tSE CONSULTING GROUP - An amendment ' to the approved Master Pla,i text sgec` ying a prevision for a w major open spnice area of *1000 square feet within the western ` portion, of .Phg,',e III on approximately AO acre of land located z ; north of High ,pmd Avenue, =south side of Lemon Avenue, east or a f Haven Amenue) VL New 13usine Est P. ENVI OII',IENTAL ASSESSMEN2' AiND 3?FVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-37 - ks18[TH /LUSR COMIPANY -The dev. �pment oi? a Plaster Plano A,, 79.17 acre industrial park consisting of 33 lote'"in the Industrial ;Vark District (Subarea 16), located at the northwest quadrant.;ol 4th Street and Archibald Avenue - APS 210- 062-02,: 11, 13, 26, IjM AND 336 Related File: PM 10363. (Continued from March 25, 4',98T meeting) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMANT AND DEVELOPMENT REY.IEW 87 -03 - DIQ1KE - WA%MINQTON -The design review of el ev{ a on ` andand detailec sm pi l . n oroposed satellite buildings totaling 13,800;, squive II, feet within a 15.3 acre approved integrated shopping CzJet r, =In a Neighborhood Comme°,cial District of the Terra V14ta V0,111}�tnied Community, located rltlhe northeast come <,' of Base Lino 314-ti and Ha PN 202- 801 -26, '?�i� R. F.NVIR 8NTAL /ASSESSVENT AND DEVELOPMENT REYlisw 87 -0$ - 1E2TERN PROP> ERT1ES - The development of an office park consisting d our 2 -story buildings totaling 250,000 square feet on 16.58 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, loc:ateo at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive -- A?N 1011- 421 -06 �9, -nd .09. (Related to this project is Tree Removal Permit requesting thy- removal of three groves of Euclayptus ides (approximately da trQes) within the site. VIL DirecWs Relxaris S. CHAFFEY SCHOOL DISTRICI' NEW HIGH SCHOOL SITE - Pursuant to State law Education Code B004), the Ch ey Joint Union High School District requests the Planning Commission to " comment on a proposed high school site located on the northwest corner of future Victoria Pack Lane and Rochester Avenue. T. RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT P90JECT AREA AMENDMENT r N .Adoptior► of, the Resolution approving the amended Redevelopment Plan as it relates to its conformity with the z UeMeral Plan and review of the Draft Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report for the. Rancho Redevelopment Project krea Amendment No. 1. " U FOOTHILL BQULEYARD SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY - A � presentation of the draft Specific Plan Tor the Foothill Boulevard Corridor wlt ,a brief description of fhb plan formulation process " 6d its gene i& policy d;.teclou. The purpose of this presentation ` is to '- introduce the Pli maing Commission to tt�e status of the proji�et and to establish further review format aii�kpublie heating .! schedule. V. PLANNING DPASION ',,WORK PROGRAM Oral Report " VM Cr mi s:at3 Busimm W. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO SERVE. ON REVIEW PAI EL k TRAILS STUD x - Oral uteport IBC. Public Comments j This is_.the time and place for the general public t& address the Comm6siom Items to be d!scussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. X. Adjournment I The Planning Commission has adopted. Administrative Regulaticns tnet set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. It items go beyond that tune, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I i F 1 ICU E Y AP t i k� `i- F." r SI PHE"I OF INFLUENCE t 9i r i CITY OF RANCHO +CUCAMON e 1A DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: V211 WX ►bi1114 V JUVtILVI IN%xii GvCjM0 STAFF REPORT a v � april 8, 1987 1977 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, city Planner Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 12873 - PARAGON - A total residential development of 3 single family detached homes on 60.5 acres of land in the Low- Medium Density Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units /acre), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, between lemon Avenue and Banyan Street - APN 201 - 271•.26, 30, 44, 45, 46, and 47. I. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 12873 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 12, 1985, for a two year period. The applicant has since recordad the , "irst phase of the tract, has constructed 30 units within Phase I and is in the process of obtaining building permits for 49 additional units: The applicant has indicated that the second phase of the tract should be recorded within two months. The third phase, however, can not be recorded within the original two year period resulting in the request by the applicant for a one year time extension. II. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the time Extension request and has reviewed the tract map for compliance with the Development Code and General Plan. Based is :)on this review, staff has determined that the tract map is in substantial compliance with the Development Code. In reviewing the tract map for compliance with the General Plan, staff notes that the Planning Commission has recommended a change in the land use designation for property in the vicinity of the tract. On March 25, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended that the property east of Chaffey College be changed from Low- Medium to Low Density Residential. In that the tract is not adjacent to the property proposed to be changed, staff feels that the change will not adversely impact the tract's compliance with the General Plan. ITEM A 1 PLANNING COWItSION STAFF REPORT TRACT 12873 (11ME EXUNSION) PARAGON / April N, 1987 t Page 2 w. III. RECOt (d1A ?MNe Staff recogmends that ,,the Planning Cemmission grant a one year extension aF time through adoption of the attached resilution. Respe uliy subni#ed , d Brad Bull City Pla ear B8 :SM:te Attachments: Letter From Applicant Exhibit "A" _ Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tract Map i R, a a March 2, 1987 Mr, Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 93'20 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA Subject. Tentative Tract No. 17873 Request for Extension Dear Mr. Murphy: On behalf of Paragon tiomes, Inc, request is hereby made for a one year extension of the approval of teiltrytive tract No. 12973. Tentative approvdi of the subject tract will expire 0 n June 12,1987.x ease I (Tract No. 13117) AN&L has been recorded and Phase IT (Tract Nc. J3118) WIJ reco�4, ✓thin two months. circumstances beyond the control of Paragon Nomes have delayed the re-,ordation of the second and final (3rd) phases._ Said circumstances involve off -site, ,-clght-ok=way acquisition for Lemon Avenue and constructlor' of master planned storm drain N& 4P. Construction of said master planned storm drain. No. 4P is presently- scheduled 0 be performed under Assessment District Nr). 86-2 and the deyflopment of th-, adjoining Property along, Lemon Avenue has resolved the right -of�way problem. Although the problems h;Ne becA mitigated, there is not sufficient time to record the last phase of the tract before tentative approval expires. For this reason, we respectfully request a Cne Year extension. Very truly yours, 01 W4 Al Velasquez Av.jg d: PC 5 WdM 712XDiamondBarBlvct DiMmdBar.QAi(ornf* 91765 (714) 594-2943 a (818) 912-53, A-3 Ik k f., y{ f. NORTH CITY e NU a ITEM:.. PLANNING M'ISiOi,J EXHIBIi---�YSCLE: i In MUM . KA Ig R 01A x A�-* 4 �iliw-�� b =791vwk- ;,y-7,40 CITY OF rrL\I.. RAINCHO CUCAMONGA � �y PLANyI \G MISON EXHIBIT: � 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12873. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time ext --hsion for the above - described project pursuant to Section 17.02.090; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above described Tentative Tract. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following? n Zngs, A. The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with. the City's current General °Flan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Oolicies; and, B. The extens np of the Tentative Map will not cause significmtl,lnconsistenciey with the current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances,' -Tans, Codes and Policies; and, C. The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause pubi,ic health and saFety problems; and, 0. The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a t extension for, Tract ,Applicant Expiration 12 &73 Paragon Homes June 12, 1988 APPR -AD AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY, Larry T. McKie , Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ND. TIME Eft V%ON 'f ACT 12873 - PARAGON April Ski' X87 Page 2 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Pla, ~nin Commission o the t Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution Nras duly and { regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning C`;mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held r on the 8th--.-� ►y of April, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: APES: COMISSIONERS: HOES: ��COMI'SSIONERS. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 I El L E f1TTTT AT1 Tl 1 `.Tf'�TT/\ n vi+. a vi• a�ratwaav yuvi9 rivly �.T,y. 'CAM I O �. � t Q DATE: April 8, 19$1 1977 TO: Chairman an"embers of the Planning Ccission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Westman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEli 85 -39 - e eve" lopment or a 1,srory 0,560 square-T-6-of multi- nant building in the General Industrial District (Suba.ea 3), of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of 9th.: °treet and Nelms Avenue - APN 209 - 022 -12. ' I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A,, Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration„ B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: or - nu ac uri ng� , General- Industrial South - Multi- tenant, General Industrial East - Manufacturing, General Industrial West - Multi- tenant, General Industrial C. General Plan De, gnations: Project Site - neral industrial North - General industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial - West - General Industrial 0. Site Characteristics : The site is vacant, relatively flat with no significanE vegetation. There are existing o>ildings on the adjacent sites north and west and on the sites across the streets to the east and south. All street improvements have been made for 9th Street and Nelms Avenue; however, drive approaches and sidewalks have not beer, constructed on the projact site. ITEM 8 7 I� PLANNING COM N R1,ART �',�Slo STAFF DR 86-39 - BNES April 8, 19��T�, Page 2 It, ANAI,XS�IS: A. General- The applicant is requesting environmental assessment., fo—r—a--M,560 square foot building. The project Is intended as a multi- tenant speculativ­-,_-�Iease buildir�-; Upon approval of the Negative Declaration" the City PL�'dft�r will grant final approval of the project based on conditions recommended by the Design and Technical Review, Committees. The Design Review Committee 4'Chitiea, McNiel, Buller) reviewed the project on March 19, 1987 and recommended that it be forwarded to the Planntng Commission with,the following revisions: 1. The trash �enclosure; bicycle storage and the electrical transformer:, should be relocated to the norl;swest corner of the site. The traosformer shall be screened by -khe trash encl"ure and/or shrub plant_..ng. 0 2. T& employao lunch co6rt should be incorporated into the area at the northwest corner of the building, low screen walls exposed aggregate paving and special tree and shrub planting shall be integrated into the design. 3. One of the r 1 up doors on thy north building face should be eliminated, the remaining door shall be located at the asst end of the 4orth building face. 4. All roll up doors shall be pzdnted to match the primary building color. 5. In order t/) create vertical relief at the office entry the, recessed areas shall be increased in heignt, the accent band tho,04 frame that area creating a visAl jog upward (See Exhibit W. 6. The glass areas both at the recessed office entrance and at the outer building face should be extended from the finished floor up to the color accent band and be wrapped around tia corners (See Exhibit C). 7. The hardscape at the office entries should be extended well into the setback area and incorporate ex;`-sed aggregate paving, low walls and special landscaping i.e., specimen size accent trees, flowering shrubs and gromod cover. 8. The parapet wall should be tall enough to screen any- roof equipment which woUld be installed along with tenant improvements. 31, Ex PLANNING COMMIS'SION 5rAFF- REPORT DR 86� :39 BARNS. f / April S. 1987 Page 3 C. Environmental Assessment: Pmts I and II of the Initial Study ave been coup e e an no significant impacts have been found u, related to the construction of the proposed building. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use ie consistent with the enera Flan an n ustrial Specific Plan. The building design and site plan together with recommended Conditions of AForoval are in compliance Keith the Industria? Specific Plar aid all other atipl'icable City Standards. TV. REC WENDAT ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Co�trnission issue .a negac�ye- eTaration for DR 86 -39. Res; fully"s ed, Bra u er City Planner BB:CW:sgr Attachm4nts: Exhibit W - Location Map Exhibit °B" - Site Plan E.Oibit "C" - Revised Elevations ti ! y 1_- 71 I'. 1 l l 1 NORTH PLANNING DiVIS4N . H[ti T SCALD-1--4 -Af MATH CITY Of. rrr-\I.- . -R,AINCHO Cucm axGA Tn LE= _ � l T ��, CITY, Of. RANCHO CUCAI�vjoNGA PLANNING DI %IMN PS �Gs G NORTH rre,�c= _`x— r� 1? E CITY OF RANCHO CUC" -ONGA Gvcn�ro RTAFF REPORT H � z DATE.' 4april 8,, 1987 ` 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Hestman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 87 -02 - DECKK DEVELOPMENT A request to reduce the i a yard setback area, ana the front yard setback and to exceed the height limitation for a proposed 11,400 square foot office building at 9113 Foothill Boulevard in an Office Professional Di Strict located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Heldman Avenue and east of Vineyard Avenue - APN 208- 241 -09. RELATED FILE: DR 86 -46 J I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a'public hearing on March 5, 1987, o receive public testimony. The Commission determined that the findings 4listed in the attached Resolutiom of Approval were sufficient to 3ustify,8ranting a Variance request for setbacks and height limitations. A variance in parking was also originally requested, however the site plan was modified at the Planning Cotmission hearing which eliminated the need for that request. The Commissions directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for adoption at the next Commission meeting, II. RECUMMENOATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and - 06pt the attached Resolution of Approval. - Res tfully i tted, /4Brad 8 ter City annex BB:CW:tA ITEM C 1 Ii I RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO•CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSI9N, APPROVING VARIANCE NO.. 87 -02 TO OECKK DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 9113 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE Op DISTRICT A. Recitals. (i) On the 9th day of March, 1987, an app °Ication was filed and accepted on the above - described project; and (ii) On, the 25th day of March, 1987, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised puolic hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of��the California Government Code; and (iii) On the 7th day 4.r December, 1983, the ,City Council - adopted Ordinance 211, Development Code,, which established setback and height limitations for the OP District; an (iv) On the 2nd day of October, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinb_�'ra 274, establishing interim development standards for the Foothill Corridor; and (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby 'found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, - Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon' substantial evidence, including public testimony, and a staff report with attachments, the Commission specifically finds: a. That the variance request is for l) a 7 foot reduction in the parking setback along the westerly property line, 2) a 10 foot reduction in the building setback ,along the westerly property line, 3) i 12 foot reduction in the building setback on Foothill Boulevard, 4) a 4.75 foot reduction in the average landscape setback on Foothill Boulevard, and 5) a 4 foot increase in the building height; t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIOil "No. VARIANCE NO. 87-02 WkK DEMOPMEN7 April 8, 1987' Po" e 2 b. The application applies to property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard at 9,113 i Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 168,: feet and lot deptnfArof 163.5 feet and presently improv:,r' wicn'!;:, structures which constituted a preschool, and with parking areas which ser±,led that establishment. c. The property to the north is developed with a community shopping center, the property to the vest consists of the Pepperwood apartment r complex, and the property to the south 4nd east consists of the Mountainview, apartment complex; E , d. The application is In ,conjunction with �.. Development Review 86 -46, a request for the development of an 11,000 square foot office building, the Foothill Professional Center; e. The proposed 29 Moot building height is consistent with buiiding_beights on surrounding two -story apartments; f. The i, ?nt of the DQvelopment Code regulation concerning bide yard setbacks •is to provide ` adequate buffering between a higher intensity use and a lower intensity use. The nearest apartment unit to the west is approximately 85 feet away, with parking, carports and landscaping in between; g. The proposed front yard setbacks from Foothill Boulevard are consistent with the existing structure on the site and the apartments to the east. 3. Based upon• substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced March 25, 1987 hearing and upon specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. Tlat 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 same district. b. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent, f with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. f PLANNING COK4rSSION RESOLUTIOK No. f� VARIANCE NO« 87 -02 - DECKK DEVF OPMENT April 8, 1987 Page S Alk C. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or-- conditions applicable to the C property involved or to the intended use oil the property that do not apply, generally to other properties in the same districir,� d. That strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result c in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. e« That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or matrrla;Jy injurious to properties or improvements in tgil vicinity. if 4, ;,aced upon the findingss,, and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 'I, 2, and 3 above, this, Cow!ission herehy approves the `equest for Variance No. 87 -02. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS RTH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGk BY: Larry T. RUNIC; cnalMn ATTEST. BraU Bufler, Deputy SecretaFy I., Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly -and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 19B7, by the following vote -to -wit; 1 AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONE1RS: 4 E-1 FA DA(E- T0; FROM: BY: SUBJECT: v.cxi vs• srnavvnvvVVtiiYiVlVl,Yti STAFF REPORT April 8, 1987 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner d;eg Gage, Assistant Planner 1.1 \F,�f \Vill'K.1 \1AL 4n.z"—jJOTLd \f tinu mrun r. Ou -u t1PKIM Ste, GEL - " request to waive t e mkila egg t requl j ment of 50 feet for an extendable radio antenna to alli. %an existing antenna to be extended to 72 feet an a 4V,6� a parcel in the Very Low Residential District (less thw�" dwelling units /acre) located at 5327 Carol Avenue - APN���I06%- lli -lg. I. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of March 25, 1987, the Planning Commission continued the above referenced itenL to tonight's meett,g at the request of the City Attorney. The continuance was requester; +, to allow the City Attorney to review a. new case law related to the application. The City Attorney has determined that the�case in question does not make any definitive statement regarding, or does it alter, the FCC � °uling. TWD City Attorney has previously indicated- that, the FCC ruling does not preempt the City's antenna regu1atiu .- Prior to the Planning Commissi;h meeting of March 25, three letters were submitted to the Planning Division by residents in opposition to the request. These letters have been attached for the Commission's review. - II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the amends — request. If the Commission concurs, a Resolution of Denial is included within tw= staff report. 4tfuRell n d, i City Panner BB:GG:te Attachments: Letter From Resident at 5338 Peridot Letter iron Resident at 5350 Peridot Letter From Resident at 5325 Peridot Planning Commission Staff Report of March 25, 1987 ITEM D Greg Gage 3 -24 -87 Planning Z D'meiusion Rancho CV16 ongs, Calif. \� Sir: /� 3 Re: FNVIRONM)4`!WAL A,;gF.S51M8IYT AND VAKIANCE 88-•08 - SPMNAGM We jufl ca not see you people granting Mr. Spetna elo or his excessive height antenna: When he had his 501 in operation, our radios had so much static on them . that se could not understand one speaking. Also our television. We just' do �} r4'* t 01 believe that it would ' show any regard for others in ;;the neighborhood. Our opinion is that the 0 tvpe he has in mind 't should only he allowed in =a very remote area. Thank "you, y 2a "C£tt Lt Qon & Marion Early "F. "trHO cu mo.':C- 5338 Peridot Avenue is tstCtt Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 (714) 989 -2494 MAR 2 ".5 1987 r PM i y f I+ i March, t4, 198? fit Ail 5 AM '�18lsl�lui�lii�lS!`�t�l Dear Mr lieges: I am.a concerned pero4i laving in the vicinity of the Monster antenna on Carol Street. This is the sacond letter and last, as I am sj►re you have better things to do, /i Who does this guy think he is? Se was turned down- ::once..` If everyone was anwrwed tog,4 such an this our neighborhood would look even worse thO it does now. I'm sure you have — y heard from many of us concerned citizens, who feel this would be a outrageoun +- yeacre asad an for our radio reception we may as well not have any. i Please have your fellow workers give this very'serlous thought. If ttla person is given a permit something is very wrongn .C. Pryor clr( OF RAWPO cucx--�.mG, tAiR J9. V 1 IV11211121314016 k, Z-6 WL 7c-�. 4 rill, Are J-- 0-3 ,r PJA I 1 KA i 77. DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAmI ONGA STAFF REPORT \Y u� Larch 25, 1987 1977 > Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Greg Gage, Assistant Pia►+ner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANa VARIANCE 85•,08 (AMENDED) - E 'Firi - reques o waive a max mum ie v"equ reMr�ent of 50 feet for an extendable radio an�enna to allow an existing antenna to be extended to 72 feet on a 47 acre parcel in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units /acre) located at 5327.:arol Avenue APN iMI- 111 -19. I. ABSTRACT: This item was appealed to the City Council and referred ac o he Commission to review the applicant's amended request for a variance. Because the amendment is essentially a new hearictheonapp al nt lyotheilCommissi nurhaddcconlsideredh they new application., Staff is recamen "Ing denial. II. BACKGROU:4D: As a result of Code Enforcement, the applicant had g�na or iy sough; approval of a variance to a116 the continued use of an existing fixed radio antenna tower, and to permit extension of the support structure from 50 to 70 feet in height, At its weeeting on Ja2ivary '28, 1987, the Planning Commission oenied the proposal on t _- grounds that there was insufficient justification for approval of the request. The app ";iwint subsequently appealed. In filing the appeal, the applicant proposed to amend the initial request by 1. Providing a retractable design for the antenna support structure; 2. Increasing the maximum overall height (extended) to 72' feet; and 3. Keeping the antenna and support structure retracted to less than 35 feet when not in use. The Planning Comr,7ssion has not previously been presented with, nor discussed, the amended request. 3-8 p PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 3J YARIANCE,86 -00 - SPE NAGE4 March 25, 1987 Page 2 _ III. ANALYSIS ` A. General: The Development Code establishes the maximum permitted `height within the Very Low Residential District of 35 feet. The installation of one antenna which exceeds the maximum height of the base district is permitted, provided "the antenna shall not exceed 50 feet in height, fully extended when in use, and no higher than 35 feet when nnt,,in use (unexterided) as measured from s ground level". ;Y 1 applicant has advised staff that 'one antenna has bey 1wered to less than 35 fleet, until such time that a ;' resol W on of the issue is achieved. The amended - _ prooposal would provide for a support structure capable of being extended to an overall height of 72 feet, exceeding the maximum permitted height (extended) by 22 feet. When not in use, the antenna would be retracted to less than 35 „feet ire height. However, the applicant previo; sly testified that the antenna is used as a repeater _Eation 24 hours a "day. The amended proposal is more consistent with the applicable portions of the Development Code, relative to retractability. Still, in order to consider approvai of a sariance, a hardship must be shown to apply to this proper`y which does not apply equally to other properties in the same zone. As justification for the request, the applicant has stated: 1. Strict enforcement of the height requirement would r use a hardship with respect to antenna reliability; 2. That amateur radio is a necessary and important emergency service; and 3. That amateur radio serves to protect the public health, safety, and welfare in times of emergency. In reviewing the original proposal, the Commission found that no hardship was applicable to the subject property which was not equally applicable to otf...:r properties in the same zoning distf` � The facts relating to the subject property have not changed since the Planning Commissnn's initial review in January. The only change is th.: type and height of the proposed antenna. 3-8 PLANNING CO6iMISSION STAFF dtERflRT ' VARIANCE 86 -08 SPETNAGEL March. 26, 1983 Page 3 p' B. _Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed Part 2 of C the nvsronmen a ecklist and &d nd no signi:'icant ! impacts on the environment as a eesult of this project. If the Commission approves the requested variance, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. k III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Development Code requires that the ann ng omm s` 'sign make certain findings before a variance car be granted. Based on the following facts, staff does not find that n there is sufficient justification for approval, despite the mended request. f 1. No extraordinary conditions apply to the subject property which do not apply equally to other propertie's in the vicinity!. 2. The granting of the variance aoutd constitute a special privilege inconsistp,; with the 11mitations placed upon other properties. in fNznsame district. Before granting a variance, the Planning Commission shall make the following findin3s: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation wnuld, result.. in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Peeiopment Code. i 2. That there ar'e exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use sc the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 3. That 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 same district. a,. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with tine limitations on other properties classified in the same district. PLANNING COMISS r' "TF REPORT VARIANCE 86-08 March,25. 1987 Page 4 5. Tht the �kragtfnq of the variance will not be detrimental to the puDlic hi'alth, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to #�Opertfes or improvements in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE-. This IteK has been advertised as a public hearing TUR 75-TH-e-Daily Report newspaper, the property posted. and notices seot to &I Ir-p-r-o-597 fr-fy owners withio 300 feet of the subject pro'--;y. �ARECOMEUDATIOW. Staff re,;ommends that the Planning Commission deny 'q.e amendea Fe-cpest.' Otess the Cowlssion can support positive facU for findings ecessgry for approval. n es tfully s itted R Re 1Y s itted p Brad 8 ler B City P anner BB-.GG:te Attachments: Exhibit "P - Vicinity Map Exhibit NB" - Letter from Resident at 5338 Peridot mC" Exhibit - Letter from Resident at 5350 Per4dot Exhibit "D" - Letter from Resident at 5325 Peridot Resolutidn No. 87-17 Denying Variance No. 86-08 Minutes of January 7% 1987 Planning. Commission Meetinq City Council] Staff RL-Oort of March 4, 1987 Resolution of Denial RAINCHO CUCAi*vlaNGtr MX PLANNING DI't'85 N F- XHlMT, -, lam.® SCALE, n{)RT i i RAINCHO CUCAi*vlaNGtr MX PLANNING DI't'85 N F- XHlMT, -, lam.® SCALE, n{)RT '. 771 J 'a ka � If �� JahRary 22, 1987 {:. If : - - Greg Gags Planning Co®iaision Res Yar><ance 88 -08 3 Rancho Cucaaonga 9320,.0 Lime Road unit a APOtnage APli Ipel.. Ill,, -l9 Rancho Cucamonga, G+e 91703 5327 Carol Ave. Sirs c This letter is in respease to pour letter and to your office. .Lrs our telephorne Call .Since 'Rr. SAet "Ce2 put up his radile antenna last nusmr, our radio hen so such static at various tiara that we cannot 2istea. He w+srte F nmigiibors saying that the interference would not affect 0v, radio or television. Nell, tt doesf �� Alsop it does n" dy any justice to our beautiful view oS the aount- lino. we object strongly, to this antenna! d Morion Earls 5338 Peridot Avepue Alta Loss, ca. 9i7M (71.4) 989 -2494 —RECEIVED — CITY GP RANCHa CUCAMONGA PLANNINC 017;SiON AID JAN 2 PAS X89 Y a c Exhibit •s' RECEIVED- - CITY OF RATIC O C'.XA IONOA pwimitm orts bN JAI sal Pre I,, - Exhibit `C' OAS S January 23, 1987 f ` C. Pryor 5350 Peridot Ave. Aita lams, CA. Q17o1 Dear Mr. aage: µ Myael3 and others in neighborhood mD' have noticed an increased asotrst ;f. of interference is our television and stereo reception for same time »: nox. I feel that the added extension of the antenna on Carol would be a great nuisance a« the City used this ruling. Our reception is horrible now. '.' I Please consider rejecting this$ as of right nav it is a terrible eJa- aoa for all of us. Sincerely,, - C. Pryoz� I I RECEIVED- - CITY OF RATIC O C'.XA IONOA pwimitm orts bN JAI sal Pre I,, - Exhibit `C' OAS k iwYf 'C+'!4C< r 1 lz 7-90 z(x, -Ou g . In J f ���.. -� �L l�"^�. 4' r�'Y�ir �j�,ti'"� /� _ "Nip �✓'7�L:r f `�"i.�/�' +fir LC✓ J C am, �I7 S f I r . E. g' c RESOLUTION ND.87 -17 _ - A RESOLUTION OF -THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA- PLANNING C01!iFIISSION , DENYING VARIANCE NO. 86 -08 TO WAIVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR AN ANTENNA LOCATED AT 5327 CAROL AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A. RECITALS' (i) On „�d+tcOM ' 7, 1983. the City. Council of the City of R�ncha Cuca`vnga td ioeed ordl�fince 211 providing few the regulation of antennas, (it) On Noprojer 14, 136&, an appli`c 000 was filed and aecspt*d on the above described prefect. _ (iii) -tram January 28, 1987, the Planning Commission hel¢'La duty a� @rtiSad Public hearing pursudnt,,to Section 6565 of the Californi :,,,vermeert Code. 6. RESOLUTION il{EREi M. the Rancho Cuc Fellows: a 'PTA Ming Com:iission resolved as .. 1. This Commi5340>:4Peby spec04cdlly finds that ail the tracts set forth in the Reet <11s. Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2- eased upon substantial evidence orasa�rteri to this Caaafsston during the above - reformed January 28, 1987 hearing, including the written Staff report, and the IC'itter. signed any verified application of the applicant. "this COMMissian hereby speeificAiiy finds as follows: a. The application applies to Prop" toeated at 5327 - Carol Avow* an a loz presently improved witil a hawse, garage and a 50 foot radio antenna; b• 170 Property and surrounding propelMies are in the Very Loa Residential District; C, The existing 50 foot radio antenna doer not comply with the 35 foot height limit %gm not in us* (uraxtanded) as measured from round lenrel as squired by Development Coda Section 17.06,0501. Further, the application requests to extend the antenna height to 70 feet; � D t,; W, I Resolution No. -;e=7AKCE 86-08 January 28, 1987 Page 2 d. The existir� So foot radio Antenna was erected without proper permits for the footings �,., -,Ior to construction-. 3. Based upon substantial ..#vidlnc4 pr(,sented to this Comission during the abOVO-r6fertmOd January 18. -1987 hearing and upon the specific findings of facts sot -4�th An Paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds And concludes as folltws: a. That strict or literal Interpretation and�eftforcemant Of the #ip*cified regulation would not result in Practical difficulty or umgctss&rY Physical,-hardship inconsistGnt with the objectives of the Dgielopomt Code. b. TW there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ap�tcabl# to the property involved or to the intandod(,"-.,��,of the property that do not apply gonerally to othtj� Properties in the same df V--ict. c. That strict or literal intot,)retation and enforcement of the specified r*rAl&tjq4' wculd -not deprive the Applicant of privIlepts ealtyed by the owner's of other Properties in, the saw distvict, __ d. That the granting of the Variafl'ce' will constitute a grant Of Special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the samt district. e. That VW granting of the Variance will be detri*&%aj tO V-00 Public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injuriou-% -to prop#rti#Sr or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth In Paragraphs 1. Z aM 3 abovo. this Commission hereby denies the application. W, I APPROVEO AND ADOPTED T4'TS 2ST14 DAY OF JANUARY, 1487. PLANNING C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY av r a Tynan ti ATTEST l g� ' R+ y acre ry' a I. Brad Bullop, 4tprrty S�ecreary�of the, F�nannin „ da hereny o+�"tif g COMiseion Of the City of regularly introduc4d, y that ti; Rancns Cucamongae! foregoing Resolution was duly antt City of Rancho Cuca=nga,sA a regal r 9 ofetne Planning P y Planning Cana�33sion of the On;,the 28th day of January, E987, by the following ni Pl J-MPj4 COmmission held AYES: COtdMISSIONEIRS. EMERICK, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNICL, 7OLSTOY NOES: COtMtISa10RERS NONE i ABSENTS COMMISSIONERS; NONE i f F DRAFT PLANNING GOW�a�ION MINUTES - JANUARY - 28„ 1987 - FOR DISCUSSION PUR9OS>_S K. .`NVTRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-08 - SPETNAGEL - A request to waive the maximum height requirement of eet or a fixed radio antenna f` t&'-allow. +an existing iQ� rtna 50 feet in height to be extended t.� 70 feet o a 47 acre p&se� in the very Low ,Residential District (less 'Lhan 2 Dwelling units per acre) located at 53' °.I Carol Avenue - APN 1061- 111 -19. Greg G�ia, Assistant:Fianner, presented the staff ,report, Comm•,,sioner Emerick asked if the regulations 4�" 35 why the applicant has an existing 50 foot antenna. Mr. Gage advised that the antenna was Installed without the City's review or approval. Chairman Barker opined the public hea`ing. Charles Spetnagel, 5327 Carol Avenue, stated that un May 29, 1986 he attempted to secur,- a building permit for a 35 foot antenna Wwer. His intent was to erect the tower and then seek permission 0 construct the toiler to the height he desired, The Planning Division and Engineering nivisions both approved his application and signed off on the building permit arm. Rui n :-_and Safety informed him that his drawings for the footings ware unaf.teptabTe a : the tower would have to be installed as if it were a flag pole.;( He was told that the depth of the footing would have to be 1 foot for every!, feet in height. He informed Building and Safety that this was ridiculous and `hat the drawings were done by a reputable erector of commercial and amatearr ta,vers. He became frustrated and cancellev- the application and o:ftained a re`und of permit fees. He advised that the tower is of proven design and has been on the market for over 20 years and the footings are capable of supporting towers up to 300 feet in height. He acknowledged that the Ci *y has legi,:mate health, safety and welfare concerns but the footings were installed perlmanufacturers instructions. These instructions had been reviewed and approved by a registered civil engineer licensed in the s:.ats of California. He stated that his station operates under automatic control as a relay station available 24 hours a day for amateurs in four counties. He felt that an extraordinary condition does exist, that a nonconformity does not exist, consequently nothing was self- imposed and the only special privilege was his privilege to operate an amateur radio station.'' He indicated that staff fails to address the exclusion of public service, public welfare, and emergency radio from height restrictions. He felt his supporting documents proved that part of the justification of the amateur r?110 service is to provide emergency communication and an amateur radio f,' continuously involved in public service activities. He stated that his reque:.t for 70 feet is the minimum height required to accommodate reasonable communication on the frequencies on which he operates. Chairman Barker questioned the height of the tower. Mr. Spetnagel aa11ised that the tower is 50 feet in height. Chairman Barker asked if a vertical antenna was plarei on top of that height. ' Mr. Spetnage? replied that this was correct and that he u:ed a high frequency .� a99ey antenna., Commissioner Emerick asked Mr. Spetnagel if he had any feedback from his neighbors ;3 far as the current anitet;nas. Mr. Spetnagel stated tha ,-.-,e contacted the three properties dirActly abutting his and those property 'owners indicated no objections to tjie tower. He indicated that he had poled Iran and Hiedi Burns, Thomas and Mar& Stanton and Betty and Don Anderson. Comniss `ner Emerick askA-1 if the height of the antenna would irpinge upon anyonp's„ view of the mountains. Mr. Spetnagel stated that he didn't feel t`e,-tower would impiiigc -,vy more than the current ti-ansmissiol lines. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Sp>,troagal was prepared to ,how the Commis, -2n what is planned for the toll of Z.He tower. i Mr. Spetnagel replie4 ;he was not and indicated that this info'rr,ation had not been requested befnre tonight. Chairman Barker asked it Mr. Spetnagel considered crank up antennas when this equipment was purchased. Mr. Spetnagel idvised that he had owned this tower for a number of years. Wayne Qverveck, 9UO Avenida Salvatore, San Clemente, " ,)rofessor of communications, California State University, Fullerton, supported the apniicant's request. He preserded slides which he felt illusF ated why a radio amateur would want a high antenna. He stated that what a",;eaur radii is all about is emergency communication, which is why the'FCC has recent..1 issued an order pre- emtirig local regulations that unreasonably restrict and deny reliable amateur communications. Chairman Barker asked since this particular piece of property s located at the northern part of Alta Loma on a slope what kind of impact would that location have on the signal's angle of entry. Mr. Cverveck advised that a location on a slope working in the uphill direction raises the angle and makes comunication more difficult. In the downhill direction, it makes long distance con- imunication easier because the angle is lowered by the terrain. �M ,Z6 i t. I Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Overveck was an expert an antennas. � ANIL Mr." Overveck advised that he had written a book and a number of Journal articles on.iantennas. Chairman Bakker ' asked if there were any advantages of self supporting towers over th': rrank up Fntennas. Mr. Overveit,,K tdtl�sed that- this is a question of economics. A self supporting j tower is more expensive. -''A typical model f' ~ank up guyed tower is a much less expensive toweu,. A.-';rank up tower that is,.,4elf Supporting and could meet the City's code of staying below 35 feet and going up to 50 feet would be quite a bit more expensive than one that doesn't telescopeUwithout guy wires. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the 80 meter frl,quency and asked if it was correct th" there aria other frequencies for emergency communications. Mr. Overveck sWa O "Oiat thu:re are other freotienci2s for emergency communication. lie 0advised that the applicant proposes to communicate on a variety of different frequencies. Each of the various; frequency bands have different propagat;;on characteristics. 80 meters comes up sometimes because historically dur;ng the Mexico City earthquaise it was used extensively foh;, long distanp. night time communication. ; Commissioner Tolstoy asked, the communication distance of 80 14eters at night. Mr. Overveck advised tfl, i" the operator would be capable of world wide communication assuming conditions are reasonable. r Tony Petrone, 125 Morgan..way, Vvland, supported the 'request. He gave an overview of the emergency c6:hNaications aspect of amateaur radios. s; Ronald Verdon, 6068 Ada Court, Chino, supported the applicant's - request and /i gave an overview of idmergency Communications. Dan Burns, 5321 Carol, adjacent property owner stated that he had no problems with Mr. Spetnagel's antenna as presently constructed. He did not feel the presence of the antenna would affect property values. Sandy Spetnagei, wife cf the ;applicant, supported tire request. She advised that the Spetnagels work with the Boy `'Scouts and urged the Commission's support of the request.' Ed Combs, 7027 .alinda., Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he felt the tower cuuld be seen at the 35 foot ' W7'2,. therefore could not understand the height concerns. He stated tF ":' 'Spetnagel has one of the best sites in the area for the private radio tower. i The following, individuals 'addressed the Comissii,n in opposition to the s Variance request based on aesthetic concerns:, *nterferrence with tteleyisiort 3 reception and loss of property values John Waymeier, 8148 Lucinda Dick Miles, 5262 Sapphire !r Barbara Frye;'.,5327 Della Penny Senzero, 8181 Lucinda Jeff Frye, 5327 Della Sonny Senzariaj.:8181 Lucinda Toro Armejif, 5249 Carol Cheryl WO, 8153 Lucinda Elliott Cousins, 8214 Lucinda Ether Waymeier, 8149E Lucinda Commissioner Chitiea asked the applicant if he was only person with a tower in the 'ges,-c End area. Mr. Spetnagel advised that he was`not. Commissioner Chitiea asked if i;; are other people communicating on these frequencies. Mr. Spetnagel assumed there are. He rebutted the comments made during the public hearing by stating- that the existing tower was erected ten months ago, and clarify that it was installed the last week etd in August 1986. As he previously stated, he attempted to obtain a bait ng permit but felt he was getting no where- therefore decided to pursue another course of action. He advised that since -these proceedings, he had spoken to the City's Building and Safety Department again and asked them What the requirements were for footings. He indicated he met those requirements. He had a California License Civil Engineer's calculations and data sheets signed off by him and was not. concerned that this tower is unsafe is its present condition or at•the proposed height. He advised that he visited Scott Cable, who furnishes cable for this area, and was informed that entire system outages as well as section outages during the past few months were due to the merger of Scott Cable with Acton Cable. Further, that Scott Cable agrzed to conduct test if complaints of interference: continues to verify that Mr. Spetnagel's station pis not interferring with the cable system. He also verified that he had no cable } channels operating Gh frequencies assigned to the amateaur radios. feIt that objections to his station regarding aesthetics are subjective. lfn aestlatics alone are allowed to dictate what structures are or are not allower in the neighborhood, then everyone,should have the right to raise objections to the color a neighbor paints his house, the type of shrubs planted and .so_ .. on. Commissioner Emerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel mentioned he had confacted,;!'th& l City prior to erecting the tower. Mr. Spetnagel replied that he did. Commissioner Emerick questioned haw many tines the City had been contacted. Mr. Spetnagel advised that he had contacted the City once. Commissioner Emerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel was informed oi� the height regulations. Mr. Spetnagel advised that he„ Was provided with a copy of Section 17.080.6.1 of the Development Code. Commissioner Emerick pointed out that 'is the Code section that provides for 35 r feet height standard" for a stationery tower and 15 feet additional for an apparatus that goes up orrdown. Mr: Spetnagel stated that the conflict was is the term when in. use. He contended that his station is available 24 hours a day. Comm sslme;* Emerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel was home 24 hours a day. Mr. Spetnagel stated he was not. However, his station is operating and could be operated numerous times during the'day. Commissioner Emerick asked if Mrs. Spetnagel operates the radio, or if anyone else in the family has the ability to operate the radio. Mr. Spetnagel replied that neither his wife nor the rest of the family has the ability to operate the radio. Commissioner Emerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel had a 40 hour a week 'd'ob. Mr. Spetnagel replied that it was much more than 40 hours a week.. Chairman. Parker asked .if the term was operable or operating. He asked if the station transmits all the time. Mr. Spetnagel stated that the station is not operating all the time, but it is capatle of repeating digital transmissions. I C ",airman Barker asked if Mr. Spetnage was recording the messages. Mr. "Netnagei replied that the messages are not recorded; however, they are stored in a buffer if he cares to access it. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this is a repeater station. Mr. Spetnagel replied that it is. Chairman Barker asked if other units .depend on the existence of that packet digit peter to continue to function during the day. R - a Y, Mr. Spetnagel stated that on its present frequency he has reception to Pal dftk S prings and Hemet that repeats both ways in the Los Angeles basin, Orang .. County, ,.rid along the coast line up -to LAX. wU Commissioner Chitiea recalled hat Mr. Spetnagel said he.,contlCted the City once and because of the information he -- l received he decided td go ahead and build his tower.. She questioned why he didn't approach someone else ;or try to go through proper channels. E! There were no further catments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Chairman Barker stated he would like to try and eliminate some of the side issues so the Commission could identify the real issue an which to make a decision. As far as the television or, any other interferenceo wi-, high „ fidelity equipment, he indicated that if the applicant'sgequipment ,i good equipment and the neighbors equipment is r goad equipment t re should not hp— a p oblem. He pointed out that traditionally amateaurs haO gone out of ,- it ' way'' b notify their neighbors that they are available W, help them worms out probl'2rns so that their reputation as ham operators remains very high. He did I, not think interference was a major issue and suggested that the Commission no_~ address that issue. 99 t $, He stated the reason for the discussion of the various types and designs of antennas i,-3s bacause, of a concern ; ith safety factors,' The winds are emphatic and sometimes. certain types / f antennas can be dangerous. Aesthetics is important but he; felt there was' technicaY� point to be addressed which is;Chat there can be an antenna-SS fee' in hei ;'which can crank up to 50 fftet.%tThis particular antenna does not meet th se�standards.. Re advised that he had looked through recent antenna sai'es and there are a number of antennas which can reach 50 feet which go down a�t 7ow.as 22 feet in a depressed state. He felt the two issues to be addressed are; is this an unusual enough situation,to warrant a variance, was there, no, other equipment available which could have, been purchased and placeU into operation, and is tnc r,�n_i,lation itself. in need of being evaluated. Commissioner Emerick stated that obstruction of view should be addressed not from_an aesthetic point but from a property right point. A property owner is ent%cled to a certain vrew right of the mountains and the valley. An obstruction of that view impinges upon someone else's property rights. Commissioner McNiel disagreed. He suggested that the Commission act on the issue of the illegal antenna. Commissioners Emerick and Toistoy stated their opinion that the issue was the Variance and if the necessary findings could be met to approve'La Variance. Chairman Barker suggested that the Commissioners go through;, each of the findings to see if they could be met. I i A Commissioner Emerick addressed', finding one and stated that everyone, in a Al zoning district should be treated equally unless they can show a hardship Situation. He saw no hardship in this situation in that the applicant could move his antenna to another location or implement some mitigation measures such as a tower 35 feet stationary with a 15 foot crank u extension. p s on. If that's not high enough to meet the required- specif cctions as far as length of y'- radio beam, sn be it. The Commissioners concurred..: �! ,- Chairman Barker suggested there are a number of alternative types of antennas that could. be used which would comply with the City's code requirements.' He asked that finding 2 be addressed. i Commissioner Emerick stated there has been no shor+ingJ that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with this request. The applicant lives in the foothills of the City-and there he is faced with both an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage is going down hill 4here the radio angle is increased; the disadvantage is that the angle is decreased on the uphill mountain sjide. He stated that this is not a unique property in that there are literallyj�hundreds of other houses in that same stratification f of the foothills. With .�espert to finding, 3, he did not concur that there was a deprivation of privileges enjoyed by others;. The 35 foot standard for fixed towers applies to everyone in the City. Regarding finding 4. he stated if this variance is granted to allow a higher tower Gp to 70 feet, that would be granting a special privilege that -can't be demonstrated by any of the facts presented.in this hearing. Aft Motion: Moved by Emerick, seconded by Chitiea, to deny Variance 86 -07.` Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS EMERICK, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Chairman Barker directed staff to conduct a survey of the materials on the market and the names of the manufkxitures to assure that there are.ippropFiate types- of towers that fit within the framework of the City's current regulations. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would be the disposition of the illegal tower. Mr. Builer advised that staff will proceed with Code Enforcement action and the applicant will be given a reasonable time to abate the antenna. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 1987 v�` 1917 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Builer„ City Planner BY: Greg Gage; -Assistant Planner 1 SUBJECT. ENVIRDNMENIAL,; S5ESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86 -08 - SPETNAGEL 7C"req' e 75,`w3 ve a max mum e g qu re rem en 0 35 1 feet for a fixed radiri ''!intenna to allow an existing I antenna to be extended to 72 feet on a .47 asre parcel in the Very Low Residential 5isirict (less thin 2 dwelling units per acre) located at 5327 Carol Avenue - APN 1061- W -19. I. RECOMMENDATION: Direct that the new application be processed for Panning .omm s sion review and ceKsideration. IL 0ACKGROUND: As a result of Code Enforcement, the applicant had prig` gna17y °sought approval of a Variance to allow the continued use of an existing fixed radio antenna tower, and to permit extension , of the support structure from 50 to 70 feet in :height. " At its meeting on January 28, 1987, the Planning Commission denied the proposal an the grounds that there was insufficient justiffration for approval of the request (see'. attached Staff Report, Part IV). The applicant is appealing the decision of the Commission on the basis that all pertinent data was not considered. Further, the applicant proposes to amend the initial proposal by: 1. Providing a retractable design for the antenna support structure; i 2. Increasing they maximum overall height (extended) to 72 feet; and 3. Keeping the antenna and support structure retracted to less than 35 feet when not in use. The Planning Commission was not presented with* nor discussed, t MIS amen e�Ic request CITY COUNgI Si�APF REPORT Variance -86 -08 » 5petnagel March 4, 1987 Page 2 r III. ANALYSIS.- eased on State taw requirements, the Development Code Y afi s "Gepn formulated to require Planning Commission review of Varfan6e appiicat'.,is. Because the applicant has amended his Variance request to a _not reviewed by the Planning Comm-ission, the City Council lacks -jurisdiction prerequisites to act an the request as amended. Respp urly st d, F Brad ou er :>> City PTannr :�' RR:GG:ns Attachments: Letter of Appeal from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map E- thibit "8" - Letter from Residents at 5335 Peridot Exhibft "C" - better from Resident at 5350 ridot "D" Exhibit - Letter from Resident at 5325 r 6t Planning Commissian Staff Report, January 28, 1987 Planning Cohnission Resolution of Denial a;Itx-,�DF PP February 2, 1987 C` .7 �' S�€ia&lailiTlt�t'' P ?d Beverly A, Authelat City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box ;807 Rancho Cucemong �. California 91930 Dear MS. Authelet: The P10423 COaMissdoa deniad Bavitom *ntAssessment 1 Assessment and Varianco 86 -08 t wAthou conaidering j,artinent data proae#ted to than in 3uba`ta&t1ated, documents and by oral testimony. Also, the Fedatal Coatankiication . C'cOanissioat's limited i pre - eaption order #19 -►1 eras n0l considered by the Planning Commission. Therefore, I appeal the denial to the jancr. Cucandazo, City Coua��il. Its an effort to aaint;�tin maighborhood Aaraony anti tranquillity, and b *inane Z bsl3eve,,`the City of Rancho Cucam6AS& and l can reach an agreastat s ch will serve the. city's I *gitimate I an am and will. acc�Aplish sty 1091timat* coaatunicitions needs, I an amending mT original application of November 1.3, 1486 to proride for the following: 1 ! That the antenna support PPort structure shall be of retractable dvsfga and will not require guy wires. That the antenna support structure is copabl* of of boina folly extended to a height of 72 feet. TL4t the anteatna support structure will be kept �+ retracted (unestended) when not In use. That than tern "antenna support structure" is defined to aeon the tower and does not Includ* to antenna mast or antennas used to aadiato radio frequency enarRy,;`- That. when retracted. that antenna suppo �'Istructuro, Including mast and antennas will not *:c,, `33 feet as measured from ground level.,. A. _ a D `+ f That the antenna support structure is to 6e a ri -Ex Tower Corp.Model LM -470 a U.S. Tower Corp. 'Model TX -472 or HDX -572 ov a tower of similar-�iesign. Should You require ;additional information, please fQe1 free to Contact MO. . Sinearel], l Charlsa F. $pe a'agll 1327 Carol Ave.=+ 1 Alts Loiss, CA 9E702 1 l I R' NORTH RAINCHO CUCA)NIO 'j jj'T L, ,, =MtLY HAP PLANNING DI`IMN F- XHttiiT -Z &!- .SCALC:- n. r ♦. January 22, 1987 a t G---wx Gage ! vlanning Coaii�'�sioz Re: Variance;: �6-08 Rancho Cucasong:.=` 3petnagel 9320 Base Line Road, Unit a AM 1051- 111 -19 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 5327 Carol Ave bat Sir:;. p yr0ur latter and to our tole ��is 1*`ktsr is in response to phosi call to your office, SincC/ Xr. 9petbagel poet 'u: his radio ar tenns last sue: , our ra4ia has su such static at various time* that we cannot listow. He wort* neighbors saying that the interference would not affect our radio or ` television*. W6111 it dogs! Alsop it does not do any antics to our beautiful view of the mount- &ins. We abject strongly to this rntennal j won and Na,*icc Early 5338 Peridot Avonue Alta Long, Ca. 91701 (714) 9891 -2494 .1 RECEIVED,.- Cmr OF RANCHO CJCAM -a- aA PLVININC PI.1 -.31ON Ali JAN 3 "dl8,9�air_t_ ...Ns8l. A6 Exhibit B' _ 'January 23, 1987 , r C. Pryor JJ 5350 Peridot Ave. Alta Loo, CA. 91701 d Dear Mr. Gage: Myself and othe." in my neighborhood ha we noticed an increased escn:�3t Of interference in our television and atrireo reception for:Rome tUme now. I feel that the added extension of the antenna on Carol would be a, great } nuisaLce if tba 0 ty passed this ruling. Our recoption its horrible nov. Please considei- rejecting Ibis, as of right now it is a terriblo eye- acre for all of t.i. �Y Sincerely, C. Pryo Exhibit 40' MY OF RAM MHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMS ON Jar+ ,� ) Phi,y., t1 LG.�- c.:�,t -- �c�tf- ."spa "' � —?�tiL �(/. (�.,,.,,,n�� �''C�'L— ►t� /�i7 y 4 a ell��'z y Exh(bi$ Apo 1 a N OF RANCHO t CAXogGA STAFF HIRT Y- Z, DATE; January, 28, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members Of 04 Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet,, Ci*.y Pjanntr BY; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONWRTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-08 iC SPETNAGEL' • '35 e �9_ ;;' �qu i FL :for a fty^d '@0 anzean feet �, radii a td; allow an existing antenna 50 feet In height to be exten4jj to ?0 feet on 4 .4i parcel In the Very LOW Residential Di strict (less than 0*e7ling Units per acre) located at 6327 CC-01 Avenue .. -I 1041-111-19. I. ABSTRACT As a result of coda en-forewient, the. applicant is 'ge-KI-AF—approval of a Variance to -4110w the continued use of a fixed rcd!o ent-nnna tower. Althouqll a �uijd-,* for the antenna footings, 4, ��qrr, 1�9 permit is required ��'tt was not lbtained prior to cOnst?uctiO4. The applicants ISO requcsted Approval to extend the existing radio Inten",' �0 fee to 70, feet in height. Staff is rec—manding tha, arjance request be denied an the basis that the rev,ilred t "for Finding necessary for approval cannot be met- ANALYSIS:, A, &yjjaj zj: The Devalopant iCode ,staolishes the maximum AlerrUM—d height within the Very Low ftsidenticl District as 35 ?Oet. Tile installAticft of one anterna which exceeds the Maxfr'�' h8ight-Of the base district is permitted, , provided "the aW,!!,,na shall not exceed 50 feet In height, fully extended where In use, and no higher than 35 feet when not in use (unext?nded) as Msastli*d 7rom ground level". The 1xisting antenna is approxivitely 50 feet in height, and is nk,` retract ,-.ejne to a lar,ser WDIGht and is therefore in violation In Its PrI condition. The applicant alsc proposes to discrepancy by an additional 20 feet Dy extendin -increase' the 'n overall height of 70 fe'et. AS and +•uppart Struture tG 'A g the antonn4 t; iust"ficatiOn for the Proplasal, the applicant has stated: W 7hat strict enforcement of the height requirement would callse hardship with reliability; alcut to antenna I Mqui PLANNING CCMMISSIONe REPORT nAFF Pi January 26, 1987 Page 2' (d) That amateur radio is a necesRary and important emergency serNi_p; and (3.1 That amateur radio salves to protect the public `walth, safety, and welfare in times of ewzwgency. In %rder to conxidsr approval of a Variance, a hardship must be showh to apply to thiz property which does not apply generally to other aropertios in tre srgi4 zone. Its considcring the request, no hardship has identified wf (ch is applicable to the' subject property whieh`>s not generally applicable to other properties 'in the Very tow R'sidential District. Al,", the hardship Wes self- imposed in tl�,:'t ' the antenna structure was erected without cthe City's rebid or approval in excess of the 35 .foot ;eight limit when not in use. in a Meworand= Opinion and Ord+r ads ,ed September 16, 1985, the Federal Communications �CowissG (FCC discussLd ttd r ;option of state and 'local requlation'i pe^tainirg to teur radio i faciliti -, . I9 its discussic" the FCC e4cognized °he importance 1 of the amateur radio servici) for the 'provision of emergency Ci mnications: J We will not, howrVer, sMc Uy any :particular height limitation below which a local government may not 1 regulate, nor will we s4figes'z tae "precise language that must be contained in lacx.l ordinances, such ae mechanisms for .sprlcial ex0aPtlens, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which: :involve placevaent, screening, or height of antennas br.sed on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish t° local authority's legitimate purpose. The City Attorney has reviewed the FCC ruling and determined that it does not preempt the City's antenna regulations (see attac.Ned). In accordance with the FCC order, the Oevelop*snt`Code doesn't . preclude amateur emm. nications; neither does it discriminate betr:eco amateur radio, television or satellite antennas. T;)e Code provides for reasonable amateur commnicatior►s, While still representing a minimm; of regulation in accomplishing the aesthetic goals and objectives of the City. Therefore, in the absence of a hardship ap,,licatle to the property, and in light of the existing operational status of the gedio facilities, an extensioat of the tower an', associated support structure is not warranted. Further, in that the safety and structural integrity of such' facilities are legitimate concerns of the City's regulatory process, the soundness 2 F Variance 86-0,1,- Spetnagel January 26, "991 Page 3 and adequacy of the existing antenna fac:tings should be investigated. 8, EAvironmental . Atsessment: Staff has completed Part 11 of the Envf_r_OnMenta1k1.f-, . and found ne, , significant impacts on the environment as a result of tt.ifs p I 1,0ject. If the Commission approves the requested Varianc#�, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommen6d. 111. ALTERNATIYE: As an alternative solution to approving the requested Variance, a redesign Of the existing antenna col4iguratiors should be considered. By providing a fixed support 'structure with an extendable antenna, reasonably effective communicall.ons could be achieved, while complying with the ApplLable portions of the Developftlnt Code. IV, FACTS FOR FINDINGS:. The DeVelopment Code requires that the an pl al ng eke W, certain Findings before a Variance can be granted. Based on the following facts, staff believes that there is in-ufficlent Justification to maO the -'�ecessary findings of approva 1. The existing antenna height of 50 fee' does not confokj to the 35 foot height limit when not In use. Further, the apPlic4,nt's request to extend the height to 70 fee; Would inCMUS;n this ditirepancy. 2. The nonconformity wAs self-imposed and not due to the extraordinary conditions applicable to the property, such is topography. 3, That the granting of the Variance would constitute a special drivilege inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other propertlea in the same district. 4. That approva'k 'of the Variance does not resolve the patentia' safety hLzard created as C. result of an uflinspe:;ted footing. sevore granting , Variance, the Planning Comission shc,.l make the following finding.: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result In practical difficulty or unnecersQry physical hardshIp inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. 1 1.31 ' i PLANNING COMMISMU STAFF REPORT Variance 86-08,- Spetnagel f: January 28, 1987 Page 4 5 2. That theve are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intend4d the property that ado not apply generaliyrfi other prorerties in the same district. 3. That strict or liter interpretation and enforcement of the specified regula on "would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoy(�d by� the cwners of other propert�es.in the same district..; ` 4. That the granting of a Variance WTI not constitute a grant: of spegial ivilege inconsistent with tits: limitations on other + - properties classified in the ,same '1 S. That the granting of the Variance.wiil not he detrimental j to the public health, safety, or welfare, or *aterial y 9 injurious to properties or Improvements is the vicinity. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has bean adverti$ed as a: Public Hearing 'Daily t..� in THe Re art newspaper, the; - property posted, and nottces o were.sen a property, owners within 300 feet, of the subject property. VI. RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Cormission deny he arY {once rrequest and direct thg applicant to pursue an aiternatf4e. ;solution R tfull utitted, :gad Su II 'iII City Planner BB:GG:ng I Att&chments: Leers from Applicant Exhibit "A" . Location Map Exhibit "8" - "Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Nambrandus Apinion and Order of the Federal Comnications :omission, dated .".epteftdr 16, 1985 Exhibit "D" - Cfi v Attorney Opinion Resolution of Denial _ s November 13, 1986 t .ti ll (1 am a radio amateur, ;J DUI lieen�ed by the Federal Communications Co1mbiision , to operate in the Ltdium and high frequency bands from 180 to 10 meters: The amateur r4lia service has, iron It's Inception in the r-irly 190's been involved' 4th Public service,, technical experirsntaition and intir- national good 4ap3. To accomplish these, an eftnetive and efficient antenna s'atear is c Sautial, Fundaserlta: antenna design requires, !,hat, for am antamia to rpdiata efficently. it ' must be placed a 2inimtiai of one- fourth xaselength, above ground. At the grezant tine <'the lowest frequency braid that +'operate is tits 80 crater band, (3.1 -4.0 mHz), One- forth wavelength at this frequency- -t`59.4 i Maxious antenna efficiency is of pri; importance to me because of the physi"i location of my property. Tile abwntaiaa are approximately one- half ar31e to'the north. To achieve useable, ccnslatant and reliable colem =st=ab ?,ins, antennas amt ha'u free, a unobstructed and low auglc of radiri¢fi. All of these &ritera are not by maintaining antrnm height at one- saurth wavelength above ground. To sumarixe, an antenna perforrs moot of1`icxently when ibis placad s miuimaam of one-fourth, watrelength above ground. An efficiasnt antenn.. system is eto th Cial to provide Conslatant and reliable cc nicol.ions, 1 esiseciaxly to the north due to the tupographieas barrier of t%e mourtairu , Therefore, I ask to have a rarionce granted k,6 section 17.08.0rgo of 11jc Rancha CucaMnga Municipal Code and be. ant allow. ii to Brett aantenna w support etructurez 70 feet in height. This antenna support pport mtaac:ture will be constructed using good enhineer- � in$ Practices and principals f add will po considerati.en. se no health, safety car welfare 1 fj a miles F. Spatnagel 5327 Carol Ave. Alta Loma, Calif.. 91701 i cc: George J. Rohrer, Attorney Ut Law b. Craig Fos, Deputy City Attorney 3 . -7 Greg Gage December: 23, 19 8,6 Assistant Planner : Planning Divi3ion :1 City nR Ra.ncha Cucamonga ; °SllB.in,Tz VARIANCE 86 -o8 , J }� Dear Mr. Gage: Tho following information is ;!rovided - :e addendum to my -rariance' application dated Nor!!#bar 13, 1986. The Federal Communications Commission r- ,etognizes amateur radio's necessity and importance to emergency cosmusications_in that it is specifically, stated as a fundamentt.1 purpose of the service. i;ecvgait'aA d"Ad enhancement of the value of t,,t amateur s:►rvice to the public as a vole untary noneommerci #l, communicatio4 service, Particularly with )espect to providing emergency communications (1) Kor.td governments recognize the abtlity*of the amateur scr`;L-e to provide disaster commiAni,cationS an a `4atld ^wide basis. Than international disasteg "communications would be facI litated by temporary use of certain frequency bands allocated to the amateur service. That undee those- circupstances the stations of the amateur service because of their widespread distribution and their demonstrated capaci.� x in such cases, can assist in meeting essential communicatiol needs. (2) Local rand regional amateur radio clubs are continually involved in providing public service and emergency commuaiccltiona ae evidenced by,the recent Cerritos air dtsasCer, the Mexico Cite', earthquake, the Hande Across America and the Grape Festival. Since on* of my areas o£ concern is to maintain a station available` to respond in tisaes of emergency, a hardship will be created without effective anteaaas. The mountains to the north create a radio barricade. A con3istant, reliahle and effici#.n.,fantenna system is essential, i D 11 Public service, public safety and emergency radio is excluded- from height restrictions. (3) The purpose and intent of the Development Code is (in part) to promote and protect the public health, safely and welfare_ (4) The Federal Communications Commission believed Chat, because of restrictive regulations Fertaining to amateur radio facilities, a limited preemption policy was warrantev.,.(5) Local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health; safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to arcommo- date reasonably amateur communications, and t o re- present the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. Therefore: This variance should be granted as it has been shown that amateur radio is a service that has demonstrated It's necearity and importances in tires of emergency. This variance should bm granted in that doing so :is in agreement with tie pu.poae and Intent of the Developmen.t. Code as amateur radio is continually engaged in public service rand,, in times of emergency, is regurlrly engaged in communications for the purpG,e of protecting the public health, safety cnd welfare. This variance should be granted iA_,;,o; strict enforcement would cause hardship with respect to antenna reliability. The full text of the cited documents are enclose,, for your crn- vience. If you require 'additional information please contact me. Sincerely, Y� Charles F. Spetnagel 5327 Carol Ave. enclosures Rancho Cucamongz, CA 91701 (1) CFR Title 47 Chapter 1 Fart S7..1a (2) CF:i Title 6.7 Chapter I' Part 97 Appendix 6 Reso'.etion 64C (3) Dawelopmtnt Code, City of Rancho Cucamonga Section 17,05.�j6C I(1) (4) ,Development Code. City of Rancho Cucamonga Section 17.02.OiO C (5) FCC - Memorandum Opinion and Order - PRB -1 cc. George J. Rohrer, Attnrrer at Law i Ralph D. Hanson, Deputy City Attorney (D Ammot Wp sw., 20 a 21 8** toe Sur= Sgm Q--ft CrrY OF rmlt ASM, RANCHO CUCAAMONGA Tm.E, MAE! PLVI N I LNG 11\1- MN SX-MMIX.SCALE, to$7 fill lvr ---Age — aus (D Ammot Wp sw., 20 a 21 8** toe Sur= Sgm Q--ft CrrY OF rmlt ASM, RANCHO CUCAAMONGA Tm.E, MAE! PLVI N I LNG 11\1- MN SX-MMIX.SCALE, 4 ^aebL. hue: i 'r7.s4f WT da.apTaove Asatau* Aadio OWM: Spetuagel, Charles & S'audra - ADM233, 5327 Carol Ave. Alta Lora. CA 91701 Fs 1m. 714 -945 -9303 17d ?2f3x� i � PFarLsEO AA1TlUR 6wrw e �,•�. QvGK WA1.0 .231 Y 1 NORTH CITY O% va►��CE of-ca RANCHO CUCANIONGA Tnu:.SI�:�e1.��� ... PL.1► N1,NG Divisi %4 EXHtPt'1 IP LC.= - Before the Federal Corr munica ons Commission W3*hingtt,n, D. C. 20554 to the Natter of i ); Fedora1 preemptJ�of sta`s and } PR¢-1 local rsquiatla�idl, sjlatnrn4 ) to Ajraxfo;r raid l o iN��RAta[1 au ge N I MS',atULa, Adopted: Septemb* r 16, 1985 g Ro leaseds BeFi ebsr 19p 19$;' r c x By th! CamIN!!i e!on; Commissioner Rivera not partiaipakin8: ' -` t. On July 13, 1984, the Amer$cen Radio Relay F..quo, Inn, COAL) Mad a Request for issuanao of a Dealaretory Rut,'!ng asking t: t G us doiineata the 11131tationt of lava. =ning and otoor local old statel regutal -eery authority over F -Iderally- licensed rad;ZO facFlifiea. Srte�(l #ically, the ARR� wanted an explicit statement that would preempt all 1uc'al rrdtndas which provably preclude or significantly islhibli" "sifective, rwila4lm aaataur ra communications. The ARRL acknowtadpa, thar� local autfioritlsd can rag+rla amateur installations yo Insure itie safety and hesith of 16 persons the community, but balloves itat those regulattion ,Fannot. so rssY,YktIV* that they preclude affftf-tve wat4vr comet nications. 2. interested parties ware advised that they could file consoents in the matter I. With sxtenst0n, comments were due on or before December 26, 1984 2. with reply ccowents due cn or tafore January 25, 1985 S. Over sixteen hundred comments wens tiled, 1 Pub? c. Notice. August 3A, 1984, M"No. No. ij299, 49 F.R. 361133, + Sep ,amber It, 1984. 2 P-:b l ic; Notice, December 19, 1984, Mimeo No. 1498. 3 Order,, November 8, 19841, Mimeo. No. 770. Z 31 Carfile *s betwoen amateur rAp*rators regrrdiog radio wennas dnm local autrorwvs r*gardd,'�g restr.otive ordinances are ccmeon,,, The amateur' — Operator 'i;'i gcvt•rred by tqe r.-egui /dons Contain "ad in Pcrt 97; " -6f our rule*. Those rule,' do rat l lmlt the helgrit of to ;i m#t�eur., antenna_ at they require, for a, lath n safety masons,; that certain FM notification anti FCC appf avai prt+cedures must be followed for antennas vnlcls exceed ZOO test In height above gi or.,id level or antennas vhlco are to be erected near, airptorts. Thus„ under FCC rules some amateur antonria support structures requJri obstituction, markfng and lighting.•, 0n the o ^her hand, iota! rtiunlcipalitlis or governing bodies frequently.vn�ict regulations limiting antennas and their supq�+ structures In h*!'ht and locaition, t.g. to side or rear yards, tor�4 ,1lth, safety or..aasthet :c considar,�ations. These limiting regulations calm Plesult in confl(v4 because the 0foctivsness of the communications that lkmi}ai% from an amateur radio station are directIj dependent upon th` location and the height of tha antenna. Amateur operators maintain that they are precludzd ff-am srer #ting to certain bands allocated Or their use if the height of their pntonnas Is limited by a Wall ordinance. i 4. Examples of ro;trlctive loco) ordinances *ore submit°rad by savarsl .- mateur operators in this prcceedtng. Stanla4 J. Cichy, San blego, Callfornis, notid that In San Diego amate , eadia antennas cfi�* under a structures ruling which limits building hwigh+s t'W3n foet. ; „thus, antennas there are also limited to 30 feet. Alexander Vrentoa,, Mund0eln, Illinois wrotiR, that an ordinance of the Village of Mtundelein provid +js that an ailts+►na must be a distance from the proparty line that Is equ; -1 to one and onw-half times Its height. in his case, he Is limited to an antenna tow*r for his amateur station ;ust over 53 fear in height. S. John C. Chapman, an amateur living in Bloomington, Minnesota, comment4d „that No was not abla to obtain a building, permit to install an amateur radio asntinna' exceeding 35 felat In height because the Bloomington city or°dlna!:ce restricted "structures” heights -o 35 fast, Mr. Chapman said that the ordinance, when written, undoubtedly applled to buildings but was now b,aing applifed to antcnnit. in the absence of a specific ordinancs. regulating them„ Thar* were tvo cptlons open to him If he w<n.ed ta`angage In amateur coovnunlcatIons. He could request a variance to the ordinance by way of a hearing before the City Co4ncil, or he could obtain affidavits from his neighbors *-,wearing that tha�j mad no o.joc *ton to the „rcoosed antenna j inst3liation. He ,ot the building permit after ootalning t ^e cogperfitlon of his neighbors. His concern, however,, is that ra had to cat permisslon from several people before he could effectively engage in radio communications for which ha had a valid. FOC amateur license. sr c Z 31 Carfile *s betwoen amateur rAp*rators regrrdiog radio wennas dnm local autrorwvs r*gardd,'�g restr.otive ordinances are ccmeon,,, The amateur' — Operator 'i;'i gcvt•rred by tqe r.-egui /dons Contain "ad in Pcrt 97; " -6f our rule*. Those rule,' do rat l lmlt the helgrit of to ;i m#t�eur., antenna_ at they require, for a, lath n safety masons,; that certain FM notification anti FCC appf avai prt+cedures must be followed for antennas vnlcls exceed ZOO test In height above gi or.,id level or antennas vhlco are to be erected near, airptorts. Thus„ under FCC rules some amateur antonria support structures requJri obstituction, markfng and lighting.•, 0n the o ^her hand, iota! rtiunlcipalitlis or governing bodies frequently.vn�ict regulations limiting antennas and their supq�+ structures In h*!'ht and locaition, t.g. to side or rear yards, tor�4 ,1lth, safety or..aasthet :c considar,�ations. These limiting regulations calm Plesult in confl(v4 because the 0foctivsness of the communications that lkmi}ai% from an amateur radio station are directIj dependent upon th` location and the height of tha antenna. Amateur operators maintain that they are precludzd ff-am srer #ting to certain bands allocated Or their use if the height of their pntonnas Is limited by a Wall ordinance. i 4. Examples of ro;trlctive loco) ordinances *ore submit°rad by savarsl .- mateur operators in this prcceedtng. Stanla4 J. Cichy, San blego, Callfornis, notid that In San Diego amate , eadia antennas cfi�* under a structures ruling which limits building hwigh+s t'W3n foet. ; „thus, antennas there are also limited to 30 feet. Alexander Vrentoa,, Mund0eln, Illinois wrotiR, that an ordinance of the Village of Mtundelein provid +js that an ailts+►na must be a distance from the proparty line that Is equ; -1 to one and onw-half times Its height. in his case, he Is limited to an antenna tow*r for his amateur station ;ust over 53 fear in height. S. John C. Chapman, an amateur living in Bloomington, Minnesota, comment4d „that No was not abla to obtain a building, permit to install an amateur radio asntinna' exceeding 35 felat In height because the Bloomington city or°dlna!:ce restricted "structures” heights -o 35 fast, Mr. Chapman said that the ordinance, when written, undoubtedly applled to buildings but was now b,aing applifed to antcnnit. in the absence of a specific ordinancs. regulating them„ Thar* were tvo cptlons open to him If he w<n.ed ta`angage In amateur coovnunlcatIons. He could request a variance to the ordinance by way of a hearing before the City Co4ncil, or he could obtain affidavits from his neighbors *-,wearing that tha�j mad no o.joc *ton to the „rcoosed antenna j inst3liation. He ,ot the building permit after ootalning t ^e cogperfitlon of his neighbors. His concern, however,, is that ra had to cat permisslon from several people before he could effectively engage in radio communications for which ha had a valid. FOC amateur license. 1, 1n addition-to height restr,lctlons., other, limit •are �-+,:d by focal Jurisdictions - •anti- ciimb.d evicas? n towers or ftncey arount; th*M; minimum distances from hi44 voltage ,ao or Uines; m144V* dicta of towers tf'aN property lines; and reoulatims pertaining to th® sir uI snundnsss of,Ithe antsrenr lnsta; iatlon. By apd large, ;amatdueF do not `find these safety precauttons objecti- Aabie. What they do object to sre tht sometimes prohibitive, non- refundabl* application thing � s to 6btaln a permit to erect an antenna Installation and those proviairg s ire ordinances`, which regulate 11 ntenf�4s for purely aosthe -to_ reaso?s, 11sd aeat�aursf contend almost universally, that "beauty is in the *y* 'nf the bohold,4t-a" 'h1*y asa that an Ant!"` a lnsteligtlon Is not more aesthaticaFfy displ"Sing tha>„ other ovjects that people keep," their proaertya *.g. motor homes,. j trail *s ,ck- uplt!ucks, solar cotiea�rs aTdard *ning equifia�ni« �'i ie 1`e: 7 Amatsur. operations r � operators ais�s'restrtctlons � their ara►steur op hick are contsined In the d*a_ _for theit!`homes ttr in their apartment leases. Von* those restrictive ;Oven -ants a.� • tJat = agreements between private piirtles, they are cat -- genera ►f of eoneen to the omission. tfovsr, slnc* $two zKot - s matter commented *u Proceeding us with 41KNIples of rsstrictly- covenants, they are Included ter information. 1?, Eugene A. Thomar�<;4 Hollister, Call fornia s0ciuded In his cc"ontig an ex act of the 9eclaratlon of �Cou0nants and Restrictions for R{dg : ;k Estates, County of San Benito, Steto 9> CaIIfornia. it provi ads 3 No antenna for traftw 4_on or reception raAL signals, shat i be er•art*d outdoors for use dwelllero_.gnit axc*Pt 9_0 approval of the Directors. No•radle or television slgg th nail Qt'any oer form of electromagnetii",radtetion shai ? be p Emittod to originate from any lot which hay unreasonably , interfere with the reception of tolavision or _ radio siCnels upon any Atha, lot, Marshal Hilson '.r. provided it cope of the rwstrlctive eov+tetant contained In deeds for thc. ` Sol l Martin_ldditlon 12, Irving, Texas. It 1% binding upon alt of the ewn*ra oe puccha7*rs of thb;,totR 'n the said aridltton, his or their hates, ex*cutor, GCminlstF_Jtors L.- c;sslgns. it reads: No antama or tower shall be arectcd upon any lot for the purposes or radio operations, nit0lam J.,'iatr`lton resicas ih an aoarr -cant okk:idlrg in Gladstone, Mlssour.l He cites a 1"" 10 his mace prohibtt,i ^g The erection of an antenna, re l 1, 1n addition-to height restr,lctlons., other, limit •are �-+,:d by focal Jurisdictions - •anti- ciimb.d evicas? n towers or ftncey arount; th*M; minimum distances from hi44 voltage ,ao or Uines; m144V* dicta of towers tf'aN property lines; and reoulatims pertaining to th® sir uI snundnsss of,Ithe antsrenr lnsta; iatlon. By apd large, ;amatdueF do not `find these safety precauttons objecti- Aabie. What they do object to sre tht sometimes prohibitive, non- refundabl* application thing � s to 6btaln a permit to erect an antenna Installation and those proviairg s ire ordinances`, which regulate 11 ntenf�4s for purely aosthe -to_ reaso?s, 11sd aeat�aursf contend almost universally, that "beauty is in the *y* 'nf the bohold,4t-a" 'h1*y asa that an Ant!"` a lnsteligtlon Is not more aesthaticaFfy displ"Sing tha>„ other ovjects that people keep," their proaertya *.g. motor homes,. j trail *s ,ck- uplt!ucks, solar cotiea�rs aTdard *ning equifia�ni« �'i ie 1`e: 7 Amatsur. operations r � operators ais�s'restrtctlons � their ara►steur op hick are contsined In the d*a_ _for theit!`homes ttr in their apartment leases. Von* those restrictive ;Oven -ants a.� • tJat = agreements between private piirtles, they are cat -- genera ►f of eoneen to the omission. tfovsr, slnc* $two zKot - s matter commented *u Proceeding us with 41KNIples of rsstrictly- covenants, they are Included ter information. 1?, Eugene A. Thomar�<;4 Hollister, Call fornia s0ciuded In his cc"ontig an ex act of the 9eclaratlon of �Cou0nants and Restrictions for R{dg : ;k Estates, County of San Benito, Steto 9> CaIIfornia. it provi ads 3 No antenna for traftw 4_on or reception raAL signals, shat i be er•art*d outdoors for use dwelllero_.gnit axc*Pt 9_0 approval of the Directors. No•radle or television slgg th nail Qt'any oer form of electromagnetii",radtetion shai ? be p Emittod to originate from any lot which hay unreasonably , interfere with the reception of tolavision or _ radio siCnels upon any Atha, lot, Marshal Hilson '.r. provided it cope of the rwstrlctive eov+tetant contained In deeds for thc. ` Sol l Martin_ldditlon 12, Irving, Texas. It 1% binding upon alt of the ewn*ra oe puccha7*rs of thb;,totR 'n the said aridltton, his or their hates, ex*cutor, GCminlstF_Jtors L.- c;sslgns. it reads: No antama or tower shall be arectcd upon any lot for the purposes or radio operations, nit0lam J.,'iatr`lton resicas ih an aoarr -cant okk:idlrg in Gladstone, Mlssour.l He cites a 1"" 10 his mace prohibtt,i ^g The erection of an antenna, re 1 e ; states that ha has bean -forced to give uo raprrattng amateur radlc squIpoent "sC#Pt a hand -l►sld Z meter (141-111$ MHzi r8dl0 tr84SCeiver. He maintains chat he should not _#,e panelIW,00,,just bocau�, hr Ilea in an apartment. ,rher restr.a;Cif# covenants ark Sess global 1;+ %COP4'th40 cited aboys. For example, Robr.�t w#ub Purcht31_ - -1 In KoustoyF,' Texan. His Dead r43triction prohlolted 'etransmitting'or Ptcalvinj, antennas- - extending above the roof llne n a. Amatouc operators gederally *EPOS* restrictive covenants for several reaso63. They malntaln th'Rt such restrictions itwtlt,.tho places that they sa+t reside if th #yt +t@1? tO-' ursue their hobby of amateur radio. Sane state that they Impinge on Ffrut Amendft'ftt rights of fret speech., Othar's bat love thy,., a constktutibnal right is being abridged because, in their vier, everyone has a right to =,*420 the, alrwa�rds regardlesb of where they i i ve. The contrary belief hajid by hOuting subdikis;on communit }es and ccndoailnimum or homdox ores asSaciations_is' that amateur oadlo installations constitute safety hazprds, cause Intarfef*enes TO othW- olectronim equipment which may be oparatad iR the km 1 ftlevisionx. radio; stereos) or are ey640rOS That detr,,ir.1, frorp thft aesthetic and tastefit appearance of the hoo4ing development of- apartment co -Viox. To counteract thesa naga.ivo ` consequences, the stAbdivIzIzns znd assocrattons include in thclr deeds,' leases or by -tars restrictions and 11411t4tionu on 'he location and height of antennas. or, in sore cases, prohibit ttiewe alta;getiser. The re3tristiv covenants are contained In the contrrctuai sgr,, eaWt entered in+4'at the +lms of 71"S Sale or Ionise of the property._ pur osors or leseeos are free to chco" vhother+ they wl*b to reside Thera such restrictions on amateur antennas are In sffa_h or sattie: elsewhere. e, i 10. The iaapaetnent of Dafenme IDOD2 supportod` the ARR}. and emphasized in its ==Ones t:+at contanued syccept, of axis t ?eg 04tlanal seeurity *ad emergency prs!parsdness 110AS blahs iam- ng amarsur stations rouid be swvzr -aly diminished if sto.. ',Pnd laces ordln' cos Tore allowed to p, hibit the constru4tlon .and usage 4er i#factive amateur transmission facill s -s. 110D utiilzta volunteers In 'h6 Mi1 -1tary AtfIIIate Radio Sa7vIca (MARS)k +iyii Air Patrol (C?!01 and the FC'd t-Amateur ClvII Emergency S4 tvle0 tRACES3. }r paints but that those volunteer coamuntcators arc, operating radio equipment Installed In tncir hone3 and that undue restrictions on 1 4 slrgti, I .0 "aly un .-or "~Z - 45olzas '7f the ml I ltnry whlz.t racf,.Uits voluntSAr : =ur casrators to rGncer 3ssictance, io 1t. The Commisslon Is not in s; ;e; t5 tt'* MARS prol;r3n. 0701 -02 o 4 -8--87 PC Agenda o 2 antennas by Local authorities ac-iorsely affect their efforts. 000 a+at*x , that Cite resprsnstvermiis of these volunteer systems would be impaired if local ordinances Interfere with the offectiveness of these lmpoat;ant nFtIOnat W ecommun$CotlOft resources. DOD favors tho Issuance of a rulin that would seat limits for local and state regulatory badiss vhen they are dealing with amateur stations. 11. Yartous shaptors of the American Re? Cross also came forward to support the ARRLFs request for a preemptive'ruting. The Red Cross worlds close 4y with ai{'Tour radio volunteers. it buttsysa that utthout amataursf dedicated supplsrt, disaster rallof operottons would significantly stiffer and that its ability to serve disaster victims would be hamperad. it foots that antenna height limitations that mlght,be Imposed by local bodies will �negativeiy affect the service noes rendered by the volunteers. 12. C1tlss and counties from various parts of the United States` 'flled comments In Support of they ARRL'% request for a Veda i preemption ruling. The comments from the Director of Civil Defense, Port Arthur, Texans are representatives T`. Amateur Radle service ptays a vital roi+g with xsr Civil Oefertsw, program hers in Fort Arthur, and the design of those antenna* and towers fends greatly to our, ability to comimunicaft during times at disaster. We ft "not behove there should be any restrictions on the antennas and toners except for reasonable safety pre+ceutlons. Tropical storms, hurricanes i and tornadoes are a way of life here an the Texas Gulf Coast and goad communication& are absolutely essential when preparing for a'huiricane and even more so during recavery operations after tht, :'V'rleans has pasv. 13. ? )e Quarter Century Wireless-Association took m strong stand 1 In favcr of "rho Issuance of a declaratory ruIIng. It beiIGves that Federal preempts -.,I is s °' *PP.tissary so that there vile be untformfty tar ail Amateur radio in4tcs8i"'Jons an private property throughout the United States. 14. in its comments, the ARRL argued that the Commission has the jurlsdYc�;tion to preempt c7rtain local land use regulations whtell frustrate or prohibit amateur radio comunlcar ions. It Sato that the appfoprtate standard In preemption Zases is :sow the extent of stato and local Interest In a given regulation, but raiaEr tea impact of that regulation on Federal goals. its Position is teat Federal preemption Is warranted whenevar local governmental ewgulations relate adversely to the operational aspects at, amateur communication. The ARRL maintains that �� r t t AOL localities routinely employ a variety of land use devicets to preclude the installation of affective amateur antennas, Including height restrictions, conditlonol use peMits, bugiding setbacas,and dimensional timitatioRl on antennas. it sass a declaratory ruling of Federal prewpttcn as necessary t* cause municipalities to accommodate amateur operator needs In land use planning efforts i3. James C. Ct Connell, an attorney who has represented- several imateurs before local ZPning authcrltles, said that requiring amateurs to seek variances or special use approval to erect reaaonablo antennas unduly restblcts the operation of amateur statlons. Fie suggested that the Coms.,,ssion preempt zoning ordIA4,jce9 which impose antenna height limits of less than 63 feet, He sa;* �! °haiLthlq height would represent a reasonaibie mmu accommodation of`the c6nleatt \� naids of mavt amategrs and the legit1we concerns of local aoni +'�Q Aoa`ltiss. � ^Raaj11$. nts 16. The City of La Mesa, California has a zoning regulation which controls amateur antennas. Its comments reflected an attempt to reach a balanced view. VhIs regutatilln has nclther the Intent, nor then effect, of precluding Vr inhibiting effective and � reliable cmmunications. Such antennas may be buiit as long as their construction does not `? j ,unreasonably black views or cbnititute eyssoras The reasonable assumption is tnat there are always l alternatives at a given sIto for „different placoment, and /or methaC* for ae thatic treatment. Thus, bath public objectives of controlling land use for the public health, safety, and convenience,' and providtng an effectival Cortmcunications netxcrk, can be satisfied. A blanket ruling to compi.vtoly set aside local control, or a ruling which *acognizes control only for the purpose of safety *= antenna construction, would be contrary to ... legitimate local control. 17. Comments from the County of San Diego statsi While we are aware of the benefits provided by amateur operators, we oppose the Issuance of a pre-emption ruling which ocu l d ei evata 'antenna effectiveness' to a position above all otesr considerations. We must. however, argue .hat the T -49 { r i' 7. locsv.''-�srnmont must have the api)ity to place resson6le limitations 110011 the piacownt and MEM canflouration of amateur radio transmitting and receiving ;nteneias. _Such ability is necsss.ary to assurs that tha':ocLl (locislcn- makers have the authority to protest ttie pubtic haalth, safety and weltare of all citlto-„s, In conclusion, I vould like to emphasize an important difference belaaen your roe- pfatory powers and #hat of local governmien, ryour Caamisslon's approve$ of the prey r --_e' ' requa -44 would establish a rnational, pol id�f Howevetr,,. Any reguiation adopted by a loc&A JuriVdiction could be overturned by your Commission or a court if such, regutatton was detarealned to be unreasonable. 18, The City of Anderson, Indianlr/ summarized , some of the problems that facsa kcal communitless i am sympattaatic 7o the concerns of these antenna ovews and i undarztaod that to gair4 the maximum reception from their devices, optimal location is necss$Ory, However, the preservation of residential zoning districts a& fitveablee nelghborhooda Is jeopardized by- piaoing these antennas in front yards of homes.: Major problems of public safety lave been encountered, particularly vision blockage, for out* and pedestrian access. In addition, all ccalnugt tes- ary faced with various bultding lot slzms. Many ;building lots are so small that established setback requirements tin oraer to preserve adequate sir and light) are vulnerable to the unregulated placement of these antennas. ...the exerci a of preemptive authority by the FCC In granting this request would not be in the best interest of the general public. e,9. The National Association of Counties (NACO), the American Planning Association (APA) and the National League of Cities (NLC) all apposed thO Issuance of an antenna preem_flon ruling. R CO emphasized that fedaral and state power must " viewed in harmony and tarns that Federal intrusion into local concerns of hoatth, safety and wClfars could weaken the traditional police power exercised by the state, and unduly Interfere with the tegitimate acttvlties of the sr3fies NLC Dal leved that both Federal and toeal Interests con be cotaa1104ated without ptoompting total authority to rvgulate the Instaliation,at 4W4ur radio antennas. The APA said that the FCC should Continues to ieteve' the issue of rrequ lat ing amateur antennas +rich the local sovarnment and with the statz and rudsrsl courts. RJ�iar.� 2d. }lion constierinq praeinpttona we must begin kith tro constltutf Aslt Krasristotts. The °tenth smeehditteent provides, :•hit Any potters Which thsr; onstltutton either dears note delegate to the 441tel'i States or does not prohibit the stet *s -Eros exercising are reserved to the states. These are the police powers cf tre st095 . The Supremacy Ctausa, however, provides that the constitution and the laws ! of the united States shati supersede any; states low to the Contrary. Article Ill, Section 2„ Criv ®n these beslc pr*misas; state laws mAy be preempted in three;, drys: First, Congress msk expressly preetept the state low.. Sea Cg-, 434 U.S. 519, 525 0977), Or, Congresj'may fndicats its tsfsent to 4 CoM1 ely OCCUPY a gluon field so that any state law Oncampasstd w1thln that Reid wculii tmpiiatty to ptseuat~ted. Such intent to pt*wpt could be found to atone- exzlonatl re g.tiatory x0etne 'that was t* patrvestve that It w"Id be remsottable to assume That Congress d€ a noi' Intend; to permit the stated to suppleteent it. See `FdtlFty l�fdArsl Sav = -� t Caen A21in ,,, e, l� _.,�:t *, 454 U.S. tilt, 153 M62), Finally, preetr:#- lost may be warranted when $tat* tow conflicts with federal law. Such Contilct3 may occur wheats 'rro"ttonce, Witr. both Fsderat and state regulations is a physical ImQos bII1ty," ctealdM Lt du awe C;:Mrs !tie v,i. z73 U.S. 132. tat, 143 (1463), or wheen -etats law "sTwLjs as.an oj:stacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and cbloctivex •{ Congress," t�r�« W;. nT��d�,sttrr 312 U.S. 32, 61 (1941). Furthermore, fetdcrat regulations havee the saaw, Cre®asptive effect as tederai statutes. EJAJI u_. till-rat 5amin2* r '"ten -- 3a . k1Q s t:s .�ctap C 1DZ .r 21. The aIt+jatlon before u ,, requires us to determine the extent- to which state and local zesning a utatttsns ma #tt I 4 c , ct l to #edera F ean l pantie.% concerning amateur radt',l operators. 22. Few mattere coral,",; before us prosont such a clear dtchotoa, , Of vir3Wpesint.as dons she instant Issue. The cities, courtles, fioMal communities and nousing associations stet, an obtigation to at of their CITtzans and try to adpt -ass 7hsir coeCfrna. This is aCcomptt,shed through regulaTlonsp ardinarcar. or covenants Oriented -toward the health,. safety and goneeal Wetfare of Tnoso tneey regulate. At the opposite ;;Ole arse the indi-idgst ,.'r3 -cur Ch=ra °ors and t >air support grcups who are troubled by twat rqularfans „n;ch ,Zay ;nniJit the use Of amateur 5- ations or, itt score !�sta c.a,,, turdal l -; pr®ciuds ama eur, comr niyatio:t�. MISA-9d with th3 cpar4tors are sucn artttlas as the t)epartmar.T of Dofen3o, the Americkin Pzd Cress ar.d 'acai civil defense and ameroancy organizations wno hgye fcund In Am.. tour Radio a aczi of skilled radio operators and a � 5� r= I s readily avrilabie backup network. ln.this Eltuatian, we believer l appropriate to stlke a balance 6etwsen the federal Interest in promating amateur operations and the legititate Interests of local govornment, In reguiatIng toeasl zon109 matters. The cornerstone an which we will predicate our decision Is that a reafionabie accommodation tray be, mace catween the two sides. ;.. 23. Pretnnptlon is primarily a function of the extent of the conf.lrr. between federal and state and local regulation. Thus, in considering u whether our regulations cr policies can tolerate) a state regulation, ewe roy co,nnldar such faaft"S as the solver%ty of the nonfllet and the reasons, underlying the state's requlations. 14 this regard, we have previously rec�ognlzed the legitimate and Important state Interests reflected in loca; zoning" regu tat Ions. l:or "A" Is, Ie Urth SateliIt* Co!:esnlentions, inc. 95 FCC 2d 1223 (1983), we recognized thit . countervalling state Interests inhere in the present .ktuation . . . For exog le, we do net wish to pc`tIude e.stst* or locality from exsrc>,Ntng jurlsdlieti(m over esrteln clWWts of aIN SIWIV oparatlon thOt properly may flail wf- -` in its al.-^.°hority, such as son Ing or pub Ile safst {� and health,, provided the reolation ltd questaft is not undertaken as a grotext for the actual purpose of frustrnt'ng achieversent of the prominent federal objective and so long as the ;ion- fodaral Ask 'rQSulatlan cs applIsd In a nondiscriminatory manner, 24. Similarly, LO recognize here that there are certain general sfiate and local [r °e rs;ts which may, in their even - handed application, legitIfflately Affect a,.,atsur radio facilities. lNonathelass, there is &Ise 0 IwVrong federal interest In promattng amatmar c(OWnlcetions. Evldeftit of this interest may be found in the Compranbnsive set of rules rhat the Coimoission has adopted to regulate the amateur service.$ Thay., rules sat forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators, frequency allocations, technical standards which amateur radio squipmer must njest and cosrating practices which amateur operators must follow. we recognize the Amateur radio service as a voluntary, noncommercial communication service, particularly with respact to providing_emergenc, j communications. Moreover, the amateur radio services providsu a reserve_ of trained operators, technicians and electronic experts who can to catte on In times of national or focal erargencles. By Its nature, the Ama �.. Radio Service also provtyos the opportunity for individual operators to further Intornational goodwill. Upon weighing these interests, we 5 47 CFR Part 47. 10 ��et.tasve = .,fit=od preeaaptton po►i,i=f is warranted. State and local ! re$uldti�as char operat4 to preclude amateur communications in their f unities are In direct rcrttict with; federal objectives and must be proamptod 25. 8ecsuset amateur stattQa c•mmunications are only as effective as tha antennas rmPioyed, us,tannn hailgat restriCtloats directly affect the - 'fectiveneass of amateur comawntcaVors. So** amateur antenna Configurations require aernre subst ftilat (nstaifattons,.than others If they are to prOVIds toe: amateur operator with thm cmimunications, that he/she deslrss to engage In. For axe" 10, an ant'enha array for lntarnatlonasl amateur communtcotlens +�011 differ from an antenna used to contact other amaftur operators • :t shj*°t• =r 41stan4e8> Pie will not, however, tpecify any regulate, height regulate, 'Imitation below which a toCat government may not rngulat *, nor aril we suggest the; cCIY� language t[sat, most be ca5attairaYd; in local ordinances; such as mechriiisals for special sxcaptions, variances, or conditional uae permits. Nevertheless, local ragui;atlons. Which Involve Ptea:e'aaer' a screening, Or height of antennas b I N V ssrd oj.+.hmaith, safety, Or aesthetic cca laarations mutt be `rafted to accommodate rensonabiy amateur communications,; and to represon'r the minimum practicabjt regutation to accomplish tie local authority#$ IegritlAaato;purposa. 6 26.. Obvla,asly, we do hot heave the staff or financial resources . to review all st:ta dad local taws tt ;¢`affoc t amateur operations -, We err confident, howev:i °, that state and local governments wlII endeavor to legis.lte In a m,rnor that %affords appropriate recognition to the Important federal :ntgreSt a" stake hers and `-er*by avoid Unnecessary conffictr with federal policy., as }ail rs time- consuming Ono ®,pensive litigatlon In this I Amateur rPee;.torz uno ysiieve that local or state gover,'ments have csa :n cverreocYts•; t-a -sr! have 4reciuded aceomPllshment of their legitimate .ommunicar;ons goats, may, in ad* iti bring our policies to The attent$on of Iocai on, use this document to tflaunals aind forums -. 5 We reitersrr rhat our ruling reralin does not reach restrictive covenanss in Private contractual agreements. Such agreements are volunrari?y entered ',to by the buyer or tenarr` when the agreement is executed and do not .suslIV concern this Commisslon. U Accctdtngty@ the Raguest for Declaratory Ruling filed July V 1984. by the Amr1can Re410 Relay Ceaga6, Inc., IS GRANTED to the eitent S F Indicated hers.In and, In 411 other' r*%pdts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL OOIs9FtUNMATIONS G"ISSION 1; g; Will tam J. Trtcartco Secretary Afty f' 'i f` i I' j 1 i C t a p C@IA 1�12S�.l�yty�., NUM9ER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE JAMES L. MARK MAN i�a S�Rl17t Lr i Fqu RTM FLOOR 1a, 0 BOX 1059 ANOR✓;W V. ARt,4,ZYNSK {, RAIpM D. NANSON UREA, CALIFORNIA. 9 ?622.1053 O.CRAIG FOX f(f?W 990 -w901 MARTItA JO GEISt TEI.EPr.Ot4t ,CR 6I71 as­ 3a" October 20, 1986 George J. Rohrer Attorney at Lava Rohrer & Holtz A Professional'iaw Corporation 1421 North Brookhurst Street Suite 126 Anaheim, California 92801 Re: Charles Spetnagel Dear Air. Rohrer: Thank you for providing this office with the federal and srate authority dealing with amateur radio antennas. The federal case, in particular, was enlightening with regard to 1 the FCC's limited preemption„ That preemptio *, appears to be identical to their earlier announced preemption dealing with satellite dishes. After .reviewing the text of the FCC's preemption as stated in the Thernes case, the present question appears to address itself primarily toward development standards applicable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Vore specifically, although the FCC has imposed a limited preamption dealing with regulation of amateur radio antenna heights, it is the opinion of this office that existing regulations, arguably impacted thereby, are not rendered invalid unless the public entity is unable to articulate a legitimate health, safety or welfare interest furthered thereby. This is not to say that specific reasons for an antenna height limitation, for example, reed be articulated before such a standard is imposed. it is our position that the requisite health, safety or welfare consider- ations are implicit in the 5o foot height restriction, just as such concerns are implicit in any number of structural requl_- tions and standards. t �--ss ���1�'1`4 d'' F G t George J. F.ohrec' October 20, 1986 Page Two As you seem to ne generally familiar with the Rancho Cucamonga Mun.,cipal Code, Section 17.+04.040 dealing with "variances, nay prov%de,some further relief for your client. As with all variances, the procedure is provided in order to accommodate special topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to a particular piece of property. in the event you are un.amiliar with the provisions of Section 17.04.040, we have enclosed a copy of that section for your use. To suirmwrixe, although we acknowledge the limited pre- emption announced by the FCC, we do-not believe that its languace invalidates Section 17.08.060 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code dealing with antenna height. Relief from the restrictions Of that section might possibly be obtainer: through the use of variance procedures available. Should you care to discuss this matter at greater length, olease do not hesitate tc, contact 2.; andersianed at your conve :ni,,nce, or feel free to discuss this m� or wi'zh Cit�r st at your r,<zvehience, DCF :Ijl Encl. CC: Brad Buller, City Planner very' truly you D. Craig Pox Deputy City ?rttorney City of Rancho Cucamonga [' ^ . . 8 '= ,. . 21 RESOLUTION NO- 87-T7 IV VE 86-08 TO WA MAXIMM ,!!EQUIREMENT FOR AM ANTENNA LOCATE HEIGHT A. RECITIILS (1) On 0"Uhr 7, 1983. the City Council of the CUCAM94 -1d"tOd Ordiname 211 providing for the regulation City of Rancho (1i) On N1v0Mb*r-,14, I of antennas. abave-dezcrt��od projest, 9M, in 4PPlic&ti0"'W1% filed Pnd accepted on the (III) Oft JjnUary 2r$' 1987, B. SESOLUTIGN follow: resolved as 1. This COWSsion hereby sWiffc4l1Y finds th#t all forth In the Recitals, part A, of thfS 04-facts sot `tru* and 2. eased UP= subtuntial evidence pros*nj/' to this CowAssion during the abOve-roferenced. January te the writult Staff '67 hearing, i,44luding application of =*rta-PPliC4At, this COMMiSSIGn hereby soo;ifically filds as follows*, a. The application applies to property 10ciited at 5327 Carol AvqnAw an & lot presently improved with a house, gar!tge and a 50 foot radio antenna; b- r" PrOPOMY Md surrounding properties &ps in the Very Low Residential District; C. The existing So foot radio s not comply with the 35 foot height 11"t i ground level As required by Cov#lc:�t Code SOCtion 17-08-0601. Further, the, appli,U&tj "Nsts to extend the antenna height to 70 feet; - ` ,� G Resolution No. VARIANCE 86 -03 January 28, 1; i $ APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ?BTN DAY OF JANUARY, 1987. S, `PLANNING C CITY OF k4,1CHO CUCAMONGA BY: T av f a man J ATTEST:_ r t 1 Pu Y ecre ary 1. Rancho Buller,, a og Deputy Secretary of the Planning Co=ission of the City of Rancho ly Introduced, do nereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regolar°ly iatrodured, passed, and aaopted,'by the Planning, Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular minting of the Olarning Commission Held on the 28th day of January, 19137, by the following vote -to. ng AYES: COWISSEONERS: EMERICK, CHIMEA, BARKER, 14_c i!EG, TOLSTOY NOES: C"'ISSIONERS: NONE � ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. I A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAt! 'GA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING VARIANCE NQ. 85- OL(AMENDED) TO WAIVE THE MAXIMUM, HEIGHT k1EQUIREMENT FOR AN EXTENDABLE ANTENNA LOCATED AT $327 CAROL AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A. RECITALS (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Councll:of the C'ty of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance 211 providing for the regulation of atteonas.. (ii) On November 14, 19860 an application was filed and' )ccepted on the above - described project. (iii) Cat April 8, 1987, the Planning Commissio held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section W54 of the California r Government Code. B. RESOLUTION NOW, 'THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds th�t' a'�1 the facts set forth in the ft;itals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced April 8, 1987 hearing, including the written Staff Report, and the I written, signed and verified application of the applicant, 1 this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; 1 a. The application applies to property located at 5327-Carol Avenue on a lot presently improved ' with a house, garage and a 30 foot radio antenna; b. The property and surrounding .properties are in the Very Low Residential District; c. The existing radio antenna was erected without proper permits for the footings prior to construction. d. The proposed antenna and support structure would exceed the maximum permitted height (extended) within the Very Low Residential District by 22 feet. J)40 BY: Larry T. McNie , Chairman ATTEST: Brad u er, ep+.Xy wire ary PLANNING COi4+iISSION RESOLUTION NO. ;4rJ ( VARIANCE 86 -08 - SPETNAGEL Aprit 8, 1987 Page 2 ' 3. Based tt,pon substantial evidence presented to p duri►ig this Comnissidh the above-referenced April 8, x}987 hearing and upon the specific findings of facts rit forth in Para aphs I and 2 lbove, this Commission her�,ry finds and conc das as fellows: r a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical,, diffVcO ty or unnecessary physical hardship " inconsistent with ' the objectives of the Development Code. f b. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involvedd, or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other x properties in the same district. ' c. That strict or 1',ieral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive .the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the sam,-' district. d. That the granting of the ^Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. ;or materially injurions to properties or improvements in the vicinity.. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF 7R!L, 1987. PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA BY: Larry T. McNie , Chairman ATTEST: Brad u er, ep+.Xy wire ary PLANAING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. VARIANCE 86.08 -- ` °ETNAOEL- 'April 8, 1987 r� y Page 3 I, Brad B044, 'Deputy Secr,�tvy of the Planning Commission of the City o Rancho Cucamonga, do hero-by L` tify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and'"" t regularly .introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pla6hing Commission of the City of Rancho Gxianonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: "J COMMISSIONERS: ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AWL E lu AAhk 11 I. � I- CITY OF RAT , -;,CUCAMONGA. who -/f STAFF'REPORT 0 F G1 Z U i7 1> DATE: April 8j 1987 Orman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanso3, Senibr Civil Engineer BY. Joe Stafa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE MENT,AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10393 KEITH AND C VA—NYAND LUS-K AND -C-P—PANT - A Subdivision Of ?-9.2 acres of -and --Fn-t—o 33 percels in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 16, located at the northwest corner- of Archibald Avenue and 4th h-Street - APN-,215-062-13, 11, 02, 26, 33, 32, I. PROJECT AND SITE KSCRIPTION.' A. Action Requested: Approval of the prdgosed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit 'IS". B. Parcel Size: The parcels rang(I in size from 1.0 acres to 7.8 acres With 25 in the 1.0 to 2.0 acre rangp and 8 greater%' chap 2.0 a;�Ires. C. Existin,l Zoning: industrial Park (Subarea 16) D. Surrounding Land Use: rth - Vacant South - Residential (City of Ontario) Erst - Partial vacant and partial existing industrial buildings West - Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel E. Surroundinq General Plan and Develoom.2,it Code Designations: North -- -I—ndus-tFial Park (SuEm-r—ea-16Y- South - Residential (City of Ontario) East - General Industrial ( Subarea 5) West - Flood Control Channel F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant with the land slo;' 9 approximately 2% to the sout�,. ITEM. E P 1'yPni n tWmi ssi on Staff Report Parpel- ap 10393 ApWcil 8, 1907 II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Parcel Map is to create 33 separate parcelvd to potentially be daVeloped by separate owners. No development pYans have been submitted at present -for any of the parcels t $& -37, also on toq'ghts agenda, provides'a conceptual design theme for the site. 111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The applicant completed Part I of the Initial to y, to ccn ucted a field' %nvestigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. Mo, au °,,erne - Impacts ,upon the environment are ¢' anticipated -s a rs;.: alt ofthis`'project. '7herefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate, IV, CORRESPONDENCE; Autices of, PlAlic Hearing have been sen5. to surrounding r proper yi owners ana. placed fp the:Wly Report Newspaper. Posting at the site`nas also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recmnended that the Manning CaWssion consider all nput an3 elements of the Tentative Parcel Map. If after such consideration, the C". ission can recommend approval, theh the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be approp^iata. RespectfullY submitted, rR. H nson enor Civil Engineer SRH:JS:dlw ! Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A ") Tentative Map (ExIlti bi t 911) Resolution and Recommendcd Conditions or Approval J I t jj t CL g ',"P a3�. ;a ti i %. s s t Hill, � � 4 a a. i -;fl . - — — a !tl I w r i r { t 1{ l ri 4 d m- r� IESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN ING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON,GN, CALi's`.ORNiA' CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER,NUMBER 10393 WHERI,AS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 10393, submitted by Lusk Company and Keith and Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 33 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 210- 062 -13, ii, 02, 26, 33, 32, located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street; and WHEREAS, on ' April 8, 1987, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. F%LOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMM fA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTIONS That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General,Plaii. 2. That the improvement of the proposed sub0tvision is consistent with the General Plan.: 3, That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That ' entative Parcel Map No. 10393 is hereby approved subject to t e attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Special Condisions 1. OVERHEAD UTILITIES: a. Archibald Avenue - An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical, except for the 66KV electrical) on the opposite side of Arct.ibsCrd Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to recordation of the final map.: The fee shall be one - half the adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Fourth Street to the north boundary of Parcel 33. b. Fourth Street - The existing overhead utilities (electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street, including the service line to the south side of Fourth Street, shall be undergrounded -from the first pole on the east side of Archibald �'S RESOLUTION PAGE 2 Avenue to the first pole on the west side of Cucamonga Creek Channel, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. Reimbursement of one -half the adopted cost of undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is not feasible because the property is in the City of Ontario. 2. All driveways shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer upon development. 3. Additional dedication shall be provided on the Final Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for the following: a. a southbound right turn lane on Archibald Avenue froii 'B" Street to Fourth Street; b. an additional Westbound,' 'lane cn Fourth Street from 'A' Street to Archibald Avenue; and c. Entry Monument sign and related landscaping. 4. einstruct a right turn lane on Archibald Avenue from 'B' Street to Fourth Street. 5. The developer shall obtain a corner cutoff easement for the northeast corner of 'A' Street and 'C' street Alk 6. Notice of intention to form and/or join the lighting and landscaping IF district shall be filed with the City Council �. ^tor to recordation of the map or issuance of building permit, whichever occurs first. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONaA BY: Larry T. McKie , Chairman ATitST:: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th dey of April, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1p ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F _� 1Y Y � N c e �Y R wf 1 •S• CRx V � M. ri V � iIC y L sit We yy ! '� a ff yyff ffpw• E !� : �N�S �` ^��tl�r� Qeg� r2 4 R11� Y � MLQU N O �p b ys id «CC V O LM g�L QY VY Y. Y.w6 <V d. V � � b Mf.QU 'y ;�c aaq' w` Q° ``a 4X. �„ .' MG of ' iR' Ea ^pp C�' 9 i• do S f i' 4.� •Qi N y1 �) r �'G ` � 6 ouYr yyy �Y1 Cw- r.Y� 2.1oC fags' v — 6 yy t W N Ji Eu0�Ai h�jj i�i,ii 2 i ss ;�jy � Rzy N�N +S• �w0 MN iM1+ qr ii +1q s^ tl�SYNY� iC i�6i ar..G �yv 6��b0 NY VeVx O i9 rSiMY MNY �►gqCam 312- Si 1 •S• CRx V � M. ri V � iIC y L sit We yy ! '� a ff yyff ffpw• E !� : �N�S �` ^��tl�r� Qeg� r2 4 R11� Y � MLQU N O �p b ys id «CC V O LM g�L QY VY Y. Y.w6 <V d. V � � b In Q4 V yVC O Y� V 44 4Y 9 yi Y. �Fg M M ,b„RI. JL ' �! 11/. gyp. w�. t � -}C w � aSZ t �T 6y 8CC d bL = LV .e aim .•Q�B wL ^9�pN+M V •N �� Y�M raW O }1 L° yi oy�Y Vi=a. p "' $ "•aaka .aK a w� CYi tj f Vw 9Y �• 4g � jY SAd a�V �� Y` • aN i. �L. VMNe >b.. `•. � �w VC1 p A 'igG� rx 2.9 �j attt ■f��1} u y 114 f > y tlep 0.Y i 0 N O a Y. C ^ N 17 • N y w+ N. � V � i! w" _ as � a a La J L 4M �Y M6 w a_ C e SW C MC m O p V M .O0 at + re N h W�X1 1 4 N E lu L 'CITY OF W, WHO CUC.t MONGA STAFF REPOR � aw DACE: April 8, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of tha Planning ommission FROM: 8r4d Buller, City Planner BY: R -10 ong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIR ESSMENT AND CONDITIMIAL USE PERMIT 86 -30 I VARY �, Y0 U en 3. e aca e ps, is �c ospltes; approximately $3,000 square foot of floor ark, on 5.12 acres of land in the Industrial mark Distriot�!VS*area 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan, locate((a the northeast cor;ser of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street,�✓�lPH 208 - 352 -42. t I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of February 25,,, -. 1987, conducted a public hearing and, at the request of applicant, continued this project to this meeting. The developer, Psychiatric Institute of Amterica, WA), is requestinns for withdrawal from this protect. A letter of request for withdrawal will be availaLtlp. at the meeting. II. RECOMENDATION': No action is required for this project. 4ftsfully submitted, City PI 88:NF:te ITEM F 9 i A7litiT AT' T] A %TATTA l.TTA l va aav vv vaz111V191TL1 i�(�•Af�,i STAFF REPORT'2r' ,a > Q� V DATE: April 8, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of th. Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME11T AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10218 City of Rancho Zucamonga - V'subdWision of acres of ;) Iand into parcels in t�f`ie Low Med';w ((4 -8 du /ac) Development DjC44^ict located on the southside of Fo bn Boulevard between Ro.,,tona Avenue and Turner Avenue (APN 208 -685- 02,03, & 14) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIkION:` A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown or, Exhiolt "B" B. Parcel Size: ' Parcel 1 - 5.0 acres Parcel 2 - 8.56 acres TOTAL 13.56 acres C. Existing Zoning: Low - Medium (4 -8 du /ac) D. Surrounding Land User ",karth - Rancho Cucamonga Middle School Sout:i - Existing Industrial - East - Existing Single Family West - Existing Single Family E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Low (2 -4 du /ac) Development District South - Santa Fe Railroad Track; General Industrial East - Low (2 - 4 du /ac) Development District West - Low (2 - 4 du /ac) Development District F. Site Characteristics: The site is covered with grasses and small shrubs and siopes in a southeasterly direction, ITEM G PLANNING C "MMISSION PM 10208 APRIL, 8, 1987 PAGE 2 II. ANALYSIS.- STAFF REPORT Development off a City Park and 8.56 acre parcel for ores for the Development. residential The City Park will be constructed on parcel 1. The Conceptual plait for the City Park which was approved on January 14, 1987 by the Planning Commission is shown as Exhibit "C" of this repot. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Pari,. I of the Initial ufiY, off con ucted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are alticipated as a result of this project,. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. IV. CORRESPONDENCE- Notices of Public Nearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning C o mission consider input an elements of the Tentative Parcel Map, consideration, the Commission can recamrnend approval then of adoption e be Of the appropriate. Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would ter such Respectfully submitted, "Vwl 4 s-t Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BK:dlw Attachments: Vicinity map (Exhibit "A ") Tentative Map {Exhibit �r8� =} Site Plan ( Exhibit uc "j Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval 11 G -�— ;j 'o . A 4 , im� G-. TENTATIVE SHEFr i OF n stlEi rs nAxx CEL MAP NO.1020� :IP THE CITY OF TIA:.CHO CUCAMONGA.CALIFORNIA M,) A sa7tiilfteeaY M 1. .t I. ' M »ss as +e mu ca war SC OI n{ra. C" n. f[d+ilf ar tai aalrrt or f.tt A7waelw. Y.u.ttwnlA ` 2 PARMS 13ECI MflER.1986 13,56 AC is i +t: t:.cr tanrAtw tao7! aaee. 1, tnn ti{17 roYruY! YVnelate lots, 7 talc YMCY WYt {trI IiTTilte 1atf• LtutK. Is KYwti $ Imi »G s" MIS no- MA f. C9Y1VYYf I14R Ktf,,t_ 7YRL0 ttA»Y tft C r- �utwlsK.twMMCI 11 • tY atY lteF[1t7. ' K„[tYit[t• Ritt•Y eq7 {i� f. YAK! /tte[ift GN[al,lYi{ [aeYTt Y »K! e[¢r. - .,.ten l itiNYltK e9Y , caret liYC IFilu �, that CPo /M 1OeAtil? 7. titer 31"W CA. R A»iti teM, AIRAY. L• alit! 770'fA, GLtMi1,U "tot. aM1/ liia {W�YaK. C». liN{ llht7l3. {~ uri •r !/s! ttr! taw x. stsnan. u»eis YO[.MaYw. 04 01101 11116 ftN1Ut aettes;►t [tcilalYlA ai#Lt A#. �� ilelwa AY[YA ' Malec +!t {lwetaK 111 91TC. !af Mlitl MWMtAtY lYiMOi • �. '�� 4 Y titate, t+i7tDeMi» 71f!! 1 SIl4 f11+.U1f tiri `A tC.iMtlY. W � •tr M 1 • a1 Ma^ -!• ftattt eMrarta. Oi r � A., tftl.tilc vtzi4ml'Y MAP O J G M� L. w v c9 w c J_ LL F J 'ah'IH Nnr+yu MY OF CUCAM04NGA- ENGDTEMWG DIVIMS I 1 l i II� OVOHlJVa 3j V1NVS SCALE t'• 20' �56e- IQ-Loa nnawULAm k NCb wN a G -S C 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOKGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10208 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 10208, submitted by City of Rancho Cucamonga, applicAnt, for the purpose of su: dividing into 2 parcels, the rear property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as ApN (s) 208- 085 -2, 3, and 14, located on the south side of Feron Boulevarl betwaen Ramona Avenue and Turner Avenue; and WHEREAS, or April 8, 1987, the Planning Commission held a euly advertised public hearing fer the above - described map. NOW, TK59EFORE, THE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: � 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is ;,hysically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause suirtantial environmental damage, public health problems or have advarse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2 That Tedative Parcel Map No. 10208 is hereby approved subject to —tTie — attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Special Conditions: 1. An in lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the opposite side of Feron Boulevard shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits on a parcel by parcel basis. The fee shall be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. 2. Sufficient storm drain facilities and easements to protect the site from offsite flows to the north shall be provided as approved by the City Engineer. 3. S`greets and Alleys shall be vacated as shown on the Tentative Parcel N;ap. r °s RESOLUTION r " PM 14208 April B, 1987 PACE 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1967. i PLARHING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO Cs::CAMtjNGtI BY: Larry T. M0(ie , airman ATTEST: l\ ' Brad u er, WRY- secretary �t I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secre.',' of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, de hereby c' r'y that the foregoing Resolution was duly and I; regularly introduced, passe,, ;d adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a- regular meeting -of she Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 1987, by the following vote'-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSY'ONERS: NOES: (Z,1MISSIOMERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, i 1 p N � M 01 N • � N - A o Ni- »,w IG�$ �,'ii•iiy ..= O O ^ O Aµ bS p,: Q. w My S '^ � � Y � N■ » wC 1i Y.. '_» k$ w -* Rip . 3� Ma Go K �< � [11t, � -�- �< l 3+ N is � g�� ���� �v� wA� »i� �����1 �dit•. m G-8 u 6 O �g n a a T- 0- $F w +�»' w pis s�• �OQ .10 YQ • �a �a'" 1 n— OOA �� � N�� �T 3: za8 v»� H2 S�Z - i is $wA ii 5 •t 'in O 6. Xx tea. �� ��"� �n ,`„� a� am ••oil'. m. ^1 Q� S�ls mi 11.A OO ; S•K 3.Si G-8 u 6 O �g n a a �...Q 1oQ aor 1r9♦ CKO K. wti� �v t_^i my a1 4 tP pp� ` Mw —K 9p 1 Siw 10 -W �CQ l• -M @�R! _ �Q (! nYp 9 .yam 'u 9i� !b]y i pa 0 am s� a g.��^ ° pe '3 3A Q�rV • °'' 43'1-n al xv 'grin �Y.J� vtm yr s f6te i C°^ non �Yt .°.a ,qA r n � N�n Via° oL i -r+n r a �f I' t W] E - N L.ti Vr 1r1&1vt,s1V SiULiii1'l1V14Ci,4i LyCAyp ST.APF REPORT r a ' �> DATE: April 8, 1987 _ 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil ingineer BY: doe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUWCT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12830 MODIFICATION - <r A request - .0 delete a condl on of . approval requ r ng a modified cul -de -sac to be constructed at the north end of Garnet Street for a previously approved tract consisting of 103 single family lots on-21.41 acres of land in the Low-Medium Density Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units' per acre), 9 ,aced on the west side of Beryl Street, north of Base Line Road - APN Z02- 251 -40. I. ABSTRACT: 'nee developer is requesting the modification of the proaecf-condition requiring completion of the stub street (Garnet Street) with cul -de -sac improvements as required 'by the City Engineer. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the City Engineer's requirement which is consistent with previous Planning Commission policy. II. BACKGROUND: The project was conditionally approved by the Planning ow ssion on December 12, 1984. The developer's letter requesting the modification of the cul -de -sac improvements is attached as Exhibit- "B' and a letter from the interested homeowners also requesting the same modification is attached as Exhibit 'C'. The project consists of 103 single family residences located on the west side of Beryl Street north of Base Line Road, as shown on Exhibit ''D°`. Garnet Street is located south of and "dead -end" into the tract', southerly property line as shown on Exhibit 'E °. As an information item, the developer is being required to correct the drainage outlets at the south ends of the storm drain easement located north of Garnet Street and the two adjacent parcels. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ,.., TENTATIVE TRACT '12830 - CITATION April 8,, 1987 Page 2 i III. ANALYSIS: It is current City policy to extend temporary "dead -end" s u s Teets upon developm (pt nr finish the stub street with a '.modified cO -de -sac, The installation of a modified cul -de -sac serves the following purposes: 1. It allows traffic to turn around without pulling into private driveways or making several maneuvBrs within the public street. 2. It allots City street sweepers to sweep the total curb length eliTinating possible debris build up in corners. I !^ ? 3. It provides a finished esthetically pleasing appearance to the end of the street, Exhibit "F" shows the modified cul -de -sac as currently approved on the project improvement plans. An alternate design to thf, standard is also shown for the Commission's consideration if it is decided that the standard design is not appropriate.for this project. This design would preserve the existing parkway'landscapin3 and still 1 provide for street sweeping. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning 'Commission uphold a requirement for a cul -de -sac per the: Conditions of Approval and provide staff with direction as to whether Alternate 1 or 2 is more appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Barrye Hanson - Senior Civil Engineer BH:JS:sgr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Developer's Letter Exhibit "C" - Homeowner's Letter Exhibit "D" - Tract Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Location Map Exhibit "F" - Alternate Designs 3 E 84 so Litre FOOMN � A a CITY OF I& RANCHO CUCAMONGA Hilis,�e Wilson sanyft; 6 , �� 17 ?31 IRVINE 0LVD.. Suko No, 261. TUSTIN, L t $200 (714) 714141 r� February 26, 1987 tL: Brad Buller, City Ply er City of Rancho Cucamohga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Dear fir. Buller: Yoa may recall that w withdrew in July of 1986: ours west to delete the subdivision reguiremen� idf Tract UK* to finish ,,ne dead end on Garnf'Suet as a cul -de- sac. ' We think it is appropriate to re- initiat% the hearing an our request to delete these; improvements and request that' this matter. rescheduled for the planning commission. r Sincerely, t I F.C. Linton'. Jr. -I Qevelopment;Manager 1, FGLjr /gy - 2 _January 13, 1966 Lloyd eubbs, City Engineer City cf Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: proposed Cul -de -Sac Garnet Street Dear Nor. Hubbs: At a recent meeting with various City represeLtatives 01' january 6, 1986, regarding other matters, it was disclosed that Your office proposes to create a cul -de -sac at the northern terminus of Garnet Street in- its `7COO block. In order to effectuate this re- sult, both the west and the east parkways located at 9056 La Vine and 7047 Garnet will have to be ded$cated, the tree and Plantings therein removed, and the driveway of 7047 Garnet redesigned to provide continued access to that homes garage. We as the interested homeowners at 7047 and 7057 Garnet, dodnot wish tha Citty tohose properties abut this proposed cul,de -sac, impor- tant to us that the streetorema3,n�a blocked? deadIt is more impor parxway and plantings remain. This street has been a�L ad- end tfore over 21 yeas, was not designed to accomodate a cul- de_s;­;, has not heretofore required a cu1_de -aac," and a cul-de-sac is nh., desired by the affected homeowners at this "ime. Re would OW-71- lfate writ, in notice of your decisi rn in tais matter. Very truly yours, 7047 Garnet Street 7057 Garnet Street 9056 La Vine street 1-5 lAt�•� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA N Z 10 1 31'. 1 1.. . 144 4 F L 7 W i C1 ae H CrrY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGDMMG ;firvz&oN v w a z _C F-- z In u.l l N " t O uj u' J d U.! �0 J Q� C`1 re V l N " t O uj u' J d U.! �0 J Q� r 11 iMOLUTION NO. 84 -140 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12830. WHEREAS„ Tentative Tract Map No. ' 12830, hereinafter "Map" submitted by A -M Company, applicant, for the purpose, of subdividing the real property sitlr4ta:! in the City.,of Rancho Cucamonga, County, of San Bernardino, State of CaW',�rnia, described as a subdivision of abouf'' %A1,41 acres of land into < O3 lots, regularly came 'before the Planning 'Comiiiiion for- public hearin and action on December 12, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval -of the Map subject, to all conditions set forth in the EngineEring and Planning Division's reports; and X18EREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presente41 at the public hearing. ,10W, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the fol';owing findings in regard to end' t`ative Tract No. 12830 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Devr, ;::i ent Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or inprovements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code. and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause - substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious Public health problemp; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by tha public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the ;! property within the proposed subdivision. (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. tf -� F Resolutvi No. Page 2 ti AML � SECTION 2• Tentative Tract Map No. 12830,��a copy of which attached hereto, Is hereby approved f;bject to all the is and ,;the attached of following conatiuns Standard Conditions: P! ANNIW.. the final design of the y,destrian and emergency access is subject to V",'-'approval Of -"the City Planner and must be comnieted pri6t -'tO the map's recordation. 2. The maintenance of the twenty -six (26) foot pedestr,4,!an and emergency easement shall be subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, and done to the prior map's recordation, '- The setbacks of the northerly units on the 2 north /south cul-de-sacs shall be increased.,/ satisfae -ion ,,,the of the City Planner, �X 4. The wall design for the decorative wall on Beryl street shall match the. wall designrvf Tract 12414 to the north. The wall design should a 04'q-imum 35 -foot openi„g at the front of the cut -de -sac facing Beryl. 5. Where possible, on the perimeters, the retain ieig wails shall be eliminated and slope banks used to adjust the grade. 6. A drainage swale shall be provided along the south reoperty line of the adjacent lot in thl northeast portion of the .site. 7. Lot 103 shall drain to the street, to the satisfac ;ticn of the Grading Committee, in order to help redrte the difference in grade elevations 8. . The developer shall crake a good faith effort' to contact the cJrrounding residents so that a common single wall may be Constructed along the perimeter tract property lines. 9. The 26 -foot pedestrfar, and emergency access e&Sementz shall include water easements to the satisfaction of Cucamonga County`Water District. y t \ �t r2 ENCt�'G; 1. Realignment of the existing storm 'drain through the eastern portion of the project shall conform to the standards of Loth the City and the San Bernardsna. -f ?nod control District. The manhole proposed to be located ,Zithin Lot 101 shall be relocated to the Garnet Street .Right -of -way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, 2> A madi,fied zul -de -sac small be designed And tonstr4rted at t,z =north end, of Garnet Street to the satisfe.tior of the City Engineer: APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF GECWER, 1884. PLANNI" MMISSION Qf. THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BYE *Dennis LLl touu Chairman ATTEST: 1 tic# omaz"';`pu£y ecretary I. Ric Gomez, Deputy Satretary of the Planning Commission g mm ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pafsed, and adopted by the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 4i.,a re;u[ar meeting of the Punning Commission held 1 on the 12th day of December, 1984, 4y the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COWSSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITiEA, REMPEL STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE j i 1 t� i fl 7 W-1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMJNC' STAFF REPORT } Ei> DATE: April 8, 19R7 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the PluPnin3 CoAnission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-37 FWLF= . - A request to modify an appro'— ed cancap tual Master Plan from one restaurant pad to development of a 2,100 square foot fast food drive -thru restaurant and a 1,750 square foot retail building on 0.84 acres of land within a 9 acre approved shopping center in the General Commercial District, located at the n6rthwest corner of Haven.A%;=3nue and Town Center Drive_- APN: 1077 -. 401 -22. I. PROJECT AND SITE'OESCRIPTIQN: A. Action Requested: Approval of a drive -thru fast food res avian , site pan and elevations and issuar.e of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning or - acan ; Deer ree aan&l, Flood Control Basin South Existing Virginia Dare �,usiness Center; General Commercial District East - Vacant; Office Park District and Community Commercial District West - Industrial - Buildin3, Deer Creek Channel, Industrial Park Subarea 17 C. General Plan Designations: ra ec e - General Commercial District North - Flood Control South - General Commercial District East Office Park, Community Commercial West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and rough graded. All street improvemen s are completed. irEM I X -2. aPLA'41MG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -37 MODIFICATION - MASCARENAS April 8, 1987 a Page 2 i E. -Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Fr.`tager Ratio Required Provided Drive -thru �l fast food °j restaurant;> 2,100 1/75 28 28 1 Retail 1,75' 1/250 7 7 F. Applicable Repolations: The proposed dual pad, including a ast rood oriv e't restaurant, requires a :codification to the Previously approved Master Plan. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project site is part of, the approved Brunswick s er ian of the Deer Creek Tillage Shopping Center as shown in Exhibit "C ". Presently, Brunswick Bowling Center is cmpleted while retail buildings "A ", "B" .e d "D" are under construction. Retail building "C" is still vacant. The approved Master Plan for_ the shopping center in%AIcates that single pad area planned for restaurant use. The developer is proposing to develop an El Pollo LocU driv*- '! thru restaurant as well as a small retail shop at this site. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Chitiea, McNiel and Suer) on FeBruary 5, 1987 reviewed this project and raised the following concerns: 1. The proposed drive -thru fast food restaurant on Haven Avenue is a land use issue that needs to be addressed at the Planning Commission level. The major concerns for the drive -thru are visual and aesthetic. The Committee stated that they could review the design issues of this project but emphasized that design is closely related to land use. 2. The intersection of Town Center,Prive and Haven Avenue is important and needs special treatment. Drive -thru Lane and right -turn land reduces the amount of area for landscaping. 3. The proposed architecture including colors in comp,itible to the existing shopping center. X -2. LI i PLANNING.:COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ; CUP 85 -37 MODIFICATION MASCARENAS April 8, 1987 Page 3 4. The proposed two pads with two buildings of no mere than 2,800 square feet do not create sufficient :building massing, compare to the shopping center and the ref: it building "8,". i The developer has redesigned this project to address the design issues. The revised site plan shows the clustering of buildings "1" and "2" to create a large plaza area andd` increase the building massing. Building "I" is setback 59 feet from the- curb to mitigate the concern of the reduced landscape area at _, the corner of Town Center Drive and Haven ;venue /l This site` plan design creates a longer drive -thru aisie;,/facing Haven Avenue; however, cars would not be expected to Aack in this aisle along Haven Avenue after picking up food order from window on southside of El Pollo Loco. The revised elevations for El Pollo Loco and the retail building contains some of the architectural details cf the existing center with the added toner and circular arbor asshuwn in Exhibit However, the proposed red accent tile does not, provide for co��patibility_,to the color sch?me of the existing center. - ,y !Vil The Committee (Chitiea and Coleman) reviewed this 'revised project on March 19, 1987 and made the, following recommendations: 1. The drive -thru restaurant is a land use issue that needs to be addrFSsed at the Planning Commission level4 2. Design of the revised site plan still creates a large asphalt area north of the site where traffic conflicts could occur. Further, it would require a car coming from Town Center Drive to make a hairpin turn in order_ to get into the - drive -thru facility. The developer, at this meeting, provided a revised site plan to specifically address the hair -pin turn. However, staff is still concerned with the potential traffic conflict north of the_site. This issue will be further,, analyzed in the report. 3. The proposed red accent tile is incompatible `'with the Deer Creek Center color scheme and should be chariged. 4. The elevations for El Pollo, Loch should be revised to reflect more of the center theme in areas of roof l7e rather than a corporate image, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -37 MODIF GAi-. - MASCARENAS April 8, 1987 Page 4 r= The developer revised once again the elevations for El P01 o Loco to reflect more of the shopping ';'enter "I e. The Design Review Committee rtiwi e-sed this revised ei evati on� on April 3, - 1987 under a consent calendar item and stated that the revised elevations are not accurate in projecting a rue p c urd o ,. ., '- bu n s. or examp a the square tower- at -tes e eva ton of the retail building show' it is halter than''the ` gable roof. However this tower does not appidr - -an the north elevation or the Haven elevation, The CooAlttee also stated that the roof .extension over the abl ro f , 1 l is still inconsistent with the_thgM of the Brunswick/Deer Creek Center. This extension of roof should be eliminated. _ Exhibit 01" illustrates the elimination �'of the roof extension. Ties red accent the again is incompatible to the color theme cf the - :center and should be changed to red brick since there are log red brick walls in the center. Therefore the Committee did not recomend approval of the elevations unless modified as described above isee conditions 10 and 11). C. Issues for Planning Commission Consideration: C 1. Land Use - Drive -Thru Fast Food Restaurant. In reviewing Design Commifte past pro ec s, a Review a and the Planning Commission have expressed concern with drive -thru facilities fronting on Special Boulevards such as Foothill- and Haven. The concern with drive -thru facilities is one of''visual and aesthetic, that is, the objectional view of long line of cars. The Commission has indicatLd that previous projects, such as Del Taco, have not adequately addressed this ' concern, Improper planting . of landscaping materials, j immature plants and iaproper maintenance contributed to the \, lack of effective screening at the Del Taco site on H&Ien. - 2. Potential traffic conflict north of the site. The design of this site plan still creates a large asphalt area north of the site where traffic conflicts could occur. Although the site plan has been revised to allow for a wider turning radius for autos to go into the drive -thru lane, staff is still very concerned with the potential conflict that might occur north of the site area, as is shown in Exhibit "D2". These large asphalt areas still allow for a cona7,egatiun of different travel patterns where drivers could be confused as to which direction he or she should take. Exhibit "E1" and 0 E] PLANNING COMMISSION ZTAFF REPORT CUP 85 -37 MODIFICATION MASCARENAS April A, 1937 Page 5 "E2" shows two concepts that delineate the travel pattern better and reduce the::)otential conflict. Staff recommends that the developer should mitigate this potential traffic conflict by working with the property owner and staff. Revised plans shall be submitted to the City and the Fire Department for joint review and approval. D. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental ec 1 staRnd has determined that the development of thin project wound increase the traffic hazard to motor vehicles, bicyclist; and pedestrians. The large area north of and contiguous to the site could cveate traffic conflict as too many different travel patterns congregate at one paint. This should be mitigated by reducing the amount of pavement with expanded planter area and iiaprove the circulation, Staff recommends that the Condition of Approval be plrced which require the developer toravise the site plan to mitigate this traffic conflict. The revised plan shall be submitted to the City and Fire District forJoint review and approval. With this added mitigation measure and condition to r)e project, staff has determined that the development of this project would not cause adverse environmental impact. IMF the Planning Commission concurs with staff findings, issuance of a M-agative Declaration would be in order. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning CowA ssion to approval this proZ ec , the following finding must be made: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Iv. CORRESPONDENCE: This `tem has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public', - Searing, property posted, an no ices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. aF. ..� ? PLANNING COW' S�SION STAFF REPORT °* CUP 85- 37,,MODIFICATigi - MASCAMMAS April 8, 1987 R Page 6 Y. RECOMMENCATION: S "f recommends to the Planning Commission to conduct a ivibfic hear -Zng tc consider this proposed project. That the Commission- concurs 'n th staff recommendation then approval of , the modification to the Conditional Use Permit 85 -37 and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Res ^tful y s it f Brad Buller City Planntr 1 W,HF:vc Attachments: Exhibit A - LoratiVt Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Approved Master Plan Exhibit "W = Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Alternatives to Site Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading. Plan Exhibit G" - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Exhibit " N" - Elevations Exhibit' "I" - Elevations withoct roof extension for El Polio Loco t, Resolution of Approval with Standard Conditions E i ��V :l- 4 � NI. �,�;�'( =�. .:�_... +tall. '� a�♦'' �E � j tlt I i t ' ;�}r a � �� .•. � Est ��� �' ~�'� , y 4a ^'� ' tn.l gaJSria �f_ \J /�- tom) 1 lit go 4. kl- P 24 • 1 i "s" i i � .,. i + = RIiPtEL .tN./ ilY3 40t Ito° Ot{G !i 'A` e4 eooK 00 G +! S SS i t 1r a NG s tt' �b 7 3 WIRTH rum- qafO CUC. ; CMA r NM DIV.§M. E3cHTBCi= SCALE: ��r I _ ;r SL OCALD Law morm `� ,,- ar:-s usa.�r► Luc.. No�lcrii CITY or Rc.�t= v RANCHO CUCA1�IONGA Trrm 21f aiaAmew . f 1400 LM*S cam � � — �, -�•-,� = r•IM�l.ts �� � � T".I� �., .. a •q � t' AIiR __ �, q� � • ,,.� El Eill it vii� 5 V INO RTH CITY Of. MINIS -� RANCHO CUCANIONGA PLANNING Dtl*"1SIQN Vic- .�8d HAVEN 'AVIRAM CITY Of. 'R.A' ;HO CMANIONGA zrrE =-A �i� TABLILATKW . m eoea -a�rn r< Z -.p 16"a ems, gsrwwrrr w., auooarxL.e s ssaw e. oar" ♦ato nom. r era" m T-XAL LAMD a ::, 1 awMft as ZOr" W OW Alai % M'r�' y mm 8^ V „t, � ��C w PAN— feerasae. 1umr^L. IAWAMNKWOG A KMae M1oVC0o AtraL4o k HAVEN 'AVIRAM CITY Of. 'R.A' ;HO CMANIONGA zrrE =-A �i� !d �• v Lam. i O 'd o �c � � � �: ', ski � 4 ,' G k► r�C" ��''' d-�; C� �' U r C�, '; �_, �� �T _� � � � "y ���) '� i� ,� p E. I� Y� 0 ur.4 G r - I:Tf fNNf .Yf �If!''00 . t[lYtt ly1 far xm,A - _ -(Ap T!• ,. ..,w� �1�IJ'110fP S ftUO MAVEN .al�ME C,Aa. «.,. NORTH CITY ITEN1: 1 MBE c RANCHO CUCA�mo,,\"GA HAVWa AWAVA, LAMMrr.AM =19 PM.Ar Q NORTH c IT P"NNING Di` ISON E1 HIMT: SLED Y`V� + 'K loom WNW m n m LWOW-Rim" I I liltv FAR ba MEMNON IN , NS IN MOWN NEW(slow Alf— Jig now am Now if s_ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION! OF THE RANCHO CUCA14ORGA PLANNING COMMISSION. APPROVING MWIFICATION..TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 37 FQR A 2;1001 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE -THRU FAST 'FOOD 'f RESTAURANT AND A 1,750 SWARE FOOT REML BUILDING ' LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORhER., OF HA4EWAVENUE AND 7OWN tjHTER DRIVE IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRI..T i WHEREAS, on the 1st day of April, 1987, a comp! ate application was filed by Sonny Mascarenks for review of the above-described , project; and WHEREAS,'on the 8th day �f Apri,, 1987,,,thW Rancho Cucamonga Planning s Commission held a public hearl'll' to -,onside: the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rambo Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as fol l ows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met. 1. That the proposed use is in accord with tEri rw- -neral Plan, the Objectives of fta UevelopL&Tot Code, and the purposes-,,of the district 1,n which'`the site.;,. lorated. 2. That the proposed use, together with flya corditiors applicabie thereto, will n ,)t be Jetri%Anta7 to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in, the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.., SECTION 2: That this project with the added mitigation measure will not create verse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued oas n April 8, 1987, SECTION 3: That the modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 85 37 is approve -"c ouD3ect to the following conditions: Planning Division 1. All exterior materials, and colors and tortures shall mater the approved materjals and colors for the .Brunswick Oser Creak Village Shoppi6q Center. A building material sa ple board shall be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits., PL!litItd�x YS,�RSOLUTIQN NO. CUP 95 -37 AdDiFICAI10H - ,MASCARENAS April B, 1987 Page 2 Adft 2. The site shall be developed and maintained in acr.bidance with the approved site plans which includes architectural elevations, exterior - materials and colors, landscaping and grading on file ; with the Planning Diylsion, the conditions contain herefit, hr�n Development Code reguly� ions. 3. Additional pedestriei amenitrs such as trellis, seating benches, trash re- tacles a�,r,;.any :other hardscape shall be provided within the central ptaaa area betwee!< bsilding "1" and "2`. Detailed design, of such: ped_Astrian amenities shall: be included in t,:.se detailed landscpe and irrigation, plan to be submitted fo- 'Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 4. All hardscapes, street fiirnitures such as bite racks:, trash { recepitaclesy shall conform with the uniform design as approved in the Brunswf0k /Dist Greek Shopping Center. 5. The landscaping thecae shall be consiai'nnt with t:ir; approved detailed landscaping Mans for BrunswitkjDeer Creels Shopping E Center. a. A+1 walls including retaining wall shall match the building materials, texture and color' oral ihall have a decorative r4. 7. A.t>S: proposed signs shawls on the project is not pare: of this review and approval. All signs shall be designed to conform to the approved Uniform Sign Program for Brunswick /Deer Creels Shopping Center, 8. Special landscape treatment shall be provided along Haven Avenue and the Town Center Driveway entrances, which shall include a combination of .ow screen wall, endulatl% mounding, wedge row, specicman Afte tree, increased number of trees etc.<. The drive - thru stacking area shall be u".letely screened: 9. The developer shall mitigate the traffic.conflipt located north j of the project site, by revising the plan to reduce the amount of pavement and increasing the planter area in order to delineate better the ;=ravel pattern for improving circulation. The developer shall also work with Urupswick Inc. and obtained an agr,!ement to jointly revise this portion of the r=ite within the Br nswick /Ner Creeh Shopping Center. Revised plans shall be subraittea for City Planner and City Engineer and the Fire District for joint review and approval prior to plant check, 10. The proposed rod tike Is incovpatible with the Deer Creek Center color these and shall he changed to red -brick consistent with Deer ;:reek Village. qP 4 �l � u PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 85 -37 MODIFICATION NASCARENAS April 8, 1987 Page 3 F`4 11. The roof extension over the gable roqj for building 01" (El Pollo Loco) shall be eliminated. Revirsed elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by Design Retie+ Committee, 4 prier to issuance of bui %Jn3 p2Mits. f Engineering Division 1, An in lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (electrical ,,a 66kv electrical on the opposite side of Haven Avenue shall be> paid to she City prior to the issuance of _building permit. The fee shall be one - half of the City adopted Vnit amount for the difference between . the existing electrical and the recently undergrounded telephone, , APPROVED AEiD ADOPTED THIS 8TH, DAY'OF - APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSIOR OFJHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6Y: Larry T. Mcgiel, Chairman ATTEST: uraa Buller, Deputy secretary " I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the PVwrring Cums7ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby caertify that the foregoing Re6'Aution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,;; and adopted by the Pland(iftg Commission of the City of Rancho Cucawnga; at a iegular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 1951, by the fallowing vote -to -wits i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: j NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AOh 'i Jr r k LLS Ew�R" C w .^ O Y...w yy y=YCR AYm LV +���iQ6 gal +�,umE n yL., Y° tl �� � M= 8 dam. C CL. µ ♦. .®G�s`g ���M�jQ c9� •q ��v�Y '@w.r 'nH N�pt`M M �tY N ^Ki1. 4VIE w» g..NZs$... wGdp6 g wAi � �e��`Ogp^u V�y zS�j pia $4�� MOp��yt"QJ"�v. YVfy \ M(i°¢s.�Y NS THE `'M•i {4. CCC �y.. "o$ �( E Y 790 •�ltYV cM � ��' Zyws�i �'�Y 7CiL 3MiY.ASM �OG�= OL4 SNP H W 2 0 ti � e V 1 0 t N 0 F, • 4J� y� ¢ L�n'C C�L° j� u E 4YSY � »OapC 4�y o 3 CC p G 4 • Y,Yty iy �'Qd ���$tttN yYyY Ywp Lmy� V �t.4 �° �N�40sL:CNY 04� a D Map'ps Dui �Y+Yi�sc O BEE 3. i t Mf 6Ri �A t � a @s, FN y SGS V !+ F4 wINNiNw V ^ Y. N wljj r Itfj is -: -a. -V, f'; C EFIR a CC> pAiO rYittl pqY n C S01 b V O. LY f] p LYCL` V y nY•Y°�O u V7[YN Z O$O9A.O pp i 9 O Ceg° _g yi Srq A _ V CV�ZG �S V Lp� O q4S gyp NLa CN. ieY4 MS LH YL9^u� us Cog N s u Yq °^ YN 4 4- = �. _ _OO S N q ww G COG NP.> '�� q Q rOY1yN�6. yN N N p L, C n w N % b O ` G 0 Y ; C N. w H p V qg Y `per a O p W TaNW y^ C ��yTl 1` O O N Y�LrY1°r }.yH e Y b ..G_TCY 4} C Lgw:CQ o S 0~ aA L Y G -: -a. V � T m V L q Ot 6 C v u w • N q pZ ` Y >Gbip M zy 7i" GL YL�,o C i0 e� pct:k; Ey ow4 _p _y q N M f Yi ' I I 'p �p lit g Sue a:^ � &a a'`1%I .. ..... oy�Lc yew. -, n ' + �� ori. &t �i�YV.✓ oY `'Y � tea' ia' ^Qi ci U qYy y .1 w P?H E� } n C i1 ,O V�YLYL i�9E -0Ca�sS `�YV�r v ii.. {i. $ = CL� 1- uu GC, 80$1 qq CC �jCN EnaT V D V O w.S �yy0.3^ rT ° 1RaCCr� Y^ N O b c y q ` 01$ a 9 w Y • Y Y ? O a° $.oN9dr cS 3- .V a ppy.Yi N w y Y vet �. 0 OC�[ � L ~�� L� S O Y y• r C .� C� 's_a, va- �y. A L. >9. WCG CCY�V ou�S +.O fY,.t � W9.nY D. G d! OppvS geu Tr -.4 lJ .••` 2 D�y'1r'i. C o:. -:yY O C e b of •�„ LO Lh nll9 wL L4 YwN Hq VCO K. �L q +A•r�T /q}�9 V �a 'e J�qN. 4p qaY+ 'r wU �� yNy uRC O. w.�'�51 4'e �SA FCI °] • Z. LG Y °z6o w= c +° G� uL'o'"y o SY6MU.^. p e _ {� �YL Ltr 1 1 yTJ �. . w3~ wcuC =Y yO LL 1NCC , u p iY�. we a C.9r~NC is aQ O ^ V aL�q r ~a Lad> gwuc ayro4 a.L .won Noi C O. naYN cg rpi L9 agiatn .-. .Lnn �FN`. K ^o 1n 1ue 1k cv .°1�v vb °nS���� 1- .a+.abr vlc �e �c�ini m ~ ni 1 N Zr LYCL` V y y n u u V7[YN Z pp i 9 O O N Y Y�,.S N N■ u L - 46 C Cog N s u Yq °^ YN 4 4- = �. _ _OO T m V L q Ot 6 C v u w • N q pZ ` Y >Gbip M zy 7i" GL YL�,o C i0 e� pct:k; Ey ow4 _p _y q N M f Yi ' I I 'p �p lit g Sue a:^ � &a a'`1%I .. ..... oy�Lc yew. -, n ' + �� ori. &t �i�YV.✓ oY `'Y � tea' ia' ^Qi ci U qYy y .1 w P?H E� } n C i1 ,O V�YLYL i�9E -0Ca�sS `�YV�r v ii.. {i. $ = CL� 1- uu GC, 80$1 qq CC �jCN EnaT V D V O w.S �yy0.3^ rT ° 1RaCCr� Y^ N O b c y q ` 01$ a 9 w Y • Y Y ? O a° $.oN9dr cS 3- .V a ppy.Yi N w y Y vet �. 0 OC�[ � L ~�� L� S O Y y• r C .� C� 's_a, va- �y. A L. >9. WCG CCY�V ou�S +.O fY,.t � W9.nY D. G d! OppvS geu Tr -.4 lJ .••` 2 D�y'1r'i. C o:. -:yY O C e b of •�„ LO Lh nll9 wL L4 YwN Hq VCO K. �L q +A•r�T /q}�9 V �a 'e J�qN. 4p qaY+ 'r wU �� yNy uRC O. w.�'�51 4'e �SA FCI °] • Z. LG Y °z6o w= c +° G� uL'o'"y o SY6MU.^. p e _ {� �YL Ltr 1 1 yTJ �. . w3~ wcuC =Y yO LL 1NCC , u p iY�. we a C.9r~NC is aQ O ^ V aL�q r ~a Lad> gwuc ayro4 a.L .won Noi C O. naYN cg rpi L9 agiatn .-. .Lnn �FN`. K ^o 1n 1ue 1k cv .°1�v vb °nS���� 1- .a+.abr vlc �e �c�ini m ~ ni 1 N CC CC ggsJ �u1 G YY TV. G C L p Ya� Y.N Y�L'}M VYNiiY 1 49{ �. N w V nMY r• p q, i`t Vy.V: ` q�iy Vi v }�+�V F '.' p.V VYG� D �VV >G yJ�ONNYY. V.CA V�iT d'C wyTi N V _ ^9 .-u� �•PI ` . $ 29 aJy w T br. 'w�'wYO Ny�1R. CO R C .SYF( g9 �a+�o d wLC?Y o a_ T Y✓ M^ is, i' �Y`CCiy u'C O NC fy f"' L !9O �N1 MO O ptG y{ h i N�1'i �b0yN 4PN p�'� YNYVtl��p 4T "'w MN pyM +w V N w 4y Y X n ��4� Q �F � �r li Mr1y O V iV YI >b ` V M. S CO N P p� L N O ..MyyMpY GwLr• 'i. .T4 -.42 JgN6 Y+�4 O v`YY-c A sa �w og i�v i .CN r''`s'` -3�L+H .'. 'f' Ca �n� ^$ "Pia � u �� iz- - �Rrg.Y* Bye u i 6y, ZuL I P P :t � hVQ1�O`r.YY3, _MV a. � QRP 4w PCi iA� ig rO� iil� iaOiC 1. L.b&(M iyl�VJ w•�� N•C•NAN �C�ry \ \ \<IN iN� I�M.0 •N GG.i r` `Nf C19lM GO lww 6 P.� fiV�GN oaYyc± aY°r8 3c�[ n wd" c qi O^ a .. F O� �. O V CI V 'Y N V w N ~.00R 6 TNT n SM M R^ AmY n y y L Cy CCY tIW iq i0 r� 9^J. ZRtz S' s CCG. l vC•N vE Z � ntC wp�� O wN gLEQ BIM i'�SOp$sY 3Yp x,'49 r4.n Nr y,.Y�aLiF EG Cy L� !Q a�nSs.r �pd�GppNpp LL iN�CCN cV AY C p 'n 00 = L�aII �l��`ytV i �r• 'q V W S ON C jJ Z M ' ^Q Y 6� i VY' d�N� uN 0. Lm CO.CI�a ".le. �`i� ice. ®.,��pC. •C� v 'dam V P .cam o 'c° Li6g tv^Q „°c,Y Ewa n,� Cq M•^O Ys °9 q«Y 6 F L w N E O E s M Raw 4 V p V N' U V 'n^ � .8 72 z Nwz� N O . O. 3L �w �h. CFY= ���T Opp eL M°. �O N YM.Y .� .p .yn O u-f O�'O uq^v'f � � t ? N =72a. r!, '. 4Lw � If w IR OVpG a utVhY � M�q �a'L12O a 4VL. G W E n 1E ^sa Nu =■ �� L L V s C Y V v O Z V Z.° ut�V �AYp 'NLLI «�G e Ph °w N w OON 41 $f9 VY E V tea° S�« - $��•Q -o �`'>.�`�b `off vet � k Op Y.a �N y9 N8« YT u :l. g N E QBa. Ha HE L rI u; `�O.Y Y�w1 CNCff Y.YeY L> Y U nN y�N+'^ uN p M n^ � V � ti VpY P YYY 11 E'�� L°Vq LwN MwyO � b L ,Ell rs v Viv x- .s+ at 6.;E US 5 �.8.Y . wY .ug.L oaN �8 f`tSW it ��COr i —�Q ill ' 6YZ u} [ V 17 — 4!lbZ N9YO YO :LN r wY YC +qN Ye «v ago .tio wLpe~ Y f.� 9.215. IN 3 S No " c g °8� �"� rb ].s � � `o �uY o � � { S� Nang ? S-i S 8� ge $`.�G y Y vV CC yYp. Su G�,, Y (YL6 OgOY. — V lie •' NYC RG a p. L. is3 ,Z: �NY i1Y1C — c E w O ° G s Loa ` " o C M 4 N `� i 114 GLsv 8a. Ya °�• avi _. �>>ac _c .°c^�� o Ni � ° —�' vY u��, �www• $ 8 8a$"° a rb� o �.o NIL z ..wS °.. �lNNIY N� V LF.+ S La.. CO ` NL�V.wi GCS OVM ��. y L OOL, =.= iY6G Bc a r N L V w d N V < we. QC d� � YJ B. C .M {9 W Al N > Nip.^ ; 4 v�4N+G oN as u$ N I.°,Y :— G YY ���NtlaC�rF Y ii s a1H �'• M Y�°�L- ....'S JZ- cg3N »�;�i » =« self C., °fJ'3.. 3a t= 'N' �.^ €z.: silt El a� Q MUC �� � Ella �s �s$ ao € � Nil �&.r Val if y v , n rg . *,S: p 4 ^+t �{� =p •.± Y6w. TLI is C• .3 isca 'S vu WN� W V� �6 •O �S �H t� Y�O �{A i1+y �� i • '.p N Pf r ! � �I + � �. � i N ■ ++, N ,A � NM... Y � 4� � �V y� .t L58 Y^ w�a ° Ne ; 8g °p� c y8� Po� y+Ny 8 88 ...Y666 Yrw q sit N � O i It r AZ In'e :. wa ►w. ++ «� �� `� «p tz; :i .Sa ..e.°. 3s 5 �g <sn. Z _z_ tr I 'iFu � twa vu W �_1 a jI V i y �I V_ Y 7 N H y`Yy �O A�M9C6 Nx eCCu t CC LG h? �NY' tLO!` e N S`z Zj w tG 4 Yt u� M Ny.M NN ` 6 qtJ N 6Yi K 01J y .3S SIC Q` W= 4pt +..1 f� nICL V ' S.N. tl iF�JW4 4 Z _z_ tr I 'iFu � twa vu �_1 a sie H y`Yy �O A�M9C6 Nx eCCu C f� N S`z Zj w ay ^L d`^ °X€ g lie r; c�Lg �! 6 qtJ N 6Yi K 01J y .3S 1 hQ' ' S.N. tl iF�JW4 I t f Z _z_ tr 'iFu � twa vu �_1 a sie y`Yy �O A�M9C6 Nx eCCu N S`z Zj w ay ^L d`^ °X€ g lie r; c�Lg �! 6 qtJ N 6Yi K 01J y .3S 1 ' S.N. tl 1""'0701-02 0 4- 9--87 PC Agenda, 3 0 fJ LLS ,a Q 4Y d aL LY o� �M QE 6 R YT 9 S �Rq 4Y v•3 Y� ^ i O x LW" Pik• Wet C EQ COO b 1 O ZZ U 4`YYC�C �CU«•i: V Y W eW1Y� 9« Gr 9 • •o r b 6i t7 .y` � �� Q .�. �3 �r �' eng 0 • g 0« "R rY � CC Y v x 'i « N 6 a P p�� ■ �- ag € vO.gu �O..Li i f.Lfni...4 v � � p�p«.:� ENV NV �� �{y1l pw�s� LL�9 its Ne L RA!Y ~Y + �Bx.M4 N a 6 ^1r gs rn °= �c '�wL H y y O N v S •w. osx 'O L vM Y r a uO tT C y V a L x t Y1 b sg4f'•'` W ci <DfI swi NI. ^ <fio+ .1e Nf{ O p; 4`YYC�C �CU«•i: V Y eW1Y� 9« Gr a ti`wt �r �' eng 0 • g 0« "R rY � C y p�� ■ �- ag € vO.gu �O..Li i f.Lfni...4 v � � IN 171 I1Trrxr ni� T3 A XTYT / TTI A Xff^I T A vv�•aau.�vJ.. van �O CiT'�ryiQ�e'� STAFF REPORT �� t r �• , r. DATE: April 8, 1987 Of TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission UPI 1977 FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott- NLurphyj Assistant Planner SUBJECT: M0UFICATI0n1 Ti,, "'SNTMTIYE TRACT 12952 - GLENFED - A request to e e 6 a condition of approval requir ng the addition of one floor plan with elevations for a previously approvet tract consisting of 172 single - family lots on 34 acres of land in the Low - Medium Density Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), loca *.ad at the and of 19th Street, south' v Highland Avenue - APN: 202- 211 -36. I. BACKGR0UNG: On April 9, 1986, the Planning Commissiy re-.,1ewed and approved Tentative Tract 22952 which included fc(6 _floor plans, each with three elevations. As part of the approval for the tract, however, the Planning "ission required that a fifth floor pleas be provided. The intent of the condition was to create a diversity of housing plans within the project, On May 28, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Design Review for Tract 12952, The revised architectural plans were the same plans to be used within Tract 11606, located to the south. The plans consisted of four floor plans each with three elevations, While revising the architecture represented a si nificant upgrade over the previously approved elevations, the revising of the architecture does not satisfy the intent of the original condition placed on the tract to create the desired variation in the streetscene. ANALYSIS: To meet what they believe to le the intent of the con i ion of approval, the applicant has submitted one addition elevation for each of the four floor plans previously approved. Each floor plan would have four elevations. The added elevations were reviewed initially by the Design Review Committee (Barker and Buller) on November 20, 1986. The Committee was informed of the condition on the tract map requiring a fifth floor plan and of the applicant's desire to proviue additional elevations in place of the extra floor plan. The CorAittee stated that the elevations, with. the exception of "2D ", were acceptable, however the applicant must request a modification to the tract map to delete the condition of approval requiring the additional floor plan. The Committee recommended that elevation "2D" be revised to eliminate the exposed ITEM J i G 4 E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT „ TT 12952 ahENFED ;> April 3, 1987 l Page 2 beams on the front elevation and that the plan should be approved by the Design Review Committee,'.'prior "to the issuance of building permits. The revised elevation "20" was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee (Emerick, Tolstoy and Coleman) on March 'a, 1987. In terms of providing the diversity of the, :itscene, staff Crakes the following observations: 1> As the condition is currently worded, the additional floor plan would not have to be provided until Phase 11. ,_This means that the first 51 hotaos would be a combination of the originally approved elevaif ns. Each elevation would be used 4 or 5 times in Phase 1, With the introduction of a new floor plan with three elevations; each elevation (a total of 15 elevations) would be used roughly eight times in phase 11. Over the entire tract, the original elevations would be used 12 or 13 times with the new elevations being usedi eight times (but only in the eastern portion of the site). 2. With the incorporation of one additional elevation for each approved floor plan (a total of- 16 elevations), each elevation would appear approximately 11 times within the tract and would be more evenly distributed. 1(Assuming each elevation is used equally.} III. CORRESPONDENCE: Tnis item has been advertised as a public hearing in -The Dail y°1% port newspaper and all property owners within 300 have"been n0r.Mea. IV. RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Coamission delete con3i 9 under Design Review of Resolution 86 -53 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Re tf ul i bisit ed, B er City an Ci p ner BB :SM :vc Attacrments: Letter From Applicant Exhibit "A" Tract Map Exhibit "B" - Elevations Exhibit "C" Added Elevations Planning Commisstin Resolution 86 -38 Resolution of Approval to Delete Condition —.fir A GLENDALE FEDERAL COMPANY a March 6, 1987 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L9 , 9380 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 � k,,tention:, Mr. Scott Murphy Planning Department Dear Mr. Murphy. `0 GLENFED Development Corporation hereby requests the deletion of item 9, shown on pagE,. -.D =53 of the staff report for tract 12952, dated'April 9, 1985. We have developed additional front elevations for each of our four plans, giving sixteen elevations. Considering reverses, this gives us a totJ),a of thirty -two variations in elevations. We appreciate your help in pritessing this matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesiti�� -a.to contact me. Very truly you s, enneth Green Project Manager KG /ar mm un 4 `v NORM CITY OF RANTS CL'CAMONGA CITY OF rrE.%t- RANCHO CUQC MZ ONGA. TrrLE: #P �i. ✓AZ -io.�s PLAMNI \G DRrucK)N _� EXHti3ri': _C l sGAc.E.. .!97 °""' � n � � . rdl:�' ` � WIN �` ll f� 'I k El r, RESOLUTION NO. k -381 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 'IF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORRIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVI,.o DESIGN REVIE�ANG TENTATIVE 'TRACT- MA.o No. 12952 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12952 hereinafter "Map" submitted by Gienfed Development Co., applicant, for the purpose of Abdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision and desigr,review of about 34 acres of lands located at, the end of 19th Street, south of Highland Avenue into 172 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission foF Public hearing and action on April 9, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map and subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comni'ssion has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing.' NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following finding;, in regard to fentaiive Tract No. TT 12952 and the Map 'thereof. (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plains; (c) The site• is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record for access through or use of the property with4 the proposed subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. - TT 12952 GLEN�;ED April 9, 1986 1 Page 2 (g) Thal this project with the added mitigation measures will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. a copy SECTION 2; Tentative Tract Map No. 12952 and Design Review thereof, o whic 7s attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached_'�tandard Conditions Design Review: 1. Lot 87 shall be plotted with single -story home, while Lots 86 and 164 , shall be plotted with 2 -story house. 2. To further the City's policy for Variety residential development within this Low Medium Residential District, the developer sha.l ,:ork with staff in. plottirig side entry garages on some lots within this tract. Revised elevations, as the result of a garage house p -tan, shall be slbmitted for the City Planner!,, review and approval. i 3. Rear propertiy lines backing up to 1SA ''Street, shall be adjusted to coincide witit the var *'able, landscaping setbacks for futu", City maintee"nice of tht! landscaping. Further, a decorative black wall with indentations for landscaping shall tfe provided along the entire length of 19th Street. Detailed designs shall be subject to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to the submitting for plan check. This samL _�,;.iled design shalt be included in the detailed landscaping and in,igation plan and shall be submitted to Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Lots along both sides of Inyo Plant 'shall be provided wits the same decorative block wall treatment, as along 19th Street. 5. Lots 1, 12, 84, 171, 172, and 89 shall be provided with an entry theme, landscapirg, block walls', and project idedtif, cat -ion. Detailed plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to sebm',tting for plan check. Such detailed plans j shall also be incluaad in the detested landscaping and irrigation plan and shall be jubmitted for Planning Division review and approval prior 1:o issuance of building permits. 6. The proposed pedestrian connection between Lots 12 and 13, and Lots 37 and 38 shall be flaired out at the ends. Special landscaping treatment, pedestrian walkway, and adequate lighting and other pedestrian facilities shall be provided within the pedestrian connection. Detailed plans shalt be submitted for City Planner review an:: approval prior to submitting for building plan check. 7. The proposed pedestrian amnec''an at both ends of the proposed "E" Avenne shall be dedicated to tf2e City for future City maintenance. RESOLUTION NO. TT 12952 GLENFED April 9, 1986 Page 3 8. The corner side of ail cf the corner 13ts within the tract shall b provided with the same flecorative block wail material as along 19th Street, Typi;al details shall be included in the detailed landscaping and irrigation, plan and shall be submitted 'for planning �--� .Duty i�q�x a and a pravai rp ior_ to ,' uance of building permits, 9. One additional floor plan shall be provided to create a diversity of house plans and shall be subject to the Design Review Com.ittee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for Phae - 10. Tile entire rear elevations for all lots that back up to 19th Street shall be upgraded with additr.,nal architectural treatments. Further, the entire corner side elevations% of corner lots and a portion of siUE elevations of the interior lots with public street view shall be upgraded with additional architectural treatments. The revised elevations shali be submitteC -fcr City Planner review and approval prior to submitting plan check. 11. Front yard landscaping stall be provided 'to Lots 12, 13, 37, and 38 in order to be consistent with the adjacent landscaping theme for the pedestrian connection. Detailed plans shall be included in the detail landscaping and irrigation plan-and shall !,e submitted for Planning Division reviero and approval prior to issuance of building AftX permits. 12. A sound barrier with varying heights rangix,c, from 8' to 10` shall be proviv%%d along the northern portion of 19th Street from the proposed "I" Avenue northeast to Highland Avenue. Thu ,ound barrier shall be designea as a combined decorative block /sound wall, consistent with Condition Na. 3. A -.�o,uination of berming and walls may be used to achieve required height. 13. A final accousticai report to provide mitigation measures for interior noise.redL-�tiou complying with Title 25 Standards (45_ CNEL) shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of ballding permits. I 14. An awareness clause shall be includes in the final subdivision report from the Department of Real Estate for tots 36 and 37 for disclosure to the prospective purchaser of these lots that the subject property is located within the Special Study Zor.a. 15. All lots shall be provided. with 15' usable re,- yard per City Grading Standard. 16. Perimeter masonry Mock wall shall be provided along the entire length of the eastern property boundary and the southern property boundary. 17. Where the he%ht nX a combirxtion retaining and block wall exceeds 6' to a maxis. . of 9', n 3' minimum planter shall oe provided to'bre3k up the height of blocx wall. RF_SOLUTIj)N NQ. TT 1295z� GLENFE9. April 9, '—,,?86 Page 18. The temporary block wa;l at. the end of the proposed "8 place, Place and O Couri shall be submitted for Design Review Conmttee review and approva9 ' f �,j prior to recordation of map or prior to issuance';} buy, -V permits which aver comes first. 19- x soils study that iddresses the recomak;ndatiuns of the Geologic Report $2233 for TT 1 6o6 /TT 12952 shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning L;vision for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Tract .Mara: P 1. With Phase I df4velopment, the developer shall construct a portion of Master Plan Storm Drain Line 4-If from the north side of 19th Street to the south at the north limit of Tract No. 12950. 2, The dpveloper shad construct a, portion of Master Plan Storm Drain Lino 4 -P from the north sirs of 19th Street to Dear Creek Channel for Phase IT Or sooner if required to protect Phase 1 as determined by the City Engineer. 3. -The developer shall construct interim drainage facilities but not limited to training dikes, chawnel.t ^, anO desiltingt basins uas reciuirsd to protect the project by Phase from off -site floors as determined by the City Engineer. 4. The developer shalt be eligible for reimbursement for the cost of Master Plan Storm Drain Lines 4 -N and 4 -P in &ccordance with the City Ordinance 75. S. Tentative Parcel Map No. 8787 shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the fi "st tract final map. 6. Improvements of 19th Street shall he provided as follows: A. Phase I. 1. Portion akeng prase boundary. a. Construct south 112 street improvements. b. An additiona? 18' wide Pavement north of center line of 19th Street as shown in Exhibit 114 ". 2. Portion from bast Phase I limit to meet existing Highland Avenue: a. Construct a 36' wide pavement centered on the street ce,iterline. b. Construct t1je pavement fors the Highland Aven +ie connectio to 19th s' ;reet. RESOLUTIOU N0. TT 12952 - GL ENFEp April 9, 1986 Page 5 c. Construct portion of storm line 4 -P across 19th Street d. Construction pavement transitions as required by the City Engineer e. Remove , 'bortions. of Highland Avenue pavemens. B. Phase IT. 1. Construct full 112 street improvements along tract boundary. 2. Construct the full north 1/2 street improvements from the Highland Avenue connection to the east boundary. 3. Construct full street improvements for the Highland Avenue connecting frmn 19th Street to J the end of ,curve Ming the existing Highland Avenue 4. Construct landscaping within Parcel A of Parcel No. 8787 or pay in -lieu 'fee if said Parcel A is required to )e used as a interim desilting basin. C. The above requirements shall be considered a minimum subject to the approval of CalTrans. 7. Secordary, access shall be provided for "Efl Streef,as required by the Fire Cepartiaent. 8. The small portion of parcels at the east end of !'D" Court shall be removed from the tract and added to tAe property to the east by a lot line adjustment prior to recordation of Phase II or dedicated as street right- of-way on the final map. 9. The developer shall pay a fee in -lieu of underground existing overhead utilities along the north side of Highland Avenue from A Avenue *o east tract boundary prior to recordation of Phase II. The fees shall be 1/2 of the front foot cost to be held for contributions towards to the future undergrounding of the lines within the project area. J - -L,7 RESOLUTION NO, �4 E + TT 12952 - GLENFED =April 9, 1986 Page 6�� , E APPROVED AND AOOPTED; ,THIS 9th DAY OF APRIL, 1986. P LAN N NG-�OMMISS CN OF. THE CITY OF RANCHO CW,0ONGR j t �'� `" Dennis tout,: airman � { "�y k r ATTEST: r�a3"l3u�irer, Deputy _ecre ary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commissinn of the City of ! Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the ftregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted"' by the Planning Commission of the 4: City of Rancho Cucamonga.'at a regular-.,meeting of the Planning Co- wission held j oa the 9th day of'April,.1986, by the following vote- to -wita` E, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BA,KER,''CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT f NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS- NONE : 1 n F ,r RESGi,t1TION N0. A RESOLUTION 17 THE RA��HO CUCAMONGA RLANNINW,�COMMISSION DELETING CONDMON 40,;/i UNDER DESIGN REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUT ON NO. 86 -38 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 5�t, GLENFEO, LOCATED AT THE END OF 19TH STREET, SOUTH OF`RIG!ILAND kViNUE. WHER&S, on the 6th day of March, 1987, a modification was filed by Glenfed Development Corp., for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of April, 1987, the kancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE; the Rancho Cucamonga planning Commission resolved as SECTION is That Condition No. 9 under Design Review of Resoluti,fh 86-38 T1�Teted in its entirety. `Y APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. r PLANTING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,,,. BY: arry T. Mcm el chal rmaq ATTEST: Brad Buller, Depu secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Segretary of the Planning Commission of the Citi of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereb - dertify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 1987, by the following cote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: sJ .t � ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA __-_-_ _'--- _-__ ` ~ ` } ^ ~ � ' V, El n^rc, ^~~ ` r 1wn7 - C,�GAIUID N-1 grizot T0� Chairman and Members of the plunoioU Commission ' ` FROM: ' Brad Buller'. City Planner ' BY: Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner Victoria SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASnSSMENT AND TENTATIVE 'TRACT 13443 31.28 acres in— 4 lots in the Low-Medium Density Residential Dfs;�4ct(4-8 dwelling unitsv per acre) within the Victoria Plann�9d Community, located at the southeast corner of Millikel',, Avenue and ' Park Lane - ^rw: 227-011-01, 02, 03-iind 227-081-01. l. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: - A. Action Requested: Approval of subdivision map, conceptual grading plan, conceptual ---���44 . ~ plan and issuance of a Negative Declaration. | B. 4,6 dwelling units . - | C. Surrounding Land Use amd Zoning: -Rorzn - vacant; Medium Density Residential (4-14 dwelling units per acre). South «"'»"t- Low. Density Residential <2-4 dwelling units East - Single family residential under construction; Medium Density Residential (4-14 dwelling units per acre). West - Vacant; Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per *^,e^ ' D. General Plan Designations-. .^~~~.~ ~.~ _ Low-medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellipg units per acre). North - Medium Density Res deotial (4-14 dwelling units per S""". - m^ ^4-8 "°e"."y ="'w, per acre). ` Cast - Park Residential <4_8 dwelling � ~ -''— Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). ` ITEM '� ` ` '| ' PLANNINCa COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 1344:3 -. Wm. Lyon Company April 8, 1987 Page ;J� E. Site Characteristics: The:.yite'i.5 currently vacant with a 3 -4Y, siope from norn to ':Nuth. Thy project will be bounded by i Milliken Avenue on the west, Vic.oria Park Lane on the north, !� and Fairmont Way on the south and east. II. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Effe-re-a-Tevelopment Plan for the Vineyards North planning area. The Area Development Plan established the and use designations and specific road alignments. Subsequently, the Planning CoMission approved Tentative Tract 13279 (the "super block" tract) dividing the Vineyards North into ten smaller planning areas and dedicating rights -of -way for arterial and collectoV roads. III. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant Js proposing to develop 144 single af- -Tots ranging in size from 4,.500 square feet to 9,280 square feet in area with an ivarage lot ;size of 5,683 square feet in area. The applicant is only proposing to subdivide the property, grade the site, and install the infrastructure at this time. he "gadded" lots will then be sold to another developer. "The design review of the product type would be reviewed and approved at'-'-,a later date by the Planning Commission, B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Tolstoy, merE` ick,, and c-eman ) reviewed the proposal on March 19, 1987, and recommended approval as submitted by the applicant. C. Technical Review Committee: The Victoria Community Plan requires that recrea Iona vehicle storage be provided for 25% of the lots,, This can be accomplished through space on individual lots or through construction of a designated storage area elsewhere within the Victoria Planned Community. The typical unit plotting provided by the applicant indicates that the residences will be center platted with large enough sideyards (10 foot minimum) to accommodate the storage of smalltir recreational vehicles. 0, Envi !onmental Assessment :. Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by he app scant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found mo significant impacts on the environment as a result of the proposal. I'f the Planning Commission concurs with these findings,then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF R01PORT Tentative Tract,;13443 Wm. Lyon "Company April 8, 1987 i Page 3 IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Victoria Plannecl Community and the General Plan The project will not be detrimental- _.to adjacent properties \\,,or cause significant environme►itil��.impacts. In addition, 06 proposed use, together with the recoancgnded Conditions of Approval', is in compliance with the applicable orov;sions` of the Victoria Planned Community, the Development Code and City standards. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been adv^..rtised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing and notices were sent to a 11 proper ,y owners within 300 feet of the project site. Vt. RECOWENDATION: Staff re/,)X,*ends that the Planning Commmamissiaa approve en ve Tract 3,m443 through adoption of the attached' Resolution with Conditi,onslfnd issue a Negatil +e Declaration. Respectfully submitted, fTy'� 1 1� r 8 ul C - � ityy PI nner BS:SM:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" — Conceptual Product Type Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscaping Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptual Grading Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions I - i I I I �I � ~ . \\ �. � \ CITY C1 JD! «. RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trru. 4p . \ PLANNING � � mom: . \ . .�Sc,%fit\ awl �04 -STI — F.� _ . . \ \ff \ ■� ],: . , a \ < . ^� \ }S3 � \ CITY C1 JD! «. RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trru. 4p . \ PLANNING � � mom: . \ . .�Sc,%fit\ 11 a • z 'r. a. � i = a 1�-� �aYxT a —_..� a�La��ry �+r R�••i R�Vt `L iI.a .••:::yatasa ;rabaalS7SS77iE � # � _ Sjg T tit ii ......iii<ii2.I7IS7717�= iY77Ig ....... ..... j. aax:a;irHOl:Spaalarxa': ::.xsas:: ry i .iilii44 .... :. ..... • il�iflSii��3ailj��t _ .... •.a:_.,_..a. ::._ � .sa_xea_aaasa R :: y .f CITY OF RANCHO CIRCA ONGA PLA NNING DrvISIO rrE %I. eVA,2A2 � � �� / CITY Or r r E% I RA'NCHO CUCekiNIOINGA TrrLF--. PLAN,Ni,Nc mrumN 11-9 F-XH I MT: SCALD r,7 __ I lag al 3. as Ifh w 3i '4b . ��ƒ . ��j \� \ \} � / \� � �� . ` /� \� � 2 \ \ \ \� } \�, � ' | . _ inj tu � � �� / CITY Or r r E% I RA'NCHO CUCekiNIOINGA TrrLF--. PLAN,Ni,Nc mrumN 11-9 F-XH I MT: SCALD r,7 __ I CITY .OF- RANCHO CUCAIONGA PL-V t!� DI-vISTQN !!I § #� � . 2 / � { : \ / ^ � � rrE.%1 TrrLEt� L. EXHIBIT. SCALD . \ `t � a Y Y CITY IIXI rrL%t: RANCHO CU.CA.Mjo.NLGA PL.AMI\s DI4'?�N f I 3 Ill / q i tm%Vi L•• k a ° O M 3 T q 4 CITY or, RANCHO CUCiMO wGA TITLE FLAJ' L ILNG DRfMN X,11 E`{Fi1QiT: yr�"t i N t ;sue• }. / +�, { t•1M 4'31U?M t t°�E "tom r• i got 1 Stt r F 1 Q v CITY Qf.' 9 RANCHO CU .MGNGib,. FnLE: PLANNI,MC raNT.SM i s T f M iY IV r ii CITY Or rrEN(. RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrLtl PLANNING D[VTS N ECHIMT. -1 `3 SGktE: � \�/ } IT 11 � �` � � § A � \� \§ �. /^ f 7. � \�/ } IT 11 � �` � � § A � \� \§ �. CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DRTLqQN m, I , rrr--N I. V9: lzAlzl-- 0 TrrLE: .02ilb/ll SCALE, ,�� $7 /�) � CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DRTLqQN m, I , rrr--N I. V9: lzAlzl-- 0 TrrLE: .02ilb/ll SCALE, RESOLUTION N0, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COWISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,. CONDITIONPl.L7 APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13443 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract M'p No. 13443 hereinafter "Map" submitted by The {rilliam !yon Company, 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 tract 'subdivision of 31,28 acres of land into 144'single family lots located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park lane (APH 227- 011,01, 02, 03 and 227 -0 61- 01) regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on April 8, 1987; and WHEREAS, the.,City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth ino the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Punning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE,. the .Planning Commission of the 4�ity of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning. Commission makes the followiig findings in regard to en a ve Tract No. 13443 and the Map thereof; (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General ' Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidabIto injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No.. TT 13443 - wiLLIAM LYON COMWAY April 8, 1987 Page ,2 (9) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map go. 13448, a copy of which is attached ersl re o " , is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions„ and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prior to recordation of Tract 13444, the final map for Tract 13279 shall be recorded. 2. All pertinent conditions for Tract 13279, as contained in Resolution 87 -40, shall apply, 3. This map ,-,- being approved as a Tract Subdivision only. Any future proposals for the development of ve or more residential units shal require Design Review approval prior to the issuance of building pemits for any units. 4. Concurrent with any :application for'Design Review, the applicant shall also submit an acoustical study detailing Ask what mitigation measures, if any, are required to achieve noise levels, both exterior and interior, consistent with City 'tandatds for lots abutting Milliken Avenue. s. Landscape treatments at the end of side -on cul-de-sacs shall be designed to provide an open view into the Interior of the cul -de -sac. C. The fencing /walls required for the tract shall be consistent with the fencing /rails indicated on the conceptual landscape plan. Woods fencing, where exposed to " public view, shall be painted, stained or treated with a water sealant. 7. prior to occupancy of more than 50 percent of the units within the tract, the pedestrian trails shall be improved with sidewalks, landscaping and irrigation, and low level lighting,. The plans are to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. Any retaining wails used are to be a maximum of 4' high. 9. All retaining walls visible to the general public, i.e. on the streetside of corner side yards and within the front yard, are to be constructed of a decorative material to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. All back of lot grade differentials are to be a maximum of V' 12 "• is Resolution No,` Tr 13443 - WILLIAM T.YOU COMPANY April 8, 1487 , k `7 Page 3 ENGINEERING DIVISION _ (li ;. 1. Ail: periinen� conditions of Tract 13279 snarl t�pply- 2. City maintained slopes steeper. than 3 toll shall not > exceed 12' in height. 3. Street "A" shall intersect Victoria Park lane -at an angle of not more than CS degrees with a tangent seC11on of not less than 5,0 'feet from the curb fare Lane. of Victoria Park (;x1 _ APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987.'x: PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f j BY: Larry T. e- , nM ratan ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary 1, Bred Buller, Deputy Secretary of the ,Planning Commission of the City of Eancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular �aeeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 1987, by the following v:.te -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSI^NiRS: NOES: COIMIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: \J\ O z U r L a cwu.e���i.r3, 6E'�� $�Q S�'.°ir -.z J4 YAP 6 OCM,� AL�w��w!'�'�■ CYs yL S q -��'sQ V&lb "Q V L�Cr'O� '•7 S"�.'ww «,�,�w:°g$ »'yw' -.��. ':� gar �\i. Y aY ° �\ T w YY iOw. `�y .ny to9'�w�'r�' TOHi IL i w Y 0 61i 7 M �► i ,� I� O Y N i Y K «� w •+ 1R R J UR J y a W� N O o ° N 6 u � � N 0 8 r� i I LA 0 t N RE y DyI yy �4qqs w p 44 iZ F F J \Jjt N 17 �! N LA 0 t n h 2 Y 6! .O a` 11 E uv'�z c� o�ao �w`o .icg .r... cR L a�1O4oi agS LI.V y'a (g$ v^ .a lrAt < Lua. s tlY O S� i Y •. Y .. n y ay� @ V V A G qj a g w 5 c w w e Y e L —. y s .e :OHO Ge'�9 YCy �ayi �CC4 yQ 4qw C }OpG� 6y Bi C. ^• J OU. �4�!l y�y; °tYu�� Oa N YGwwi. _-.j �w =^ Y �00.� Q [Ci j^ A U O— 6 N ° e R a.T Y i..6 L N Y Y 44 — y 4 Y^ N Cp 2 M w C Y 4 Y J; V =~ S Y^ w ME z 2­9 L D 1° y J A y Y N — of G Y 0 Y.Y g. • e Y o y q ..w S N� zy R`j N ey •�LRgQ_ gSSSaC $C °a CE° »a $$ �QY�t '"BLS L.� a. QRC..Q$ prY• a2gNy d3 ti _ w V r; $� iy C STiRH Z ^�'L�,Y -, N -�\ • ms;N s ^. JnN. Ss g er To VA MS Z_ • W"X U± T � aCY '+ Its ; =p yS Z. .a• ` Y ea 6•V�w rr Y �` S ` V ^ ■r6 }pN�YppYY 4 ' � `e YS r11 Oc CC�N• q 4 G y 4 w _Y�1 33 S p� + v C 4• #^ L a 9 0 Y y Y �• T Y •_ 11 4 3 � i i .. K N a 4 s .R M n t Z N Y p•y 4=1 w � N� �.Y � S' S w= C Y�� • Q! ��� O N w Y C Y w Y >,L t .�pp�� y8 Vi O� rd ROC` NW]q C1 �' Ot�«��uY N �L L� Cft oYO` LN aJat'gfi •..w c tiv J A L •� � CC i to �( u Vg0ptl Zrt .3 Som A 4 e1Y 3 wyy a AAAp+@...���y� -_ y gyYi °L�SD YMYp� u °p us 5$a $.YS vCw ^SJ° w7gpV.i1"(.MySy ur1� e; c p a� .si.'�p� rjiY ; C Yom' aw6 °�.W .c son 4o{y. Y-,k al Wv�..S��Aii4r' `e{ � - Q $ °G yL ox.. e` "� N" u"'C$ =- -; °a �VSW 3` ,`e�iy— ut °ye�p*4 C.- i•6 ".gw,(,C�, O1 0 N =O o ^JA 1 +` .,pOyC 6�cG� +yQC 6. rC Pi���A` H Y° Y N E. G Q ^ V L x M C ^' p w S y a� mayL, ti Y A� CAN! `O �A !��• M.iiO N. C4. S4 ty— :.`.,IYNY Otl � -:a.; �geS ypYi '" YV ar spc ecof: °U� m 31 Q GUYOL ♦..Ga ArC> P,•� VV a O• Y}4 y�Y� Jq VZCQYO u0a000. ��O.i6 —NO ii D 4 ^UC Y—iw iY udC6Viiu —� spay6A X�.°�i 6L i9 N M a iS Y `• w �° + C Y ° O � Y y °G {y�N Y Y�- «^ M�ap6��VYw LY LCOr� e. ■O,Vp C c° •TO.. r Y` O.M �.•^ VN Y� C�SO YSW MO U's wG • C 4CA. _ Ty V y4v i' e�ntlpONn Vay C N V N. `0111 . -a d = �«`. �'��. ow ^BEY�1 aaY •� 01V p4 „ ABCC 6: yu gVi iCp Y« =0 ON L w y r N y aLp y 0 a p y M U p y i w L O y N '.w + SY S pppaSaYwYaGY uq�CV -C-3 •r�q«g� 0 9 p 0 G s d N y L p pul y N L H '� G �1 w V i A LN y�i 4 ,I 3C w pp p Q yy L Z.- O -�' V N L L N` w• ^ i t C ` � l'1 Y E k ` y N yN CC C •h '$I O GAV Y�� \ >�� j� h YeNYY° `o ^x `ow Nie Y�esL ^ y Y t+ � i r�• O M QaY Cvl �G LaGi L w �T.�pi C O t Y '� °ms sib €�.- o tee_' t gIg .12 AL & g 6 <_C q N i w~ Y Y ■ _ 3,31 L� Y s G a- Y V---x oS 4Y «ms s aY �anpm , 41 N Z. g..Y w�+� � y,•S� 92 = Y �� xOG^ o.`e_ L O i `yc O ]q 6 k 10 p L R �4 N^ N 1. 23 YeC f tl� 4 « °.gyp Fi. O «� LYw •�.. =0.... S Olw M C^ 1. p3N i�� ��w CM.w tI 6C�w ra°. �i ` 0 i�M ® tOJ4V Vbi pry a+ip�0 G «N °LY X21 e.a {L. Ypw <H V b E 11 vs f N c 0W4 �C • CE n 6 �O. � �• ``C m2 c °u Y CV.z t 4 '9 s+N , ! , Yy V,> 6N �Y �L�y UUy� S '',q ■LY LgL —�■p! O Y� O H � w.4aY °Neu N. C ' i0 q zNY.4r.CY. +NN^ 9 •V .� p Z g o �+ 1SU p G- Cp V2. p O d •. t L� 1� « f f Y C Y y •� Y O pC O C Y Y y L M Y N y 6 i GY �mA Mil . . hZ. ' O'N S 4u a L `• —4121. �y L Q1 L U w O C O = • i U N - tv L 2, .¢g.5 VV Wy Y ML « °- uMv i6bp 2 a gY b'.CY o°YYi °1v 4{.tl 3 =' O Y. O.N S: =.Y i N i~ Y� Y Zia.- 9 C Y Y _. • N JN C6� r # > >_« {S.� ECYU 3 }��GO�f,Y' ^a yCC {.'Oam S p.2 Q YW Ci Y S tl Y O p Sn Gp a « —1 f. y TN- Ob .-I.. Ca +• Of 6� ua L yfC.Op ��� N. i U C N A �• U Y S• S C- 'S A 4 $ U og-Z 3 - `B 9M�tlK� - ... &3g�f• rYYyT.�, S g —pn� at 43= 3L14NIL •Y N FnYMt �i UY. Ilr —wd N 6YZ a am O 3 J 0.V r 6Y 0 w •Vp CC'.O . y y N� vYi n - .y Y u 6 'C°p �[ q V N °NS ■Y OANCC -ee wC. Q 4 Nom. nna. %^ q d' L L V yYp - pp� Y O- � O � J + .• M Y S= Y G.i _ 6 V ♦ p N L qa- Y Ps Ii 9 0 T > O• Y C> 4 M Y -• C .. O - IL L Y yL�o. pdy ® LC tO � Y 7v ^ e' ` wO ttC N x pOLr • L_ N u Y1Y! . S ` s W iw ijx — A -O. 1 am yy � C Y ■O �$ f . 7 ! 13 X.tu o O ps 0 --t sill O p L Q1 _ Y .N w, _ -S O 4 T CN a - = 0. e Y OCC •" :nN ' � R b Y w4YpC — CniiVtlf rr NNS 7! 64.0 + UM« { N O NNq�C•« pCM 25 pG� >. C h: dam: �iip — •.N2w•/ q pd CCO� yy 66 � vC'C o YY ppppY _ q SC G� � YN9 °O« = rf•Y ri�lq �-• I e yCC C ■ CQ N — N s q. O L Ar tl °•° O fT A a• � C K� CC N— G ■ O a� tC C YY_ � w°O �►•6— f C�yw� �QYf VCYO �� r0-i• � irb iy spy pQ Y ' 'C M W d C Y . W. G.L Y ° N Y i q a t�..C•7� <Zj GY N.N C ri. y, WIZ LY �' ^y. 7 N. N u 1 M m O Q� O� ^. Y � M `• y .. y Cl- ,-E SiyG. �.y6ffiC "o gay° �i° W J pogo. =.�� S p + 4 yQ� �: t.E °Uz` C'.G I+ ep` ,^i .Lp Y �• 2 ° Y Ca L O Z IL C� yi[ OVA YO Yr N Y 6 � �M 5zz 3� $'� � fig'! � "� �• � Y�n� Q`3�i VYi� ip$ge�� V� ri O A ` 8 CM yM siL OY f Ltf V b p n yy Y ^yYa Va = N Y A O33N �a —e N 41 lvl�_:t .o, �. °$"1 `G1 tip r aVcb �sOX;ZZ W U .p4p W V Y • V A +C < O �: a+� F� V �6 M d Y E3 I Ell E NY « a •k1_ AL a �$e & ASS C5l '��€ L LQ`vo ` ?.'CNi Egg- iv �S Sa - e DoE L. wS!!IF d . � T.Y &.. N $ o 2e° a�u `Y LNNVO wW �[` �. W ff sY O HO m`. UYi r BLlf.. T- i Cp�C 6N LYf d� L L iJ 9 4& i= N C y O G O oo ~� �N.YW i3. Z LW y r Vyy>N E 4 4�a >Gy�w�+E Y� — wlb.C�'Y 0 ■CO lW 66~ ���.. Ya �^ QI s � :• �{ u S�j ` 4 S gig g'°yw �Ng M O.wV N RLI� � �Va 4 6W ey L°E 4�a >Gy�w�+E ee wlb.C�'Y ■CO lW 66~ ���.. Ya �^ I ` 4 S °Ca g'°yw �Ng O.wV N RLI� � 4 6W O N V 0 z C iill� .Tiit VVQ „1�..� ^ u Y .e T� 4yj• N �'.Oi V (1 �VMY U+�. 3 .~iY � .� � O•~it C ` O $ -Is a a� 'b Aow in tl I p1j o'N� y 1131 $ ail. t � x`5 ° Me8 E �Y if }}}}}.��.. n UG' Q N� MK ,� � ^� • ! f F w E.. .\ cam C sr �e L C a �. O`.f1 VyY •al 5 Yji tl g O w .! = '. y 4. V a O -�C9� OzY CaK "wA.N 4 :'Q = p, VC OC FY� V.r tl OTC qO�s 6� „a itl ^Y N iy �iW . 19y"Q '.NO :.V � COL 4Y Y.+.. �6NY IL' -+. ; ;�.Y� �Y `YQ t •\. Vy _ p6p 6Y NMY II^ <W m6 K3 4Eli , 41 ajVa �OL. YMp S'r� Y � O /� 1241 e E DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT o CA o > April 8, 1987 1977 Chairman and Members of the Planning Cr;Amission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTM ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13444 - W1LL1AM LTUN 4UMSFANT A reslaenzial &raft sunaivision of . 91 acres Into 116 lots in the Low Density Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN 227 - 011 -01, 02, 07 and 227- 081-01, 08, 09, 10. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reqquested: Appraval of subdivision map, conceptual grading ' an, conceptual landscaping pia% and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Project Density: 3.75 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: or - Vacant; LOW-Mealu m ensity Nesidential (4 -8 du /ac) South - Southern Pacific Railroad and Vacant; Medium Density Residential (44 du /ac) East - Vacant; School and Low - Medium Density Residential (4- 8 du /ac) West - Single family residential under construction; Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) D. General Plan Designations: Project ojec bite - ow- a um ensity Residential (4 -8 du /ac) North - Low - Medium Density Residential (4-8 du /ac) South - Railroad and Low - Medium Density Residential (4 -8 du /ac) East - Low - Medium Density Residential (4-8 du /ac) West - Low - Medium Density Residential (4 -8 du /ac) E. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant with a 3 -4% Tope room from south. The project will be bounded by Milliken Avenue an the west, Fairmont Way and Victoria Park Lane on the north, Kenyon Way on the east, and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the south, ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT' TT13444 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY April 8, 1987 Page 2 II. BACKGROUND: on December 10, 1986, the Planning Coinission approved TM rea evelopment Plan for the Vineyards North planning area. The Area Development Plan established the land use designations and specific road alignments. Subsequently, the Plannirg Commission approved Tentative Tract 13279 (the "super block" tra:.t) dividing the Vineyards North into ten smaller planning areas and dedicating right -of -way for arterial and collector roads. III. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 176 single famil,y lots ranging in size from 7,200 square feet to 14,460 square feet in areft with an average lot size of 7,960 square feet in ar��., The applicant is only proposing to subdivide the property, g, ode the site, and install the infrastructure at this time. The upaddecr lots: will then be sold to another developer. The design review of the product type would be reviewed and approved at a later date by the Planning Comma ssi on. 8. Design Review Committee, The Design Review Committee (Tolstoy, Em-erick, a amen reviewed the proposal on March 19, 1987, and recommended approval of the project subject to a condition requiring an expanded parkway adjacent to Fairmont Way at lots 135 and 145 - 148 to provide increased landscaping to mitigate the effect of the length of the perimeter block wall. C. Technical Review Committee: The Victoria Conaunity plan requires MR recrea ,..w. vehicle storage be provided for 25% of the lots. This can be accomplished through space on individual lots or through construction of a designated storage area elsewhere within the Victoria Planned Community. The typical unit plotting provide by the applicant indicates that the resioences will be center plot with large enough side yards (10 foot minimum) to accommodate the storage of smaller recreational vehicles. 0. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been comp e.e by e app can . Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of the proposal. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate, IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Victoria >Planned ommun ty and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause sigalfica-4 environmental impacts. In aidition, the proposed use, together With the recommendeei Conditions of Approval, is in domplian(te with the applicable provisions of the Victoria Planned Community, the Development Code and City Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-,_ TT13444 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY April 8, 1987 Page 3 f IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public, - hearing and notices were sent-T077M property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning C6�wlssion approve Tentative Tract 13444 through adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions and issue a Negative Declaration. Res fully s " i,tted, i Bra B 1 City canner aB :SM:sgr Attachments-. Exhibit "A" - Location flap. Exhibit "B "; Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C"`- Coiy::aQtual Product TyPj7 Exhibit "0 - Conceptual Landscaping'�Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plart' ` f*olution of Approval with Conditioni�, P I SNAAK A MA <-44 SIM got 78 N _ s !] 1t s x°31 13E +� ! _tea t �t a rr N CITY or. rrENI.- RA.NL Cjjo CUC- AL\4aNGA TrrLE: PLANIIING DiViSKA'q E HIEiti C. i i L P t Y .f � St�aPl ♦ \ k Ilk V3 I n t /tttltiilllllTt(Itlittil171: 1 111.....1. /l........ ? — . ...... i: Iilii ... Im mmis 11lili Flttllll /li ltlt111i1 /hilt iftllldttllil:lllSllL'tlt ... - f.. ♦ is. faaffa.isviff[ � - .I i s} a i Y n! i ti t 3 T ° y'• .� �. �' t .31k2'! 1 Il 1 }illillll ISII11SiUiif llSlFiltilllllll £ O �:iF£SFTI? sat! tTSIt!£ Iii113Ti1iI ::F1IlkT..•if1F1iS2T.L'! wit Ilk V3 I n t /tttltiilllllTt(Itlittil171: 1 111.....1. /l........ ? — . ...... i: Iilii ... Im mmis 11lili Flttllll /li ltlt111i1 /hilt iftllldttllil:lllSllL'tlt ... - f.. ♦ is. faaffa.isviff[ � - .I i s} a i Y n! i ti t 3 T ° y'• .� �. �' wit . iY U, jwi CITY Or. rrE.% T y t T{�/� /� \t e PLANNING '3iViStt E�CMtBti'I-- --SGLE 'I W. W W -�� dry J i vcb l7'ip trt� X � - tf J II T CITY car. CPE%t: � y R AINC iO CLCAIVi41`GA Trres: PLANNING DRISnN EXHIBIT. E Loll fal I asa dw 0 c CITY or- PL�NCHO CUCA.I'VIONGA P"NNING M-LMN TIME, EXHIBIT- __.D �Z iz R I] ;t\ IQ �� =' �� •rid �� 1 M ` f N i If �r l i n 1 _\iry I Y ? I N' CITY QF RANCHO CUC IMOI ` Trrtx: PL .NNwG M'EMN EXHIBIT. .L> xnEnW fell 4 It I i CITY Of rrF—% RANCFtj CUCAMONGA PLA;'4'NILNG MqSION SCALD t7 1] E R1 Ai PC! R 0 2. r, CITY Or' RANCHO CT-:CA�Nj40j-,,TGA PLINNI \G L3 IS-QN b� YY ;i lapa—iabm, &-; I �sY !Ys 5� 2; 2S UEN is TI TU.- s,�r�yei GA EXHIBIT- _��LE, 7 -1 VN al" an Pri CITY Or, RANCHOj Cl;'CkiMO'i\TGA TfrLE.- PLANNIIjNG Mt5-nN Fmitm r. L Sx [ Y y # f CM r> � cs� k 4 .. • 1 LJ. �. 0 I aavin�cea 1�j. i CTTy OF RANCI- () CU(7A. 0GA PLANNUIZ T7i4 SKxV EXHIBM 1EZ SQkLE. _ i sv'�' Oil 1 j ✓ � � ___ u w t r ¢cam q`� Y�� �� —qi 1 ' 1 CITY rrE.Ni: Rfii�`C';4O` CUCAMONGA, TITLE -- _.C4,Megr dL. MY or. RAINCHO CUCAINION'GA P!-AMIjX,G DWM&4 /7 i n p t Lf T i. Pi e gs€ r pR W i A G -T "• j��ii �. x r�p 111 dE' y3 i t A TT Y = A • �� fi cr 3. % - _ PT.Al�ii�fi \G MqMNI E,YHII3tTr S' SCALE, _ t RESOLUTION YO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COK41SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAfi CALIFORNIA, C0N0ITIONALLY ApPROYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13444 - WHEREAS, Tentative Tract MapjJNo. 13444, hereinafter "Map" submitted by the William Lyon Coao'ahy, applicant, for the :purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the Cit# of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California„ desOrfbed as a residential tract subdivision of 46.91 acres of land- into 176 single family lots located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and the So thern Pacific Railroad (APN 227- 011 -01, 02, 07 and 227- 081 -01, QA, 09, 11)) regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and actiion on April 8, 487; and WHEREAS, the City planner hda recap ended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering., and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, fire Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning, Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, V_VEFORE, the Planning Commission' of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deas resolve as follows; SECTION 1; The Planning Co* ssion makes the following findings in regard tc- en,6a ve Tract No. 13444 and the Map thereof: (a) Thf, tentative tract is consistent 0th the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; ib'r The design or improvements of the tentative tract f consistent Whit the General Plan, Development Coda. 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 substant<al environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acgAired by the joblic at large, now of t>ecord, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. !t .. a PLANNINP.COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT13444 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY', April 8, 1987 0. -3 7 9- {g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the , environment and a Negative DecSarztion, is - SECTION Zt Tentative Tract Map No. 13444, a copy of which is attached eris hereby approved subject to all of the foil_oLaing conditions and the attached Standard Condi-%;ions: Planning Division: 1. Prior to recordation of Tract 13444, the final map for Tract 13279 thatl be recorded. 2. A71 pertinent cond ?tions for Tract 13279, as contained in Resolution 87 -40, shall apply. 3. This map is being approved as a Tract Subdivision only. Any future proposals for t e- eve .d 'K of five or more residential units shall require Di-ign Review approval prior to the issuance of building permits for any units. 4. Concurrent with any application fer Design Review, the applicant shall also submit ar: acoustical study detailing what mitigation eeasures, if any,, are requireu to achieve noise levals, both exterior and' interior, consistent with City Standards for lots abutting either Milliken Avenue or the railroad right -of -way. 6, Landscape treatments at the end of side -on cul -de- sacs 5hd11 be desil;ned to provide an open view into the interior of the cul -de -sac. 6. The fencing /walls required for the tract shall be + consistent with the fencing /walls indicated on the ccrceptual landscaping plan. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint or water sealant. 7. Prior to occupancy of more Chap. 60 percent of the units within the tract, the pedestrian trails shairl be impro, .d with sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, and low level lighting. The plans are to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits..` S> Any retaining wails used are to be a maximum of 4 feet high. } PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT13444 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY April ,8, 1987 Page 3 9. All rf cai ni ng walls visible to the general public, e., on ', he street side of corner side yards and within the front yard, are tO ba constructed of a decorative material to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. All back of tot grade differentials;,ole to be a maximum of 12 feet. 11. An expanded .parkway shall be provided r Zacent to Fairmont Way at Lots 135 and 145 -148 to provide Increased landscaping to mitigate the effect of the length of the perimeter block wall. The ,lams shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior ,Il to recordaticn of the final tip. Engineering Division: 1. All Pertinent conditions of Tract 13279 shall aptAy. 2. Approval shall be obtainer: from the Southern Pacific Railroc.i for grading landscaping and maintenance of any slopes within their right- of-►iay prior to recordation of the Final Map„ 3. City maintained slopes steeper than 3 to l shall not exceed 12 feet in height. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 198?. PLANW'NG COMMISSION OF THE C17Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T.McRiel, Chai rman ATTEST: Brad Fuller,- Deputy ,,ctZ ary 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Se;;retary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certlf. that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pas -god, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held an the Sth day of April, 1987, by the following vote -t4 -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONPIS: Affilk NOES: COMMISSFONEB.5: {; ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS; �r O yd v t O L a J•a + °6�;—O�� LiL 4c . Y Y. .4. oq S a $yV .s - y2- b O 52 � -61 $y+a ti a �eY asL -` ON 0.- zJs.2,fj T.233 -jp y .M. ^uy °`O a Yva &mss 3,M5 Ph It IL fj! Is I 9 �'. r q• u O p M V 1� '6 p V■ �; ^ ^pMruu x1 Li ��.O g • {»•� oar Y a�. C u]�{� k °$S$ Eat WHIUM W� 9 z v`. C-,'I � CC � V ; L O p p f� T 4_a i° y pM V .2-5 tail p 1M 20-0 1� A° QVpO t$. V :.3 l I it j3zz- 11 • I .2 p V 00 L V C 1V Vg�.Vr =rL. N � V �' Lj�yZ.. � op... � a� 7uif a� � � i`i '��pa N•• ��`L'�r M SO& �! 4 S fop• 91 O �.♦C LB V-1 N. aM9yli re ejg = p 1 C-,'I � a° v a Ak u.�O a. w a sy u •..Qr� =w "a.LL� Gw Yes -tits a.w£�iM ya °^ pZoyj.E.�.y tltr���pp . e M 6-3 � Yr�r. yy�`r`+.► ^�ci,a $ :'.� ' ^8.� uc Shee M9 O's V Y V 3''.R A e0 YL ■.. • a 6 t-xz CCN ro6.o yr. �y 6 LO {Y� � ■y1 @C N�bC CN .I. r N• D GC: ;Z V ±w C O6 ♦M l 4y �. �l CV iw M �. mw Ar zbVJ L G V Y qEW ^yy w"$sp..`i s.�« »� C `� M» a.» eO d6p YIIS $iy^ Qd ei a. i��ONC,m^��:. q��• ^2 +.CO pZZ. p� 6 ±.6rC T. • � YO 'Y iL ^�r��l I,--- V � 3 p p Q 0 •AN �jV..r6 � :LL6 Y.,�A 6NY�iL ,Y f•�ti. O`t~ Y >r pjwi r .XZNN.KLi$N'S .t't..N&...°.! 3-31 di :cz`:.°.s wr S4 oY 4-'a r�A e $ oAr C�i �` »�. Ys va S w,�N�_r u''•M ^` pp y4a ¢rtY{ra ..� a4. L Y 1 y Y _ � I. w. C O O i II C r y y� ■VV�`rj ejN C ZY« :i_QL N $'tl ~ °u� Ys v.v 4Cia 7s o$ 'r `~'�'Z 1!f rd'�O �CC SY$s w. ��q'Y�u yam.! '3c YYM Ly tlOL.N L <�Vp. 7; C N V _ N �! ao_a Si° »a� y °6,+. {v.rr.. '� W$l�iroCSS'�C(y M -3 gig ?g� lr � F~� N N a 9 Is Cg Y $ p Y N N cLa p a r3 �aa. y eN Z' 9r w N2t H^ Yv' �niiiggp.��i �a ar sv of�•cc IIr �� »4�rr »�� pN ar r +A c� a °« cc�"• ���r °V roCpy �°y`vS azNn a= ai y,Y sir 3�.vo� � :�v ».e �.orai ►4:�d.i o� Via" i'w N (tl�, y6C N. � •� ON q� iL��L C��VQ G9 Y 'l�lj n084 NO4OU G L V +. i �. ` Y L UO w q 0 -` N •• • s N� �O�y.l` O • Q A =Na CO.Stl4YO. ,�Npa �t YC+YS �M ��CG .. V C a�i • « . ` YT Np; .: =. 4 C ^UVY ♦NON g� ��•10_M =� Y� �F OYO Q/ 0 Q.YO� Mix L. n�� O.0 Ow�Y�TV6 ��GMy ! C G Aa- aN"°,C a•' I s«r a °Ng4 �• EY ts -2Q as s -tit.s, O X -=- � H V ��� r a go' b, . xr -i $ - r N � :... I C V gN •- ¢�°�ii ]._ -Swy� N� �r ri a•.• {�. M9M KM� KN ?N.9 I�M i iN��P >011Y`Y Ci�� !V YLi�IIM. i I gl N� V ^ � •tjtj la 4y V +V'1 Y9 = S -e pS Oa 821.2 6i� Liw �J • 6 � Y L iv`^ -N ` ° gtl rL- c w « w ue •y -Y L w g p Y Cgue R v� 7 a •ya Li :O K`NO ie�0 V ^I a L_ Z Z spa a =yam G a 6Y a S �MNr gg V !1 €e _ 79 `Z2- 4E6a V S, Y � 4E��r •rgy {t� a�KV SgCa�ppwO yY1 . yaar c r +�irLL a C KHLL WG Ga v�•. •.. V Sy W 11 k ` _ &s5r C ` ■ � A- � i�f1 s'-i i r.iLe� a Y ss 3116 OV = aVy • r ° � °.0 r� r +g�� • a rg_ 0_ Y S"� L c `T y -y i q0 -. v L » r= c .ci`o 4p '•�k t Y yy.� OUYM d�_x iON Hq,w N K4/ T Kb f �O.O•�� N jrp V a L_ Z Z spa a =yam G a 6Y a S �MNr gg V !1 €e _ 79 `Z2- 4E6a V S, Y � 4E��r •rgy {t� a�KV SgCa�ppwO yY1 . yaar c r +�irLL a C KHLL WG Ga v�•. •.. V Sy W 11 k Y y �r V r�yy O7 Y V .. .- s a GVy ` �Y • Wi ' S =Jp 3 4= � a 4 yy 1 y O 3'?. z�Y6 °a rM� •`mY .—.49 oCtl °�n a w a �YY± ��q .m C. ■ .� O' A. � b V M p S V 212 i ° N - m �qqy VIA' Z � Y G <IVyy � � 0 � S G. S b -. �_ `$.g y OL a t Jg V i Mp a �m� e� m . - ` • �Yq W a a i p Y a +^ C Tr _ . - N r Y� u 7e 33 ` a L —O3 by Nii .m.$c°+o =N Y V �L • v.Y• � aaiQ ul a �cm� NN�� , - y L Hns C 1 6 Y ` Oz � :-nub u01 Vqlg.� - 4i• =t V O• Lt9 C +Y Y� .yq rv35 ai N m e.ma g �eL�tl °.� Me nu = co Yge•+` 4i mA � N L C N N � R~ �" a ` • tit Et a vez - �Opi iCC 00 i ;;"Z ``Y _Y a6CC�■`■`1 YO6p6 a Y _� -I 'Y. Ctl G 01 ¢q! Q �c.yCy ° - A Cr m.xz 12-33 CCO N Y Y YCmA paQ� OS'�Y y Cm. T i9� CNC Nap �C Cy g.F"9eC O S t% r C Cy Yw.:mf m s O Y i? q m OsO..siw s epm"Cn° O ee O�R. +.Y. v^ E00 r �0. �Li Na Y.. ! NN Z>7w .DLO - 6 <O.� Yill OYN- pALpp' C W�► iyAWe W:�t �(O >Qi ■s 6'Ywy 4 VI Ib t7 L —O3 d ✓ 0 � t 664 1..+ • q, ♦' psw �° 0 25' C1 L`� ~'���� aL .tea $i. $ � ,�..K�hs •$.. 'tS rg ■ .+awn +x •'rl �� - $„� V tlMb °�v L y in �� w '���� Ali. °� � � «s}'• sg pM jj1 y n q p q Y1 �r "M wY *�4 Y$ Y 'fy 1r9 Y • r °� 11.,•,a'�7t i C` ■N It y� a4C �N aOb Rw+_� }i rTag$$a a $ i N .. Nall see _F N M � V C L 6M« �•^•� V 2 •o,S:' �� �SpC ��� � "Y,�` �'g�i` '� ""COSri °V��►�a`g� 3L VCp YG ��V - :pp Y7V Q r «�4� �O OV u+ � �a4}pPi � At ! L �•`O My l�v._ MV O� �� 4 P.a PP N4VQ V w .OY Y an y p g ! O 7 yR M •e i Y � � � � u D i1 � y L � � Y W 'g a �Q M •.qtr L � u,^ "',° ® �.'� rtr .". g �� C= ��°, ice« � aj »r.'•.° �'V'�_'�� 1 Mlz. Y Yn�ncp Q YdYa @ M 3ad�Y 4Ye• ypp� O�,y� @3 a N� »a~6 •S^_ VrF Y� _VC tl.. M .0��� Y'Mr @(�� ��.01�.= .@..� yp■ q O.rO 'CC•V V � L� yq,M o .G i�+ " —we .,�.L g Q a. try 4 p 9 Y D• 4 A Y Y A L` O V Y v $1taa� p r Y ' �� s3 �� ow ■Y4 �� �„ _� ia $Y y { CQ l:V Cl» C UY V 'k b -w 9 L YbM g NOpA4 1 wotl M6yy »e wW «v NN tl! O�V _V A NOY�Av -- `qqpy tl�CQ s�iQ•'•. °.4�• dt •+(V W4 i 4f 47 i -wa !� 6pN +C � -i V j z 4J 04 6 Q. e w e 14 Ss V w Z$E 5; t M a L1r w Luy Z. y r L L Mi RY M i d V,•.. R _ Fr Sm its jrb G� '�M1 �u ►, �tlµeo y,�yr. ii a pl�� �� +6w�iC � Mah N��N�� N� •� 7l� '�� Iwo �3 hills x J:; ° i 1 ► Y 4 Vs S.wT•OS wM �VW tlrY �4 i... Y � «1 V. a s K, -• 4... � �r w � J .►� / >n� •MpM. LQi 4d yYt� aJy y y �$y �� gwLy. �d``yb� lilyy. }. i. V j ci C ii V N � i Au ss p � � v i * a.- t.-4 G Y K^ 'tea Lk'. 4i'a ,ZI '~o NOW. ` L YA' Oz t X 4 Vs S.wT•OS wM �4 ti • u u'f ��M y� 4... � �r w � J .►� / >n� •MpM. LQi 4d yYt� aJy y y �$y �� gwLy. �d``yb� lilyy. }. j+ItV¢�ppMaa V j ci C ii V N � i Au ss p WAA lw ems. <,y r na �K 6w ep. pP 4� ti 7 �U V L J j ii x r �a �. �OM�S 4ew°.r uW Rte..• 0 a o . 9 � v,e ro K OI w ^ a5+, v� �. 0 Vs S.wT•OS wM ttyv ti • 1 l. ��M y� 4... � �r w "{ y`am. ;. .►� / >n� •MpM. LQi 4d yYt� aJy y y �$y �� gwLy. �d``yb� lilyy. }. j+ItV¢�ppMaa V j ss p � � v i * a.- t.-4 wm ' 'tea Lk'. 4i'a ,ZI '~o NOW. ` L YA' Oz z L I i 1. 4. • � � LY °tip Y y HE a i; ► s4—d'3 X74' ra Is MV rY�+ M� yyV� � `�•j7 � q �c VyZ �` ngYN �,J VB� p VL�Y�e �• �I , yy; Y MlO y4 ZZ - �S{_3 5 Z • ��'O C i'L C OGy Lp , • 1�g.1 ° sC 6t� % ° 1. ' M -,A4 a 3� � '� s gui 42 33i y. yy ] fill w �r4 ,'gF `. _✓ iz S9tr rwj •e sO f }gx[ F NY. tiV Ow 4i ►NV MI t! <p �� ��.�. L° G 0701 -02 o 4 -8 -87 PG Agenda u Y U W" J. Vl'. 1AX"IU21V V V Vt11Y1V1N1ar1 CA STAFF REPORT ����, o !' a U DATE: April 8, 19E7 1977 TO; Chairman ;ad Members of the Planning Coenission FROM: Brad Balker, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 132` "0 - LEWIS a development residential su i slon or 4 acres 'within the Terra Vista Planned Community (Medium -High Residential, 14 -24 dwelling units per ac") into one lot for condominium purposes for 384 dweili;14 snits, located on the'nortbwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street -`APR: 1077 - 421 -15. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of subdivision map, precise plot Plan, and building elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Project Density: 19.02 dwelling units per a're. C. Surroundin Lind Use and Zoning: or y s ni:'tfu use own ouse condomipium site); Medivm- Righ Residential (14 44 dwelling units per acrei �ethir. the Terra Vista Planned Community. South - Vacar,t future mixed -use commercial/residential site cl t4ln the Foothill Boulevard Center's concept � se q"n); Mixed -Use (MFC) within the Terra Vista - Planned Community. East - Vacant (future commercial recreation and park site); Recreational Commercial NO and Park Site (P) within the Terra Vista Planned Community. West Vacant (future elementary school site), Elementary School (E) within the Terra Vista Planned Community. D. General Plan Designati(hs: 753ec i e e um xisdential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre). North - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre). South - Office and commercial. East - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unit, per acre). West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). ITEM M 11. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project site is designed to share access with the u ore evelopmn,nt to the north; a connectiod point has been pv.,vided at the northwest corner of the project. Ue site plan is arranged with the majority of the buildings clustered together in a single large open space mass surrounded by an exterior loop road. Amenities include a recreation building, two pools, a tennis court, and three spas, No tut lot is shown on the proposed plan. The housing program is designed as an apartment style, multi- family develolment. Buildings are all two story 8- plexes with 4 units above and 4 units below. Access to upper Levels is prtryided through open, exterior stairwells with cowman landings. Five floor plans are provided, i.e., one 1- bedroom unit, three 2- bedroom units (l with dual master bedrooms), and one 3- bedroom unit. `Each floor PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13270 - LENIS;HOMES April 8, 1987 Page Z E. Site Characteristics: s �s. The project site is currently a a vineyard, e s e T7s bordered to the north by a continuatioe of the vineyard, to the south by Church Street, to the east by Milliken Avenue, :,and :to the west by Elm Avenue and a vineyard, A Eucalyptus w1ndrow transverses the site in a north `10 south direction at the project's eastern edge.. This windrow As scheduled for removal .t.4 w development Of the project. The t� site slopes from h4rtn south at approximately a 3..4`6 t grade, No structum,% currently 4_fist,on' the project site. _ F. Parking Calculations. rotal units: 384 Unit Mix: 1 Bedroom - 152 Units 2 Bedroom - 176 Units 3 Bedroom -56 units Parking Required: 1.5 x 152 - 228 � 1.8 x 176 - 316 2.0 x 56 = 312 .25 x 384 = 96 Total = 753 Spaces ANIL Parking Provided: Covered 384 Open Handicapped 7 Open Standard 249 Open Compact 113 Total = 753 11. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project site is designed to share access with the u ore evelopmn,nt to the north; a connectiod point has been pv.,vided at the northwest corner of the project. Ue site plan is arranged with the majority of the buildings clustered together in a single large open space mass surrounded by an exterior loop road. Amenities include a recreation building, two pools, a tennis court, and three spas, No tut lot is shown on the proposed plan. The housing program is designed as an apartment style, multi- family develolment. Buildings are all two story 8- plexes with 4 units above and 4 units below. Access to upper Levels is prtryided through open, exterior stairwells with cowman landings. Five floor plans are provided, i.e., one 1- bedroom unit, three 2- bedroom units (l with dual master bedrooms), and one 3- bedroom unit. `Each floor E7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13270 - LEWIS HOMES April 8, 1987 Page 3- plan is provided with its own e1;cl osed pati oJbalc,ony space. Covered parking is provided with) enclosed gang garages. Architecture can be described as " post - modern ", employing use of angular forms, metal railings, and bright accent colors.. B. Design Review Committee. In their report to the" -..gn Revibra WomP ee, S%aTT presto ed concerns that the pro'iosed projt, wF_, not consistent with the design intent i;uf the Terra.- Vista` Community Plana both in terms of site plan design and architectural program. Primary site plan concerns were that, 1. The site plan was overly crowded and did not have an adequate flow of oiler. space. 2. The project perimeter treatments at both Church Street and Milliken Avenue would result in a repetitive pattern to tracking from the overall quality of the streetscape. 3. The site plan design did not orient the project to the greenway trail system located adjacent to the tract's western perimeter. 4. The pro-°ct did not offer adequate numbers of active retreat amenities. In relation to building architecture, staff was concerned that a similar pattern was emerging for all multi - family projects within Terra Vista that resulted in a repetitive "look" to the communi t,+. This project was initially reviewed at the Design Review Committee meeting of January 22, 1987 (Barker, Coleman). The Committee concurred with the primary content of staff's concerns and directed that revisions be made. Th3 Planning Commission hold a special Workshop on February 26, 1987 to consider architecture for all multi- family projects within the Terra Vista Planned Ca�munity to address staff comments that a similar pattern of architecture was tinerging for all multi - family projects within the Planned Community. At the Workshop, the Commission reaffirmed an objective of the Terra Vista Community Plan to proiide a variety of development styles to increase the variety of housing choices offerred throughout Terra Vista. They indicated that sufficient variety was provided; however, in future projects alternate styles of development should be explored. However, the Commission gave M-3 �r PLANNING COK{1SS1i STAFF REPORT TT 13279 - LEWI5 t� MES April 8, 1997 Page 4 no specific' direction for the ,projects under review, and, instead, they indicated that 'all` projects should be referred a back to the Design Review Committee and should be a'" sidered by � the Committee on an individual, case -by -case basis. Tide revised level opinent package was resubmitted for Design Review Committee review: on March 19, 1987 (Tolstoy, Emerick, Coismaan). The site plan had been revised as follows. 1. Two 8-plex buildings have been t`iminated. 2. A carriage unit, i.e., Q second -story dwelling located over a garage, was introduced into the housing program. Sixteen units of .this 'new floor plan were located throughout the project site to replace the units lost with the et,ijainatiot ;the J two 8 -plex buildings. 3. Drive aisles adjacent to both Milliken Avenue and i 1 Church.'--)Street were redesigned for- greater visual variation to increase interest along the streetscape. 4. The recreation building relocated from was adjacent to the Church Street eji.rance to adjacent to the Elm Avenue entrance, and a� second pool was offerred at this location. The Design Review Committ�e felt that the revised site plan ' adequately addressed the previous Committee's conc(%rns of an overly crowded site plan and an inadequate number of recreation areas. However, the Committee was still'conceened about both the edge conditions along tailliken Avenue and Church Street, and the lack of orientation of the project to the greenway trail located adjacent to the tract's western perimeter. Therefore, the Committee approved the submitted site plan subject, to th fcilowing revisions. 1. The Milliken Avenue and Church Street parkways should incorporate mounding to achieve an undulating parkway to enhance the overall quality of the streets.ape. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13270 - LEWIS HOMES April 8, 1987 Page M 2: The parkway at the Milliken Avenue /Church Street intersection should be designed with an extensive amount of, mounding and undulation and planted with intensified landscaping program .Z0 function as a visual accent. 3. A serand pedestrian connection should be provided across the Lriveway north of the Elm Avenue entrance to enhance the project's orientation with the greenway trail system. Also, at least two access points should be provided from the project site to the trail. In terms of architecture, tyre Committee felt that the proposed architectural program offeri,,�d sufficient variety to adequately differentiate this project iron all ether multi - family projects within Terra Fists,` The Committee recommended approval., of building architecture as proposed, subject: to the .follow ?lg revision, 1. Utility panels should be enclosed in an enclosed, roofed structure to provide additional architectural detailing -ion building loses. Ali these items as specified by the Design Review Committee have either been shown or, reylsed plans, or incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. C. Tree Removal: Accompanying the subdivision application is a request ai tree removal for an existing Eucalyptus windrow that traverses the project's eastern perimeter in a north /south direction (see Exhibit "B "). The majority of this windrow is within the alignment for Milliken Avenue and would be required for removal to allow for street improvements. A number of trees have already been approved for removal with the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract 12671. The tree removal request with this application is necessary to permit development of the site. The area scheduled for tree removal is completely surrounded by Terra Vista and all the land is under the ownership of Lewis Homes. Since there are no adjacent owners other t: an Lewis Homes, the standard procedure of notifying adjacent landowners of the pending application for tree removal has been waived. D. Technical Revsew, Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed a pro ec an a ermined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable Standards and Ordinances. ` Irl ~6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13270 - LEWIS HOMES April 8, 1987 Page 6 I E. grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project and- deeterm n"i"e`d --Uat, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable Standards and Ordinances - F. Environmental Assessrent: Parr I of the Initial Study has been completed y app caat.j�Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result Df this project. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: 'in order._ -nr this project to be approved,.the ann ny m� _o ss an must fini-- ydis project to be consistent with the Terra Vista Planned Community a►sd the General Ilan, and that this project will not be detrimental 0 adjacent properties or cause significant adverse impacts. It must also be detervincd that the proposed use, building designs, and subdivision, together with all recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with all 1 applicable regulations in the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a Public Hearing in Me a y°Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent o all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION., Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Ten F-Xve Tract 13270 subject to the Conditions of Approval through ad+ption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res lly swfitted j - Bra ul�Ye I City PI nner BB:BC:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location trap Exhibit "B" - Tree RemovalPian Exhibit "C" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhbiit "F" Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans Exhibit "H" - Building Elevations Resolution of Approval with Conditions f, 1 {Ifit'ON tTILL9N1ralOa ": ._ -. •: �• ' 3 j t .. °A� Vi41F YYY33 Me'seat}!IO'1>K7r rNaf ; , /��, �w..w i i `l 11 l WIN w , r i i LM L I 7 lrr' � F it g.6 .® �U Cr3 `l 11 l LM L I 7 lrr' � F it g.6 .® �U Cr3 e o; !`s� •. t .opt uz p SZ g � .RT19•!{lYli TY'LLW 9tl1C4lYStl3R SSJi +. � � 3 K 6ti(1'042�fILL 7N1YLNal : $�l�V 31 _ Z Q _ 1 Mrta ►�j \ i / rurara•r / rj e o; !`s� •. t .opt uz p SZ g � .RT19•!{lYli TY'LLW 9tl1C4lYStl3R SSJi +. � � 3 K 6ti(1'042�fILL 7N1YLNal : $�l�V 31 _ e o; !`s� •. t .opt uz p SZ g � .4, A f fl, 1 . I . U > Q. ox z u C4 E! (r��rK1 .. Y }( O i itd�. wS —�� fry.t6 yTr� ���Y"''-- ...'�� F-+Y�. ` X, 0 g) !den .s IX i all m Li .4, A f fl, 1 . I . U > Q. ox z u C4 E! (r��rK1 .. Y }( O i itd�. wS —�� fry.t6 yTr� ���Y"''-- ...'�� F-+Y�. ` X, 0 g) !den .s IX IX Li 4 E777r • .4, A f fl, 1 . I . U > Q. ox z u C4 E! _Ji ...... Hilt di Jill m., 47- N I 80 ;e-or C) X U Z z u * I 03- 16 19 HR e.Fre .4 f fir! ...... Hilt di Jill m., 47- N I 80 ;e-or C) X U Z z u * I _ �� �IYM1tA6RW3Hl MH 3 f�� t i__...... is °� .. •? E' ° 7� MILU Bg T] MT�:T� •aR drYf. yp �' `, i..... :T:: — �? Su 140 UP , t i ( � a . Al ij M Boni I . Al ij M �' .; i 0 r� Sd` � s 5 pp} S� Cl) N N N ,,..4 -� i -nr t!1 e ra Li /�/ I I U ;4 -� . {�' � � tae:— ... - ... •s: y.. a 1 d v i z3 C Vial 44 Zip 6-7 fow fou) _� e — — — — — — — — — — — u C4 c. 'M 1 mw AT ■ ■ ���I�IlII t T m OPA r .�.��_ i ��I ' n ���" f' i :� � ` �'; �. y Y —=� -'� ./� � .y -- :-i ,� ��. ; MIULy j' i li I i I I I i 1 i i I i 1 i Lea i{{ � � J 1 a" M -204 w S� M m� lu 1 C i + i t C r� m"A 3 � �s t N N s� U F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13270 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13274, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Lewis Homes, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California,f;described as 24.19 acres in the Medium -High Residential District 414 -24 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Commurj•,~,y, located at the northwest corner of MillLen Avenue & Church Stre�+ into 1 lot for condominium purposes, regularly name before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on April 8, 1987; and WHEREAS,`the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other eviden,e presented at the public hearing. NOW,, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission- of the City of Rancho . Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning CrAnission makes the following finuings in regard to en a ve Tract No. 13270 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with 1ha 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 developert proposed; (d) The deign of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidabie injury to humans and wiidlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; {f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through o'r use of the property within the proposed subdivision. iii -0140 Resolution N p/. 0 Tentative Tract 13270 April 8, 1987 pogm u (9) The Tree Removal Permit requested as a part of ttis application is consistent with Ordinance No. 275." (h) That this project will not create adverse impac,,ts on the environment and a Negative Declaratio6 is SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 1U70, a copy of which is attac0ed li—er-e-Fo—,-Ts- hereby approved subject to 'all of the foilowing conditions and the attached StanO—,rd Condirtions: PLANNING DIVISION i. Decorative, texturized pavement shall be provided at all driveway entrances and pedestrian crossings across driveways. Final details and locations shall be included on the landscape and irrigation plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. All trash enclosures shall Oe provided with overhead lattice work or simi-�ir shaded str�,,cture to satisfaction of the City 3. Final details of the garages shall be included in construction 9V drawings for review and approval by the Planning Division. 4. All retaining walls be constructed of decorative block, subject to review and appr64il by the Planning Division. 5. Final design detaiis of the perimeter walls located at the west and north �, ' ract perirAters, including a locking gate, shall be Included as' part of the landscape/irrigation plans, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 6. Low level lighting shall be provided in all open space areai and along the greerwy trail. Design details shall be included a the detailed lignting plan subject to review and approval of both the Planning Division and Sheriff's Department. 7. All outdoor mailbox locations shall be provided with a solid '= overhead structure and appropriate lighting. The final design of any free standing structure shall be compatible with the building architecture and shall be included in the constructian drawings, subject to the review and approval of the. planning Division. 8. An enclosed tot lot v4th active play equipment shall be provided'­Q.,/` at each pool area. Location and design details sh;M be included in the landscape/irrigation plans, subject to the rev-'*,% and approval of the Planning Division. `` ^—" DE 11 Resolution No. Tentative Tract 13270 April 8, 1987 Page 3 9. The primary source of heating for both pools shall be solar enery. 10. Construction details of the recreation, :tng and /or soade structures (with solar panels) shall- Ue included in the construction drawings, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 11. An acoustic: study shall be prepared to the satisfactior, of the City Planner that specifies what steps, If any, are necessary to achieve site conforwance with City established noise levels, prior to the issuance of,� ilding permits. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Milliken Avenue shall be constructed frog Base Uae Road to Foothill Boulevard with tha first phase of development, as fal1ows: a. Full improvements for boti1 rcadbeds; b. Full median with landscaping; and c. Sidewalk, street lights and parkway landscaping beyond the tract boundary mdy be deferred until development of the adjacent property. 2. Elm Avenue shall be constructed from Spruce Avenue to Church Street with the first phase of development as follows: a. Full ?improvements on the esst side of the centerline adjacent to the tract boundary with a miniwaa 13 foot wide pavement on the west side of the centerline; b. A minimum 26 foot wide pavement centered within a 40 foot wide dedicated right -of -way beyond the tract boundary; c. Drainage control devices such as paved ditches, A.C. berms or curbs shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Church Street shall be constructed from Milliken Avenue to Elm Avenue with the first phase of development as follo,xs: a. Full improvwnts for the n)rth.- roadbed; b. Full median wit" landscaping; ;-- �� I , I� Resolution No. Tentative 'Tract 13270 � April 8, 1987 Page 4 C. A minimum r18 foot aide pavement for tW-" ?uth roadbed; and d. Drainage control devices such as paved ditches, A.C. berms ` or curbs shall' be installed as approved by the Oty. Engineer. 4. The following storm drain facilities s►:all be constructed prtu to occ!3parncy (per the Terra Vista Master P16.4 of Drainage): a. Storer Drain Line 1 from Dear Creek ;hannel to..;the subjec� property; b. P6 K?2asio #2 located at the northwest colMer 4f Church ` Streei a tip.:- nusnue; and C. (1) Storm Drain Line 2 -2 along Elm Avenue,- or (2) provide an alternate mlethol of drainage disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Ttj method and related plans shall be approved prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance " of grading and /or bui;ding,permits. APPROVED - --.40 ADOPTW THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF, THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG.i BY: Larry ZY .- _ aZ�'irman —'— - ATTEST: ra u er, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer =. °fiy that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of tYk:; City of Rancho Cucawnga, at a regular meeting of th° Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONS! S: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r�LC T4QOLlY�,! Cq:q 9d �Mi GC Oy Yca.. T9 N C `u p.�y L4LA VS_Ui g 4UNS rL$ 4q��V ucu A.L LCAYJ L'brL 6.0 4ti�N ,A L„V,i.O y Lei'. tGe C�`�V33 C� NCU?i b A V'y RC 'Rib �_ `�2f.H O�Y Ybb A4V_L 4u �1 #/$t { WGY U6M A�N.wLYO -4Lw N 1 .�W.O. Z-L+3 O 3yy$:ii�r i .4N'A M q W -gZ r� � M4 Ou 'ItC : ;pa 6.{V - ggo .;AL4o:� j i g G LLI Ix Rap- M� C Y 3 l � � ��tC 1Ea+q ryC i�: ,LLP~- O��y + yyyy ~F�C A �8ryeO y AC w 1 lrS ..N. tlpi yyC� Cp. 'a-a� ntly +yCp� - yvs., -C iY be�U�U.N YLLOw G4.+�wNNC Q4`i�ggi 6Q N 4Y 4C „ ^�M8N4C 4 NC.�yr N91C�y��O.� YC Cti O� b� �b Vg�Q'� i>ys� �;�x V�..ML O'U V� pC Yi� Q } �rs.Jwn "�$[ N � 'A i•yy {. yCA 6O�Yw CCU9u NNE s1 pb,0�,04 0�.�y t�� pY ����T tllY Rq,C..., tltlM„A �f vd ApW.A 4p�D11 q N TC���rri `412aj+a i� yy yy ,L pp ggtl„ 33 _ tlpY pOpp.,, ��jj N Y Vppr�. U!i L9X^' ti 4Gl 4Uy 9 iCe • 4 4{�(..Oq NO�. N V Y 4 N p 1 11� �pp�.T[Q > �O/..S Nytsv YO.O 7 c � ” u � • 1t1 � NG ii � 77lO L c z i t P ISO Q w w = mq.8 ov 1 RqCC y�� N .r.. N R O 6 qp • ti! .7.4i !K t I O E w �4 � A 9 N NT a L G L w� O v� CD V' 0 a Ao=� ��na i > >aQ.A• Lowy y ^% aN�Y «N ® e =N.y �aw y888 p6�ro N'O /�u0i NLL.Y. �C V y�y.:N.r a ^O� bbL Nb' S:hyL L.L`� °6�p ?U. OAC V� L NSN at. x.V q C3g ��g„ CC ■ ,O O boo O _Vi � 8.5 V. qCgm 0 +01� IS ST. uo ao, °jo � w C"nC V w"v yWg���jS •# N tdN�� � C. ... o Uy wr, 2 �irq L9 baV Cd 9Yq.sU fYr S C iMr $ c I ris u& ca�a cubi�$° Sir-Mv ae:a..o .1 e .3 Sao awci ei m pOMO °o.N -- �.0 g +I ° � L.WTY pA yF. ;9A «ay LN n.a Qoe ugs qym dy.� yEi9l 6g V ;, r 4 LOO ,e •AL o y� �N �;a 4 °y� •V g, r3 +�CL i b o O.s- o L H ♦t.- 4E! �' of C. }«.� R-2 N �f t3f 'o �4x _.� 9 w� �° -. NN Op��. of u� u$�•p"_� � °r. u — p -iL O V y V NM N C GF b gee �uu2x g `gam "tY G�. Wrs—.2 CG fC V.LS g.� W6 L. bMx a� �i � w og�€ z o ELM Sao awci ei �uc °o.N -- �.0 g +I ° �` «ay LN n.a Qoe ugs qym dy.� yEi9l 6g V ;, r 4 LOO ,e •AL o y� �N �;a 4 °y� •V g, r3 +�CL i b o O.s- o C o u E O o O y 'o �4x _.� 9 w� �° -. NN Op��. of u� u$�•p"_� � °r. u — p -iL O V y V NM N C GF N :01 M' ! If c a..b0 -P. b L >u ar8 bMx a� �i � w og�€ z o ELM f..�s $ge'rOdL 3b Ord N� N V Nb yac Y$fL a� pbC�p b N. cN rS To" b s..�yy`o Hx� b4e.cy.�u .I ty c € N uFs�v- to �yy 7f E yiC A =J L�1 0 O i M L Q O. .yR u O y A,t cx y LppbCC « O Nt L' .0 Y N q bMp T V �i l 97 icy Vy ' p� A pV� Cq O. p Aq L i i CM�pUy 4ah6 b �U9 L ^� O aq cD CCOO O .r n�p C C rV0 bagGq �b 40i ..Rb 4Yr .pC _L � N� ••V•V OiYYL V bOGD VQaGO 0.0 `�30 J r 9 fwr 9.0 �L ai 9 w° V da.',, ®. po"e+ coo 'O aX� be O1u eo ISC o.Yr «ICn u-'1utl.« «v I � _11 °NU Osa nY N,pY° ba +a4. ^� ppg.Y -ah °Cry Cu ��pY�a�++ r QpO yY`° L. M o w l 'Yn 4 O y .0 S O O it OI O w1y N g Y A b L w o YaZCFO1W:♦ MY qIV. ,Y^q "�C".�0 $K NW ♦NAG uS�ZCN �..Cd ZE CCAN L� opus yp� CON i!J ,O�'O �1 G ap yN��_�yyyy����� CI'i •q0 ea;UOq�O iV .r�iGCC TV' a �N�N C O2 I 60 �MO 06 aw�v „�_YN ��. C9C yLw ty QL �'Ca ��Tn` y.{.fN6 YQ.^ A� L�N NY4 COi q � U YYY N Y .`u9N0LY pC 'yI..lii9 C Nle CY T OYO-B 1� �p�L ' cY~.p `yy0•YLu .vOa •IW'' rnc�n awl [.°o” „y�wl^� y43gs a�bw.Y.sY "m. ca$ih�"[a V ~L 1 �YaaUN yq q N �•1 K 6 � wN .l� ���e� / t Z � x yS N n ~ D �e M`. N at. t N t � oO"e tlt C a�c4Fy p y °.= � �sC '^$ a,".91= rO � fi n�L Ca ~ 'rnCY'n i UNIY .N O . U y Y b b O a � L Y q U N.Y Ur C 4 L D r W U C O1 a�= pr C I C CN .; L 1. 9 S C y> U� =d..6-. p •��Y7 a °u -C a_ � .88, . •C Y N 2% pW,Cp �(Y.. ^ p'°� +tea =`CC kr.� C L1 '��`1 q qY�� -�a >P S wa IS N is y `w�'E '�� o.+ px".qo.. S,tC C r q • �qub D• Y Ny 6.Y �9 W� w GT Gy Y a� yC. Z' LNU` �.y y~ cnc4gqN 71:; O+^ LUL- St�NyN ',� Y j • U w q Y d Y w N by� °C. Y L_ µO O N a+ aC w y W p� O qE b d ° C C w O L{ L .O ^. Zz b t� `trite Cali y y.Cr$N �qV rCy V aN Q >N� L�8 d� V «O `F N �! 'ts d .;O' OmL '� N ��: L` gX C� ~i ��C NC >- SCC.^ bad bdq p. 7q0 Y S C N C U O'r Lift r N N �MLG p tl Kbn EL n r�° Z. t4 ...... <v U O CV ICON +q iCCf >Gyy 4C16 K 6 %�Lld' w0O y1R pulls .+fir b T XI. Y� Hf 41 N Y� �� N ; N s u Yoh a UNa ` Y J °1oU..N f� c 1. 2 CoL qt' u orN� r .u,w .°•,y Y>F >„• c� u � �u VOp 9 UI _F� y o dpi= q �v i p C N _€S cagAO u° .PAS «�u .°i�'c• rn A° a QQ ° �D y?•U N N N. bN o Cx u� F 4•�� 'NCtC f N a Y S• N M +�• 3� �`• °� J L i �Op —L >CA k -jig! �Y P a` & c +�p��' s-44 ,kN. au wed �vCC `u� • � c�- UOV; _y. PCg =y �OpvV LLO. � �a EV ,yyH ip�Y_r 4- p�.0 Uc � �$ a$ 1� u yy A ° U � L^ yp�yyppUYU �`Y i•Y: yyY1.Cd ytO g6Q . {uN�{�4� `. � L. r... Y � H N 9 @ s •� Y ,z ss .2%A -ws sla b CCO gQN � vw> u• # > N1S o '. H a u '• P� C Y. ••°• O 4 T a t. L pjilr �i •j'] WsC� F Y E �Y.y�Q na.n NYp UV4 @YC „fig =`�• q C � � r L p if� JT LLV, L`C Big •'YU^ � «uu�ag � ~emgu w u ��YY u `� wC yC � YZ L°N r U •^Any L wUN O0a' VOf�•� Z! a —E1 dip YC —. �9L� ie p. L�m�u 9Y� &d N.yn•�.L L{1`Q ° C Y Op v LL yyuN— i I r M YYU Gam; 10f(�1If Ni• >.U' _AY .°. yOa Q —g �yV s_U cY6 �ou Ili ui c� n NsC ac ay .'I+ uQp up �uii. a Nmy� r'y`a N.0 A Up �AQW p ®OC N'Cr7 �C 6w. �Yny. g ° 2LLLNG 040. POi Z �1 ^' s u Yoh a UNa ` Y J °1oU..N f� c 1. 2 CoL qt' u orN� r .u,w .°•,y Y>F >„• c� u � �u VOp 9 UI _F� y o dpi= q �v i p C N _€S cagAO u° .PAS «�u .°i�'c• rn A° a QQ ° �D y?•U N N N. bN o Cx u� F 4•�� 'NCtC f N a Y S• N M +�• 3� �`• °� J L i �Op —L >CA k -jig! �Y P a` & c +�p��' s-44 ,kN. au wed �vCC `u� • � c�- UOV; _y. PCg =y �OpvV LLO. � �a EV ,yyH ip�Y_r 4- p�.0 Uc � �$ a$ 1� u yy A ° U � L^ yp�yyppUYU �`Y i•Y: yyY1.Cd ytO g6Q . {uN�{�4� `. � L. r... Y � H N 9 @ s •� Y ,z ss .2%A -ws sla b CCO gQN � vw> u• # > N1S o '. H a u '• P� C Y. ••°• O 4 T a t. L pjilr n. rG�C.0 •j'] WsC� is u� Y E �Y.y�Q na.n NYp a a� C „fig =`�• q C � � r L p •`h' a N� wiI LL M -33 N AC '• c is u� Y •`h' Ai 4 YLL �« N a^ �CC e!• �i C • gOC ALLY f• yC � YZ L°N r U •^Any ~� � P 1 N'N A ie p. qau M.. N Y tV NLO ° C Y Op v LL yyuN— i NL VN ^pp N][O >,LL Oft t °O _pN sUUy SEE P�L La40pp� @p O�WyO t e 11 z Aso €psy;� �- uy eC a yC� aY YYp `tL 9 Y5 ^O eggg! VV a D b 4^ YY C;L�UY O� vya y 9 • CLta L L O1 So Y 4 ^Q n u s= VO� p ynp n�9 O N M P •C� ? `C C � „ Y o�S cr�q�.` if �. T L u ,g a� N^C �u fd L �Wy GS L �. M yy 7 A O M Y C z i m Q 4 O $ U-41 C YIS � � N �. HL NM 1 O a ttytl LN ,,!V�qj{{ L.�Op CL Ywd ON 3Y.4C C�~ 4ccy .�•. � 6�f jy! Y� tl`� C`O1.Y�pCNy' Y` u Y .�p0 ` ayYY � Y V Y Y Y 4 y� 5. PcCzV. bfp Y N OOp M LL ^ Y Ngty Q.. YC O H R V A =012. W.ou ue ri w. � � u'��' �e's.�. 0 gus I. 9 CJ >N u0�LY �V � LN G50 YH CrYi6L4 GM O dr ~ s • W J �1p O OH Elff~ '3Q i .. ail n. �� - $s _ &i. €k U-IF $ I III _� 1' q °dv C Ygo S � - °^�b' ^ fi a � xL'y`o �' •� ��,� �xC�g� 43— �Y L+ yy° vyy■ .^ C V^ ° ��y ¢ ° N C 6„1C . S yy. tt y FF ~ i1�■ u. D Y g -l. - = N1iO z tD M Us M N i 1�L _ o uya rl O RY�+ So .TT °Y {{ppOpp{{���� Lp A N G�L�yy. •pp y. iiO S N py VL 02u �c '�'C L #iY 4 V 15 01. ` {{,, ofd= ~+ as$ cu". `y'y ^C o' �CiN 22C LLr�i+� g C N � C P- S. L4 �G �a G u GC/p. E. OIyA. NOo¢ 9Cuq�OO �L1' RJ o? Oo x° y ybm4CTL pY�M sso a. ra�$3Y pGy M �ryC rY Ask yC. Rp Y N vL IC AL C rN L. My ��'•N v CY G q„ pg co£'.u.� O� L3.:: " �� t ►y ugE.�s W N'V WYf.) �.6 <O.0 u' N AI r N m cl;� I 4� Is >� Uoa lP v o N E c g G _ Z; Zu G L 6 Y yyCF fYf�'6 G L i ,0 �iy ■ + 'wp `t' CU N'LC +¢« ° Y. O.2 =Ni r_�' CeVS Ul O s" U +' 33 8� 6i. 6� L�G � � �y�.0 � /�~ �•� � V = MB_ggpp oD� j G y C 1_2 NO « «w h0 6�« ¢Y aauC WN NgLC^,i crisp'. N9 s°.. ; �9 nGi pY6 °i �N Y4a t6„ I I or •� °� E TV L � + xA G i' C -r v C L D Yy G 8e O C Or` qs^ � L C $r a^ ° M y sx Cqq . It C nn HE K' 6W y�cl f Np C� N Al it „LL 7t u�C� YL xN xVL Nr � O t^ �cen N� ■y` � N 1Lr V � F Y e Q L W 1 G tY n0 4 4 IJ M -35- 5O TV N4 \VY\ G xA G i' C -r 12 d Or` qs^ � C +L�aiq i _■ C ^ v ° M y sx Cqq . —E L Q S +4 V nn HE K' 6W y�cl f Np C� N �cen NICE M -35- 5O TV N4 \VY\ G xA G i' C -r 12 d Or` qs^ � C +L�aiq i _■ C ^ v ° M y sx Cqq . —E L Q S +4 V Y HE K' 6W y�cl f Np C� N El sL o G"€ O Y Lan ag Q O ra {� N 6j s90 -. qY CC i y Q. Q u9 �o q� A y EN iY Y l � nL K q p F .L �yH�CN O Y L Ljj M ISIS _Cr n ++ M ,Qp {ie VaOY ��.+ O. 1u y■tt u— Ell LLL GC V` Y G R Al -Z �Cp It Sb° a Lys i C°C �9 MS mail 4pGG.q. u .. -• J L Tp N Q4u ... q 1311 4 9 N Y� M * a C V S p r- L _ `Lp O BA °g ° a 3� g.. a=� Q. i i bL LY"4 o W yLLK L WL� ^ �i LY O,N rG �A YpL y c„ Nc G CYC ., OY N�v `r.' 'c."pou w� s 9i Ull °u o1 �. gov pa «ice V a^ N &L+ N'>N" « Rill Yi u° t .y L- g Y N Y y Jr d NL ."+AUK t�p �T .�:vaL "�>.. w I.- yV= CocLO yip nag. O Y1TY9 Y1a0pY a= �Eem "q L ' !E °L�} 4v T pe~ YN �w Na u^ ay Y? «_ G�. M�y91 NO L YOp pF an: gg 8` Lay q> MC Q CCV 1910. Y4 t Vw. 4N9�� nvL i ^}� �aiq 4•,N NNIq.14 $q �9, gi.Y =xq 9.. 'li�a '•"N..p ��n 4U `WC • ru .�r �9 y� $ `c pay rn G u�9 'IT q C VC. II 1.6 C S. b Yj 'y LpNC Y.S�C R✓ L�Y„ IS f! � O fv CGA FY Isc: At N y. 93 -r3�& i o- 6 IE K] C17Y" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT .6G��Mc\ x i� DATE: April 8, 1987 197 TO: Chairman and M6m6ers of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Muller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIROOCTrAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIV 13342 - PANNON The eve op►nen o s ng a amt I y deeacne omes qn 11.6 acres of land in the Low - Medium Residential District (4 -& dwelling units per acrij, located ar the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN 202 - 131 -13, 14, & 23. In addition, the applicant has requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove six (6) E- Iyptus trees. ^r I. Pk6JECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the tentative tract map, elevations, ad issuance of a Negative Declarat° B. Project Density: 6.2 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning :_ or tn - Exist rng sing a am y residences; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). South - Vacant and existing single family residences (2 -4 dwelling units Far acre), East Existing single family residences; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). Est - Existing condominium development (Tract 11625 and Tract 11781); Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). 0. General Plan Designations: Project - Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units pev acre). North - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre).' South - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). East - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). West - Medium Residential (4 -14 dwelling units par acre). ITEM N PLANNING COM SSION STAFF REPORT TT 13342 (REVISED) - PANNON April 8, 1987 Page E. Site Characteristics: The project site slopes from north to sou a apprax ma e 3% and is coverQd with native 'grasses, - =_.ow lying shrubs, and contains the ruins of a former rJsidence destroyed by fire. A remnant Eucalyptus windrow transverses the, in site an east /west direction and 23 Eucalyptus trees were identified for removal (see section III -E), F. Applicable Regulations: ";.Basic and iiptionaf Standards of the ow effi m esi e-n- Mai`bistrict (4 -8 dwelling units) set forth under Section 17.08.0408 and C of the Development Code, II. BACKGROUND: On September 24, 1986, the Planning Commission d6ring The r regu 4riy scheduled meeting approved Tentative Tract 1 ,4342 for the development of 68 single family detached homes on 11.4 acres of land. Additionally,,,_ the Commission approved a Tree Removal Permit for the removal 4~ 17 Eucalyptus trees, 111; ANALYSIS• A. General: The developer has completed the negotiations for the purcliase of the Nout- parcel" The proposed revised site design now shows the cmpletion of the internal loop street system and the creation of tour additional tots including the contribution of approximately 2,570 square feet to the central open space area (see Exhibit "C"). 8. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Tolstoy, Brick, Coleman) reviewed and 'recommended approval of Tentative Tract 13342 (Revised) subject-to the €oilowing, 1. IncreasLk the corner side yard setback For Lot 54 to 8 feet. and Lot 61 to 15 feet. 2. Provide ai foot front yard setback along Lot 41 as measured ;; A back of curb and place a 5 foot high decorative: wrought iron fence along this setback. 3. Landscape pockets shall be required along the west property line in the area between the 6 ft. high flood wall and the perimeter wall at the top of slope. C. Environmental Assessment., During the prior review and spprovai o is project, the 'Planning Commission issued a Negative Declaration based upon thorough mitigation of several environmental impacts such as noise, flooding, and increases in traffic. Therefore, staff feels the addition of four extra lots would not significantly affect the Comaaission "s �Frior environmental determination regarding this project. 7 �1 PLANkING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13342 (`REVISED) PANNON April 8, 1987 Page 3 0. Tree Removal: The Planning Commission reviewed and approved re1� e—Removai Permit 86 -54 requesting removal of seventeen (I7) Eucalyptus �lobulus (Blue-gum) trees in conjunction with the initial submittal of Tentative Tract 13342 and the preservation and relocation of two (2) Erythea armata (Mexican Blue Palm). kith the recent acquisition of the outparcel, six (6) additional Eucalyptus trees are now being cons dared for rr4emoval in this revised proposal. The tree arV Trti� report -filed with this revised proposal also recommends the preser \tt.on through relocation of four palm trees consisting of one {1) Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm and one (1) Erythea armata (Mexican Blue Palm) one (1)- P`,amsaerops humilis (Mediterranean Fan Palm), ofit,, ; Chamaerops excelous (Windmill Palm). (Seti,Exhibit "I") for tree �locations11. IV. FACTS FOR #INDINGS: The revised site p) �F' and eley:�ations, together with a recommended Conditions, a�_ n compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Cd e, General Plan, and City Standards. The project will „ot ," detrimental to adjacent properties or cause signiffIanf ad v rse impacts due to .storm drain facilitrie.; which -will be provided Rio dispose of surface runoff ,.and systems' devol opmtnt fees used to mitigate traffic i mpacts. V. COPRESPONDENCE.' This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a Public Hearing and notices posted on the `pr6j" site. Additionally, notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site advertising the Public Hearing. VI. RECOMENDATION: Staff recomtn� ds that the Planning Commission approve lentatIlve Tract 1334? (Revised) through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. J ARKes lly submitted, ,er 4 ner BB: iF:ns i i Y �'. PUWNIN'G it Xs'to" GAFF REPQRf TT 13342 (!REVISED) - PANN(N April 8, 1987 Page 4 :Attachments: Tree Arborist deport - Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "9" - Natural Features Plop x Exhibit "'E" - Landscape Plan Exhi bi- "F" —Sr--ding ti ng Plan Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan Zections Exhibit "l" - Elevations Exhibit "I" - Tree Removal 'emit Exhibit 'J` - Entry Details). Exhibit "K" - Recreation Beliding Elevations Exhibit "L" - Miscellaneous Details Exhibit SPart tII$pe itial Study, - rf;, Resolution of Approval with Conditions t i F J k r 4 ..Aj PM 333T PA/B.W /08 1 � L '� � � INS , � ......z........� • �'/!+ _i "'"� .� t� $ � . =I! •� ». =_rl y ' • ice...,, y :► a s f�T p » 1u._.. 1. » s• Ir''1i . ��� I a.r P. to as i• ray } ps. 1 g ' 44-1 : / 00 ,'a •� �4't, 1��•I 1 LOT -A- Phr� as 44 .46 It �, � •>'..=tw. ... r# y as 1 1' �• 1 `l 1,a ��M r -as: t•� at. n•. 41 r. u• I'.i �,'..1. I j ar. I- LN01 M', CITY OT` RANCHO CUCAI'vloNGA PLANNING DINIISiQ% EdHtt ii' =.. Sc Lc_ I IV of :fT it aoms Al" IN it, tic 0.1 NOUF CITY Or. ;e4!V/, RANCHO CUCANIONGA Tnu� LAI MMING DINISON ZXH I MTI SCALE, r NU[LT CITY ®F rrc.`c; 7°r:- 1-3m ,env PLAINNING DIt'ISQN Al -JD � •��� X11 ( _ 7l1J ,; ,. ��.,- _t� ., _ .. �,f f4. �i�l ��.�:,:!sti�:ig •i. :n?ir 1.. li � �' •, trnut�� intmy fIENMt19A ` AVMit rrnen uenew A11• NINETEENTH STREET I t 2'yRT1�t It t ,I `. , rrnelt Itorintl ,$RIVATE 9'tUtit aft. - I Ir RrNn�tlatorloti STRCET 'A' • G i\URTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUTCANDONGA TITLE-, PLANNING DINTSION SCALD- -/l t IPly'r�N rQ bar' • � :�? M1 tacah° A. \ \".u22•• 1 NN \ a+e•.eNe•a„ t- ---�� �� �� _�• .. iarw a'r� ms 6 7tG ssssns i 9 now i.. l�� 4 t 1 -. _ ?. - t. nerve • C7] 1. j ui,lnc "it. r r r,i -f-.•. -..1 f a L � ,� I t 7 ^ K we IIN..t. n.+.I . •^g� J 4 • i��` Pi vq ,1 NORTH CITY OF ITEM: R AINCHO CUCATMONGA TITLE= -- C,5 -ely PLANNING DIN'UgoN EtiHUFT �� TF � El L:.A ?.CerW %9 " ' Rc'. nc CCUilT1 'S CITY• Or, treat:."rr33 ; z RANCHO CL'CAlr10 `CA 'rrrr i : _E�✓,�r�,vs PI. 1 NI�;G DIZ'ISIC N ��� EXHIBI -- ! SCALC F , fib: M It .� rn L ♦j�,T. � a �" a'rl'l �•eti♦ {�t St. � - - r��•i4? f * -!..: •2 ' ert} ; ;at�11• ? +A } 1+ c ,Lill] !HT 6'J t OLAW _h} T i NORTH CITY 01. rrc.%t. _ '`� 33 Z R,AINCHO CUCANIONGA TrrLE•_ 1e4i -d y t PLANNhNG D[ SION . / EXHIBIT. # SCALE — Immmmr� yf 411 small: E [small i "i 1 �11L1 �n� 4, >e if •J� } t N�.11W I.IIM1tu/ 1,111 /x M1a1111 S 1 � \7 ' Ig111�1'11• S Iaa.ct r.rt l-,# a A•' ,t3 — / /9© �O Fr. ITE, %I- .j, AMO "NrG . TITLE = �ISiO`J -IS F-1Hinrr- ]!L� scALE.- ---- f f 1 FORTH r NORTH CITY Or. ITEM: RANCHO CUCA'ivlo,,\•GA TITLE- PLANNING DIVISION �U ,16 EX E i I MT S C A L D i` r f j SLCOND ULOOR PLAN 4 r miss hiss Oa �'Y // a `rte_ �L "� ^.r: •��'�, .,. s• :r ..... ..•r PLAN CS ,. a.j AIII IpV � C 0 + �vaa INVIK.. L`{Ml ._ GaNiCE ilY1VC NC1,N.1 �. . a1n= FIRST FLOOR PLAN NORTH CITY GAF ITEM: RANCHO T PLANNING N; iC>�N EXHIBIT= ftt. — fi sJ 'P4 NORTH CITY OF T iTuN t. RAINCHO CUCAI-vjoNG Tnu. NNING DIVISIO.N EXHIBIT. SCALD RIGHT REAR -tr PL,; X c. stol • r ZLEVAPONS LEFT CITY Ol.- IT r!.% 1. RAiN'r-,'HO CUCAiVION G, TITLE- e, OFO-,eJ S PLANNILNG DIVISION �j-/q EXHIBIT-, " SCALE- h k ■9M �: _ Jsw It ttf r^ 1iCt_YL 1N \IIN IN I'K %1\I tf..141! IN tM +h1� ' FEll MN,i.I 16 t1Il N•. e- [M41�l..t Nt \. r: _ ` -k I.: S � ltil ININflI �S INlif s'1�l �� WNifa It1tV.tNi. \ /�.r Ill, tyl tL v t SECOND FLOOR PUNN , tR5'C FLOOR PI.,1N NORTH CITY of PLANNING DIVISION �� �7 EXFiiMT- '6L"r SCr„Lr..._ �.. n i �'- "6�= 't-pus � t k��lllll� ou. • nr.. � I� f '� .. ;.3.41.,x!-'.... � �.... If fig ,�,�,�� FF_,t j...,,,rr •, �, rare_. �-r , �, L„ I e'r # I:F- NORTH CITY 0' F ITEM. a LA.VNING DIVISION " '' SCALD r. i E i /y l Y f qp. wtwl 'iIR 4 E'�i�c • w.s •.. w f.w pww�� it \ i- .� RIGHT FICAAR .. Nor 4L Rax� ,j VV q ' LEFT _ Et EVATIONS i a S /,TSB fdi �2EiD.� ..c�a'Jr� %Gi It /S NORTH - i or �- t 4 Ct,' 1d J'NGA TITLE= 'G .aara�rs PLANNING ]DIVISION �_�� F-XHIri.-T - SCALC _.w... I u 4 r I...J ANN 415 mum an it Imp SUN jj kill irWYll atoQr itM1 FLAN �'. •-1805 ss al soNUa }. {IitO a.T a/o Oewuf A.� rMf�i /tOCR flat V't —F-A PART LM, f1ASIC. �YANO:aRD; V V . RC'aZTt -i CITY OF ITEM. 2 RAINCHO C CA'jNvIOi \TGA TITLE- PLANNING DIVISI(>.N it i Islas dll,... ,a ,'''- •fit omas oil 11, R�li'tf BLiyR ?ICMt �!i' w 60.4m tat • - w•••� y � t l • R • �, ems.. -- aid o r:.� t <. all I loll • I - � '�Itdi /� i ; � ; dul Ic + i� n t I mainly ul r cxie• etcrsTiaa -e��v/ cue c.++wxs 'w• EASTfq.N pART L.M. EASIC OTANQWQQS' NORTH CITY Off' lTCal. r.X °z 3 -3s P- RANCHO O CL7CA1 Ia 'GA TITLE = fEV.¢ io vx °- r9si �' l�o,>2T•c, PLANNING DIVISUN �(/�;c`� EXHIBIT -..�_. SCAL I:- - RASTER PLAN OF EMSTWO TrV -pq 11-Pp ED I MIA �� scy fMro•Ia• to 1 � \\ �" __ �1 ( f� O -- *.ix;u,„.`�'. � �►f�►t}47isr.._ __,.K r!n- -a I oil NORTH CITE' CAF ITMI: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- J CAI.c: S i /•+ Viii .� RRSIJlNCfl (ul� 6oK 1. msecraav ': '•t_' _a � fit T .. o::: «"ii,., p ...N • . y4l l� � V.* 2L6WVION4 Y4bt tigCTNK f s f O^ i 1 r I i 1 Y NORTH CUC x ITLE. •��7 _ Za45T,e�:,l s PLANNING DlViSl(>,N d AN �t as F � • <az ,�. iti „l1. lG t +. Lill _ �Vflf � � / •�! Vhf. � a..iM L.J' �' NORTH RAN PLANMING DIVISION i- F; ti1111T ,<k•f SCAM- +.t.,,, _ tt�;• „ryr8r.�'�i °_'� tit °T.yi�[ �t1 j sa[u.en'T [.nev`.gi'p a� ri era® a•awsw. NO-ZTH CITY O RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING JIVISKYN f��g EXHIM'r =�,t,, -SCAI.0 `- era® a•awsw. NO-ZTH CITY O RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING JIVISKYN f��g EXHIM'r =�,t,, -SCAI.0 `- _ • ! r ! � 1 ! Ii ��" �; `' \ 'L;f. e _ } T! = Z,.4 1 f iC J/ f'., :c 9 . "'sue � 1 �1•'S ;j((��� =Y'\ � {. II !�'` ��� � =1i . E; �.. � _ �.i! ,.-^��nr �.� i'!= AWL 1 Jly , •p' 1Y1' ` i•4(- '�1 . v... 3!} � �•` _ . r' so if r} I41 ', s_r— �.__ . �'^�it3..d'4:I N� •�• ' �.s � d• �f `S 1 '^� >f!t•y - �' i "• - f .Ik11S,.5t I Itla ti3Wf I. Aft is i PARTIAL 511L PLAN NORTH } CITY OF = RANCHO CuC ivloNCfl ITS %I. TITL: PLANNING I�I�rISIU: EXHIBIT. `9E'+'I " 29 sc.ALE:o..- -� � ^ \ , Al ILI MAX IthAtIONS =" *, - � E. NORTH CITY or, PLANNING DIVEION 't), go EXHIBIT-. SCALE: �.� �' r t� }`j •D ��'•� 'r �i��rir x rr � ; `,t t Q:�ir ��" ' �nxi� ����It� � "P "�i t •t t i* ���raa� .. � :t :. '•���r`�''A. -yti T�iyy�;' f •r �' _, t. `_ _ i . 1 _ �7 i 4i.►►-= 1,�.'Ity'��'.I�GyUI(�'I�l��l�l lif' 1111,E I'1„!i 1��I IIII i 14111 I�Hr i adz$ t I i, lr� ' MAR 41MAl R7Ni� �I .fit I� IL•r .,. — " t.- M MAN• 11 n�nr x.an uaa nwarro.a - °_ q 11411 IrH, m rrN .R`!q, i �� fit. �i r'� •` �\ �r �xr � •.. r•.Q��... - — =.�. Iti� !�1••�, r y t "11 rl 14' I SAIL tuv. _,.� �:•- •.E_-.. �r�c- ...- rrul�wwvrre+><': mtr��ui;. L: W1�0.1F laii[llh.i�lifiiilllilll "_�k�s� re—." L ft) �sr U,.,.. n LN N01M CI'T'Y OF ITEM- .T-i3 RANCHO CLCA i -vjo GA TrrLE- .,Vx ssVn �,�� ,EC:5e14Tv v �. PLANNING DIWSaN EXHIBIT- -` & 5i.: ALC. . �_ F i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART 11 — INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST i i PATE; FILING DATE: ?i2 /ter -- _�-- -----� �: _ LOG NUMFR: Ti- PRO�ECT:.�Sr_�,� PROJECT LOCATION: I. - IRON^ ENTAIL IMPACTS ^^ (Explanation of all "yea" and "maYW' answers are requirsd em attached sheets). 1. Soils and Geolozv. Will the proposal have Significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relatic,nships? b. Disruptions. displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? C* Change in topogrilphv or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind os water erosion R - � soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? `• Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g, Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes. landslides, mud-, slides, ground failure, or* similar hazards? h, An Increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? %. 2. Ii drolo 5• ._ ey. Will the proposal have oignificant red,lts in: AJ YES Ma o- __ r .. ?age ?. YES \ Q ' a. Changes in currrnts, or the course of direction O,°, flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattarns, or the rate and >moun: of surface water runoff? C• AltP7arions to the course or flow of €lard d. Change in the amount of surface crier y in an body of water? . e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface crater quality? f• Alteration of groundwater caaracteristics? 9. Change in the quantity of groundwat"rs, either t1trough 4irect additions or with- drawals, or throuCh interference Irith aquifer? an Quality, Quantity? h' The reduction in the amo•tpt of water ot:er- wiso available for public water supp„ies? --.� i. Exposure of People or Property to •rater related hatArds such ae flooring or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the p= o):osal have significant resultin: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stadonsry sources? .--. b. Deterioration of ambient air y interfei-Mr, lofapplicable +~ `� with the attainment air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, melsttlre or temperature? f 4. $?ota Flora. Will the propdsrl have significant results in — a. Change in the characteristi:s of species, Including diversity, distribution, oe number of any species �O£ plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, or eudangereq,lspecial of plants? rare ' page 3 ' isS M.aTsr. I;o C. introduction of new ZY dtaruptive =_ pecies of plants into an area? t- d. Reduction in the potential for agricult,,al production? - Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics Of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any speci.e�, of animals? b. Reduction of the nuipbers of any unique, rare .., or endangered species of animals? c. Introduttizn or new or disruptive spacies of animals into an area, or resul:fn a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deteriora!;Ion or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat,' _- S. PODAlation. Will the proposal have signific;.ant results in: (; a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bucion, den,4ity, diversity, or growth rate of f the huaan population of a -P area? b. Will the proposal. afiec. 'listing ng' r create a demand for addit aal housing ? b :io- Economic Factors. Will the +proposal have _ nificant results iu: a• Change in local or regional ocio- economic characteristics, including economic or r commercial diversity, tax rate, and property glues? Will project costs b' equitably distributed arong project beneficlt iesI i.e., tisyers, tax sayers or project users? 7 `.;id Use and tlanning Considerations.. Will the %iposal _- p have significant results M a. A substantial alteration of the p;tsent or planned land us', of an area? �r `, b. A conflict with any w aignations, ob,ectives, -._. �C amt Policies, or adopted plans of auy governmental c. An impact i;;ua the qulaity or quantity of et7stIng consnmptf a or no n <:ansumptive +recreational opportunities ?!_ , j, 10`701-02 o 4 -8-87 PG Agenda o` � Page w . 8. Transoortation. Will the proposal YES ai'?gr r�3 results in: have significant a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular _ sovement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? / I fF c.' Effects on existing narking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- i tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- caon =or movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? AMbb 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturb srze to the integrity of archaeological, paleon'solcical, and/or historical resources? 20. Health. h._g3f x,, Nuisance Factors. Will the M proposal ha ;4 uigWiZ cant results in: a. Creation fif hazard? alay health hazard or potential health b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? f d. An increase in the nviber of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms.? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to "otentially dangerous noise levels? s g. The creation'of objectionable odors? h. 'n increase in light or glare? ' ,t1 -3S ?age 3 YES u4FH£ Q 11. Aesthetics. Will the propose: have significant resulew in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic c vista or view? f I,, The Creation of an aesthetically offensive site? / .,..... Y c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential sceAc corridors? 12- Utilities ant. Public <i�r*r�s. Frill the proposal have a tC signlficant axed for nPw systems, or alterations to the following., a. Electric poxev? b. Natural or packaged gas? ,r C- Communications systems? d. Rater supply? l ~� e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structx =res? g- Solid waste .facilities? h- Fire protection? i- Police protection? J- Schools? .... _..�_. k- Parks or other recreational facilities? I- Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m- Other governmental services? �. 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have �.._ significant results in, a- Use of substantial or excessve fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing c- sources of energy? An increase in the demand for development of ..._. new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable fora of energy, when feasible ,r 1,4� renewable sources of energy are available? - -r ?zge s YES }`. y SO „� e, Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? r 14;. fiandatory Pindinres of Si¢af� `e; 1 a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of 'he environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife specie- cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to k eliminate a plant or animal communit the nustber or restrict the range or of atrare endangered plant or animal or elimin2.te important examples of the :major pertoe% of California history or prehistory? f b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage'wf longterm, - environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment iu'one which occurs `ln a relatively > brief, definitive period of time while long- ` term impacts will'eudure well into the future). c. Does the project have ,impacts which ate a individually limited, but _ -- cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an indivi444l project are considerable when viewed in conX lion with the effecta of past projects, and prot., �le future projects).. i V d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on hl=an beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION nr E.Tt'IIiONM _._ EYATUATY6:F o£ affirmative the above questions 'plus a discussion P t answers to os(i.e., - Proposed mitigation measures).' SEA aPTT.AE1� 2,.Ce IZI, BETE3uMINATIO-1 On the basis of this initial evaluations I f the proposed project,.COBL7 NOT have -2 significant effect on the enviror ent, and a ,NLECATIVE DECE.12,iTION will be prepared. T find that although the Proposed ,effect on the ezranmert, there will jnot beua�significantueffectt n-v :l in this case because the mitigation measures desca;ibed nn an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UTILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MY have a sig.�ificar:t effect on the envirnment, and an IROMf&`i- ,MJPACT REPORT is reol,ired. 9� j fat �f .�'"� --�`✓ r Title. l C l r - i f C ,� -3 ATTACHMENT ;kITIAL STUDY, PART II DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 2.I..) Project may be exposed to periodic flooding along Hermosa Avenue.' A c minimum high flood protection wall will be required along Hermosa Agenue frantage,.As mitigation and all off-site drainage facilities as determined in the final hydrology and drainage study will be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4.a.c,) Proposal will replace existing vegetation with new plant species, thereby increasing the distribution and diverafty of plants oil thc-t subject site and surrounding area. Two 36" Palm trees will be retained oK -site and extrusive on -site landscaping will be required as mitigation.` g.a,b.) The proposal will ;cause substantial amounts of `vehicular traffic, however rew street ,improvements and construction ZA mitigate traffic impacts, (Also, Conditions of. Approval 'are is place to effectively mitigate traffic impacts, e.g.,.. Systems Development Fees). 10.e.h.) Proposa, ,mau expose people to harmful levels of nGise. The applicant will be required to submit an acoustical study identifying mitigation measures to conform to Cil�rStandards of 45QSA for interior levels and 55nBA for exterior riols'0i; levels. The project will increase the amount,of light and glare�lrtdwever no greater than similar uses. /t ",!37 C Ir;_: , RESOLUTION NO. 4; RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13342 (REVISED) AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF WHEREAS, Tentative Tract 14ap No. 13342 (Revised) hereinafter "Map" submitted by Petar Laden, 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 the total development of 11.E acresof land in the Low- Wadium Refldential District into a 72 lot residential subdivision` for the development o� 72 single- family homes located at the northeast corner of Herm -sa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 202 - 191 -13, 14, 23, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on April 8, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approv,_l of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Manning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SrEC1ON -1: The Planning Ccmmission makes the following finding .i in o regard t ,en a ive Tract No. 13342 (Revised) and the Map thereof: "(a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; 00 The dgsigrt or improvements of the tentative tract is censistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. U_.ya Resolution He. TT 13342 - Pannon April 8, 1987 Page 2 (g) T That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2; Tentative Tract Map No. 13342 (Revised), a copy of which is attach" ffereio, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: DESIGN REVIEW 1. A An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits. 2. N Noise standards of 65 CM (exterior) and 45 CNEL (interior) shall be met for dwellings located within 4000 feet of the Route 30 freeway corridor and adjacent 19th Street. A final acoustical analysis shall be submitted to Building & Safety and Planning with the construction drawings for plan checking prior to issuance of building permits. 3. L Low level lighting shall be provided in all open space areas. Construction details shall be provided prior to issuance of building per -its. 4. F Final landscaping plan shall provide unifying landscaping theme for entire project including special accent shrubs and trees to delineate pedestrian linkages to central open space area, subject to review and approval by City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 5. D Dense landscaping (15 gallon trees, 151 on center) shall" be provided along entire north property line. A minimum 60% Evergreen tree type shall be utilized as noise buffer. 6. S Specia'r landscaping entry statement at Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street entry shall be provided on finai landscaping plans (i.e. special accent shrubs /trees and annual color). 7. F Final design details of perimeter wall shall be submitted to City Planner for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 8. S Submit material sample board to City Planner for review and a o ppr va pr or issuance o u ng perm s. 9. Submit sign permit application and details of project iaffiietorryfor"Rvfew and" approvd pri�ok tissuance City building permits. i Resolution No. TT 13342 - Pannon April S. 1987 Page 3 10. Texturi ed surface shall be provided at ..roject entries at Hermosa Avenue and at Street "A ". 11. Proposed security gates shall be reviewed by City Planner and Foothill Fire District prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Six (6) exist2ng 36" Palm trees shall be saved and /or relocated and enclosed by a chain, link fence prior to issuance of any grading cr building permit and prior to commencement of work. Fences are to remain in place during a11;,;phases of construction and cannot be removed witheut__T6i written consent of the City Planner until construction is complete. Relocating, where necessary, shalt be performed under the supervision of an arbortst or a landscape architect. 13. The remainder of existing trees may be removed subject to replacement planting with Eucalyptus Maculata, 15 gallon size, as part of overall landscaping of project. Said trees- -shall be highlighted on the final landscaping plans and are separate from tees required elsewhere by 'these conditions. 14. Recreation building elevations shall reflect the dominant architectural elements of buildings, including supplemental solar applications, 15. A 10 foot front yard setback shall oe provided along Lot 41 as measured from back of curb, and a 6 foot high decorative wrought iron fence along this setback. 16. 3 foot planter area shall be provided between perimeter wail and sidewalk along both sides of entrance at both proiect entries. 17. Non -view obstructing rear yard fencing 5 foot high with gates (i.e. wrought iron) Macent to central open space shall be provided in the fins, landscaping plan. 18. Minims 20 foot corner side yard setbacks (from curb) on Lots 12, 13, 16, 52 and 56 shall be provided. 19. Final landscaping plan shall provide dense planting of deciduous trees (15 gallon) along all buildings with southerly and westerly solar exposure to mitigate solar heat gain. Also, landscape pockets shall be provided along the west property line in the area between the 6 foot flood wall and perimeter wall at the top of the slope. 20. A minimum 8 foot corner sideyard setback on Lot 54 and a minimum 15-foot corner sideyard setoack on Lot 51 shall be provided. Resolution No. TT 13342 Pannon April 8, 1984 Page 4 F, TRACT MAP 1. Existing: 'Overhead Utilities: a, 19th Street - The existing overhead utilities ecun cations aid electrical).on the project side of 14th Street shall be undergroundeo from the first pole on the west project boundary to the first pole east of the project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first° Reimbursement of one -half the adopted cost of undergrouding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is feasible because the property is presently undevelored. 2. b. Hermosa Avenue - The existing overheau. utilities e ecaamun%aiiions and electrical) on the project side of Hermosa Avenue shall be undergrounded from the f"Ost pole on the south side , if 14th Street, to the 'first pole north of this project, boundary,, for to public improvement acceptance or occupancy,',, ',chever' occurs first. Reimbursement of one.,'talf the-Adopted cost of undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the streEL'j s not feasible, because the property is presently developed. c. The existing services crossing both of the above noted streets shall also be undergrounded. 2. Any improve siui? private street shall be provided from tite northerly east /west private street to the north tract boundary centersd approximately 160 feet west of the east tract broundiry, 3 Access, drainage, and utility rights over the tract private streets and the right to use the common open space (Lot "A ") and the recreational amenities a part thereof, shall be granted to Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 3334 dHto0the out parcel 9© 1(APH located to the north 202-191-14) fronting fonh a Hermosa Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner and City Attorney. Those rights shall not be exercised until said parcels are developed. 4. The developer shall construct all off -site drainage facilities determined necessary by the final hydrology and drainage report as approved by the City Engineer,- 5. The existing small (15' x 20" approximately) parcel (APN 202 - 191 -27) located at the northeast corner of Tract Lot No. 69 located at the northeast corner of Heather Street and "A" street snail be acquired and incldded in said Lot 68. .U-�3 Resolution No. TT 13342 Pannon April 8, 1987 Page 5 6. Str;et deb' ti on shal f be obta't, �, and. improvements (including) flood wall) ton:trucW al✓ g the Hermosa Avenue frontage Of the put parcel (AWN �2�191 -27). 7, The flood wall along Hermosa shall be constructed with z natural rock to match the opposite side of the street, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAf OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG{:' BY: far r e y , a rman ATTEST- Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission1t)r' the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly intraluced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commis ton of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Plans + %ing Comission'Peld on the 8th day of April, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit* AYES: COWISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: � w n.wv $ ±e Nts C y. dr>�u pc i.,. ` 4I �RCY YCyy9M�0aw aCC.� o C}L E +C{"Y�' Y' »CCp�C^' �L+ .r yibYGB99 ♦0.Y�0 ¢Y » »�^u'.e Y v� M =�. Y 4O E S�.p OY Uo Uy� OYIEi SyM 0..41 ti•�w yNq a'i'G� 6r .e�9^.(1 ^j 9C ps �E (p,p♦R «� \OCR• V �'a YwY a�.w «4Y Y S4.0 68`e Y -Vk -lit ewu� mnp$ i�' �M pN»N d' god IQv— ' r qNr.. +Rq.Y1 ..kmRWQ`�oie If Y q' C V.2 w• yl Y {YC � 'q�R�� iy� b ^mi��� �•Y.�'HO m6 � g A3g,� ^i'O"+.yNYM�L�.. g k`- ¢ `+ a. mom* - = a0. s �g1Y�ilw a g • . Ax. 'p°. ik2- .. ue –',"¢$ ?i ,ex a ae ,yy'4IL F1�a�..� k�^#r gall. Q Z-1.1 } m "Y sizzrzp ` Y iRN yp Ox.. Lq N ii 4�rr L�'i$mxa $• r'$w Y �_ p L •�KH NY� 'ti p O `.e atljv C.t��^!o e1 W � � Is �R J N 1.1 • 1f1. n z° V a �O a S( Yy-! V yy' MYNVY duL �« y LW y99 t -■ Y= � �iil q °y L �� N CO1� CC9� ^pR GL H.L v, LY ZV 2 �Y uu CC Y L yL CS A q o ' M }'$�� p ■ s °sue cy wy ��y3 �i`•�$ N �S !/ _DOS 4 y o g �Y �M $ p �3y Is 'S o v -LNa ^ 4 c .s e » O y ~ 1 NON a�g a n _ a rCKY _ +t r J N N uP LO N Y � y O �a °ems r O V s4 vj V"- 0 4L P<F C 4 �CL p yC$� r y PY. N�u •°."�vpu- G Y 'r r♦ 4 VLQVR. M YMy r dgY�N� .irr C. �w +`y A V•C� ��CF •Y.}Y C^ Y EE c 43 . N r wy- cw ^ L L E-2 i i _ U u r . LNG N 6 --St. 1.2,3 �. cw LY 1C aL w• �YV1 A; �E «423 n a a au� aw a« �Q w w� a�Y i Y n .r ` p�� L�� w s w o! •� t ui< rs�y��N u rL� L L. LIt ^ � � V ^. nl � —i. L.. L O�•.O N a m ^ >pp > L E ! QQ S V Y w m = N Ll Fp yJ4 N»y �� � 91 —t�.� y.N `�Yr YO �✓ ` ♦C ¢ 'RIP 4yyYi �ry_T.,MS Sz Ig y'=• $•yge. W�u� nN i VN .Y.YC`G YE ^$� ^O rVVV Nl CU E YG IOU g3 �i�SeLWxa RVN i =ae YSW �L '�CL.Y�e� —� � NYC O G a G r— $ata N LYMy V C » �a n. 4aV ;_6C M.Fi � °Cc �rgc� ^OV L�f �V� - +�•• �OC C _Y Y CL Gnp� O L C yy C y Y L r^ C O .A. Vb"3.0 C�yOy =Y na..gg G� "i'°..;�mgyy °8. onfiYU Y.an --uS aL�$r Y= --I F$�Mo �c".w� a L n L L L YS T-L.Qp`up yYr4 YO OL O00 Na NC Nn ! ^MO New !V .VlrO P ��` GLV i4M A -1 '-Ci L.M. �- •.rNC• .. nil aL. N 1 N Ca,4a a s g^ Csb,zs a �• S Y ^q \ Y_ 5= SS- Ca- -.k p Gp cpu'yL Yl aym�,z - =3�Y \Gpe �Y w Y {gam g 8 Y NN >� G• M. V O V N C:O 9 VM O N tN y` 5-4t Yp O O• "bP ` q G �. +y ` 04 .pj w N yy e O y N • ± !. ' +y ' V • py 1° O V! c Y L N v NNYO69-.-.v $ . !I{. ppYz- C4pC O^'N V N Z«.Q° L N 4v� r O.O Y 4 3'6 Yy cw ~�' y° G94 �w S "�••. Or. .. 6�~. �� I '° p $lM6ON.�{�,YCtl�JG O -�YN -e�Y �. ..-a O 4 s Y- A i CNVtltl ON �A- w ANY - «i'yyt. �Y .. a O O w U s S �k N xo� �O w , �'4 e O � C r y K w r 6 Y 4g rag+. Ng? v 11$° yy �w C M yCN M pwy l� Mw Aga a Y p V aM J{ O �S sy i r� M �g Er wp u �Ou s eC 1� C-0 w »g S� 3� V p N3 NY =a IVY Y M o !� 6M a Y s Y MMY V O.� K u V y l• a. g � pq r llsc « 7� K� w = "r rN �> /V _ / 7 a A $w. 3s av y J �o rW Ny wg Vq �s N Nr 1n� �I u� - °sus cLffi as" `�gw r S $va°N y�wy Cr r yn gM �kk: C K w i $_l��Og Or 3s 3.1rG� c� a � ■■ � M yy C p ■■ +Y 1` i ll I IN 11 11 11 =g! Cam` yy y�� zi UQgd l -�7 jVy yyY �. 0 VL CY tin.. {�.� L ■��N �Q.aYG.CC Yp^ `GV ..P. �..ri G. �.■ G �L o R� GL�.r h 'pixie 9.� lGt�v ioT yy yy Y _ Ad y Miv� i s0 ^NBC N1w .may aa'Nv zv sOL ygGY LY 0 G4 °9 0 _so .�..0 y.w C;y�V'w Yi.ryY � GN ?.CYY YYd�4 �gaNN � LY Y .0 Y'YOpprr �rVr Y. - �4. 4e�N L,�Lw.l• y �0��d V ^� y YC +.�16qq r� 6 .��4Y.1 � 3• ~ K _ O i�l3 M��y�N YNgE Y gN Has y am t' &Z" S IL ^y g• ax�!n yyas _ a 4�g 0 LppVe 21-2 �. ,O 6py ° •!y �- E �•g'g1 GGi oit �Ir V O N. ti � � g� � ar�'i�, °' s4 oe r � US °u.Cy.V is w{O. AA wOY ��,o� a,i vMCY 6��t.q V3 =�G M.O �• Y.N. N N� *e LR �:i FLU ap �i{`l °�;l d A:ti ua C Yia g ay�ir I I I =g! Cam` yy y�� zi UQgd l -�7 jVy yyY �. 0 VL CY tin.. {�.� L ■��N �Q.aYG.CC Yp^ `GV ..P. �..ri G. �.■ G �L o R� GL�.r h 'pixie 9.� lGt�v ioT yy yy Y _ Ad y Miv� i s0 ^NBC N1w .may aa'Nv zv sOL ygGY LY 0 G4 °9 0 _so .�..0 y.w C;y�V'w Yi.ryY � GN ?.CYY YYd�4 �gaNN � LY Y .0 Y'YOpprr �rVr Y. - �4. 4e�N L,�Lw.l• y �0��d V ^� y YC +.�16qq r� 6 .��4Y.1 � 3• ~ K _ O i�l3 M��y�N YNgE Y gN Has y am t' &Z" S g• ax�!n 0 l 6 i M i $�ey� °� ��,o� a,i vMCY y■■°c� *e p Yiui �t �n9.G y0 d A:ti ==- C g ay�ir Q CC 0�9 000 O E�NQ alibi° ee� o u.- c °� 3V4� iOft_ t'-a� ■�n,�yal Y N O ay' ^L C Ci� Gy I Q. W'ii $YQ y L".m M; - I ML °a' 4-2 a* I f 2 lit gz - ,1 sm S v!i U k, V 2, f-I ii Pit; �zh J Im I It iz ja 0 1. le .3 It 'r9 S. 4 vjt a EST.. t__-z 14 41— E la Z 4J dog us' Hzb qpi S.; IIN ' 2-5 33 .1416 Crw r !7 P5 Wf -bgt 5 S IN. =c :0 IN M; - I ML °a' 4-2 a* I f 2 lit gz - ,1 sm S v!i U k, V 2, f-I ii Pit; �zh J Im I It iz ja 0 1. le .3 It 'r9 S. 4 vjt a Y 14 k) -SCE Y 4 V V.N u u' =Y;. r= L S Y O w W O�M R� ,11 oy b as 8a, VZ u as 0 n tit o 41 boa a a YG' N «Vi N AN :Yy nNO A'rly ay yg s �" by +' �e gcex'. Ly Ys.� M �[ iv a C W�Uno b •�M v d O O b• 6w L R N.a sk C VV W Ola t macc- I� G .y0. byE C - °a �L ..R.a� 'se ob; GO,b �cr 3sr ��. i. '�ca •��e. I a . N .Me iMV =Y� v NO.YiN� ?iG GW L = U cc�' c �'= 4 g n.°. E �.a•.. Is Z y3 ° , 3 S.SVE VA uY j et- ru Lyy`ui �C Oyy w' $'yO YONLM i�, L �■�S 8 G4J n �. E� L « O.ZX Y P °O �� ��O L OLv t'~ V s6 — ■p? 4., �4 4 V Y.Ifr O Y �= = L'V¢ ` a COY V V` VYp V \6 HC OIrY p� `y —« L� Oty ` W � 4i e YE �.V VLY�C MM ✓ qb7 p4 jjyr yyYYL �Oayl` wv I <47 6� 9u.M `.LvV y�y tl GpCp YR bR I's V gran\ \< Z Y 14 k) -SCE Y 4 V V.N u u' =Y;. r= L S Y O w W O�M R� ,11 oy b as 8a, VZ u as 0 n tit o 41 boa a a YG' N «Vi N 10 :Yy nNO A'rly ay Y 14 k) -SCE 0 �'E owm E a- =3 G� d -L L dLeLi q= 10 :Yy nNO A'rly ay cW—n` ^� a C L ■ It w 9 ale °v SrL.:g macc- ^? _� .3SY n YL.w qM ..R.a� 'se ob; GO,b �cr 3sr ��. i. '�ca •��e. I a . .Me iMV =Y� NO.YiN� ?iG GW Y 14 k) -SCE `y g Y •S ii °u'� S~ Mx a..'a y "a.: c YC Oy3 � ^i C; xi OHO y ,a " l l y Q e Bury Vos' it 4M- 6 N L Y Q �:� W` C L wr {f. r = y`y{• Y.' Co +� y� p# p As Yid V9 � v tl. Q x A� « • � Y -.~ • Y L�' .10 p� Qq N p t ~g�Y S .Y. �v �u a�oY Nv .nt CCU _ at ' '!3 ^ CM ^M O. �_ S �ysYS •C• Y 'C O. �A .1 ^Yyw • a,pj' r +3 p U •�� C `Y` Vl 'i Y� y •^ 1��� LppC � 9N66� jai �� N ?tf 4G1a VN MN �� Cq i` L I•; 60 Y^ O1 'O L Yom. 0 =V(`� iti _^• t µ 1iY OY) wG tYi y {Y ftl 2 Le -0 � � f OOOC ' ^p C UUN i q * V rqqe� �0� 6 ZZ'E. .. F MM 7^ -%w G—' a'1 y �a� 7 4.dGL ZVii rNp Y r � Y r • � O 'I n 9,1 Im r E — CITY OF RAiT HO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT cnnloyc� 1977 DATE: April 8, 1997 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comnission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REYIEv 84 -E? t7G-G LiiTBp --u- anen en ,o a apprava s er Pjan,text specifying a provision for, a major open space area of *7000 square feet within the western portion of Phae III on approximately 40 acres of land located north of Highland Avenue-, south side of Lemon Avenue, east of haven Avenue. I. ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission at their _regularly scheduled meeting of February 13, 1485 reviewed and approved the tynnhaven Mister Plan consisting of a E� page text with graphics including a discussion of the surrounding area (land use, zoning, circulation, run off, etc.) design concepts (site lylf -n, architectural form, landscaping), drainage, and traffic circulation. The basic element of the Lynnhaven Master :Plan is a conceptual diagr6:q which indicates, open space, boil - :.ping areas, vehicular circulation and parking, and perzrstrian circulation and density transfer. The intent of the master plan process is to plan ahead "and look beyond the limits of particular properties to solve circulation, drainage and neighborhood compatibility problems ". Additionally, the muster plan process addresses the special or unique needs or characteristics of certain areas designated by the General Plan or 'z lcific Plans and assures a harmanioes relationship between existing proposed uses, and to coordinate and promote the community improvement efforts of both private and public resources. The master planning process provides a measure of flexibility to develop alternative solutions consistent with the intent of the master plan. ITEM 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFr REPIORT OR 84-22 ,- LYNNHAYEN MASTER 'PLAN AMUD14ENT April 8, 1987 _ Page .2 II. BACKGRIANDt _ On dune 25, 19866, the Planning Commi ssi og.. revs ewed and a6roved Tentative Tract Map 13257 - Clayton Crossiit4Jor the development of a 290 unit condominium complex, conpric'ing Phase rI of the Lynnhaven Master Plan. A condition of approval, per Design Review Comittee recommendation, requires; An% am9dment to the Lynnhaven Master Plan specifying a major op�h space along the greenway spine within the western Wtion of phase III ,shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior tL the issuance of building permits for Clayton Crossing. The open space area should primarily be devoted to an open lawn area. The Commission's intent was to provide additional usable q ?en space as a trade -off for an extensive water element th &t mehnders along portions of the open space spine within Phase II. Commission discussion indicated that a minimum 7000 square feet of open lawn area should be provided. III. ANALYSIS: A. Open Space: The proposed placement of 7000 square feet of open awT n area does not function properly with the established green belts concept. The green belt should meander into Phase III and vary in width "opening" into a 7000 square foot lawn (' area. The proposed open space area as depicted in Exhibit "B" shows asphalt paving along two sides. Given the established f green belt pattern in Phases I and II, the recreational area E s,`ould be ce:trali -end within Phase III. Staff recommends that ri the master plan green belt configuration be revised as shown in Exhibit "C" to provide a central green belt trail system through Phase II of Lynnhaven Master Plan. B. Text Amendment: Staff recommends that the following language Be Incorporated into the Design Concepts Section (Page 48) of the Lynnhaven Master Plana The open space concept consists of a green belt /trail system linking all three phases through a central open space. Major recreational areas should be located t! along the green belt system with pedd:atrian connections and linkages providing access te the central open space area for all residents. Phase III shall be revised to provide an open space area a minimum of 7000 square treet adjacent to the westerly boundary of Phase III, devoted primarily to an open lawn area. (See Exhibit "D ") PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. DR 84 -2c'- LYNNHAVER MASTER PLAN'AMENOMENT April 8 1987 Page 3 IV, ENVIRONM -NTAL ASSESSMENT; Stt4f recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Didlaration based on the fact that the environmental implications of this master plan were studied in detail during prior reviews of Phase I and II. Expanded environmental analysis and initial study teas prepared by the applicant. The Co►mm:ssion determined that the proposed master plan could be developed without significantly impacting the environment or the adjacent neighborhood so Iong as the specified mitigation measures were met. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily ort as a public \ _Re hearing. In addition, the property was posted and notices of public hearing were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received regarding the project. r _ VI. RECOMMENDATION:' _ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to the Lynnhaven Master Plan through adoption of the attached Resolution. tii Resp tfully submitted, ra Bul er City P nner ! BB:HF :te Attachments: Exhibit "A" -location Map Exhibit "8" - iha` r Plan Exhibit "C" - Rcw'4ed Open Space for Phase III Exhibit "D" - Text Amendment Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval ! s . �, 7 �.: ! I "� "" -t i I � ire i .� `•;,S .., j r . s�Iq��S� • ' � A � ' ` T Ste"" PHASiM 1 PHASE II PHASE to COMMON O/SN SPACS 8.6 AC. COMMON CPU PACE LOAC. A c V5, NORTH CITY Cdr rrcel= RAINCHQ CUCANIO GA •nnE= aw tr &A P/,Ogw ___- PLANNING DINIMQN F—XHIPAT:-"Z*' SCALE. iIJ. - - -, - r eel-�. Ls'r% '�f��� � � � ( , *r��apswpktlE gam. � E r ', •' - -' -- k- ro mq NOTE ' OPEN SPACE CONFIGURATION CONCEPTUAL ONLY. EXACT LOCATION 6YILL OCCUR AT Pt1ASE 11! tU-1 MITAL CITY Or. rrc%i= 21�- RANCHO CUCAINVIONGA TrrLF.% s � PLANNING DI4'LSjo.%4 E.XHIM _, �.... So Lynnhaven Master Plan Page da 09s" CONCEPTS SITE PLAN CONCEPTS The site plan was >laysioped with consld*eatlon of two basic polar First, to create a residential living environsent which Is ; =pntibls WIT" the nok by neighborhood character Vhich exists wow, and the neighborb, -4. which will be developed In the future. This quality Ilving anvironeent to to occur within the density range met out by the adopted general plan. f coed, the site design wan treated to astablIsh a **M.- of cosatonty within ee inner envirotteent designed to Support high quality Ilvinp standards. The avoralI *lts hew boss ilmldsd Intq thred phases of *beet 10 acres e.. -4A" Each phase voeld include slightly *tarsi than 300 units sited. M Weed about dad m of opse Weoer { The open space C,ittyli sts of a green.. bel t /trai 1 systeta linking all three phases thrMUgh a centra T, Qpen space. Mjor recreational areas should be Q-EXT AMENIDMENT --� located along the 3reen belt system with pedestrian coAnections and linkages providing Mess to the central open space foie all residents. Phase III shall be revised 0 provide an ope±t space area ar- minimum of 7000 square feet adjacent to the westerly boundary of Phase III, devoted primarily to an open lain area. During the devsioPmeat 04 this batter Plan and ProJeot osSrIg. oonslderahls 9t11dy and casf%ft ware ado with the neighborhood Sthree neighborhood elOttap). tie City statf (tva design review sessional WA the samaras 9t0rvlee It was detatonnid the+ the best density trsnsltdon 110010 occur It dansi^tsef were similar along the Lason Avenue frontage. Building 11619hfs are Sim proposed to be one story In this PLANNING PLANNUNG 1)1S'i QN E.'IHIMT' -Q _Sai.C= CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 0 DATE: • ,/ �' APPLICANT:..�5 E Cps✓seed-,r> .^ ,�.�� FILING DATE:* LQG NUMBER: 7 f PROJECT: }��r�i*dSsrlTS.�r��,jr a:i.� PROJECT LOCATIONt I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 (Explanation of all _Ys,, and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE No 1. Soils and Gi0 =-0— v. Will the proposal hiive significant results in: Aft a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. .Chinge in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction,_covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical Features? e• Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, i mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h• An increase in the rate as extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? r 2. AE- 0- 10- W, Will the proposal have significant results ini 11 4. Biota —� Flora. Will the proposal have signl,ficant results In- a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? C/ b• Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of lants'e �/ Page 2 YES uAYSE \0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of rirection Of flowing streams, rivers, or channels? ephemeral stream b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and ' amount of surface water runoff? c- Alterations to the course or flow of flood r Waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any altf.ration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? 9. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct —� additions or with- drawals, or through interference with aquifer? an Quality? Quantity? s b. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or —� seiche:s? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have stgnifican=. results in: —� a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or, interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of locoi or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temrurature? 4. Biota —� Flora. Will the proposal have signl,ficant results In- a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? C/ b• Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of lants'e �/ ?age 3 1 YES %L9YBE No C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural Production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results r/ in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or numbers Of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c% c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in n barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. 'Deterioration ar 7emOval of existing fish or e` wildlife habitat ?' 5. Population. Will thi,proposal have c- tgnificant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bu,ion, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of ,a ar,ta? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing ?` 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? i 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 governments'! entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? 0 Page 4 YES MAYBE t0 8. Trznsoortation Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehiculat movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ✓ d. Substantial impact upon existing tsanspertaw tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? _ f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water -borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? �_- 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results iat a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? ci IQ. Rea:.th. Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in a. CreaL_on of any health hazard or potential 'health hazard? c b. Exposure of people to potentUi health hazards? c. A risk of explcsion or release of hazardaun substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the expo:,ure of people to such organisms? 4 e. Increase in existing nc.ise levels? _ y/ f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? The g. creatfon of objectionabia odors? h. -n increase in lit ft or glare? � Page's YES MAYBE 140 } 11. Aesthetics, ;:ill the proposal have significant results in. a. The obstruction or dogra%ation of ahi scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an selthetically offensive, site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated _ i� or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Publi, Services, Will the proposal ' E have a sUnificant need for new systems, or alterations to the following, j i ? a. Electric power? t b. Natural or packaged gas? --- =� C. Communications systems? Y/ d. Water supply? ^� e. Wastewi�ter £a4_titi,:g? f. Flood control structures? - Y' g, Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i• Police protection? J. schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1• Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? y V� 13. FnezMLand Scarce Resources. Will the proposal J have significant results ine a. Use of substantial or excesaive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand iron ex'sting sources of energy? c. An inercise in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption _ of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? Page b YES !rWBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or E scarce natural resource':: 14. Mandatorq Fin din xs of Si¢- ,iftwance, a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality the of environment, substantially reduce the habitat Of fists Or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to,drop below, self sustaining levels, threaten :o eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a tare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example$ of the major periods of ` Cali£orY4i htstor;Y or prehistory? b. Does xhe project-have the potential to achieve short -tam,, to 04 disadvantage of long -term, environiarntal goals? (A short -term impact .,on the , environment is pane which occurs in a relatively brie:, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into t.fe future). c. Does the project have impacts which are. individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Curgulati;ay considerable means that the inisfementai effects of an individual project are considert')le when viewed in connection wit.'s the effects of past projects, and probsble futu.a projects). Y d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause su$ztantiai adverse effects on human beinV,$ ei*_har directly or indirectly? y/ II. DISCUSSION OF MrIRONMENTAL EVALUATION of affix a,ive the answers to above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures)'. g� �F °"- '� -r:"F 'T'"• :�:.: _..r -•--° ",-mac R- �,.'a.,�.. t ?a81 7 III. RE_T MINATTOy On the basis of this initial evaluation: a I Brad the Propose project COVID NE;T have a an 11 et£eat >, on the ene2ronment, and.a NECATIYE DECLARATION fill be pragrazed I find that although the Proposed project could ;eve a ta�gnffaeanC effect nn the env3ronntent, there will not be -,sj In this case because the mitigation measures damcribedcon an e�fect an ", attached sheet have bhen':added to the prgjecz. A NEGATM ;> DECLARATION WIM BE P;t,£E:ARED. I fired the proposed protect MAY have a sigrifIcant Offect on the envirnmant, and an MIRONMT WALT REPORT is required Date r 1 Signature �'- Ti tie IAI ,j ;_ _ _ A RESOLUTION NO. A RE50LUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RWHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PECOMMENDINt APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO DR 84 -22 AMENDING THE LYNNHAVEN MASTER PLAN REGARDING PHASE III. WHEREAS, the real property situatOd in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as the Lynnhaven. Master Plan of Development for 900+ condominium units on approximately 40 acres of land in the Medium -High Residential District (14 -24 dwelling unitsiacre) located on the north side of Highland Avenue, 1200 feet east of Haven Avenue, APN 202-271-02; ;23 regularl.p ,Came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on April 8, 138,,; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the amendment subject to all conditions set forth in the Planning Division's report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has, read and considered the Planning Division's report and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing; ;nd WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed Master Plan Amendment to OR L4 -22. NON, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby makes the followRng in nys: A. The Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Man, Development Code, and Lynnhaven Haste: Plan. B. The Amendment promotes goals of the Land Use Element. C. The Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. SECTION 2:A Negative Declaration is hereby recommended fir adoption by the Planning commission for this Amendment, based upnn the completion and findings of the initial Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of DR 84-22 (amended), subject to the following conditions: (i 0"®S �i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIUh -,.;.- DR 84 -22 - LYNNHAVEM MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT ., April S, 1987 Page 2 1,-,_ The Master Plan shall be revised to relocate the open space y in Phase III consistent with the Planning Division's report to the satisfaction of the City Planners, 2. The Master Plan text, page 48, shall Ma amended to include the following language in paragraph ,two. under _Site Plan Concepts: The open space consists of a green belt /trail system linking all three phases through a central' open space. Major retweational areas should be 'ibca ed along the green belt system with pedestrian connections and linkages providin access to the central open space for aIi _ residents. Phase III shall be revised to Provide i� ah open space area a minimum of 7000 square feet adjacent to the westerl- boundary of Phase YII, i devoted primarily to an open lawn area. APP�)yED AND ADOPTED THIS STN DAY OF APRIL,-1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I BY: Larry T. McNiel, a ffaan ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the' Aanning Commission of the Ciiy of RaP—ho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and ;eguiarly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th,day of April, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COKAISSI02ERS: 0 ~11V M� E 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM014GA c "CA. STAFF REPORT x O �EA U '> DATE: April 8, 1987 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 -37 REI'l e�?CtJSK CuRvAAP = i ell development o a aster an for • a act" a strial park consisting of 33.1 ots in an Induustrial Park District, Subarea 16, located at the northwest o!Adrant of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue APN: 210- 62 -02, 11, 13,26, 32, ,Ind 33. Reu,.:d file: Parcel Map 10393 I. PROJECT AND SI7-,5:DESCkIPTION1 A. Action Requested: Approval of conceptual Master Plan and �ssuaneeaf a-Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: orA h acan , ex:zs ing single-family homes, Industri 1..Park Distri.3 Subarea 16, Low Residential Disttfct (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South Vatant, apartments; City of Ontario East - Frito -Lay Distribution Center; General Industrial Subarea 5 West - Cucamonga Creek, City of Ontario C. Geceral Plan Designations: IF-roject n us r a ark North - t�-.dustrial Park, Low Density Residential South - Not Availably: - City of Ontarin East General Industrial' West - Cucamonga Creek - Pty of Ontario D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant Lind vegetation consists of ecay ng vineyards. Located at the corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue are approximately two mature palm trees and three other unidentified mature trees (see Figure III -8 of the General Plan). This corner is also designated as a primary gateway to the City, ITEM -P a< lk ^� PLANNI 9 COt+FfgSSIDN STAFF REPORT QR 86-37 - KEITNlLUSK COMPANY April 8, 1987 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: �1 JA. General: The intent Of Othis Master Plan is to serve as a gux aline for future development through establishing driveway access, overall circulation system, drainage patterns and architectural design concepts. All future development within the Master Plan boundary would require separate Development /Design Revieo, A related parcel map is atsC being considered by Pia:ing C9mmissian at this meeting. A separate staff report has been included for your review. The proposed Master Plan subdivides the site into 33 parcels ranging fromithe size of acre to 7.8 acres. The Master Plan is designed for industrfa�l lot sales prograer. Individual or combinations of lots will be sold, designed, cnd ultimate construction will be the responsibility of the buyer. To emphasize a pedestrian oriented campus -like setting for the Master Plan, tM developer is proposing to install all necessary infrastructure as well as perimeter landscape along 4th Street and Archibald Avenue as a marketing tool �br g this Master Plan of lot sales program. B. Design Review Committee: The Coa+mi tree (Chi tiea and Coleman ) arx g na y revTeweTleTie proposal on December 4, 1985. At that time, the Committee raised th? following concerns and reeoame�ed that the developer revised their plans to be submitted for further Committee review 1., The site planning design guideline should be expanded to include provisions for shared access between parcels, limited access on 4th Street according to the City policies and no access on Archibald Avenue. 2. The Master Plan boundaries should be expanded to include the triangle piece to the west abutting the Cucamonga Creek._,'The reason for requiring the Master Planning of thin piece is to assure the tip of the triangle would not become a "no man's land". 3. Written criteria should be added to encourage building Placement that create opportunities for plazas or other landscaped nco aces open spaces p encourage to specially enclose open space on the same site or adjoining site. Building orientation should include consideration of wind protection for site activities. Graphic examples should also be provided supplementing the written criteria. PLANNrUG, GQW74 SSIQtN STA, f REPORT DR 86-3711- KETTN /LUSK CGAPANY April 8, 1987 °age 3 4. Written and graphic criteria should added to: the. Master Plcn for the`A;r,iform design_ of perimeter fen,�ing wail should the users require such a 'tecurity fencing. 6. Special design consideration in the areas of building massing and landscape treatment Should be provided to the corner Of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue as it is the gateway to tine City„ 6. Detailed preliminary grading plan should be that show concepts of on -site Provided development, and to be submitted fcr gGradingaCommittee review. 7. Writi,� and graphic criteria should be added for provi4.;ng design 'consideration to the location of the loading areas. $. Graphic examples should be provided -with those proposed design architectural element features as listed on page 21 of the Master Fran text. 9. Graphic examples of landscaping parking lot should be provided in the Master Plan. 1 The developer revised the Master Plan to address most of the Committee concerns as ment;oned above. One of the revisions include relocating the proposed Street "G" to ,abutt the westerly adjacent property as recommended by the Engineering Division in providing additional frontage access for this triangular piece of parcel. Other revisions include providing graphic examples in the Master PiaP; in areas of entry plazas, visitirs entries, exterior people- "space, perimeter fencing or wall, architectural design features, location of loading areas, and parking lot landscaping. However the revised Master Plan did not address the concerns of shared access and the special design considerations in areas of building massing and landscape treatment at the corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue. The Design Review Committee ! reviewed the revised Master Plan on February 19, 1987 regular ! meeting and generally find ilia Master Plan text to be acceptable except for the shared access and the building massing issues. The developer requested that these two issues be forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. A'; <NtiING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DD- 'd& -37 - KEIT,UI6USK COMPANY O, 1987 _ Page 4 G a. C. Issues: L. Share Access: The developer stated that the Master Plan program is'"'far individual lot sales where individual access into the parcel is preferred.. The developer also stated that shared access between adJacent parcels may.- ;create maintenance and 1;i ab`ii i ty problems for the devel oper ',as well _ as the tenants. �\ FX Staff Comment: Planning Commission policy is to encourage, shared access between parcels, especially, when an opportunity arises through the development of `a Master `y Plan. The purpose of the shared access is to minimize the F" number of conflicts presented to the drivers on streets and thus increase ,safety as well as safeguard the strgets ability to carry as muc- ��ra €fic as possible ind efficiesitiy. Therefore staff recommends that the Pi hg commission aaaere to the City access policy, requirin�-'the establishment of criteria for shared access. Exhibit "B" shows examples of shared access design that are acceptable to the City. - 2. Special Design Consideration: in Areas of Building Massing an f•La"�sca Trea n ai £rye Corner of �r i~ree- a- rc a venue: I he developer stated that an architectural or -building Massing concept has not been developed for this corner. The developer prefer:. not to develop such design concepts at this time. Staff Comment: The Cowhi tte mtadc this recommendation requiring spp I design consideration in areas of building J massing and !dscape treatment at this particular corner due to the' fact that it is a primary gateway to the City. The Committee Is requesting for some conceptual sketches to establish criteria for fj�ture develop®en— i- a -0-Fid not intend for the developer to prepare precise plans. According to the Development, Code, the purpose of master planning is to "plan ahead" by establishing procedures to address special or unique reeds or characteristic of certain areas designated by a Specific Plan. Therefore staff recommends that the Planning Comsmission adhere to the Committee rec endation in requiring the establishment of criteria for special design considerations in areas of bwAding massing and landscape treatment at this particular corner (see Condition 5). 1 ! PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 06 -37 - KEITNILUSK COMPANY ARrill ;8, 1987 Page 5 D. Environment_ Assessment: Staff has completed the nm nv roen aTT[. i� and has found no„ significant adverse environmental impact as a result of this pralect. Further, each individual parcel development would require a' separate L.nvironmental assessment to, assure that no accumulative adverse environvental impact wo�AId occur. If ,the Piannina CaW.ssion concurs with these findings, issuance of;a Negative Declaration would be inappropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Comission to approve tn1s propose ,,Master Plan, facts supporting the following findings must be made. 1. That the proposed project is consisterr";with objectives of the 6aneral Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan; and 2. That�z*e proposed use is in accord with the objective: of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the distri:t in which the site is located; and I 3. That the propnsed use is la comoliarnce with each of the f applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan and f the Development Code; and 4. There are the proposed use together with the condiLtork app:icable thereto, will not be de' trimental to= the public health, safety, or !4!elfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. COR�E,SPONDENCE: Notification to surrounding property owners,') thin meet of We project slt:i boundAry has been sent out as r ,yired by Subarea 16 of the Industrial S( 'ffic Plan. f V. RECOMMENDATION: ._Si ? recommendi,.hat Planning Commission consiuer all— mater ... input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Development Review 86 -37 would be in order. PLANRINO "CO' "W ' SION STAFF REPORT DR 86 -W kEITN /4VSK 'CQMPAtIi April 8, 1987 Page 6 Res ully tte Brad Bu er :4 City Planner BB:NF:vc Attachments: Exhibit W Location Map Exhibit V - Shared Access Concepts f Exhibit *V - luster Plan Text Resolution of Approval with Standard Conditions FF Irk °` L FA d � -1 I � � 4W: I , 1 V..Z4. 1ITS GV .. 1\ i *I t I,.7r *T47 *4AL -r. A&I �. IMAM CITY Of. rr�at� Fg.016r-3T -RAINCHQ CUCAI*vlo 'GA TmE= PLANNI \G DIVEQN €XHIMT= smt.E =___. :�r x z - AOL A M STER PLAMED DEVELOPMENT Rancho{ ClIca Onga, California w � B THE LVSK COMPANY .LOCATED Xne Sufis -Area 16 Industrial Area Specific Plan ASh City of Ranchq Cucamonga ,Mauer Plan Prepared. By: The Keith Companies January 14, 1987 e O r CORNERPOINTL A KNSTER PLANNED DEVELOP23ENT Rancho Cucamonga, California T A B L E O F c 0 N T E N T S Page No. I• IIv"i'ROY�IUCT:v3t" . . . . . . , . • • ` • ` ` ` I PROJECT. COVcEPT . . IT. DESIGN COMPONENTS A. Concept Site Plan . . . . 4 B. rllvstVAti ±re Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Concept 'Sij,* PIan Drawing . . . . . . * . . . . 5 Illustrat re Plan Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III. SITE PLANT /ING A!VV ARCHITECTURE MIDELTNES A. Building Intensity* . . . . . . - . 7 B. :andscape Coverage . • ° 7 C. Blbilding Hikights . ' D. Setbacks . . . . . . . . . , _ . a E. Zot Accessko?nts ° • • . . . . 10 F. Parking Regrirements , . 11 G. Sidewalks 13 H. Storage, service, and Loading Areas . . . . 13 I. Refuse C011ecL.4.on :•eas . . . . . J. Screening of Exterior Mectaanica1Equipment~ . . . 14 K. screening Of EXterior'Electrical . 15 Egaipmeurt and Transformers . • . . . . . 17 L. Fences and Walls . . . M. Utilitiess and Comr=icatj.on Devices is . . . . . 14 IV. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . 20 y Architectural CUaracter Sketchas ,. 22 V. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT A. Introductioli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Landscap_: Cancipt Drawings and Plana. . . . . . . . 32 VI. PHASING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 VIT. , GRADING AND uf2AINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Allowed Use: for Indus;:rial. Park . . . . . . . . . 44 Tentative Pa.:cel Map . . . . . . . . . 46 Contact and Rel4rence List 47 Traffic Report . . . . . . . . . . . 48 rp- // e O I IU OBUCTLORK This Master Plan Development is`intendi3d to implement the City of Rancho cucamonaa Industrial' Area Specific Plan.. I.. , has been prepared in concert with the Specific plan requirements Master Plan Development and 4�4dresses the southerly portion of Sub -Area 16, located at the northwesterly quadrant of Archibald and 4th Street. The General Plan has designated the site as an "Industrial Park". The City of Rancho Cucamonga i's General Plan and the Industrial Area l� Specific Plan has stipnl,ated that a Master Plan be prepared for Sub -Area !6. tiA ` summary of industrial park used for the sub -area is outlined in the rear Of this document. The purpose of this Master Plan will be to assure that the project development, named Cornerpoints,: will be a single unified and controlled design statement. This Master Plan framework will be tLA guide within which development will take place. A uniform application oF,these guidelines will: n Implement the Industrial Area s�iecifiu Plan. a Establish and define specific design controls. o Act as a stimulus to achieve'a common design goal. o Ensure design coordination among adjoining parcels. This document will work in 0onjunction with City _ C ordinances and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. _P�OJ'EC`d' C ®NCEPfi The Lusk Company, the owners of the Property addressee within this Master Plan Development, intends to market this project as an industrial Lot Sales Program. Individual or combinations Of lots will be sold and design and ultimate construction will - be the responsibility of the buyers The design of each building site cannot be determined at this time; however, this Master Plan will guide the ultimate designers to a common design statement. F f D43/0410514P 3/26/87 1 �l i P ' The sign components which, comprise this Master idan development include the following: concept Site Plan } -` k Illustrative Plan,`, Site Planning and Architectural Guidelines ��. r Architectural Character Sketches Landscape COIcapt Plan and design studies each of these compre+ents 'is described in the. following sections. A tentati�a map is also being submitted with j this Master Plan which indicates lot sizes and proposed infrastructure it is included hara fox' reference Isurposes. , r D43,/04105MP 3/2.6/87 13 rI �ES�crr cotorr*rmc A. Canceot ate P7 an This plan illustrates potential building ativelopes within the proposed lotting and street pattern for; the development area,. The intent is that ,+ llings would be generally 3ocated in a predeternifned area of each lot in order to achieve buildin, massing at primary corners and to create predominant architectur4ll massing. The building envelopes shown indicate the "desired" location for buildings on each lot' and these building areas 'may be compc`aed of one or more freestanding buildings. The boundaries of these envelopes can be somewhat flexible, depending upon final building configurations, but represent - the approximate location of buildings on each lot. AP Access points are shown to accommodate circulation fo- each parcel. If in a situation 1 where several logs are consolidated into one ownership, access. xdl points could be grouped. In general, access points should be carefully . located "in that the breaks in the landscaped parkways will be limited. a The intent is to provide a visually dominant landscape edge rather than a series of random access drives. Access will be limited on Fourth Street. JKS No secondary access will be provided other than that shown on the plan. B. Ih ustrai VQ �� a., The illustrative plan takes the Concept Site Plan+ one step further. It shows what could be building and parking layout for typical parcel development. The purpose is to show the variety of conditions Possible and common treatments that would be consistent through the project. site. What gives the similar otect u uniqueness is its flexibility with screening of t psetbacks. areas, and building saga This conceptual interpretation of parcel development under this Master Plan. It is an attempt to show design relationships; however, final parcel design j shall be submitted by each individual parcel owner. D43/04105MP 3/2$/87 1 4 t o W r, .W. S"•' '\ rat ii -j �tii r., ��•�I f flii, i Q Q $i I q i LMI i f ro �• ..e'er i _ ( L� _� a [ j(� UC 1 MIA Xt ° Po iLn❑ ❑ ❑_Jppp_��1 L—'fT. _ - j Ai IW 4111 LMI i f ro �• ..e'er i _ ( L� _� a [ j(� UC 1 MIA Xt ° Po iLn❑ ❑ ❑_Jppp_��1 L—'fT. _ - j y m ELF �' otair L.0 Yf ..t H F �y u awl �a. �O o ►- W z N =m - °W W t- Alf 19w Lu cam Q �Q-� W Rg <� 9 W a CI y MCI .1NY7�MM'9LyR9 [1M11Ir}i 70 Lvid d. Z yr a � yr� � - . ,n rarrci W a• ..r. L is�t m Vim. 2 .- ¢W Oz LU UM tit —2, .. ZLL r tu f8z "Coo- �"' o gage X31 r ( - f TIT SITE PLANNING AND Rif H TEt`T►m iaUIDELINES These guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the Industrial Area Specific plan Guidelines. They do not supersede, but complement, said Specific Plan �` G? Guidelines. However, to the extent these Master Plan Guidelines are more restrictive than the specific Flan, they shall prevail. ' A. Build n6 ' t res t it 1. To ensure that the intensity of site C development is not excessive or detrimental to the perception';; of CornerpoI nte a3 a unified series of industgial "parks ;M . t.. 2. To ensure that i;e site development does not excessively impact utility or transportation systems. Grid____ eiines 1. Site coverage .should be consistent with the proposed use with the parking requirement for said land use. 2. Minimum lot size shall be one acre. 3. Transportation improvements will be consistent with tha findings noted in tho traffic report at the rear of this document. B. Landscape Co ;eraue objectives I. To ensure that at least a minimum portio a development site is devoted to land, a materials in order to maintain a sense- if continuity with adjacent sites and to contribute to the perception of Cornerpoints as a "park like" environment. 2. To ensure that at least a minimum of landscape materials are available on a development site D43/04105MP 4126/87 0, 1 01 in order to contribute to the environmentL�l well -being of potential users of each site. cuidt� Ines A minimum of r t least 15.% oil the area within the ' Property linq*'nf a development site shall be devoted to andscape materials. (See " additionalan Scapa requirements in the landscapa c;oiicep t , portion of this document and refer do Industrial Specific Plan for details - :regarding the speotfic requirements.) ' C. Building Heights Ives 4. obis I. To maintain7ja reasonably consistent and compatible ;1eight profPle throughout cornezp�i{nte. C�uiC�de inzC I. No building shall exceed four stories, or 751, in height. (See. Industrial SiNlcific Plan for further clarification.) D. Setbacks Obiec {ve I. To achieve a feeling of operA' +Oss along th /L streets that reinforces the perception o' Cornerpointe as a series of industrial "parks ". 2. To encourage some regularity of space formed by buildings on either side of a street. C 3. To achieve } landscaped setting between the street and buildings. 4. To Provide for a street -side edge which will have a landscape character that will unify the total development and be sufficiently distinctive in design to differentiate Cornerpointe from other business developments. D43/04105HP 3/26/87 8 0, 1 01 5• To provide' vehicular sight lines which allow discrimination'of ox'e tompanyfrom--another. 6. To provide vehicular sight lines Which allow safe ingress and egress.; to prcpprties ai%d safe movements along roadwaf,s. -,71. To accommodate major cori.erpo3nte identity _ statements tit street Antersec dons leading irto; - and within the Park. I I. Building wetbacks shall be eq follows �I aept When modified, ac,, set forth in industrial '''Area Specific Plan. Street Classification 5etbatckia Determined Trom Ultimata Face of Curb f Average t. Depth of Building Parking l ;l Landscape* Setback ** Setback * �' Major Arterial _....__«._ and Sgecia: Boulevard 45° 451 25° Secon"ary 351 35+ 20' Local 25, 251 a5° * .e average depth shall be uninterrupted from the face of curb, except for sidewalks, Pedestrian hardscepe, plazas and courtyards, and monument signs. ** $treat frontage walls and fences over three feet (3') in "sleight are subject, to building setbacks. * ** .Average depth of landscaping must still be provided. wont: As shown per street classification. interior Rear: Kane. Except when rear lot area abuts a side street, the setback shall be 61 minimur D43 /0�T'5MP 3126%87 9 m ' Rear utting Street: As shown per street classification lnjr�erior ,Side: 51 minimum. r f' st - St Side: As shown per s teet classification The pre -iding section was excerpted from the lndustfii,I Area Specific plan. 2. Properties adjacent to residential areas shall have a minimum of 45! building setback from• property line on interior lot line and 454 from ultimate face of curbs oa abutting atrerats, 3. For buildings exceeding two (2) stories or 351 as measured from hicthest finial grade, whir*z ver is more restrictive, an additionel 1' setback measured From ultimate race of curb shall be rewired, for each additional l� height. This.setback need not exceed 70'. 4. All setback areas shall be Fully landscaped- in a manner both compatible with and complimentary to the on -site architecture and landscape design concepts. E. Lot Acress Points e v s. 1. To prcv ,de a clear and 10gica' ve'ti.cular point to a lot. 2. To limit the number of curia cots at the street in order to maintain a uniform landscape edge . j to the streetscape. Guidelines 1 Lot entry paints sho!;ld try to be groKped to allow for long undisturbed landscaped street edges. (examplet: two adjacent lots have lot entry points ,near property lines) I, D43/04105MP 3/26/87 r 10 .0 V F, , PaYk�,�a Reclujrema�,ta Obiect ves j 1. To mo ate accommodate suffici4nt on -site parking to all vehicles associated with the use of each lot at any one time, and therefore not- require vehicles to be parked on public' roadways or on lots of other companies, 2. To configure parking areas such that they are Utilized by patrons of main structure and not Utilized by neighboring structure patrons. Guide1 �++oa 2. Parking Requirements a. Warehousing or building for storage; 1 space per 1,000 srduare feet for the first_ 20,00h equare feet;, ' 1. space per 2,000 square feet for : tho second 20,000 square: feet. 1 59�iW_Z�_4_400 square feat for _-All space in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. b. Industrial /Manufacturing: 1 space per 500 square feet, c. Research and Development: 1 space per " -'350 square feet (research ee,-ices only). d. Office and Administration; 1 space per 250- square feet. e. Multi -use tenant buildings where office use does not exceed 35% of building area: 1 pace per 400' square feet. The preceding ,standards are excerpted from the Industrial Arez\ specific Plan, 2. 2G% to 35$ of all require -.1- parking stalls shall be devoted to compact car use. Minimum stall dimension shall be 8' in`width and 161 in length and masked for compac'. cars. D43/ 1105MP 3/26,!87 11 3,. All parking araas shall be buffered from public " ew through tZhe E use of bexmse landscaping material, and law walls. 4. All loading facilities and maneuvering areas must be an, -site with the use. 5. All 1.2ading f cil :ti4s shall be permitted only in the rear and interior side yard er+eam 6• Aisle width t: loading docks shall be a minimum r' of So' width, exclukive of truck parking area, i Plus "additonalWidtn Lor truck parking (typically to to t9 feet). 7. Loading dock-.& sP 'til be setback a mi,iimum of 70" from street prop rty line. S. Parking stalls for traile._' shall be 501,X 14" atd provided at a ratio of 1 stall per truck loadings dock door. 9. Loading \, shall be adequately► screened fxrrm thea, public view by building r+ppendages, w( Z%`ncss, _Z8, land&capi3kr,, or a combination thereof. _ _ 10, Minimum aj,tle width adjacent to loading areas shall be 16" one-way an&,gsR fo;r two - -way. 11. Should businesses 3ocFtXh9 on a Cornerpointe development site_- z,ish +7� encourage the formation of car Vials 'V -their employees, consideration should be given to designating- reserved "Car pool"" Z-rking apaces. Designated Car Pool spa ^es should be given preferential locations in xplatively proximity to primary employee building entranc�s. 12; Designated "Cycle ParkingK ar z" should be conr,id'ared for the coanvenienca 4f employees using bicycles or motorcycles. In order to a *, the ,id clutter of cy;;les parked in unplanned vocations, it is recommended that planned "Cycle Parking " areas be coanvaniently lo°ated to employee entrances and be provided with racks having security IDaking capabilities. I D43 /04105MP 3/26/'87 7 � � i2 f. LA .:. EVI G. tibias {v ,t - 1.. To pio'vxde a Cafe all - Weather effI -cient and aesthetically pleasing means of edestrian c�7culation connecting lots along the streetside perimeter.A 2. To provide a safe all - weather= 'sfficisnt and aesthetically pleasing means of pedestrian circulation serving eed._slta, 1. St+°setside sidawniks� will be in, ba3 by the eVenj%aal 'lot builder within perimater landscape e4semente.: Snternal s'seetsc&pa sidewalks will �be .installed I& the eventual lot builder. 2. on -site pedestrian cizculat$,on systems shall be provided to- meet the circulation needs of �a site users. Such systems shouts: provide; safe, all - Weather. efficie:It, aria aesthetically plsasing weans of on -site movement and ahc.,uld be an integrated part of the overall architectural and site design concept ,,,, 3. Where u3age Aictates, connections should be made between on -site anal perizetar pedestrian sire llatior, s3yste'ms. i Ti. t° ass _ Sarvice, anc�Laad.na Areas ob vR� 1. To ensure that storage, service, and loading areas are located upon a site so as to mi:simize the visibility of loading and service vehicles, fram primary visual expzsure areal. 2. To ensure t-na,t the storage, service; ' itnd loadini areas are designed and located on the sits so than service vehiclo, activities and movements do not disrupt the efficient flow et en -cite and off -site traffic, r L43/041,15Mp 3/26/87 13 E cv ao�an 41 1. SEorage, service, maintenance, and 'loading areas must, be cos,structed, maintained, ;a and used in aci ordinca Vith t-he'l following conditions: a. Unless a pproved in writin g kX tha' ci ty, s no materials, supplies, or ,4iquipment, trucks c: f o^ otti� mtatci,� vshf�elas .'Iall be stored u"n.a site except inside a building behind /lased or a visual barrier screening such materials, supplies, ar C vehicle$ -.from adjacent sites. Any storage (, axrs&s scteened by visua), Uarriera shalt bey located , urn. the rear portionsf a site. b. Pravisio ts` shalt bov. made on each site for any naca "nary vehicle :loading and not OT,_ street vexmole loading shall be permitted. ' c• area's Shall be setback, rec9 or screens, ' T. Refu "se Qet 2bi+Octiva 1. To ensure that refute and refuse containers are not,visib2a from primary visual exposure I areas CstrAxets, pr;if�ary L-Mage entry drives, floors or /Wage buildings, common visual. and recreational a� anf ty areas, ate.). �= To i6+naure that refuse enclosures Wre effectively dsaigrad to receive and contain generated refuse until ;collected,< and enclose refuse containers aster _,fuse its collected. 3. To ensure that refuse collection vehiclt19 have clear and convenient access to .c%fuse cWIect:ion areas and thereby not contri to to excessive wear and tear to on -site and Cff- -si.ta developments, 3/26/87 i p I- All. outdoor; y-e_use containers .shall be visually screened withiai a durable 61off or higher non- combustible ,enclosure, so as not tO be visible from adjacent lots or sites, lleighb�iring praper; ties � or streets. NO refuse collection arras shall be permitted between a street and thCf front or, �a builcing'. 2.1 Refuse collection areas should be effectively designed to' cantai.t all refuse gene -atad on- site and deposited between collections.- nepositcad refuse should ;.ot be visible from outs -.L*s the refuge enclosure. 3. Refuse =110:etiort enclosures —hcu? d be desi9n4A of durable ',mmaaterials with fin'. hes and colors which are � +unified , A:nd harmonious with the overal arc rtitecturai Theme. 4. Refusoi` colIzcr;#,on areas should be, so located upon,'che lot a's to provide clear and convenient access to`efuse;;'collection vehicles and thereby mir_:.mize t ear and tear to on- e'",.te and off -site eevelcpsents S. Re,-tss colt eaction areas shou2 d be designed and located on the lot so ac to 10 convenient Fox the depositior: of refuse generated on -site. �. screen nos -of Ext ri0 u=r,hsn4ca3 Faai 1. To have all exterior components of plumbing, processing, heating, cooling, and ventilating systems not be directly visible from within the I -at or from adjoining streets, lots, or buildings. Guidelines I. exterior components of plumbing, processing, heating, cooling, and ventilating systems (including ,but not limited to piping, tanks, stacks, collectors, heating, cooling, and D43/ 04105MP 3/26/87 k ventilating equipment fangs, blowers, ductw.zrk, vents._- ,kouvers, meters, I r7impressors, motors, k incineiktors, ,s•�. h�, atc.) shall not be directly visihe.' 2.. It is recommended that, in the case of rs,c:P- ` mounted mechznical *�7LX meat building 1 be of such a height that raof- mountedl /screecing devices not be .required. Zt building parapets do not provide the required soreersinq, mechanical equipment shall be screened by an unobtrusive screening` device that will appear ., as integrated part 0Z the overaAl architectural' desi,g.-a. Where - roof mounted { mechanical equipment and /or ductwork project k, vertically more than one aWd one -half (1-1/2) feet above thts roof or roof parapet it shr,x1 be screened -by a�x a- ihitecturally designed enclosure wig ch ;exhibits a pegmanent nature with the building desi jln an is detailed consistent with building. WherQ,roof- mounted mechanical equipment Band /or duct%.ork projects one and one -half (1-1/2) feet or lea. above the roof ; or roof parapet it ._ shall '6e painted consistent with the color sche:ae of the r 11-ding in all cases. 3. Any devices ezploye4 to screen exterior components of plumbing, processing, heating, cooling, and ventilating systems from direct view shall appear a3 an integrated part of tho architectural design, and as such, be constructed of complimentary and durable mat -trials and finished An a complimentary texture and color scheme to the overall architectural design. �• Any exterior components *of plumbing, processing, heating, cooling, and ventilating systems and their screening devices that wi,; be visible from upper floors of adjacent buildings shall be kept to a visible minimum, shall be installed in a neat and compact fashion, and shall be painted s<ich a color as to allow their blending with their visual background. D43/04105MF 3/26/8 16 a No exterior componants.of plumbing, processing, heating, cooling, and ventilating systems shall be mounted on any building wall unless they are an integ'ate. architectural design feature. ! K. ` eScren #11erio a Trner l 11 e s ob c j i 1. To minimize the visibility of exerior electri��ral equipment and transformers from ! primary 4isual exposure areas (stree-ts, prima image entry drives, floors of immge buildings and common visual -and recreational amenity areas, etc,) IRS I, Transfcrmers that may he visible from any primary visual exposure area Shall be, screened with either Planting or a durable non- cAsk ombustible "enclosure (of a degign conZiguration acceptable to _'public utility }. ! Where pos'4iblta, ft is recommended that refuse containers and transfoxmers be integrated the 46mt enclosure. into 2, Transformer enclosures should be designed of durable materials With fini,1RhPs and colors which are unified and harm;. �ous with the overall architectural theme. 3. Exterior mounted electrical equipment shall be mounted son the,interior of a building wherever Possible. When interior' mounting is rot practical, electrical equipment shall be mounted in a location where it is substantially screened from publi', view. 4. Exterior mouixted electrical equipment and c021duits shall be kept to a visible minimum, where visible shall be installed in a neat and orderly Cashion, and shall be painted to blend with its mounting background. D43/04105MP 3/26/87 � Q 17 t. D43/041USHP 1/26/87 is L. Fences and W­­ - ?b actives I- TO Pdr!%it the installation or 6nces and walls Within a 10t for the Purpose ;if site security, sound attenuation, separation of functional activities, , 'and scraaerLng of unsightly functions aiid activities. To have fences and walls installed such that they provide an integrated and cozPlixentary architectural design 816ment, adding interest to the -yerall architectural design qoncapt. To have no walls or :E,5AaGA reduce the intended quality of developmunt or reduct the pero.;;ption 0:! Cornerpointo as a series' Of husinees 4. To d saouraqe tk`?k cOnstvIcticA Of.' Walls and fences except ass nacessary"to so.roon outside storage, loading, arA service areas. S. To ensure that fences a.1d walls do because of their height, location, or- design, contribute to a decrease in the safety or OfriclOncY of traffic flows on-site or in fronting streets, I- NO ZOnce, or wall shall ba constructqjd closer than thirty (So) feet from the curbl"ne of a fronting street unless it is of a height not to exceed 310". 2. ITO fence or wall shall exceed a heig!j.,* of 8'0" unless otherwise approV*d by the City of R&ncho Cucamonga. 3. All fences and walls shall be designed as an integrated part if the overall architectural and site design. All materials shall be durable and finished in teI:tur/,f% and colors complimentary of the overall architectural design. D43/041USHP 1/26/87 is G 1] �f 4 • Chain link fendTSg may be ase,'i in areas not` visible i,n. "the fi4, ant setback area. M. 2Tt ;�itie and Co munfc t b r�-v ces ob' actives 1, To have tx,e Cornarpointe literl.or streetscape project -, sually tree of unsi4'htly overhead power and telephone Lines, utility Poles,—, and other utility and comsunivation equipment and components. l� To prctzct ,off -site utility systems from becoming over- bt%rdened by individual, lot utility systems. 3. To awhiave miniT441m disruption of off -mite utilities, Pavilig, and landscape during 'construction and maintenance of on -site utility systems. I. All exterior on -site utilities including, cut not limitGd to, drainage systems, sewerfa, gasp lines, leaner lines, and electrical, telephone, and communications wires and equipment, shall be installed and maintained underground, 2. On- sitz-Underground utilities shall be designed and installed to mirilmize the dismration of off -'site utilities, pavi.�g and landscape during construction and maintenance and shall be of- such a design so as not to place jxcessiva burdens upon off. -site utility systems during the covrzse3 of use. 3. No antenna: or device for trdnsmission or rece,ation of any signals including, but not limited to; telephone, television, and radio, sha'.l be placed on any lot so that i:t is visible from the primary setback area. 4. Temporary overhead power and telephone facilities are permitted during construction. D43/04105HP 3/26/87 IV A-tCHITECVML GU� I�LTNES These guidelines are to ;�e used in conjunction with the Industrial Area Specific Plan guidelines. They do not supersede, but complement, said Specific Plan Guidelines. 1{owever, to the extent these Master plan Guidelines afire more restrictive than the specific Plan, they shall prevail, h ect13Mz I. Promote industrial and .business park development while enhancing the physical environment of the community. 2. Ensure land use compatibility between parcftls within the project. 3. Ensure land use Compatibility of the project with land, uses on adjacent property. 4. Encourage high - quality architectural and site planning for the project: R2 p I. All structures erected within; the project, with the exception of trim and =iaor architectural Gt features, shall be constructed of masonry, concrete, stucco, wot,d, glass, zt6el, or other materials of a similar nature. 2. ]Exterior walls- sha:sl be painted or suitably treated in a manner that a.rs be o.aing to the , sac° -eriar con . ctn materially ,,R•rt _-Guidelines 7 I. Building forte and architectural style are intended to be consistent with the overall design them: in the bus-,less park. Conformance with the fol,iowi: g guidelines will help acct: eve this objective. 2. Apparent building mass can be reduced throu,ta sensitive articulation and surface treatment of exterior walls. Long unbroken ettexior walls D43 /04105MP 3/26/87 20 6 should be avoided. Wher% � � buildings are more ` than one (l) stony in height, stagage?;ed or k layered vertical articulation reduces the visual impact and creates a m.,te interesting architectural impression. In some cases, especially on large lots, �Y clus�er ing several small buildings in -the glace of ari large building will reduce the apparent bulk, ,)f development.: This affords a good oPPc` tunity for exterior amenities such as landscaped courtyards, walkways, and focal ps2nts. 3. Sensitive arrangement and proportion of exterior window openings, exterior fascia treatment, and building accent areas, help, J relieve the massivs6 appearance of large eYkpansive exterior walls. Variations in the Proportions of window openings at the lower level of a building structure soften its transition with; -the ground` plan. Recessed window openings i :. so -,Tide relief along, the exterior buildLig walls. 4. sensitivity to the general appearance of the overall business park should be used in selecting buildirT colors to keep all structures compatiKie with each, other. Accent colors are acceptable in-moderation, but strsng non- conforming color schemes will be consi4#red unacceptable. D43/04105MP 3/2G/87 21 3 It m ^.... AOL C�iiil : t ^AF" I c, 23 J CL LU CC 1 I c, 23 i %k 44 i %k u Ll r ,+ EMA 0701 -02 o 4-8-87 PC Agenda 6 A LJ il 0 'J(F-e'T 10,`4 ARA 1 r�-^v ARTIST'S CONCEPT THE KEITH COMPANIES �. �val�lYwnfY YrM�M.��wAV1,�4 }..ti. -1�•!Y�•n�iw h S6 27 V XMD9CAPE CONCEPT PLAN The landscape consists of elements that give form to exterior spaces. Thus, the character of the landscape is created by elements such-, as streets and building • setbacks and the variety and placement og landscape elements. Given that ar--hitecture and bixilding sites within Cornerp will Most likely be of varying types and sizesi lihdscaping as a design element wi17, play the key role in creating and conveying the overall character or Cornerpoints as a "parklike" working environment.- The purpose, then, Of theise Landscape Design Guidelines is to provide design criteria which will help, to ensure that Cornerpointe achieves an image that is distinctive, clearly understandable, and unified. A. 4n�CrodLGt? art As a part of the Cornerpointe Master Plan, a Master Landscape Ylan has been conceived to organize, unify, and c"sate, a distinctive character for the whole of Cornerpointe. The Haster Landscape Plan recognizes that the project consists of two prominent zones, namely, the streetscape zone and the interior zone. An understanding of thG nature of these two zones 16 important to understanding the landscape design guidelines and their intent. 1. Streetscave Zone The Stroetscape Zone is the primary image- setting zone and includes all arterial and'' collector roads. All improvements within this corridor will have the greatest degree of control. Attributes within this zone include: a. The Landscape Easement: This is a public easement beginning at the back of curb and extending inward for a distance of is, to 451 along all arterial and collector roads, depending on condition. The north/sovith streots will incorporate vertical trees. Spacing will allow visual is AOL D43/0410514P 3/26/87 28 39 E l � 7 !1 penetratijon into individual sites. They Will recall tie agricultural hedgerow and baffles east /west winds. The east /west streets will incorporate a random groupings broad 4�,.`,R,trees thae will be sheltered by the he& -jws." North /South ante, -•,� r ci- Eucalyptus s,derox'y Ion r� os a�� . Eucalyptus polyanthemos Liquidambar ,styraciflua "Palo Alto" Pinus eldezrica E'$'-- s�'��K�"exr�ai Street Trees Cupaniopsis anacardiodes Magnolia grandisolia Pinus elderica A99SAt Tree at building A.1ot entry Prunus caroliniana Chorisia speciosa Arbutus undo- standard B. Interior Zone I la Interior Zone oncompauses all ckterior elements -from the ,andscape Eaaem(snt to the building. This zone is subJ(adt to the needs of each individual tenant and thus is meant to have a greater degree Of flexibility than the streetscape zone. Common concerns within this zone include:. parking lot arrangements and landscaping, regulatory and directional signing, and service area screening. It is intended that the interior zone of Cornerpointo recall the orchard and /or grove -like infill character that existed between hedgerows of California farm communities. Parking lots are to be planted in geometric patterns with low canopy trees. 2. Landscano Coverage A minimum of 15% of the area within the property lines of a development site shall be D43/04105XP 3/26/87 29 P, qb devoted to 3andscape Materials wiless otherwise approved. 3. Par::ina i�ot Tree ny a„a-3 nr u �, irismehts a. Tree well_* and platter areas Within paved Parking areas shall provide a minimum 31 clear planting space.:, b. Tree well -and planting edge Curbs should be used %u in l of whefl stops. C. one (1) planting finger ever la spaces. d. dne'(1) tree Per three (3) parking spaces. Porimater plffiaitings are included in this calculation. e. Provide shrub screen Planting around exterior of Parkirxg ?_ot. 4. Parkiner and Pe'estrirn c{rnviition a. Parking location and layout + .ehould fft�iiltata i easy and safe pedestriar_ ciz culation, i b. If ,:ha parking layout is one or kw.� ores chap, a walking space with a mine of'41 between stalls should be pra�tidod at strategic locations. c. if parking lots exceed two roars in depth, , the olignment of the aisles should be in the direction of the pedestrian movement. 5. Parking Lot plan utate ry al List A singe species tree is to he used for each parking compound. The tree species may be different in separated parking compounds. Suggested trees: Cupaniopsis Acerifolia Pstachia Chinensis Schinus Terabintaifol us D43/04105MP 3 }26/83 30 E7. Ld11dSCRbe C_^'___ --ppl_ Copt The following landscape concept and desii- studies illustrate the typical conditions anti treatments that will be required at Cornerpointe. qW D43/04105HP 3/26/87 J 4� � ; ��� j 00 1 7 rLl 1043 3 n o° O 31t O " I' A. ( 1/717 1 1 Ie. THE IiE rHi��N` „I��' sz COMPANIES Q -� No I 7 � Uiv hO 2, lAq4r elSOUMDCOvEP, ID AS T 1;b, r THE KEITH 3 3 f COMPANIES f�O.rIV 4AMf.ral��.f K •w `i t:V•uM ? �/` 11 11 THE KEITH COMPANIES ,`a` �IATI&7HN� Cf°E �INk I� THE KEITH ZPANIES P �% - `- '-- ---'-- IN N R { . 0 $ #�� /CC \ \k ie \ /�� � ?m° ... .# R { . 0 $ #�� /CC \ \k ie \ /�� w ul rz w w W i Q¢ Na �� 0. Jy rte- z 2 Y Q 0. w aj Cl z a CLI J a 1 f Y M L.r] � r r �'r t idim 1"I'liA II cc LU y ¢W d N UQ Q LLI �a W J CL U � a ? D Z 2 LU 37 - . $ \ . LLL k i < .K / U4 3 \ \ a ui ƒ � « § K 2 \y 2 $ /.. .. i . . m e z « } < ƒ \� f cc l o \ ® 3 \ ƒ \ \ § / LU—L1 y .t. w ■ �2 kk \�� I q ® � ca �■ � ; /2E� [ � . � i . / U4 3 \ \ 0 ƒ � § K 2 $ .. m z « ƒ \� f ca .d o \ ƒ \ _ / LU—L1 y .t. . q ® 2 �.> 2 . . j I-- .. . . . 38 . z tic til CC w W w e 1--- U cc Ps/ H- w w .a d u a m w m in ri I A MilI y 1 F 7 f l w tic til w e 1--- U o � r S U C) < U] t- a w U) z 000 o x a U � �r « � L -, w ti Ld x o U r v fn CY cmr d. w w w .J on ti sa- i-� us .� w yr ;� w r` t w z n a ►�- Q w I cc cc w r Q 0 m _, s s < T W J w 4 0 Cn C5, o h U < " v f!1 a. r EL L CC w w cr c w Q J 2 W Q `•V' gg Q Y jr f A 5• � L R� Z 0 cu J i - AWOL ui w uj O .. i J r-� U 6 _ t a; w _V � w w CL w F w 1- 7 J Q U uJ Q z c z o (Do U j �m w M CL Q w U (A COK x Z �. v C0 gg z d N, I :I 41 si r` \i VI T?-: p'roJect area is intended to be developed in one phase. As a.. lat saes proc ram, development will consist of al's street and i.nfrastr=ture improvements,` necessary to aslloz•� individual lot sales and developments ". in portion, of the property, as well as -- implementation o2 the perimeter landscape treatment along,Rrchibald and Faurtii Street. 1 D43 f 04105MP 3/26/87 In VII GRADING & DRAZNAG The grading concept for the property is intended to build upon the natural tall of the property from north to south. The ultimate grades of individual lots will flow this natural, fall of the land, allowing drainage to either drain to abutting streets or to drain across adjoining lots (cross -'lot drai-hage) to adjacent i� streets. The cross -plot drainage concept is proposed to eliminate the need to elevate the rear of lots i;or drainage to streets, and in so doing, minimize, " -ir eliminate 2;2 ananufaytured slopes between lots. Tals concept will require drainagd' easements over lots which will be shown on tha t.entati,ve tract map for tZUa ( rraperty. J� i' i 3 i I D43/04105MP 3/26/97 43 h \ 1 SUB -AREA `; Land Use Designation Industrial Park ' Primary Funat.::on This sub -area serves as a transition 'zone, from more intensive inrqusl'-rial or commercial adtiv -ities to residential i_ eaa in., the southwest cornei* of the C fty, As such, new development must be sensitive to the surroundings with appropriate architecture and site: planning to mitigate potential conflicts. Land uses within the industrial area should be c-impatible with surrounding %uses north of 6th street and along Archibald to provide for use activities associated with airport such as tourist co=Q',,cial. This sub-area Is located betweall Sth ;Street and 4th Strast and Archibald and Hellman and contains property substantially undeveloped. Y ed It lies adjacent to a direct access to the Ontario International Airport and is located at a gateway to the city. Permitted uses Custom Manufacturing Light Manufacturing Administrative ind Office Professional /Design services Research Services Light wholesale, Storage, and Distribution Building Maintenance Services Business Supply Retail Sales and services Business Support_aervices Communication.Servicee Eating and ,.:,inking Aoll D43 /04105MP 3/26/87 - 44 D43/04105MP 3/26/87�jl� Z./ f i Establishments Financial, Insurance and Real Estate services Hotel /;tatel r Medical /health Care services Professional services- Recreation Facilities Administrative Ci *ric Services Conditional uses Automotive RQntal Automotive service Station. Convenience Sales and Services ? Entertainment , Fast Food Food and Beverage Sales PUAGral and Crematory services Personal. Ssrvices Cultural Public Assembly Public Safety and Utility serrvicea Religiouri- Assembly i D43/04105MP 3/26/87�jl� Z./ f tt r, 0 P "5-8 e r. : J 4 e i 1(j�fn�fjj' �. L„Jf1n0 .., a C7�° t ro - W rC7�7 � SI k" V l G � �Q 46 i t CONTACT LIST DEVELOPER: The Lusk Company 17550 Gillette AVenus Irvine, CA 92713 Carol Punnino Don Putnam r, ;DESIGN CONSUZMANTS: The !, _ "'eith Companies 200 Baker street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Roger Mobley .� Br-11? Cunningham Steve Butz GOVERNMENTAL AGENC::ES: City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road P. 0. BOX 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Department 11hane: (714) 389 °1861 Engineering Department l j Phone: (714) 989 -1862 Building and Safety Division I� Phone:, (714) 989 -1863 i I 043j0410sm? 3/26/87 47 BOOM FRIMER 9 R OCIRFFS 14431 HAMLIN STREET SUITE 1 YAN1\!IUYs. CALIFORNIA + 91401 818 /7�}sa5Y8 2131873.ts78 _October 15, 1986 Mrs. Carol L. Penning Proiect Manager Industrial Division The Lusk Company ' P. O. Box C-19560 x Irvine, California 92713 - ,Subject: Conerpointe Business Center �� K' I J Rancho Cucamonga, California File No. 2102- 00 -00, i DearMrs. Penninar t As you authorized in your letter of October 2, 19E6, we have evaluated r'`-se adequacy of the prgpoud access to and internal circulation within the area designated as Subarea 16 by the City of ,.Rancho Cucamonga. Subarea 16 is bounded by Fourth Street, Sixth Street, Archibald Avenue, Hellman Avenue, and the Cucamonga Creek Channel, and it consists of a total of approximately 145.0 acres. Of that, Cornerpointe Business Park would have a gross area of 79,4 acres (68.4 acres of lots znd 11.0 acres of streets). The remaining 65.6 acres of Subarea 16 are owned by others. The proposed accesi to Cornerpointe Business Park would consist of three local public streets that would intersect the arterial streets, 1. Fourth Street midway between Archibald Avenue and Heilman Avenue 2. Archibald Avenue approximately 550 feet north of Fourth Street 3. Hellman Avenue at the north side of Cucamonga Creek, app roximately 700 feet south of Sixth Street In addition to the local streets that would provide extcrn� � access to Subarea 16, there would be three external accea5driveaays, i 1. Sixth Street opposite Klusnlan Avenue 2 Sixth Street Opposite Amethyst Street )j I` r([[pIR 3. Archibald Avenue ,ippmyimatvIy 1.130 feet %-ilh of Sixth Street Mrs- Caro! L. Pennino # October 15, 1986 Page 2 The three local streets that provide external access plus two other local streets would fqrm the internal circulation network that would provide access to the imlividual Cornerpointe Business Park lots and to five of the six Subarea 16 properties that are owned by others. The only Subarea':, property not served by the proposed internal street network would be the ASS Nell!- property which may have access f:ortt adjacent,propertiesor from Rrcl",4bald Avenue Coyne �Ante Business Park and the other properties within Subarea 16 have f been P10' �OSed for development as industrial panes, except for a 4.7 acre parce l wnuid be developed a a state of California Department of Motor ' >ehr� /fDMyJ office on 6ourth Street east of the proposed local street. The t! G) volumes that would ;be generated b. parks dR�e estimated o tirebasis y the proposed industrial �l trip generation factors in the publication, ~, Trip Genai� ;ion - 7hJrd tdjtlan, published by the Institute of Transporti" Engineers, Washington, D. C., 1982 The traffic volumes that would b1,, generated by the DMV o €flee were eetimated'on the basis Of-the factors' - I; in the publications; 9th Progress Report on Trip Ends Gcnerotio`m Research Counts and 12th Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation R search Counts, !, published by the State Of California Department of Transportaticn in San, Fran sco, California, in 1974 and 1979, respectively. In Table 1 are th;. est, :S of 24 -hour, morning peak -hour, and afternoon peak -hour traAc volumes that kvould be genera(-,A by the prop sed Subarea 16 developments. P' Tfia directional .distribution of traffic; in Table 2 was estimated on the basis of the configuration of the arterial street network and the locatlotlt Of residential developments, other industrial developments, and freeway interchanges. i r� p f k �. 1L1 y a . o � wg U. • z �,yti� uv W i w 2 co ,L J LL `z= of Co Y m N f LU Co Q F- uj tL A � c C3~ c` F � _ u � c y w N o S o 9 9 ,C, M R� O ^ •' D > W @ o y > w c - _ s Mrs. Carol L. Pennino October 15, 1986 Page 3 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION SUBAREA 16 TRAFFIC DIRECTION INDUSTRIAL PART DEPARTMENT OF ROTOR YEHiCCES t� antaaa Force= To and from tha north 25 � . To and front the soozh 25 To and from tha gait 25 t t5 To'aod from the wart 35 25 25 Total 00 itiq The morning peak -hour and afternoon peak -hour traffic volumea were I assigned to the arterial and local street network and driveways Subarea 16. in Figure 1 are the estimated volumes of Subarea 6 traffic at the local street /arterial street and driveway /arterial street intersections." According to Mr. Paul A. Rou eau Engineer, each local street wou d ha have 44 -foot wide' oadway 'within f'a 66 -foot -wide right -of -way with one travel lane and one parking lane in each direction. The two -lane Cross sections would each h;ve a capacity of 1,200 vehicles per hour, total in both directions. The highest two -way traffic volumes would be an estimated 530 vehicles in the afternoon peak hour on the local street north of Fourth Street, That v volume would rNuire only 44 percent of the street capacity, which would result in operations at level. Of service A, the best level. The volumes on the other local struts and on the driveways would be lower, and all of those facilities also would operate at level of service A. To accommodate the left -ttAtn demands at the local street approaches to the arterial streets, it is recommended that each of those approaches have two lanes —one for deft- turning movements and one for right - turning movements. The left-turn lanes should be ISO feet long. Im 11 C 7 2 >. 4 Ic W _ SIXTK STneEfi -- 50-,35 5 a - � -55 -15 = f...35 - T5 69 -- 70.E -.i � ,1�5�.� r 25 I of N O p L X45.. t5o •s j Al � s si i iso45 -.1 t.r_ ... 15– 70 so – Tq-5 1 1 N� ��19$ - FOUtlTFr SYAEET J � Loo 209 –So --I ,.....�_ NOT TO SCALE NUMBER OF VEHICLES Morning Afternoon Peak Hour P.ak Hour —000 --- PMPosed oe- looment Street OHM NER 6 MMUH raa Mfp0arArtan • CH01,CII FIGI.tE , Ana Pt3h0re=. SUBAREA 1.6 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC p P f. DF —ALK /r cc; Donald D. Steffensen Mrs, Carol L- Pennino i-; a October IS, 1986 Page 4 The additional lanes could be provided in one of two wad,; I. Within the 44-f00t -wide local street roadway, prohibit arl�' sides for a distance of approximately P .ng an bath 111 Provide a 1SQfotit -tong l ft turn 1 ite, as60. ot f to g reverse curls, and a 140 - foot -long taper, 2. On the total street approach to VAt al Z:rial street, widen the r S0 feet with eight foot -w'de sidewalks. within the C�.foot -wide tghx ; way. Retain the parking both sides" and provide the left-turn S.rne and transitions described above. bo The chaise of the configuration to be used should be determined in discussions with City officials and staff mt4hbers. If you have any questions or commrn~ts, Picase contact us. We would be Pleased to discuss our findings with City, staff members, if you desire. Very truly yours, DONALD FRiSCHER & ASSOCIATES Donald Frisc6er, ?, E- DF —ALK /r cc; Donald D. Steffensen j� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIO(- APPROVING ,DEVELOPMENT :REVIEW NO. 85 -37 FOR A MASTER PLAN. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF 41111 STREFT-, AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT , WH%W, on the 1st day of April, 1987, a complete application .was � filed by Keith Co. f6? review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, an tha 8th day of April, 1987, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning, :i Comissior, held a meeting to consider the above- described project. 6`4W, THERPFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comsissioa resolved as follows; 1 SECTION 1: That the ng can be met: 1. That the - proposed rrojert is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the In::Ustrial Specific-Plan and the purposas of the district in which the site is locate.., and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the Pgpiicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Specific Plan; and 4. That the proposed use., together with the condf;tions applicable thereto; 71 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environmen an eat a Negative Declaration is issued on April 8, 1987. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 86 -37 is approved subject to Uie To[ low ng-conditions and attact:ed Standard Conditi'c*rs: Planning Division 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only futurs development =V.� each parcel shall be s- -bject to' Development /Design review pr4icess fnr FlAnnina `;ortmission approval. Modifications to tht Master Plan shalt be subject to Planing Commission approval, PLANNING COMMISSION.RESOLV710N N0. OR 85 -37 - KEITHAUSK COMPANY April 8, 1987 Page 2 2. Landscaping along the entire fr,ntage of Archibald Avenue and 4th Street shall require detailed landscaping and irrigation clans to be submitted for Planning and Engineering Division review and approval prior to recordation of Parcel Map 10393 and shall be completed in conjunction with the infrastructure improvements. 3. Developer shall install gateway monument identity Nall at the intersection of Archibald Avenue and 4th Street per City Standard in conJonctiot, with the infrastructure improvements. Details shall be included in the landscape plans required by Condition 2, 4., A Uniform Sign Progrz -a for the entire Master Plan shall be provided and subject to City Planner reviek and approval, S. The site planning guidelines shall include provisions for shared j access according to the City Access Policy and Design i Guidelines. 6. Special design con -,ideration in areas of building massing and landscape treatment shalt be provided to the corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue as it is the Gateway to the City. Conceptual plan /sketches shall be included in the Master Plan %nd tr, be submitted for resign Review Comarittee .:,view and Approval. 7. The revised Master plan text incorporating the above Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to recordation of Parcel Map 10393. 8. A landscape easement in sufficient size of area ti- accommodate the "Gateway" design shall be requited at the corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue. Engineering Division 1. Development of this site shall be subject to the conditions of Parcel Map 30393 and any other conditions as necessary based upon the review of specific development proposal within the site. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS STH DAY OF APRIL, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ! 8Y: Larry T. mcwei, -C a man ATTEST: bra u er, epu y ecre ary P4 7 PtAiykTN6.Ct}MNiTSS"TQN kiMi:lt7TON-410. u ` DR 86 -57 ► XEITIJ /LUSK r0MpM.Y �. April S. 1987 Page 8 T �� I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the fdrejuing Resolution was duly and regularly introdwxed, passed', add 4dopted by the Planning`C=mieSion `of the City of Rancho CucaMonga, at a regelar meeting of the Planning to ssion helot on the 8th day of April, 1987,`by the foi loving vote -to -wit: �. AYES: COMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I ABSENT: CDMMiSS&ONERS: dMk j I { i i S. 6_C` flafla F ! CC %c'.on eY �pG 3p?cNCe.0 C.. @fs A d.a� ..°. 4ig.6 V. CC..�"� «: C g N ^T .: CC NNR G¢�° yyuC. + ^gyp a "St js GC. f7iee�oz,yy R O V ai y ;jgFS °,i M� >6. LCGORLV6 NGy Y YiNC G6:�p 'd N`.K��•- R> aF v M.i6 NV uL `Ssgyyaa ..CC �QpV C @T L.r YsRV 9NL t�.Gn _ C.O�gw 6Y.w <wWP.L.� �04{OI��pY`Otf Q✓ Z S W F x i °v u c o ° i d 1 g. CC N Y G Sy $ Z N C G O � T qN } @ Y yy!y6 NAP r. R LN 'MR 1p yi dew$. L V�9 +a fin.. yu GN.G� tg3 r'Y Ei� 4 jwT '. Riy P ?ug9SSS� Yy`yL w O ��N,wp�L y A fit. q7.6 L 3 n u pspk Oppnnp N F p2222 pa Enn Q° S b2TNN�&4gga�� 1�0 Y-1 NXI$ NL«.r.. c 1 I V Lai 0 ce- C E i L U>�4q 9 UY . Si °L @Y4. rn i.d° us yew« «eo,e. o0 ;; Vc ipi�d ^Nf�tO .. Lc� A LyyT Lpp,`f� G 0 L.. OY L AYa FOF.. .p wrC C T_e . _ N.4 C p� Oy YW N N -c �. Lroy .p p gyp' u V.: ✓i��.w. RY. N L�.N 61i iy,. ��Gp�tt u '+ pr V M N L Y N a C Y .5 by Sry HN N �i-ZX $L.�p ,.,.dC V. ryY i... C om '� ANNY -fi r Fit i'g� € ao cVy�nu c �ACgqm.a' -. i`i >pSLgYL ^$ odXr- ce.YN RAV 'OL�-L�6CYC {{.� 4Y V� YY iMV `a N wY� d�6 W��= C CpC !L9.u� N6 Lt >CC.«c c cp Aa cM V W.d-Yw o •6� Su OV.. E az O y. au »O fJg uq Nyt C 6 q uLNg aNyL zj+.lr COC' y ',0: ^Y 'CN aN S it Sao egg` AQ kQ`p�!9 �f7; . 2 Le OL V • =p4 4,- rr f= O O OA�W ii L'Vr N eye ar L 9 dr 7. u pO c CRR N «N C OE C U1. . T.. A ! y. 6-9.1 O ►°ve a.W� > 3 myg0��� ap�sz °rw�o6 3 a� ne. bo.J „gS $. oS= tw�YYn o�„� yo dlRl ++ O dy. {.L L Ytu� p¢. wC,`. �T �7 Y9 C'j� uu 6' AY �Cq >_> SO-- +"� 26 N 61 .0 *pOQC V.I.NI p.C'Y d L°u 6 Y u N^ Lu Oy ^.�+� �p9 C ° mo w A r, 0 N a 0 y ~ p« A n Y C O N O. o y qy L`_ ` q T V o C C y ° �U l'i. YEU °L! wK Gam+ 1.5 „ 9VX W. COM �LW9 Clr°i vac's gr^�w ucn v `-v v_. m E T-E { a cp A c iii c y a° q �c +o. .. wsE 7321 .., d ap we Y.q ,°cp. ^...q Ynrp wo cµ L. o ^o. z- % -Z.5 o �.Y u- L N 81 .1-1 �O • C _u V. o �.ri c E Ulf ... U dOY A ~(6�. cG� a o p ° u cw U> • �° R + °� •m LbU+ C It C ubC`u..q. .U"� q. „q ua L v v -. y o��im o. rvN rnZg, dvt a °w a N'of�... �.o u tD gpii °. 9 GEuO a ..YOE Lepp,,y{.�.9 V L V 111 6'OU O C L OOy N U N H L T a .. kvc x AOR CO C. st PL O S t O Y LN � ., Y. qyyO +u Li y C LypY 1,91-42 Y MMavu Sy C�Nr �PO�W�H� au {M��OOp �C, q� {i t o.pA� w0 V W 4V .NM �Z JpN' �irY�l y r r2i i^ Y 7s_ P p cp'H '�y �grv^y'5�� r C a LLD 7V NN ";St 4 �N�w�cL a q yyy24 N "rte A P40� ��N`NCq78 m Vao q Z -C �p V TUpC J NOOT .i _}. �U O.t6 O!Ul1 . tlyCCpgg�. S N .V . =t�Egy1 L , � ��.p �4c`Yyy. l q�C rp �Yiu �N � • E OL �iQO O v^et KN C N. L A- yY YqVyYY Vi$OwYi YO'Q'sN pC1..i�1$O��' Py,i q ^u4 �}Q pw� CNyi2 CND€ NYY 2 q �Hr qY p1 �J L @ Cpe d 0'� aU Cy •V`� N L�'L Au �$Y.N. C �LP.NNl atUF1yy 32 +tN`j �j Nyy yO�rt qV y .QYYaVY^ G ski jl �► ^ ^CU�w uppGYU N ` N qL �JL �Ny t� Ly.rN. OLL =u 6Mj s..O uVr yy C tlY O. pN UuL O. O4I M�Mgr YI^!O Y Cgtl CCP � Y N L� * L r �: P ■yp r Y V` ^ J ��C L O u TCC tit VCp CY yqc O y. V 1.C. N N <. SIC Mf N 0 f� N .0 R l V u^ 0> e� �Y M V U i q •.C• 4 \G < V V• O C 6 N oau aii °� ve arii u e�^a ZSc t aT . ^2, u';$ 76� Gp savp e�I pp It YM -C6 Cl O N NYY Oy Y6ti UL ^� ?SPN uL�q� C6.�L YIOYCY 20 uACd.0 gp+ ' 9 Z �E Y ^rJ L s u C rt ua tygj+ R'.Q {y h ^ p�Y. Yu w ■p La L�. O� •OrC �MN V a^ {� 66� q a Y. O S..r iC uL C yp t` B~_ C�'q � GL ��. VF ?q�D .. T P` N C N�^G ,�9 �NU CLNM i Nr +L G =O p�y..i� EQ qy�R C qd� �Nu i u E $ CS V NMI CY.q w n� OU P Nq r^ wO O ONcT CP P L u �r c.Yia QU RHO ■` y.c.$c qU Le.✓ V d pT �N. V Y V N V NC T u j LCgU GIRO j� �10� VLQ� aN AY � �� a� ��rL MSJ �p O. L.. N +O+ P L o 5 4 55 ~ uq. F. 0 Y N O = OA�+>.4 G Kyc I., > QaN lY 6N <Y t0 �UVOi.C.q 6G� 11j tn�� W66 ;N�� tl I PA(i ° P -1 v �40 O Z U W 7 aC) E zl;z Z42? aYCA �tpp a.wv. 4eY' uaNia �'uaa «LL�u .�iy �. 9 ua ��ca X29- uV OVO g"o �C its dN CY 4 O9 L u N�L muz 96Q a. v w` �L9 gpg pIn�fr NN ° ° >�q •'v NNE 00a V b1p O� U' Z. 41r � JCr C � Y p 432 •OU!Cy u �• 1 g. � g : 9 p O ON U.« ''r5� �OI SS CJ L LLN N.._ VCI. COL 'o s «.d d � a i N L ■ O.yY M! {! �o �.. ^ S �^ t ■Op }� .,I-- use EO:N6 vczq y''�n 01«11 HAC� �6 O+L+ ZLLLNG M< 9 ° U... C i U M EO n 6« y� N m.-v C °Y 4 L ua un aN `Y U da V 15.� 9 ua ��ca X29- uV OVO g"o �C its dN CY 4 O9 s LOn a c�Y $QQq OLO� F.0 p dab `N �L9 gpg nb A La NN ° ° >�q •'v NNE enN coca- «LY c ` o _ O1 °v LL CL npp Up d Xg «� aNYN� A c C.V d aN0 C= 1r e p p V u Q u °� c r a u« vniN � Ste— .�iE m.-v m^ da L ua un ��ca p��i+m OVO g"o 9 N CY 4 O9 uA AL Wd V� �r LLGGy LxU{�y�j � � c 8�ein. p p 6 L €u �yy V Ud• C 7z E4 auo �exp « « ^f..l ^ S �^ t ^Y.UC f.iLL O .B14- g` W-- Nom° iUppV N V Y`E> !yp 9 ° U... C i U M EO n 6« y� N yyi �6 •peNa N C� U ` Tp��'l+.V VTLL O MSC +LL MY may. N V Y. «,1 "�YN ^ L� tYtiU y�q I�t°1WL U LBY�+ L�6LYU.N `lm Elm N N RZ y r1I N� T� tl r W r1l 10 G LL p �a i yF'ij4� Us Y O -22 A `N83 + gg` 9 N CY 4 O9 uA AL r O C c 8�ein. p p 6 L €u �yy sp °€ C q 0 a C � O yyN Nom° �aZpq g r yr °O' L y '>144� C6 C T CN.d ■. CQ _ V �• =C EOd 3�O LL L•L ^ LY^ �m °,.. �C9 41dL9 V N � Py� Op��LL. `L9 ECp�gQ. 1-1ne 6d3 0 Vty 1� W E4 iG°GU. u 10 G LL p �a i 94 C r w MgVA Y' N a�r a� L' 17.0 A- b+ � �F a $ Ap pqb oaa9Y OZN it $ Y �jy�'�'�!1111MM1t i01V��NC lux ^ Y y• A CS C� � ^o X^O.# CAB OF V L L Yr. 2y yy.L w, qye yyY KYY^ � A +p Ily`Yff w N.u�A ypdN1 `��6' ■r +� • OV �q 4C. CYgV O'� _ C Vp OOH .0 Oen .6 C r eye ■pp r 1�c Y Y Mi MC GT yYM t. LaY YY a KL YM �^9 uyV4M -Il ^ J1C�tlY ty` _PpA�{. g �Y a =4Qa V O LTO•p� Y9y IAl `o Iron A o +q Va% .Y$gQ +L+ap °ta YY. NCV V •` �q/ `. pF T1�� �n C °r Yp,�$��!, 4Cy NOq a�r� y�4t NV �Y?C�p�> ONY LSO � NraQ+$(Yft q ✓� {p6y NoC K 'CC 1q.e`Y Mp OY Gi+” ii 4 Y9v1 PLLL �i.Y 4; H pYp Vy WN W aA SD II.S SV i•OOfV A I 41 °� _ E SIB O RTI .t D� o y14 do C NhS T Y yAW � Epp66pp,g = u +N yg Y�fK�� Y��Vrire a. 6wO.y O CC y o „N'II L.c. Cp nil =V ?fie u�a��yyR c9 �r N~m�u�o ~� ®q Y pY qp �■ 1M1UuE 99s$0$ C.13S Cq 1V�it�i. Y� _ 9 SO JD L`1 4 94 C r w MgVA Y' N a�r a� L' 17.0 A- b+ � �F a $ Ap pqb oaa9Y OZN it $ Y �jy�'�'�!1111MM1t i01V��NC lux ^ Y y• A CS C� � ^o X^O.# CAB OF V L L Yr. 2y yy.L w, qye yyY KYY^ � A +p Ily`Yff w N.u�A ypdN1 `��6' ■r +� • OV �q 4C. CYgV O'� _ C Vp OOH .0 Oen .6 C r eye ■pp r 1�c Y Y Mi MC GT yYM t. LaY YY a KL YM �^9 uyV4M -Il ^ J1C�tlY ty` _PpA�{. g �Y a =4Qa V O LTO•p� Y9y IAl `o Iron A o +q Va% .Y$gQ +L+ap °ta YY. NCV V •` �q/ `. pF T1�� �n C °r Yp,�$��!, 4Cy NOq a�r� y�4t NV �Y?C�p�> ONY LSO � NraQ+$(Yft q ✓� {p6y NoC K 'CC 1q.e`Y Mp OY Gi+” ii 4 Y9v1 PLLL �i.Y 4; H pYp Vy WN W aA SD II.S SV i•OOfV A I 41 °� _ E y14 do C NhS T Y yAW � 9 L Yi U� iv t b ` Cp nil .^- ��C�. �p`i. rN mi OI vAA~ y1_b 4^ III a^ IVY, o t LPL 6 tl�CVy Nis E L Y w+ � S 4 u ,F 9z i �b C� L uS jtti= t1p g V<y�Rgvy a^ ~, `..F Y ey.r 9�lIl �y p..Q y� 1M C w ya^ Cby wp �4t OO 40�W 8 pL Vd NOSY'Y. CV 6i4 49 4� e N' t'fI f U1 19 R WW 1 W J 94 C r w MgVA Y' N a�r a� L' 17.0 A- b+ � �F a $ Ap pqb oaa9Y OZN it $ Y �jy�'�'�!1111MM1t i01V��NC lux ^ Y y• A CS C� � ^o X^O.# CAB OF V L L Yr. 2y yy.L w, qye yyY KYY^ � A +p Ily`Yff w N.u�A ypdN1 `��6' ■r +� • OV �q 4C. CYgV O'� _ C Vp OOH .0 Oen .6 C r eye ■pp r 1�c Y Y Mi MC GT yYM t. LaY YY a KL YM �^9 uyV4M -Il ^ J1C�tlY ty` _PpA�{. g �Y a =4Qa V O LTO•p� Y9y IAl `o Iron A o +q Va% .Y$gQ +L+ap °ta YY. NCV V •` �q/ `. pF T1�� �n C °r Yp,�$��!, 4Cy NOq a�r� y�4t NV �Y?C�p�> ONY LSO � NraQ+$(Yft q ✓� {p6y NoC K 'CC 1q.e`Y Mp OY Gi+” ii 4 Y9v1 PLLL �i.Y 4; H pYp Vy WN W aA SD II.S SV i•OOfV A I 41 °� _ E e 1� F� t, Lz! O z CCyr NOyL t LC 9 ��vy�� D D N N. tli L dM y p T CL TZU yli�. Y I p16 <• O yR yg $Y. iy C g�� C- C 5 {. 6 p ate N Y ^9 C� O •' ,4 CN p W aY N L y Y 2 y C O i 4 ` 60 ga 4 r .2 w Lp NN con ° ■u N� N Y t Y S U V< L Y i r W 4 �y « uu Y D � r b y �+ 2 L P nr g, t.a L A. 0 Sr pY CYO C Lw� w vE V <6N o.-. w act 4 �' ar Paes °woo e i✓ «r` �v 3« xo= 4- �,- 5w a 3 v„ a0yi=- O� O�•wiYL L �M pryl N yam pCp U' ��V.y C �� '.TM O.N .O�Y qy N% �N w�C 2�M �4�yY s4 ME' �4yu O' yw YY cir u Lr... c m y. ` 6N6.t aM <6W Y- _ r ui 1 u g � i r W 4 �y « uu Y D � r b y �+ 2 L P nr g, t.a L A. 0 Sr pY CYO C Lw� w vE V <6N o.-. w act 4 �' ar Paes °woo e i✓ «r` �v 3« xo= 4- �,- 5w a 3 v„ a0yi=- O� O�•wiYL L �M pryl N yam pCp U' ��V.y C �� '.TM O.N .O�Y qy N% �N w�C 2�M �4�yY s4 ME' �4yu O' yw YY cir u Lr... c m y. ` 6N6.t aM <6W Y- _ r ui 1 u g � i g � i Z V 11 5 CD CD a og O N O./ of nu ,X g 9 4 � i r0 } °C may^y Q y V� ° 4? w� . °sue nN i� e 1 p °�4 DYY pvs) f :M•¢ T Y Gw Y ramie.^ 4 50` 'u oR R• �e�wn wy SirY```J 'a"= $ .big T le. Is 9. Y O O Y C' N O ° Y «4 .`�'li �.� Lf�M LYLYLYp ipi U. ' ' 2. � 6.Y .. uuA 4- �gqpp i C_r. N V i b �� _N y. V N `{Oy� YY« « C 4V Y� jtt Vy q� 9C ` SV w b e 2T-i r u � Y« 7 y C b-9 4 L M—C $ �$E 6c 4G 72 zy y SZE �m rrc �T �. (( ■ ■!Q`yy a. }»�NNTE�y y aC ab 25 u+r ..+�' L� E�i`{ .5 =� �.°. y� 4 °ti vi'YnL wai« cr�+8= c✓ .r s u > °'�..s ix'`n �� 15% �. O6 Q.V cn � - °•d�g� a� 8 Ra- AuNZ Yti b A 0 1 DATE: TO: FROM: BY SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT a fir" April 8, 14987 1 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Haner,'Fong, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-03 - DICKER-WARMINGTON - The design is and detaire-q site plan fut, two proposed retail satellite buildings totaling 13,8013 square feet within a 16.3' Acre approved shoppinj center,_,in a Neighborhood. Commercial District of tb'- Terra 'fista Planne4tommunity, located at the northV-,36, corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APM 202-801-26,,27, 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Adtioi, , Requested: 'Approval "of the detailed site plan and elevations,. - B. Surrounding Land Use and 'Zoning: or - Chilacare center. S-9-gle-Family Homes; Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre). South - Vacant, Single-Family Homes; Medium-Residential District (8-14 dwellipq,units per acre), East - New Single-Family Homi•i; Medium-Residential District (8-14 dwelling uni'7 per acre). West - Single-Family Homes; Low-Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). C. General Plan Designations: Froject Site - eig or ood Commercial District North - Medium Density ResidentiaT South - Medium Density Residential East - Medium Density Residential West - Low Density Residential D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes generally from north to south, Vegetation consists of native grass. The northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue is designated as the major Gateway to the Terra Vista Planned Coanunity, which requires a special there and landscaping treatment. ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 87 -03 - DICKER- WARMINGTON April 8, 1987_ Page 2 E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type ;Square Parking Spaces. Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Retail Pad A 7,200 1/1:50 29 29 Retail Pad F ti,600 1/350 27 34 IL. ANALYSIS: J A. General: The project site is part of-the approved Terra Vista Piliage'"shopping center, as shown in Exhibit "C ". The proposed site plan and the elevations are consistent with the approved shopping center. The developer is proposittg to construct Pad A and Pad F concurrent with the construction of the main shopping center. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee {Chitiea, Buller} on March , 1937 reviewed Tr',.: 'proposed project and recommended approval with the following Crnditions: Pad "A ": E 1. The trash encio!,ure ai,ea should be relocated to the middle of the parking area south of the building.. The trash enclosure areu shou'i,,d be plastered to match building material and with a decorative cap. 2. The slope area located at the corner of Valencia Avenue and Haven Avenue, and north of the building, should be terraced with a low decorative wall and provided with landscape treatment emulating the theme at the northeast corner tf Base Line Road and Haven Avenue as shoal 8 Exhibit "02". The purpose is to expose some of the landscape materials which normally would be hidden due to the slope area around Building "A ". 3. The curvilinear gable should be lowered. 4. The west and the north elevation storefront design, tieing exposed to Haven Avenue view, should be subjected to further Committee review prior to plan check. S. Vine pockets, and free standing potted plants shr.Ald be provided within and along arcades to break up the building mass. C [A 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 87-OZ - DICKER4ARMINGTON April 8, 1987 Page 3 Pad "F"• 1. The tower at the corner of Base Line Rcad and Valencia Avenue should be set back farther from the street to relieve 'its massiveness, Pedestrian connections should be provided to this tower as an entrance statement. Staff Comment: However, after reviewing this recommendation, he applicant stated that moving the tower bask would reduce the size .;of the building, the reason being that the tower columns are tied in with thecolumns of the arcade around the building. Staff concurs with the findings and recommends that the corner of Building Pad "F" be cut back to allow additional open area rnderheath the tower, and That greater emphasis be plpced on the development of the pedestrian plaza entry and landscaping at this corner (see Exhibit "010). 2. The east elevation store front design shall be subjQcted t) Further Comkittee review prior to plan check. 3. Vine pockets and free standing potted plants shall be provided within artd along the arcades. 4< The landscape theme at the corner of Base Line Roao -and Haven Avenue should be emulated at the landscape area southwest of building Pad "F ". The developer has submitted revised elevations on April 1, 1987 to show the lowered curvilinear gable and the store front design for Pad "A" (nnrth and west elevation) and Pad "F" (east elevation). Due to time constraints, staff will be forwarding the revised elevations to the next available Design Rpview Committee meeting -for their review. C. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental Cec is ana has determined that no significant adverse impact would result from the development of this proj;!zt. Further, a Negative Declaration has been issued for the taster Plan site area on August 13, 1986. M. FACTS FAR FINDINGS: The proposed project is consistent with the objectives o e General Plan and the Terra Vista Planned Community. The proposed use, building design, site plan, together with the recomaended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Planned Community. The proposed use, together xith the Conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public, health, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicirti:ty. Q -3 ^. PLANNING COMMISSI'OH STAFF REPCI4T OR 87 -03 - OICKER- WARM'INGTON l._! April 8, 1987 Page 4 _. Aft IV. RttiOMFfENO/,'° QN -Staff recommends that the Planning Gaavission .. approve evApmen,Review 87-G'. Repe Ptful ly fitted, Brad Bul er City Planner :x t, BB:NFsns At*- =,chments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization 'Map Exhibit "C" Approveci, Master Plan Exhfoit "D" - DetailedSite Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptun Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual l.andsave Plan Exhibit "G" - Elevations Resolution of Approval with Standard Cor�d-Ytions !f 1 � s^ �1•.r ti 0 wom- TERRA VISTA NNORTH CITY QF T T TEND V RANCHO CL��A.NIO. GA 'TITLE:. PLANNING DIVMCX\T EXHiBin- .soiL� yJ ------ 11 LAD NORTE CITY OF W ANCH C� CT, Tr -A MojNC, �A PL ANNUNG DIVOOLN EXHIBM SCALF,--",_-- Q-6 t4 s r i�' LT `' ftifi � ay� �� '�. .�. t. \c�.c:Yai �. li . °� '} y' .•j ,. x t >_ �' � �������� ;; 'fin,.' ( -• + � n � �'°► tit „ F. �. ( wr wa...r.�•u.au ruYgaxa - •tllptat�tq CWJart .j. $'. tl'� SQi+I i ��, r va. wn SOMM Vb &!A LPIO IR iIY M! i308 - =atiwaw+.wF •�LL���� "a.... artw" vl:)Wa'IVA ell i x m r y jj d. f C Avg- i 6 V i i OOV �.� 1. w•- nil ..A !iriOr.J' WOT T£) S�I"T *fjos� t - I r t�A`yE►� +t r t�'.i�Lic Gi CITY Or. ITEM PLAT N4\G DlVjS,QN E.lNIl31i'- SC�Lii /` \UttT�f (Q-/O i f 4� .. .,a,u a9Y•= ^fh VL A VyY4.. z . \ �, tf y 1 't� �� i .. � � ''� ` ` ffiz: �1'c � 't.q �, i. i� • � - l 1 •� f / x I A. cc ' .� ,mac. \. t t i �e ^^^�(-,,- {�t��� --r rr • } E i .4 `I+ d - t.. rl w «wi ,• •aaoa'rana oa�tiru A. nVd �. • N.MIYf In> •: 30y'T'A VISTA VWJaL SNOIIVA3 ±3 a6183JX3 1 u At Zia rill = w w �+.� MB Bw NOW \.f 0 2 w..ne I n I v w� �. o - rfxpleyy Or?Inr ~ -.V• Otld :: A VLSIA WU31 SNOIIVA313 b01b31X3 I '! °d Y. G I Z A z. k IL gait I � ! 3 � b1j 3� w us w LU T i 3 r4 I Q_,9 F�7 RESOLUTION NO. AOL A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMfONGA PLANNIWGZOMMISSION APPROViN',i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO, 87 -03 FOR T40 RETAIL BUILDING TOTALING 13,800 SQ. FT. LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD & HAVEN AVENUE IN T}iE NEIGHBORHOOD COMiMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA i ?LANNEO CW MUNITY - APN 202- 801 -26, 27. WHEREAS, on the S, t4 of March, 1987, a complete application was k- filed by Dicker - Warmington / roperties for review of the above- described project; and t WHEREAS on the 8th day of April, 1987 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. F NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Plannincu,tormission- resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent -with the objectives of the General Plan a0d Terra Vista Planted Community; and 2. That' the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Planned Community, and the purposes of t{se district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compiiaol- with each of { the applicable provisions of the D J opment Code J and Terra Vista Planned CommuRl�y; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will nut be, detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environmeorand -Mat a Negative Declaration has been issued for the Master Plan (CUP 86 -05) on Aurust 13, 1986. SECTION 3: That Development Revi°w No. 87 -03 is approved subject to the follor. ng conditions and attached Standard Conditions: Resolution No. P OR 87 =03 — Dicker- Warmington: April 8. 1987 Page 2 s PLANNING DIVISION 1. All pertinent Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution 06-119 shall apply. 2. The trash c :!- c>sure area south of Pact "A" shall be relocated to the middle of the parking area south of this building. The trash enclosure area shall be plastered to match building miteria�ls'a,.A with a'decorative cap. _w 3. The slope area located at the .corner of Palencia Avenue and Haven Avenue, and north of t1io building pad "A" shape be terraced with a low decorative' wall and provide -pith landscape treatment emulating the theme at the nor,ineast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue.: Detailedicross sections shall be provided it the landscape and irr"I gatibn and grading for revieW> and approval prior to issi,,Ze of grading pei mi t. ' h.. The curvilinear gable, for both building "A" and "F" shall be lowered vd subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits S. The west and the north elevation storefroau design for building pad W and the East elevation storefront design for building pad "f" shall be subject to Design R &flew Committee review and approval prior to plan check. \ o The southeast corner of building pad "F" shall be cut be, approximatey 8 feet to allow an open area Under tit? tower. Pedestrian connections and amenities shall be`. provided to this area as an entrance statement. Detailed`' design shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to plan check. 7. Vine pockets and free standing potted plants shall be _ Provided within and along the arcades for building pads "A" and "F ". i 8. The landscape theme at the corner of Base Line Road aad Haven Avenue shall be emulated at the landscape area southwest of building pad "F ". 9. All exterior materials, colors, sizes and textures shall match the approved materials and colors for tha Terra Vista Village Shopping Center. A building material sample boated shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance, bvIlding permits. 10. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance { with the approved site plan, which includes architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping and grading on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained therein and the Development Code regulations. i 0-145-- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF R"YCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, ChoTmaa "_ ATTEST• Bilad Butler, Deputy ecrecary I. Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of 0e City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the fov- egging Resolution Was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Ce-Imission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Pla _ng Commission held on the ath day of April, 1987, by tha following veto -to- AYES: COMMISSInNERS: NOES:. COMMISS:.DNEPS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Resolutfon No. OR 87 -03 - Dicker- Warmii;gton April 8, 1987 Page 3 BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION: 1. Ali drainage and site layout shall conform to the approved C06 -0tual grading plan for CUP 8605, 2. Detailed grading plan showing the perimeter and the limits of required on -site improvements such as sufficient imnprovements to establish drainage and; traffic trculation, shall be suc`.Iitted for plan check prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. On -sit storm drain shall be installed and functioning „ prior .a release of building occupancy. 4. Detailed cross sections at all site boundaries for Pad "A" and Pad "F" shall be prcvided for plan c!eck. I ENGINEERING DIVISION ! 1. Conditions of Approval for CUP 86 -05 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86 -119 shall apply. 2. Notice of intenticia to form and /or J(4 n the lighting and landscaping district shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation of the map or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF R"YCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, ChoTmaa "_ ATTEST• Bilad Butler, Deputy ecrecary I. Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of 0e City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the fov- egging Resolution Was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Ce-Imission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Pla _ng Commission held on the ath day of April, 1987, by tha following veto -to- AYES: COMMISSInNERS: NOES:. COMMISS:.DNEPS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C; F v lb� yy ��Y'NNO 4 -O 6G+u tQ ^rte L >.�}y. �,� V�✓w. �. G. L 1 gO Vw 6 Y` 6 c V ^ CY I.■ y O L T 3 Vy 6L �L Yti~ A V Y. ✓ N N� �Q R L �T . 6 y A U - � t q q`� �. - na L ✓ Ce C eL N J�.0 �yY' i+�.YV Gam.✓ �GY OI ^� G�.Y C 7 V Y L L ra --HEN �— r «o6$✓� �ey'✓��r a u ^« cad �"' ^ � "_ 9NM Y k= sE✓�� G�,�^ G��CCqp`� a$�`Y GS�NQ � wwu�T�° pCn'1Y V�nY�O g.0+� ^NFCC a~Y■� N ^ +V 1; 35, E�`CU^N✓�6 �N adY$. O •�yy��Vya M� � NOWe�Y90� �WO CC �✓ .^. «A.l✓� ✓YC 6i Y.✓YJ. V� O\C`i!". «Y �C ^✓Cy ^uO /NAT YSY OMMI �� NV ��.p�a Ogt� �Y� 8✓' O? M O$ 1` G µ y� C yV Coco µ tl y Y aQy Y YCpOa 6 G V w Y 6 Y 6 0• N 1 S O.O H C 3-5 Y (D E o � o o rte° i w 0 Q-19 N 1 W ✓ Y Y�ngiygRCC �s .G N �p}✓i OL .-a ^ M CN r §i SQ �gt� ZS YE`= � Or y 8. ... A` p Y✓� s�N y�„✓V„� V L sqg .Y P ✓ YVN fl J e ``9L o Y G ¢¢L rVC N� _ jjgN. :Zxi J. IS Q-19 N 21-2 -Y�((wL4 =�il�u ^L S�u R O >� �•^ i E, R°^ r i i,.."' s e,t o.Nt a.� �p S iNN N N 6Y. O Y�W.f O Nr. O Y O y��q 1R ! R.�•" CpO S pu 6� ^+ z V ^ 4 Z� ix a �$'y $..: .rYC•Y^ U..$ TdN '>LL Lry a�i ppe j�.S z:: • 3 O n r. Al N Y Y N• Y _ tY L 9 E!-o ' �r YO.EA i`.J ai�CC qU^ ? y L Rqux «g C N«C G `4yt `u~S q0^YYVF cc r� �O YCC ` °�9••Y^ PU.- �Yy�w RG�CC {Y3�io6. Lf .per NODt VSs r.N NN �9 +LY0��6VY FFFONa 9 g y}' C to a. +� rumor oC � ^'�" Y�N ^�i N r --a-, � rL 4_4 LLB Q .*' Z 2 !Y j ZM1 ' .N S G q� Y i 0 t M� C w• C N Y C R V W N YYg y�l C N N ...gp$NpoiYa..a r�y.�$ =Y OY �Ywp� tl,C R� Li �^ C, -C�. r. ^r. yV��ypY Ye j. p��■ yY U-aY 60 >;C-4'lCyEt Yu`G9 YCYL L .G 64l YCC {per,, pNy9 OY t1+Y+y VO u�1 L9 aC�o l C.Li G C N V^ NMNM L t 'L S`NNY•OiO W Y t • 'Y pC ! L +w� N6G JM .�i u,reS N�i �� E >oS�.cEi�waR.N o+�i•'� °otl ="n O C gg Y } Z S g-- u + N rEEY �-• CYy S +Y Y � f � LY. N Cy. n� O r ^^ 'e CSC+ Yq.0 w�Y wu ^t =jS'i =. �'Cr CC bO�uiO NYN,CL C pYL� > 4 V C R a= T Y gx C 6 �"^ • O C�N v so y -moo q: ^�� ■`E 'gp �gCB >� �� •S. o„p s� � _ $ ° d � Y U Y a • � O C � � 1d a r i`. E yy _ OGY Ct^ 4L wG. L��O app }YY ��O�Y uy2va VK ^SV'�t s cd b« 4 est {� tN� � >Ya Egu. +a� q�•�u�ny S° CaN.�'e +{C� ca jo. ry6.,...p J.� ii vLtu tlw Y� Y +C w 1.q vpL=YVV9 4S6 03 ° go� nsg rn y w iS g$"s'�°e NE • 4a +. tw� �FiCC C�fY ev ^fl QOC Tw DO+L-$. Ll ^OfY C tr°N tlLi Y.L OY. ��C�C Ui'+ ..a �.E $ Ra _6 h y E Yy RO yRa Lq RY Lp 4 G.Y V Utl 604 <+OO YCO tiN6 YLY1(� <•O'wa NR� �:Y ��O 6�w�L ^.F ��YU�iCR LC.C. O'•+LY \1 O1 4l p L N. :'aa°i c um �= a° r ec9= �V ^Nrp is LP9-O` LppO L C f.� CY ppOGO�NCC YyiR7 �t�iCFCC C ♦ 4 r✓ a z Z.2 C O! JY q E �O G o 0 6 V O~ 4 .O y Y >'+p i yy C Uiz U: S N6 y dti ✓N Uwa> 73 N,yCy c Y d� y w 4Y .0 C 6 N~ p A+ u {! Y Y K Y L ' VA81. .L Ty6'%p Vj6 Yp yYSwad�p vt2GY k4 ✓ PY �4C� �Z�N ytnc oM n ch i Yp Y��0q.rµµ Ny pp a ♦$t 1 .t3 a y4a♦ �fy�y Cq_> O.ftNY NGG aG. •Yp. q'F yg`vQ4p,Nq 'p MUq YS V4 4 H - .� y i N N �k� r u A 3 .. vy8'Na cj �ea C A O= y YLN �pp r yC "ar RYV p� AQ'd J~ ^q� ✓p rL °N�`` ?� NnnV.VA`.�YI �C b`YC Ts N aVti qO RLf�yt,�A c'�.�✓ °aGw ✓ xuc`�: MYU�. ap �^VgJO p 6 N Y Y4�I; Na4y�Y Y w Y y N a R Lw +i,. L-r F,, r� Er -Z _.� L J Cps i CQIXO L✓q JS .L,=..c u do q✓ O oa�g8`u�Tc'p' 11{� •" G �o� &g T Q pp 2 ,1 ^ L dC O 6� E5 4C H �tl .�'�.f �9� t N dLgYY M q L y r Y� G YNi �Y•^� �yT er r G y N N V, N O Spp CNV'r. ` -R IG'� Gf J.J.q Q O L Y ✓11''0 Cy nNC 99 �vY{ �LN' �C -2 '4 G1•n� i,VQOt. 1166uu9e u± °^N NOCJY"L` �q ='� 4 w L'YTV N`wo L o� ✓�J'LN" p t Y cl� ``°. a$.c ���� Y °9� N sc i- Qa °ca a>.r Y.'°. sew i G ✓i ci . $p Nu° � C ui V � Y O J""6.,Y Yn�YON4gG3 pc� c ^w' q �. ii v��wquui K.r KN =NO h``Nl SN y�r >TwNnO `q4 ri 4. 36N :'aa°i c um �= a° r ec9= �V ^Nrp is `` qp C aO1`7iy q z Z.2 C y pj ✓q� y C�+ E' S 49 ✓N Uwa> #X OSL ` ♦!J �=]F >.✓.O st4 JC ncc�O�_G G ^ �� VA81. .L Ty6'%p Vj6 Yp uG. OqL �. " q ✓ PY �4C� iM �G N�Np�pI OY >pd cp ^'• Y C ✓Y NG LP �fy�y Cq_> O.ftNY NGG aG. Ur y q'F 'p MUq YS �L 4 H - .� y i N N �k� r u A 3 .. 'G ✓t 6 0 p ^� i a 2� C A O= y r yC "ar q` -G � HE AQ'd J~ ^q� ✓p `a °C d� ✓.Ty GqG QS G.O N� CYiv !yLGlO a9.n G: �JW ^qNN pq `sad °aGw ✓ xuc`�: iea ii ag g4'vdi s•✓+ Y 4 °per Yq ✓CI 2 V: C Cps i C MN Gp do �Y✓ d ACL_C EU ✓qp o G.0 M✓ °^ 7� 6� �^ S.y U.)JY {GIVVlN Y.N✓ p({�. L11• Z .510 Sgwm V 64N Y° SU 6O rpO Cw Spp ppG, fjt W. Up.4�L W66�Nrpi4p- it p Q-f f jY { CC a a- .�04 •• cc.r8: awn ° ✓N --I `�."da. s pia wS^ ro,o�i °u ,'•. $I 4« ws c�.� w+ €^ �a T etiu N yMa .p iU uOd N0. y ELLC ai. - pN y^•'E Y y'sd-z= ass CiJ.0 u1N" du _ p Y N °= VV =OI wO 9F 0.L f=iy( . Q b 1 • U'• 4 a� O Y +�� Y L S .�,t E C N 4 U u C 4 4 Y O1 V •+ >•xL Y 6Mtgi. LO O O ^yl • 4� NMaIN ON Z N' EOgN~ S -q0. ;�UC. W Auk GMN6 XY� r Oty U NWT' O l LLNC N g2v ty m c V u d N 7. ° C n N 4^ N a. > >1 L K Y 4 LLJ p°•7u ! .^°�S°...0 ••'u R. N`. °N OCOtf VC ~QA Lp V a. gYG ii.�t {s: e •, e% roc �sto toC U > 6 ic+ S'S dwura4�' �YN NO S O gy��y1 p Y"°" r 4:jW 0 uL •pu Ny E n�q �� t� Ep d ..Q° N?t� Lw u - L{.,tt o 'S� vv�l+1a +' L y r 3 Q S C 9 N `•. L C C 0 ' O qyt t N °^ 4 .Yv jL)f m gLRN N N�N.O. u Yu 9 'g A y LLL CCC u O ':9 tz Itt Qt` � aeyy' �{'1._a hy{�N�_� 9�q 2 M! 4x49 r0. 3LY.I�vf [' r-wa $ Y�. 1�i �o.o' N 4� ^�Q. h y C Ua i qvn 4 AWL dNaQ. -tnn. �gy yP{. T L9 O.0 $ EN c•- uo N .tic aY tint $v�' $'°� v == ° T.c ".� o tan .6 .+ CL r••H � GN N� A0 �.. ay.N 0.(„b e • CUq u��A __T s G$ Y +1+n D ^ O1 Q -+ 4 •. 4 941 A G�Z i$ 6LN �a4i tlTCi a CM A' GVeu U S�t- r _ p Eyy G L N Q L C E - b - 4 4 O N 4 ^ N a O Y W `yL U9 ` d n �1� L ' 20 �9~6 S L Y i d pN- J L �4FdY N 4N.. ouY O y y 4 �a -wag N Y Cy p C C 0t >C 4 .12 .� [ .` C •.r C L Ot N N. C 14, O Y �t c N 3 �c 7F q�9.6 L o`1t9 m` y.GOa 1tW cy pn ic.� -9 QO y� LNG Ot N V t` �CC N C t.9,; y^ cc NV.•t t C h V N m L K t C C L L 6 C ME C C O y 0 Y= E O !^ > U a vafM- =3 ^J1E ii C M 21 d 6yv >a Ctl ^ ip� �.i W d Y Ct�y NC. i OG �L°.a �' :u 3�g.'r -fQ ry +ui.. E CCCC CC cc, �d cc OO L4 ' cT� f..YCVS O.F q ■�ll�l6}Y �' O O U O °' � � +�'1YC^ A� NC `N CN}j�'*DI iyi yd y. w.D +Y li ;w pC N FF D� p O Is UZ ZIA O pp a..W a4 LN V W J P-°°. ��� % $ .. nif v Y p�. ,Y' E e Y °ado {q. �il"� �i fill V �aV. 4 a`-. 't�eHa fit. E 13;[ Al VT J =CZZEN t� .Q CCdl {g!i YC x 1!_Y0 p 6 N wY.p lv ;Za j au CC Yx ov a�� $.- y Yaw N s !pp! ^w DI q q it C pe�l N Y 0 $ �C ■j y h L 6 N y aV IL P�y �� `4r. 7� �w Y ..m. Y yyOgy� vax— g ` L {f1 Y G fu $ w t Yb �� Y'C ypO Oa LN C U.9 l ip p1y5«(, qY CApL N` a 5y �OrV S■ ='N L�YO NAY T SOV Mo,Da F_ >0 ^CC N.t �� �pr��'j1i M`pM E61 hC� 9 �qpG S� $C SG.Q 4�vs6C. �7 w_ 'M'«Or 4 gz O ' �' ^0 OMPL` ^ YY V N ...0 V O St 3^ iQ �� 9e �° �_y cNC6 °�s� .Yi$-` � Das W'N6 v Y q Y W�. •FC+GI YO _O �72 1 00^ +n .S.pt1,q `OI. CL�� ^yMj .q LYL 01 Y. a� q' (Yy.L C^ 1�Exa l %�S Z.1 ON y4,O`�M Ntu L1Cf r'O iq YJYVVV YIn Cl 00 �+�1 W N W V W SS 6 f O G= < M YJ M. VK fC D�1 r < ill .p L� �21 LA Kd OL w Su'iG`4 �dc�g 'ac; �i l x U ow � ..pipp W � ►ifu `w6 a af�wa uai $aLiu'S..- �w i pMCC ppCfai— C Ctlf p��O�pp � iCT �.�� i i aQ -ZeME p9Q L ° NwL C.^ _CP Y <LP a~w C— N .v ' M - t e[ L�' N`p p COL pG O .at �ai —c `u..Cj� Nqv _ v ig'o�?o' 1 2fr0w a M u 5j0 i0' � V S � C' w gab : 'wx �'+ c uK� wa Ya C .6 tag ?i yCU Kw 5 K gwrN 64 6Y N O[ L f*ww N (= b i p ���P" 40 W u 4 �!O Orq O �L O GY i�1 '� Q 0. �L n" Pa[ GGGO►p aY:E: .O o ..c. aa° .Oy — _ k ` �•�' � C o." t i K r f W K«i �q�pQ�Y -"Em's pYN. aL,e o 1C EytL °+ ii NO�Hw %> yp oYYUu L`t iH GC „ �Lpy WLYa1 t. °pCY� Q " "' y 6•' a 4u- - l0 Kd OL w Su'iG`4 �dc�g 'ac; �i l x U ow � eW ►ifu `w6 a af�wa uai $aLiu'S..- �u. i pMCC ppCfai— C Ctlf p��O�pp � iCT �.�� i i aQ -ZeME p9Q L ° NwL C.^ _CP Y <LP a~w C— N .v ' M - t e[ L�' N`p p COL pG O .at �ai —c `u..Cj� Nqv _ v wa Ya C .6 tag ?i yCU Kw 5 K = N (= b i p W u � y K r f W Kd OL rbu Su'iG`4 �dc�g 'ac; �i l yai-i:C ow � ►ifu `w6 a af�wa uai $aLiu'S..- �u. 44 pMCC ppCfai— C Ctlf p��O�pp � iCT �.�� i i aQ -ZeME p9Q L ° NwL C.^ _CP Y <LP a~w C— N .v ' M - t e[ L�' N`p p COL pG O .at �ai —c `u..Cj� Nqv l SI :d.1 a L Y O'L 4� b n pM l Y n 4 N.1 N-0 y,, o y u 1 C L 1 g N u" aQQ L d O� N� k ti erar� W � £ o � 6 f> 1 O C4Cr�i Yi,p y I�.f�+M w G N T LZl= _ t y Y 4•�,.. U „t �.`y,z CC yam'. �. @� yDD. n� -0aN � FVw ! •�. �aa+�� �aM C� Vd ZQ'sy 9LQ �ww� II � Q a6.y 6� CND 4wj AM �i1 s Q« �yy QY p 4y9 VVw b'`�"OR Y {dV.MV 4 Y wyp'N MO q qq 4 L � L L ti. y,.•� � : Yi �A A. p�.,:1i.G' "' 4. SV 4 dOY "O N.LC,L '� »eel.. ► •ri tt 7 4.. u r u� a N K�LL .LqA i Nd o c NL LrO dN >1� `[3 S �z�q a RCN Mu y L ry �.� yq{�T idr'r`yU 5 G� yr C nr y U� Sn!i t_ff t �`4 uu LS oC N� R� i 04 �Ur N n4 ~� qLL» OL nL V} 4w p. pP d 1 �gn4 N RV w� rt�Rr yrty�°� 1Ri t F ^y, HO V .p..q 4U a+ V.L �OlN V at' N NY 1r.. tw nr^ K 1 W »•..•» i+R C R ti`rL- 42's Cy 4 �L>A Twb »ww.F � 1%i rq ibLL. ur a 11 t 1 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 0 11z U cipsE: April 8, 1987 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning CWA�Rfssion FROM: Brad Buller, City Plaaner BY: Nancy Fong,, Associate Partner SUBJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL "-ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-08 WESTERN PROPER1115 - She development of an off zee pal ff ff—nq---5,f—f6—ur Z-story buildings totaling 250,000 square- feet on 16.58 acres of land in, the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of haven Averts; and Town Center Drive - APR 1011-421-06, ,10, rind 09'.' ReU�-ed to this proposed projec-t is a Trae Removal Permit 87-20,,-requestfftg tre removal of two groves of Eucalyptus trer.s' (approximately 56 trees) within the site. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIM: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, Tree KeMOval Permit 87-20, and issuance, of a K1aqative Declaktiol. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: or - Deer Creek Mosa Channel, vacant, attached single 'amity homes; Lx.q-Medium Residential District (4-8 du/ac), Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac); South - Vacant; Community Commercial District; East - Vzcant; Office Park District; West - Virgini&,,Dare Business Center, Brunswick/Deer Creek- Shopping Center; Cleneral Commerci2 1 District C. General Plan Designations., ?-ro-i-e-c-t-STte—.-.-UffTc-e--P-a-rY District North - Low-Medium Density Residential, ►!'-dium Density Residential South - Community Commercial East - Office Park West - ^Zeneral Commercial / PLANNING COMMIMCK STAFF REPORT U ' DR 87 -08 - WESTEF& PROPERTIES April 8, 1981:, Page 2 Site Characteristics,; The site is vacant and sloges, :�gently >>y 4 roe port sou;,;, at approxisRitelw 2 to 3 %. Vegk�tario consists of .native gq' j,_s. Twu groves of So Red Gum Fucaiy�ptu trees exist at' tne dorthwest and southwest corner of the site„ 'to. where the devel.op * /is requc��`�1ng remove them. The two'` corners located 4,f 'tke TowK „Center Drive and Haven Avenue, , Church Street and Haven Avenue= ara desig >;a£ad as secondary \I, gateways to the Ter ;Yista P1p ^P ?.Ca�aunity. E Parking Calculations. No. Of No. Of Type of square Parking Spaces Spaces Use Footage Ratio Required Provided F'ur 2- 5tdiry 250,00G 1/250 1,000 1,000 Office Bldg. .J It, ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed project consists of four 'buildings _ c, us Re r ng around.a central�il�,ndscaped and plaza area;; This central la0scaped area hqp ,,asaenities such as vine covered arbors, water element; seating.areas, and heavy lan4scaping to create a camp'ns like setting. The proposed ele+rations consist of precast. concrete panels with texture treatment, colored mullions and grey vision glass. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Cuitiea, Zolemani reviewea 7cne project on March 19, 1987 and recommended approval of the site plan and the landscape plan with the following conditions which the developer has agreed to: 1. Sidewalk connections pr'ovid d along one side of the ' driveway entrance for each street, should: be strengthened by widening to a 20 foot landscaped . paseo wi th the sidewalk in the middle. 2, within plazas, additional amerit_ies such 3s seating areas to accommodate a larger number of employees, special pavement such as brick pavers, 'bollard lights,, should be provided. 3. Additio,al streat trees should be provided along Haven P)enue, Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, and f, Town Center Drive., E 0 9 L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OP. 87-08 - WESTERN PROPERTIES April 8, 1987 Pages 4. All project entrances should have special landscape treatment which includes multi -trunk trees, annual color, and accent trees. 5. Undulating mounding up to 3h feet and/or low screened wail vilth appropriate shrub massing shall be provided along Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue, to screen parking avers from public view. 6. The triangular shape piece of land located 'at the southeast corner of Church Street and Haven Avenue should be landscaped as part of this. development. 7. The intersections of ?Haven Avenue and Church Street_ Haven Avenue and Toan Center Drive are desig,aiated as secondary gateways into Terra Vista. Therefore, the southeast corner cf Haven and Church Street should rargAvia n similar nz +h;*,I- Y-nnz=A for Tnum n Center Drive. 8. Within parking araas, evergreen canopy shape trees are recomended instead of the Sycamore, Canary Island Pines and Liquidambar trees indicated on the landscape plan. 9. The developer agreed to explore the opportunity to expand landscaping into the Deer Creek Channel right- of-way (similar, to qirginia Dare) to provide for additional landscapinV, C. Architecture: However, the Design Review Committte did nit recommend approve( - of the proposed architectural style. The Committee stated v4at the architecture is indicative 6-r a, mors so,histicated office park development that does not 3vide for transition ar compatibility to this residential development to the north and the future Community Commercial to the tiouth. Tivi Comi ttee stated that a architectural style more reminiscent of residential may be -.,ore appropriate in this Particular site. An example of this are the recently raompleted office buildings in the Laurel Aspen project, In 1982, Lewis Hcines 3ubmitted an office project for'- this site. The original design was for garden offices similar to their existing office project on Mountain Avenue-in Upland. PLANNING COW41SSION STAFF REPORT DR 87 -03 - WESTE'RNjPROPERTIES April 8,; .198 Page 4 nrowjh the Design Review process,; the design became more sophisticated. The Comission -forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City. Counc$l. However, the City Council requested modifications to the project design. The application was withdrawn by Lewis Homes in .},:gust 1982. The cS►rrent proposal was to same extent based upon the comentr, receC. d an their pr1vious.ei- plication. ThQ�Design Review Committee noted that the previous application predated the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The urban, Y sophl'sticated office design encouraged by the overlay district pertains to south of Footnill Boulevard. ` Me developer disagrees with the recommendations of the Committee regarding the architectural style, therefore the Committee recommended that this issue be referred for full Planning Coamission discussion. f L°_. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the env unman cneCKII$t AM determined that the development of this project may have the following adverse impacts: 1. The developmec; of this project.is impacted by road`' noise: A 06,.se s' has been submitted by the developer W provic. for' mitigation measures in addressing 'this adverse impact. According to the Noise Study, the 65 db noise contour which is the acceptable level based on the General Plan for office and commercial (ojects, is zpproximately 100 feet away from the cedtralized plaza landscape area. The Noise Study concluded that no mitigation is required . for reducing outde�r noise while convar:tional construction method for the buildings would4aitigate the interior noise. 2. The removal of approximately 56 mature Eucalyptus trees as shown in Exhioit D. The developer will be required to plant replacement trees. With the above mitigation measures being conditioned and added to the development of this project, staff has determined that there will not be signiff,eak adverse impact in this case. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. PLANK K4 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OR 87 -08 RESTERN PROPERTIES April 8, 1987 Page 5 \\ ); III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Punning Commission``to approve 's Prrolec£, facts to support the folTowing ingfngs mu'.t. be made; I. That tl,e proposed prD�act is consistent �'th the objectives of the General Plan and the Tel -�'d Vista Planned Community; ant' 2. Thd,t the proposed use, building design, site ;plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval are Io compliance with each of the appiica�, 2rovisns of the Developrtant Lade and Terra Vista" lanned Community; and 3. That the proposed use, together with conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the Public health, safety & welfare, or materially Injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider aiTfinP —R: egard€ng this projector If the Planning Commission conctrs with; tf!e itesign Review 4ormittee recommendation that the propcsef architectural style does not provide the transition or compa ;tibflity to the two adjacent land uses, then the applicant should be direct d to go back to Design Review Committee with new architectural concepts. If the Commission feels that the proposed elevations are appropriate then a Resolution of Approval will oe prepared for your next agenda. Ris ectfu11 submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF;sgr r Attachments; Exhibit "A" Location Rap Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Ulm p Exhibit °C" - !Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D° - COE!0tutuai Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Concvptual Landscape Flan Exhibit - Elevations A: lawq. � i'..rar• . 01', T. ;ITILIZATIOU AM NATURAL ZZATUREL VXA TENTATIVE PARCEL N0.300547 zoos" or a =.=A'' ►A�C;i "Fucr. OU 15" u 1ORTH CITY OF ITEN1: PLANNING DIVISION' EXHIBIT... JI t ARLA ULlwLturt.,i.oi rLON y �7 IN INS. OW W tAACt@77lCAMOMOA 4 eoultly ®r tru+ [I�t}n�twoaFprc or eAUro�nu, i 19ARCU. JA/OMtY 1901 It.$ ACSUAROU ILL1149 ACt" NIT i 1 r � i ._L_•J � �._ ( (jFaj� J i • s� 'f� � 4 v j . &L � i S r ,Ai11117, VACANT 2AISTtnl VMIMA20 NORTH CITE'' O RANCHO 0,UC k,LvlDNGA TITLE: 1tlOd4 PL.a ?vt1G DIVISION EYNIMT- SC -kLC: z t i r. f t it co Iv e �r ILI - } y 16! S I; ,l ( f v ""'-� 1 . f % •�+ a yi ;, . ylf {.'. ul t kti xA S , AF put 'i . ' ` y sme ; t ► - ✓✓� 3 "fir ; 0701 -02 o4-8-87 PC Agenda 7 r %t • I` ie. -1 i. :1 � mil. ./��, "~ i iii • H � � � S':f �'i � � � t,.. c 1 it Boo 7 sU -MIA hill 0 N R it r r� i k Y } a Q �i m i 9 n x , A I r� t4 7 t e d + i �• e p n a fA Ln f i ell L.N. SECTION € ®uicmNa eNnr .� •.,,, SECTION G wiDal,FuNO,scs.IOLA ..y NORTH CITY OF ITEND RANCHO CUC'kylo,NG A TITLE:*iA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIRIT- SCALE. �. �» � / \ \ \ : � ^ cc R-/14 \ \� . w � 0 E DATE: TO: PROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA STAFF REPORT o � April B, 1957 1977 Gliairman and Memners of the Planning cottmission Brad.Sul.er, City Planner Rubin Yu, Associate Planner PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR A HIGH SCHOOL SITE IN VICTORIA - ' Pursuant "To- Stat-e aw7lZdUruaffon Code 3 9iJ , the Gnat fey Ockint Union High School District requests the Planning Coathmission to cowent on a proposed High School site located on the northwest corner of future Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue. I. ABSTRACT: This report provides general information aoout the prop -" ose"d high school site and identifies the major concerns and potential problems with the site. The Commfission will be asked to make recommendations to the Chaffey Joint Union Nigh School District. II. BACKOROWIR: On March 11, 1987, the Chaffey Joint Union High School s roc informed the City of its intent: to acquire a high school site in Victoria. State Law (Education Code Section 39004) requires school districts to notify the City's Planning Commission before acquiring property for a new school site. The City does not have jurisdiction over approval or denial of the site selection. However, the City Planning Commission is autnorixed to submit recommendations to the school district for their consideration. Such recommendations must be made within thirty (30) days." Following receipt of the City's recommendation, the final decision on the acquisition is made by the governing hoard of the School District. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site consists of 40 acres located an a souznwesr corner of the future Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue. The site is comprised of three parcels (APN 227- 011 -08, Z?7- 011 -10, 227- 01111) (see Exhibit "A "). ITEM S The site and the: surrounding property are %acant and slope approximately 4 percent from north to south. The surrounding property of the proposed school site is planned for flood control (Day Creak) to the east, school -park tq the south, and residential to the v rth and west. IV. ISSUES /ANALYSIS: The subject site is adega,ite in for a high school. Staff;—however. is concerned with the location relating to traffic, access, and the impact on Victoria Park Lane'.. I The proposed high school will generate substantial traffic in the area. (Approximately 3000 vePicular trips per day). Such large volume of traffic will put a''heavy burden on the local streets. Victoria Park Lane _is designed for residential neighborhood traffic only and it �itll --iat have the capacity to handle high school traffic. Direct access to the proposed high school site from Victoria Park Lane should be avoided. Rochester Ave<<ue is planned as a major arterial. Direct access to the high school frog Rochester Avenue would slow down and interfere with the traffic flow and consequently, co-eate potential traffic hazards. In view of these, the proposed school site should be accessed from a street along the northern property line. This can be accomplished by realignment of the future east entry road to connect the said street along the northern property line. There is an elementary school /park site planned south of the proposed high school site and Victoria`Park Lane. The traffic and circulation design for the high school should consider the safety for the elementary school students and neighborhood children. A complete separation of the high school and elementary /park traffic should be considered. is P + PLANNING CO :44ISSION STAFF REPORT al, PROPERTY ACQUISITION - SCHOOL SITE April 8, 1987 Page i. f The property is general �pianned for a Junior Nigh School and Low- I Medium (4 -8 dwelling units /acre). The western half of the site (20 acres) is within t)►e Victoria planning' area (Low- Medium designation). The eastern half is also designated as Law- Mediwn j (4-8 dwelling units /acre) by the Development Code. The General 'r- Plan designates a high school site for the area is located about a } mile northwest of the subject site at Milliken and Highland (see J Exhibit "B "). However, proposed school site designations on the General Plan are not considered to be site specific. Rather, they are. "floating ", and identify the general vicinity based on projected need and rservice area. The school district has the - authority to make the final site decision based on land availability in the area. The site and the: surrounding property are %acant and slope approximately 4 percent from north to south. The surrounding property of the proposed school site is planned for flood control (Day Creak) to the east, school -park tq the south, and residential to the v rth and west. IV. ISSUES /ANALYSIS: The subject site is adega,ite in for a high school. Staff;—however. is concerned with the location relating to traffic, access, and the impact on Victoria Park Lane'.. I The proposed high school will generate substantial traffic in the area. (Approximately 3000 vePicular trips per day). Such large volume of traffic will put a''heavy burden on the local streets. Victoria Park Lane _is designed for residential neighborhood traffic only and it �itll --iat have the capacity to handle high school traffic. Direct access to the proposed high school site from Victoria Park Lane should be avoided. Rochester Ave<<ue is planned as a major arterial. Direct access to the high school frog Rochester Avenue would slow down and interfere with the traffic flow and consequently, co-eate potential traffic hazards. In view of these, the proposed school site should be accessed from a street along the northern property line. This can be accomplished by realignment of the future east entry road to connect the said street along the northern property line. There is an elementary school /park site planned south of the proposed high school site and Victoria`Park Lane. The traffic and circulation design for the high school should consider the safety for the elementary school students and neighborhood children. A complete separation of the high school and elementary /park traffic should be considered. is P PLANNING COMIS ON STAFF REPORT PROPERTY ACQUISITION - SCHOOL SITE April 8, 198 Page 3 ` J1� In addition to 1phe proceeding_ 'concerns, a,4e ;proposed highi,�, school would require an Mendment,_of the City's General Flan froA Junior High School and Low- Medium Residential -,to High School. however, due to the time limitation (planning Commission has to make, recommendations on the school site by April 10, 1987), such amendwent has<,to be made aL an appropriate time later. Y. RECD NDA73M: It is,recommended that the Commission review the proposal„ a4 staff to forward appropriate comments to the Chaffey 'Joint Union High School District. Should V& District '1 ,proceed with the acquisition and /or"'placement of temporary blji l di ngs, the Commi ssi on'3houl d request that the City be given the opportunity to review and comment on the site plan, architectural design and off -Site improvements to assure compatibility with surrounding developeent and improvement standards. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RY:te Attachments, - Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Letter from Chaff Joint Union High School District icuionoa L Pane . i lli-7 F, ! E 4lIS s w. 4 y,, PAOPOSED HIGH SCHOOL SITE CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: A SCALE: I] k A-4-"V- CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE: S-so CHAFFEY UNOONy: HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SFREEF. ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91762 -1698 a (714)988.8611' C3 O ca SupennWW*nt of Schools As=ate Supenntendent Assmant supeen Mike M Dirhean AdmewrarioNPer(�nnel UsuucRan Dean E. Smoftyn Bottr8. Harrison BOARD OF'f RUSTEES Kathleen E. Kmley • Bid C. Mamn . Rayr and ,I. Sarno • Charles J. UhaNey Gagkf W tacit Crl 0-li Pi0�1JC ,—,,1701`JGA ,Karen 11 1487 Brad Bueller• City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P.O. Box 807` R.,ncho Cucamonga, CA 41730 RE: New high school site in Rancho Cucamonga We are moving forward on our purchase of the forty acres south of Highland Avenue on Rochester Avenue. Pursuant Educatibn Code 34004, we request a written. report from Planning Commission concering this site. In your report -, Please give us your recommendations if any, regarding our aquisition of the site. In a prior letter, I sent you a map indicating the location of the site. For more exact identification - -the forty acres is comprised of these three parcels: APN 227 - 011 -08 (south 20 acres) 'APR 227 - 011 -10 APN 227 - 011 -11 We are looking forwar& to working with you in the development of this new site. Sincerely, *L P povZ= STEPHEN L. BUTTERS Director Business Services a7' SCHOOLS. ALTA LOMA . CHAFFEY ADULT EDUCATION,,. CHAFFEY . DOMINGA.. EPWANDA .. MONiCLAIR • ONTARIO • UPLAND . VALLEY VIEW 3 r ' t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t STAFF` REPO ' e6Pf', " ;j L E DATE: April 8, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director BY: SUBJECT: Olen Jones, Redevelopment Analyst I. BACKGROUND: The City Council and Redevelopment Agency have initiated Amendment No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project. The primary objectives of the Project Amendment are to clarify and better define the list of public improvements and facilities which the Agency would be authorized to provide and "to increase the amount of tax increment which the Agency may collect to finance the Project. Additionally, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was prepared on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The Initial Study indicated that environmental impacts could result from the amended project. Since an Environmental Impact Report was prepared at the time the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project was originally adopted in 1981, it was determined that a supplement to the original document would be sufficient to analyze the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. As a result, a Supplement to the Evnironmental Impact Report has been prepared and is currently being circulated for review and comment. II. ANALYSIS: The Redevelopment Plan is not a specific plan for develtpment of the Project Area. The Plan does not, for example, indicate on a parcel -by- parcel basis the specific uses or developments the Agency will encourage. Rather, the Plan is authorizing .document which allows the Agency to utilize a variety of financing and implementation tools to promote development in the Project Area in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan. The Plan does not supplant the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance anC does not alter any of their requirements. Furthermore, Section 311 of the Plan indicates that the proposed land uses as described in the Redevelopment Plan conform to the General Plan and also conform to existing specific and Community Plans which have been adopted for certain portions of the Project Area. ITEM T ik,, PLANNING COM,41SSION STAFV REPORT Amendment No. I tothe Redevelopment Plan April $,1,1987 Page 2 The Supplemental Environmental impact Report is Tjw- - 11, being presented to the Commission for review. I 4(s myOrt addresses only the projects proposed by the Anendment (Foot;all BouleXard improvements and community/cultural facilities) and has identified the following areas of potential impact. Specific environmental reviews will be prepared for each project at the time of construction. 1. Traffic and Circulation. Construction of cultural /community Tacili Te-s-m—ay generate adaitional'traffic. 2. Noise. Construction of cultural /community facilities may generate additional noise. 3. Public Services, Impacts of the Amendment upon public services hod 1sate that careful coordination of construction activities will neeo to be maintained with police and fire services. No *direct Impacts to school services are foreseen. An increase in City maintenance costs Will- result from the construction of community/cultural faciliti6s and Foothill Boulevard improvements. 4. Light and Glare. Construction of cul turai /community facilities may generate ndditlonal light and glare due to increased street and parking lights.' 3. Visual Effects. Aesthetic improvements to Foothill Boulevard will render the corridor more attractive. The Report also indicates that careful coasideration of aesthetics will be required in the development of new Public Facilities. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment excludes the use of eminent domain for acquisition of properties within either the Terra Vista Manned Community or the Victoria Planned Community which does not border on the dedicated right-of-Way line of Foothill Boulevard. Further review by staff indicates that this language should be changed to exempt only those residentially zoned properties within the Planned Communities. This change will exempt the new housing being built in these two Planned Communities, yet allow the Agency the flexibility (should it be needed) to address commercial/industrial development. The ittached Resolution indicates that the Planning Commission affirms its consideration of.teh content of the Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report when making its findings on General Plan conformity and making its recommendations to the Agency. 'L' "Oft El PLANNING CCTMMISSION STAR REPORT Amendment No.l to the Redevelopment Plan A pnl 8,1587 Page 3 :11. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Modify ,Section (201) c. to read aa`,,follows: The real, property is included within either the Terra Vista Planned Community or the Victoria Planned ,Community and is planned for residential development. 2. Adopt the attached Resolutions which recommends to the Rancho Cucamonga. Redevelopment, Agency that the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project Amendment No. 1 be approved (with the recommenced change) and affirming the review of the Redevelopment Plan" Mendment No. 1 and the Supplerrant to the': Environmental Impa Report, finding them to he in conformance with` the City's General��-Ian. Re&re tful ly H4 itted, ,lack Lam, A1CP. Community Development Director JL /OJ /kap Attachments: Resolution Rancho Redevelopment Project Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 1 Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Redevelopment Project. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1387 TO: Chairman and Memhers of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner 0 1'z Ul > 1977 SUBJECT: FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY: A presentation of Tffe araR Specific p►an or a oothill Boulevard Corridor with a brief description of the plan formulation process and its general policy direction. The purpose of *rnis presentation is to introduce the Planning Commission to the status of the project and to establish further review format and public hearing schedule. I. ABSTRACT: This report outlines the process for the development of aura specific plan for the Foothill Corridor. Noted' a;,e the main components of the document avid significant policy issues. The purpose of this item is to familiarize the Planning Commission th the overall scope of the plan and to set a date fir its puolT:. hearing review. II. BACK.CROUR): As the Planning Commission is aware, the City in mid I9S6 yen an extensive study to evaluate the development p­`.w ntial of the Foothill Boulevard ,orridor. The ultimate goal of this plan is to provide a balanceL and unified plan of development along Foothill Boulevard by taking advantage of opportunities in future community growth to result in the best possiole development. Alsa, to this end the City established the Interim Policies, to ,iroiect the integrity of the ultimate Specific Plan and to allow the time necessary to formulate the Specific Plan for the corridor. The study was initiaftd by the selection of a study consultant Forma /Planning Network and the formation of a study group which included the consultants, planning staff and a Council appointed Advisory Committee (Exhibit °1°). III.. PROCESS: The study began in June of 1986 with a series of four neig or ood meetings which were scheduled solely to receive input from citizens regarding the potentials and problems within the corridor area. The information gathered resulted in a background report which set the basis for the initial consultant recommendations for the Specific Plan, ITEM U PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOOTHILL BLVD. SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY April 8, 1587 Page 2 In July, 1986 the Advisory Committee began a series of working meetings to review the result of the bacgground studies and consultant recommendations for the draft plan. The public was invited to these wetingE and opportunities were made available for additiorsl public coWent. During a ten month per, ending on March 27, 1987, the Committee advised the staff and the consultant on plan proposals and their direction is reflected in the draft` document. The draft„ document you will be reviewing contains most all of the initial., consultant proposals with all: ,Rrnate Committee recommendations a6te0 in the script. This format dill enable the Planning Commissi',r., to follow the process the deft plan went through to result ft, ,tile recommended text. The next step is for the "baton to be passed" to the Planning Commission for formal public hearings. Ultimately, the Commission recomnendatiokC on the proposed plan will be submitted to the City Council for a&ption. The environmental review process began in February with the mailing of a notice of preparation to interested agencies. The consultant anticipates the draft and Environmental 'Impact Report will be completed in Agri 1. IV. DRAFT PLAN OVERVIEW: The Plan's Development Standards have evolved from three s-i-9-n-ffTcant policy recommendations by the Advisor) Committee. These key policy areas are: (1) Community Design, (2) Land Use and Economic Viability, and (3) Traffic and Circulation. The emphasis within each category is as Tollov/;e 1. Community Design: The Committee expressed a strong esire to crea e a distinct and high quality community identity for the Corridor. This is implemented in detailed Development Standards and stated in the Community Design Goal. "Create a community design image that expresses and enhances the unique ° character and identity of Rancho Cucamonga." Towards this end t.:2rr are provisions for the following: a. Special gateway elements at entrances to the City. b. Recognition of key existing community-,features which are used in the Plan to establish architectural "character determinants "' for special areas. c. Establishing individual design standards for key intersections within the Corridor. d. Providing suggested materials palette to encourage architecture designs which will be compatible with a range of historical styles within the Community. r .}l PLANNI;ACf 'COMMISSION STAFF REPORT POT_'rtILL BLVD, SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY April 8, 1987 Page 3 lip 2, Land Use and Economic Viability: The Committee is p ac ng s gong emphasis on increasing the commercial viability of Foothill Boulevard as a regional attraction. To promote this goal, additional commercial and related activities have been planned for by ingreasing the commercially zoned land within the Cov!ridor. Further towards this end, a special use designation, Regional Related Commercial, has been included in the Etiwanda area to complement the Regional Mall and take advantage of the 1 -15 Freeway exposure. Special Commercial districts have been included to provide special standards to encourage uses which will work well with unique development goals of key community features, i.e. Thomas Brothers Winery. 3. Traffic and Circulation: Finally, the Committee recognized the need for thi development of an integrated traffic control system. The Plan calls for median islands along the entire length of the Boulevard, l identifies locations of median breaks and signals and implements an access policy for mid' block location,. These provisions are to help "develop a circulation system which facilitates the efficient and safe vehicular f / and pedestrian traffic and enhances the Community Design ` character along Foothill Boulevard." The plan consultant, Forma, will present a gener l summary of the significant issues which surfaced during the Committee's deliberation and influenced the plan's direction. A significant area of Committee concern was the inability to include the section of Foothill Boulevard between Deer Creek and the i -15 Freeway id the plan provisions.. The Committee requested_ that a recommendation to include the "missing" section be sent to the City Council. Finally, on April 1, :987 the City Council received a copy of the draft plan and reviewed the progress of the project. While not commenting on any specific policy direction, the following suggestions were presenteA -, 1. The plan should be easy to read, clear as to what should be accomplished and its format should "sell" the ideas' contained in it to the reader. 2. Traffic is a serious concern and the plan should include as much as possible to deal with the problems and not is stop short of adequate solutions. U-3 PLANNING COVMIi SION STAFF REPORT FOOTHILL BLVD. SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY April 8, 1987 Page 4 3. The planning Commission has the City founcii's support and encouragement to1Aevelop the best possible plan for Foothill Boulevard. V. RECOWrzNDATION: It is recommended the Planningtowission 'set a puMIC nearIng for consideration of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at a special meeting on April 30, 1987, -or other appropriate date. - - l Additionally, staff wound like to thank the Advisory Committee for its valuable input in the process and bring the diligent efforts of each,,,member to the attention of the Planning Commission. Members of the Advisory Comittee have been invited to this meeting and may s, wish to brie €iy 4.ddress the Commission. R ectf 11 b ` s Brad Buller City Planner f BB:OK:AN:sgr Attachments,'-'Exhibit 1 -- Foothill Boulevard Advisory Committee Draft Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - Under Separate Cover * Participated in 1986 V — ,r Exhibit 1 ,_F1t'1TgTT.T $(})YF.F.V�St CSiF'�" Tf' AY.71 "' +�*M ADVISOU CAMK:ETTE fay -1985 - March 1987 Zuzaune Chitiea Linda Eddy John Molt' I Tom 'Kohl j Gary Mitchell Paul Saidana -, E Jaff ScerankA Deborah Broxnk f Lynne Kraus* * Participated in 1986 V —