Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1988/10/26 - Agenda Packet
t , wg 701-02 0 10-26-88 PG Agenda 1 � o CrrV OF RANCHO CVC 1 GA. FTLANNINU CCMMLgSK�I Slink WEDNESDAY October 26, 1988 7.00 p.m, LILINS PARS COMMUNITY CENTgR 818113ASS LINE RANCHO CUCAiAONGA, ,-- ALIFORNIA L Pledge of Alkqoance IL Boll Lull Commissioner Blakesley� Commissioner Emerick Commissioner Chitiea " Commissioner Mc Rel Commissioner Tolstoy III. Announeemen IV Approval of Minutes I V Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar i 4 0I lk �+ �1 I MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (MEA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR FOR THE RANCiIO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PL&N TZCHNICAL UPDATE _,- CI"Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A comp ,-ehensive '.study to ' identify the environmental characteristics and constraints of the General. PJ in area. As an MEA, the document will provide a ceatrek+ source of eurmnt environmental information ti, assist in ides -A Eying long rw ge,, areawide, and cumulative impacts opt 2,.lvidual projec�a proposed in the General Plan area. (Continued from September, 28, I99i8w) C. GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The project is the pren:;,ration, review, and adoption of a Technical update of the General Plan consisting of statistical information and implementation measures, and revisions to the Community Design section of the land Use ` and Development Element. (Continued from September 28, 1988.) D. ENVIRONMEfi -TAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AML.rfDMEN 88 -07 - CITT OD RANCHO CUCAMONGA- An amendment to Tine 17, Chapter 17,04, of the ]Iancho Cucamonga Municipal Cote permitting the use of on- street parking for model home sales offices meeting cerye'un criteria. E. FNVI OI DENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -1ji, - ADGER --The request to establish 15 - 4 additt Wi mobmobffe home spaces to an existing mobile home park an 27.7 acres, located in the Low - Medium Residential Distri:t (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) on Base Line Road, 660 feet w est of Haven Avenue - APN; 202- 201 -63, 51, E F. EN ,1RONMENTx `, ASSESSMLNT ANN I MISTRIAL SPECIFIC 'PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -02 - O'DONNELL ARMSTRONG, BRIGHAM, AND PARTNERS - A request to amend ttie Industrial Specific Plan modifying the location of ra:t spurs on a 131 acre parcel within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial Designation (Subarea. 9) located on the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue - APN: 229 - 111 -23. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVEL'.)PMENT . DISTRICT AMENDMENT 8947'"x' WK SO DEVELOPMENTS, INC. - A request to pre -zone approximately 53 acres of vacant land located at the ,(southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street to Law r Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APNs 225- 082 -01, H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGit E ENV` , J13 - AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS. INC A request to,;;' approve a development agreement for approximately ;53 acres of vacant land located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street AP& 225-082-01. L DEVELOP':ZNT AGREEMENT 83 -01 - HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS - A request by the City to amend Section 18, Maintenance Guaranty, of an existing Development Agreement for the senior housing project located on Lomita Court west of Archibald Avenue- APN: 202 - 151 -34. J. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 85 -01 RUDOLPH HENDRICKSON SENIOR APARTMENTS - A request by the City to amend Section 22, Maintenance Guaranty, of an existing dt zinnment agreement for the senior housing project located on the west side of Amethyst Avenue, north of 19th Street - APN 201- 232 -24. . K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88 -04 PRE -ZONE - CARYN COMPANY ETIWANDA HIGHLAdDS - A request to pre - zone approximately 282 acres o land located at the northeast corner of 24th Stree} (Summit Avenue) and Wardman Bullock Road to Planned Community - APN: 226 - 082 -16, 24 -27. L. - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 89-02 - CARYN COMPANY - A request to approve a development agreement for the Etiwanda Highlands Planned Community cons( `ag of approximately 546 dwelling units on about 282 acre if vacant land located at the northeast corner of 24t,, ;-Street (Summit Avenue) and Wardman Bull** Road - APN: 226 - 082 -16, 24 -27.. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-35 TURN -? - A request for a "blanket" permit to allow administrative and office uses within an existing industrial complex located at 9375 Archibald in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. APN: 210- 072 -47 and 43. (Continued from October 12, 1988.) N. VARIANCE 88 -22 - LEWY ,HOMES - A request to increase the maximum height of t'rea- standing light standards from 15 feet up to 30 feet in Terra Vista Town Center located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Punned Community -APN; 1077- 421 --05.- VIL Old Business 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88 -10 - DIVERSIFIED - The development of Phase in of a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland Avenues - APN: 201- 271 -65 and 71. (Continued from August 24, 1988) P. MINOR,` ) EVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-71 COMMERCIAL CARRTI ?r INC 41 appeal. of the Conditions of Approval or the✓ ,rat I—a nd paving of approximately 12 acres of land for ap ers sting site within the Minimum. Impact /Heavy Industt al District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Specific Plan, locate,! on the e%uth side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APN: 200-143 -7, 8, and 9. ( continued from October :,z, 1988) VIiL New Business r Q. EN H ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RRFj IEEW 88 =14 - NI£ ARCHITECTS The development of an automc .ve and light truck repair center totaling 33,238. - square feet on 2.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 8th Street - AP14: 209- 031 -78. R. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-04 - IRNEY- THEODOROU - Arehiteeturel 'revisions to two th a story buildings within an approv d 11 26 acre Master Plan development nonsisting of 8 bull ings totalling 165,700 square feet in the Industrial Park and � aven Avenue Overlap DlstrictL:. located at the southeast cot er of Haven avenue -qnd,;Arrow Route - APNt 209- 142 -17. M. Dimetor% Reports S. POLICIES REGARDING TRAIL ACCESS AND CORRAL SIZE Oral Report _ ,. S. Com ®isaioe Busineas XL Pubiie Comments This is the -time and place for the jeneral public tit address the Commsssoon, Itema to b3 discussed here are these which do :got already;appear on this agsnda. F^ XIL Adjovmmcat The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go bgond that tima, the- shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. f I -- r„ a euaNOnt. -evasn eounrr a¢olopu »irN ~ CN�4R10 INIQRpaI1QNAL aIRfORf ` Crry OF RANC140 CUCA"" i ;r )ESUG)VING HANDBOOK 1981 APPLICATION VOLUME F expressed as a ratio of maximum -to- minimum levels on the sign face —that area enclosed within' the border line. A uniformity ratio of 6 to I -is recommended as an acceptable ratio, Lower ra- tios providing more even illuminance will pro- duce a more pleasing appearance and a more legible sign. Location of Luminaires. Luminaires may be located at either the top or bottom of the sign, remotely from ground level, or from adjacent lighting standards or poles. A study of the sur- round at any given installation may dictate which location is best suited for that installation, Most highway authorities recommend locating lumi- naires at the bottom of the sign. General considerations for the source location are as follows: 1. Top mounted sources (a) Snow will not collect on the cover. (b) Luminaires will not hide the message. (c) Glare of source is partly shielded from op- posing traffic. (d) Reflected source may produce glare. (e) Luminaires may produce daytime shadows, 2. Bottom mounted sources (a) Refle - ^ed source will not produce glare. (b) Luminaires may hide message fron:I some viewing angles. (c) Cover will collect snow and dirt, (d) May cause direct glare to traffic approaching from opposite direction by spill light under . sign — unless shielded. (e) No daytime shadows produced by luminaire. 3. Ground or remote located sources (a) Requires a carefully controlled light source. (b) May produce glare if not properly shielded. (c) Location is prone to vandalism. PARKING FACILITIES LIGHTING° Objectives. From the standpoints of traffic safety; protection against assault, theft and van- dalism; convenience and comfort to the user, and in many instances, for business attraction, ade- quate parking facility lighting is vital in today's motorized society. A well- lighted parking facility provides safety and security for the public. Illumination Requirements. The illumina- tion requirements of a parking facility depend on the type of usage the facility receives. For open area parking three levels of activity, have been established and are defined as High, Medium and Lour. These levels reflect both traffic density PARKING FACILITIES 14 -23 and intensity and are described by the following exiiinples: , High .'.ctiivity: I : Major league athletic events Major cultural or civic events Majo • regional shopping centers Medium Activity. Fast food facilities Area'shopping centers Hospital parking areas Transportation parking (airports, etc.) Culturil, civic or recreational events Residential complex parking Low Activity: ^Local merchant parking Industrial employee parking Educational facility parking Illuminance values shocm in Fig. 14 -18 are maintained average values for vehicular areas with uniformity ratios as shown. Also shown are minimum safety values for areas used by pedes- trians. If additional illumination is needed for pedestrian security and identification at a dis- tance, use appropriate maintained average values in the final columns. In open parking facilities exits, entrances, load - ing zones, pedestrian crossings and collector lanes should be given special consideration to permit ready identification and to aid in provid- uIg safety: The entrance area of a covered parking facility is defined as the portal or physical entrance to the covered portion of the parking structure and 15 meters (50 feet] beyond the edge of the cov- ering into the structure. Control of Ligzt and Brightness. For all parking facilities' care should be taken in aiming lighting equipment to limit spill light and exces- sive glare to adjacent private and public prop. erty. The type of source used for parking facility lighting will depend upon the color of light de- sired, light control capabilities, maintenance characteristics and economics. Poles should be spaced to permit sufficient overlapping of adjacent beams to minimize harsh shadows and avoid dark pockets throughout the area. The lighting design should provide uniform illuminance at the facility as prescribed by the uniformity ratio of average illuminance to mir- mum illuminance. Energy Management. From the standpoint of energy management it may be desirable to reduce the lighting levels in certain parking fa- cilities during periods of reduced activity. For example, during peak traffic periods at stadiums -.r i !i 1424 ROADWAYLIGHTING ieas.LIGHTING ;ca+4 OBUUME Fig. 14 -18. Recommended Maintained Illuminances for Open and Covered Parking Facilities Open Parking Facilities For Vehicular Traffic For Pedestrian Safety For Padestrlan Secutity Level of Activity Footcan- Lux' Uniformity Lux— FF Footcan- Lux. Footcan- Uniformity dies* nelo dies— dies' Ratio Low activity 5 015' 4:1 2 0.2 9 0.8 5:1 Medium activity, 11 1 31 a 0.6 22 2 5:1 t High activity 22 2 3:1 10 0.9 43 4 571 Covered Parking Facilities Day Night Areas l.ux••• Foolcandles••' Lux* Footcandfas• General parking. and pedestrian areas 54 5 54 5 Ramps and comers 1.10 10 - 54 5 Entrance areas 540 50 54 5 Stairways and lobbys (refer to Fig. 2-2) • Average on pavement ' • Minimum on pavement • • • Average on payment —sum of electric fighting and daylight the "High" activity lighting levelu may be re- quired, but whale the game is being played or during hours of reduced activity the "Medium' or "Low" activity lighting levels may be ade- quate. ROADWAY ILLUMINATION DATA AND CALCULATIONS The following is an example of a simple and straightforward calculation procedure to deter - mine average illuminance and illuminance at a specific point on a roadway. For a detailed treat- ment of the subject, including calculations for high -mast and pedestrian walkway lighting, the reader is referred to Reference 1. Determination of Average Illuminance The average illuminance over a large pave- ment area in terms of lux (footeendles) may be calculated by means of a "utilization curve" of the type shown in Fig. 14 -19. Utilization Curves. Utilization curves, avail- able for various types of luminaires, afford a practical method for the determination of aver- age illuminance over the roadway surface where lamp size, mounting heights, width of roadway, overhang and spacing between luminaires are known or assumed. Conversely, the desired spac- ing or any other unknown factor may readily be determined if the other factors are given. The Coefficient of I>tilizatien, as shown in Fig. 14 -19, is the percentage of rated lamp lumens which will fall rn either of two strip -like areas of infinite length, one extending in front of the lummah a (street side), and the other behind the luminaire (house side), when the luminaire is p level and oriented over the roadway in a manner equivalent to that in which it was tested. Since roadway width is expressed in terms of a ratio of lutninaire mounting height to roadway width, the term has no dimensions. Light Loss Factosa. There are a number of causes of light loss. They are listed on page 4 -21. For each cause, a factor can be determined. All » individual factors can be multiplied together to obtain one total light loss factor. Some factors, ) usually due to less than ideal operating condi- tions, exist initially and continue through the life of the installation. They may, however, have too little effect to justify correction or be too costly to correct. The significant light loss factors in roadway calculations are: Lamp Lumen DeprcMiatfon. Information about lamp lumen depreciation is available from manufacturers' tables and graphs for lumen de- preciation and mortality of the chosen lamp. h Rated average life should be determined for the specific hours per start; it should be known when burnouts will begin in the lamp life cycle. From these facts, a practical group relatnping cycle will be established and then, based on the hours elapsed to lamp removal, the specific lamp lumen depreciation (LLD) factor can be determined.. % glare: the s"ation produced by iuminancc within the visual field that is sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted to causo annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. See blinding glare, direct glare, dis- ability glare, discomfort glare. Nora: The magnitude of the sensation of glare depends upon such factors as the size, position and luminance of a source, the number of sources and the luminance to which the eyes are adapted. direct glare: glare resulting from high luminances or insufficiently shielded light sources in the field of view. It usually is srsociated with bright areas, such as luminaires, ceilings and windows which are out- side the visual task or region being viewed. disability Aare glare resulting in reduced visual performance and visibility. It often is accompanied by discomfort. See veiling brightness. - CITY OF RAi.CHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DMTE: October 25, 1988 esmk_lk TO: Chairman and Members of The Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TRACT 13442 DESIGN REVIEW - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - The esign review df-building elevations an a ai ed site plan for 70 lots of a previously approved subdivision consisting of 153 single family lots on 11.84 acres of land within the Low- Medium Density Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria P7ned Community located on the north side of `litteria.Park e,. west of Kenyon Way - APN: 227 - 541 -58 thru 73;'2Z7-58, �3 thru 58; 227 -591 -1 thru 22, and 25 thru 40. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of f++iilding elevations and plot plans. B. Project Density: 5.9 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and toning: North - scan ; Propo� sse - parR•"s; to South - Vacant; Low - Medium Density Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) East Vacant; tow- Medium Density Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) ��t - Vacant; Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 0. General Plan Designations: Project a Low- tom' u�a Density Residential North - Low- Medium Density Residential South - Low - Medium Density Residential East - Low - Medium Density Residential West - Low- Medium Density Residential it �,� ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TRACT 13442 , WATT INLAND EMPIRE OCTOBER 26, 1958 Page 2 II, ANALYSIS: A. Background., The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the concep ua grading and subdivision layout far Tract 13442: on May 21, 1987. The applicant, Batt Inland Empire has acquired a portion of the site (70 of the 153 total lots) and is reque.iting approval of the plot plan and building elevations. Ancither developer, Baywood Development, is building the remaining 83 units in the tract. B. Ge.teral: Watt Inland Empire proposes three floor plan types, ep.cfi wit three elevatioa design schemes, All of the horses are two -story and have three car garages. The homes range in size from 2,021 square feet for Plfin i to 2,427 square feet fo- Plan 3. Plan 2 has, 2,287 square feet 0 living area. the applicant has satisfied the requirement for recreational vehicle storage. In addition, the elevations are consistent with the Planning Commission's policy regardiYg treatment of side and rear elevations. C. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Biakesley, Chitiea, rou i reviewed " the proposal on October 5, 1988 and recommended the following revisions: 1. °he brick veneer products should consist of a natural material. Samples of the product should be submitted for approval by the City Planner. 2. Decorative sideyard fencing should be used between homes where the fencing is visible from the street. The Committee recommended use of a solid wood fencing material. 3. The rear elevation of Plan 2 should be enhanced with a band board or other similiar decorative feature. 4. On elevations with brick veneers, the chimney cap should be detailed with brick siding. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the Victoria Panne ommua y and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or car:,,-, significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Victoria Community Plan, the Development Code and City Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TRACT 13442 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE OCTOBER 26, 1986 Page 3 IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve tie 3"esign review of this portion of Tract 13442 through adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad 11a City lanner BB:BH:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "d" - Elevations Resolution of Approval with Conditions AML l 1'-,3 G. 16. �z ; CITY OF RANCHO CUCA Y PL ANNING DIVISION , �l NORTIL I'A E :..,.,.. OR TR -4 34.4f �i TITLE: LOCATION MAP EXR?TtTti♦. A c7,%, 4p — ---- _ m I ON AIM Ilk C*Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION A -s- NORTH ITEM 12 1 TITLE: --SlTLE.PLJkN EXHIP-M --f —ASICALE- Ro—no -, PLANU4 LEGEND -� •Wom ma.ot",,,.,r. Qe � U,4 Rw Oapa�.r► •� • cswror vo= Alm RANCHO CUC NGJ- ITEM: OR TR 13442_ , TITLE: LA NDICAPE plAt 0 1�1 *2AW 1 .1• �� , 1 j y * 41 r yF 4 B MIMI? OF R < < PLAN 2 TITLE: ,. M To Lgc- V,YR:IZtqr. n-1 C ?iTY OF RANCHO r .� M #. PLAN 3 ITEM GC��$ �''6 13442 /�T L9V' 3Tlftl 1. r% an .4 r.. Vz �r. un sw *'.IL- ..." rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c: PLAN i w TITLE: LEVA IONS 1 a sw PLAN 2 ITEM: ---2— as - TITLE: ELEVATIQN V.YT4Tl;kfM4 0 -5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGj PLANNING DIVISION .4 PLAN 3 ITEM: DR TR 13442 Tiivt74lm4 #r. mr. El RESOLUTION N0, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PORTION OF TRACT NO.'13442 LOCATED WITHIN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VICTORIA PARK LANE, WFST OF KENYON WAY IN THE LOW- MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - APN: 227 = 541 -68 THROowM 73; 227- 581 -33 THROUGH 58; 227 -591 -1 THROUGH 22, 25 THROUGH 40. A. Recitals. (i) Watt Inland Empire has filed an application for the Design Review of a portion of Tract No. 13442 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the suLject Design Review request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to.consider the application. (iii) 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 presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on October 26, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the rbjectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed design is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes cf the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and j 4. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or i ii,+provements in the vicinity. i .4--/3 PLANNING COKIISSION RESOLUTION NO. TRACT 13442 WATT INLAND EMPIR October 26, 1988`` Page 2 3, Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph I and 2 above, this 'Comatission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING DIVISION: (1) All conditions of Resolution No. 87 -84 approving Tentative Tract 33442 shall apply. (2) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer with written notice of the potential Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior- to accepting a deposit on any property. (3) The design of the sideyard Fencing, including gates, visible from the street shall consist of a decorative material. The final design of the fencing shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. (4) The brick veneat• t3rodticts shall consist of a natural material -. Samples of the product shall he submitted for approval by the City Planner, (5) Chimtser caps shall be detailed with brick on all elevations rich utilize brick veneers. (6). The rear elevation of plan 2 Rhall be enhanced with a band board or other similar decorative feature. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoptlt,n of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION OF T4E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8Y: Larry T. Wel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary y J PLANNING C COMMISSTON RESOLUTION N0. TRACT 13442 WAIT INLAND EMPIRE October 26, 1988 AML Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby tertify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, p &sled, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A C 3nw Poor QuaTfty � C �y 3�Li+ «Yr. siN 4 L ►� o C � V y K� Yp C Lr w w p p ! 4 w� 9 {�. A— Y � C Q p C V i .,C VC b VL aO, i fiG,rG. p C�C 71aLuy C rN L ■■ i oa g i 1jO5 0. OwrH VwM . w�'pR �mC�y Cfi `v� °pCLJ�A as �.r7nYV Y~ Y p— C L i �c'Y^ pt�w a�.�Yn� ♦� ■� o -liguQ ,C .afpi J� �a yV VV N�YyO .�C. 4M CC ��j 4 W O.V y4 �rsA�n�e�.5�Y ++.M 4V lrt�9�a CLS �-°ry` ^ O Y�> c°^ pQ flyE y.�4 Si.t�Yir r^rY ..VL alp i•n. �Y2 VYnCqNY..�'� �wrr °. �GVi 9N�{�p C""V �i O��aG w =L► C4�M= QSp w.0 pp Gpk uppu V Y yy Lj� {Qj.VLM`4ogt0 1p�'LV N }NA -V 2—'s w�� � t may' wVTY NyU LO�V4 �Lf. aN!`�N+OGV 5�� ���+ A.��MaF�N�N Y� pw1�C wpT �y �•�� E�a� 0o CC y.r v^Qa 4 ib w EL d! aYS y `v i u� {'^oao�� R G 03M a'Vi02T~.O.e9.yy j'y C� N�ppVC^ ECG� �. i�'L:r a�pV y�. �PYNCC1jNLRyvL ( �QO.O M. Ktpt. _NVa7 s4i ^Ti IQ4W u1 �N.f M iN�Y � , N i �� O � V1e dYLL LLq�4 �,CwC Op VprrN aj v 1'^ CU eY p •l L w: �aL ^M6—�^ M W CVO ° @ ~V 'pYG4 wa'3y 4 W U ova v C 4 M f C V w C- t. �■aa■ � � � 1+ H W y CVt. �p K G �Yi1 `y� ��w L„L �4w Vp +Y i p.Y g E, S 3 f.i ci 6 gm • • C p N N a'A A .� it O Op N a��v Cogew R � q6 C N w es i, D EP t 1.. 4 y � GGC v�pl� Y{ � Y. e■ p p TM. 40 L CAM 9 �p pp �V N�yC Y.p i a a t� PIN i� s 41 f �� 444 A C - J-4A. i V u.r Q a E C 4~� CQYY~+�n gg Y i Y av Y 4s a M •iry L a � 65'- R q L N O L O 4 v�aa _pK � �c o ° N 1 a A aN O hVi wa c ��CYq OTC V � a 06p pr tl t � G W h Y -s M b t O7 �N arc iyo�A w« yC w N� +C + y LYL�p�. C N Y Y r 0091nal per. Quality wm `P YYPYC a.CY N '.°M -.gv ..SOB YtC lam. 4j43 yy n YI -yNjM V C N y'� NV h Nv�a A' g � L w.u�aM 4VV41 pp+c wLNY�wugQpi N w N` s M Y ii °C au s + p's e u Y 1 l{�l yGwof Y N l yrw VOVs A YX NFw N d a�� a p�Q C N J + C w 4 w 0 O. < 9 i►4 4 e M 6 c O F.i c w •+N vaa�� �ie� a�3`` µ� Nq� 4 +� �lQ+ 9 H•(Q+V MC CC ^..NL q^ Opp CCNyp 4f q. 4i ^C�Lp BYO q6 �'O Vy'CCy „YLLLL� +C ^Y V�pp� NL"yL4+ ��\ ^ •N YO C'. �? N`7zs. G� �ZE C.D GOc ?R y' ~ -CLa O °Qi4+YY9$C. CS. O1V 4 G'a.V1 �y. 4a'a �4 fig .3; `V �e!,* S 13 y p S` Y Po M4 S -0 4p mayYy+" cry Cl w9f`OMPI' C�a ".-S iVpl 4 4 ^w + L YY�. �G {QC�p 'Pia C Q M i Imam L 51 §_." It X:gj New ^•N4 N N H Ci ;. Vii KYiV ~ <C ° C�CN S. el- 4 MgN€ a y .N pr ? azoM2 � ,11 f O u tR 1-u y N _s.tzNw� aN YiR+ -r7 �O �Y C 4e w�N�yy My�Y O + >8 2NW��rOtt ms TZ P�v ^ D C�C6 M . -a C� p.0 H -p Nu i NCpCiY3N CwY} V p C p O 8+ Y Y V L EGO. + <aL r N 1 a.CY N Pilo YtC L C ONL Y y Cq TQdM gq C y d A L w�Q M s ^w +i K so ss` Y V - Y c t N at w ~ d N� r YnY� S 4w ) NA � MCC -�. �LTM �. V 4 • CI. 44�ta y�p Y�apQ ^. 6 R4 u`ia N NdN 4 v '� Y1G$� Wr iC C i 7 Lyra o Y+si N 4 AO ,Ht =*Y 4w ��.E 4 010 Y A N� N a` \f•1 �; F.i c w •+N vaa�� �ie� a�3`` µ� Nq� 4 +� �lQ+ 9 H•(Q+V MC CC ^..NL q^ Opp CCNyp 4f q. 4i ^C�Lp BYO q6 �'O Vy'CCy „YLLLL� +C ^Y V�pp� NL"yL4+ ��\ ^ •N YO C'. �? N`7zs. G� �ZE C.D GOc ?R y' ~ -CLa O °Qi4+YY9$C. CS. O1V 4 G'a.V1 �y. 4a'a �4 fig .3; `V �e!,* S 13 y p S` Y Po M4 S -0 4p mayYy+" cry Cl w9f`OMPI' C�a ".-S iVpl 4 4 ^w + L YY�. �G {QC�p 'Pia C Q M i Imam L 51 §_." It X:gj New ^•N4 N N H Ci ;. Vii KYiV ~ <C ° C�CN S. el- 4 MgN€ a y .N pr ? azoM2 � ,11 f O u tR 1-u y N _s.tzNw� aN YiR+ -r7 �O �Y C 4e w�N�yy My�Y O + >8 2NW��rOtt ms TZ P�v ^ D C�C6 M . -a C� p.0 H -p Nu i NCpCiY3N CwY} V p C p O 8+ Y Y V L EGO. + <aL r N 1 Q a aaRa Gv�-- A � 4 y�"a�ra r V t N a C 4 N u 3 L ,toVf a aaq$ �b aC M4yw �1 V L R�� y 4�y V .Lir V v Mw« yV,w i�4�yY 4 +«�iwrww P, a I i > a f i H e .., acr i..'n'P�`��rrtp ar+ Re�� MO�. 4YiM � fi�C.w. n • M G G pp 6 qN Cw. sV ~1V�GY�V � ;� LG4�QfiNN T`w V yw jigs I M k pV pp �y V -0;i iYt W Y' ► w Cl++.�.gl Re K.. 4,f. _ y astw C � dV CNa�0. i VEC R N a«�� V L4 pw 6V c° Z' tw 4.jlO 'r.AN y dz'igy t � RI d1 M axA NLN� r=wVli�N M» ��Y4dVOLY fL.. L RN4 _ 11M :91 upw.as�ws aim ���OI Of�yy 4" ♦� N f 18j 1 04 1 � P, a I i > a f i H e w i ar+ Re�� MO�. 4YiM � fi�C.w. M�Y°'N • M G J] 1 y. v N ro al ;d. T`w v nQ jigs I �i oiFp tea. M� F3de CL�i' astw C � dV CNa�0. N V r @ M.Nir 4 w q 6V c° Z' tw 4.jlO 'r.AN o Q V r V „ C ti Gr w'�4 N al N ty.1�WN tyyyy. aG� I+pq••fi �Ryiw.. —O. a'� L ;84� 71 p., V a NNE 9 T4 aNC� M I qy +111 F C v� a � w CgYtl 15% M .V ar 4 A Sa wN L Y� iG.w A <ANNM P AA C ayY �c�p S Aq tlf�V'k V VV WR~N Vy Y'4WyLL a= 4 i i yG i ZEE q 1.4 G Gay N gyr '2 RwS q ♦y tai C � V Rte, Sf g.; NF.M +���M «+y yM+�dL is••�i b�N Qz; t.> FV 4'yt` Eta A+. 4 w�* 4D lM1 G. LI ~yR " Ci IM � —1 ,y Ul E �7► Orla Pbor Quft _G �N ow •tp•�w'Cw rJ �� �M �YO y�� IIp�f�.lU wi�L; ��".►.�� II ^i +y7 q u3 ^ i A I y +■ Y� ^`�^ �6.Y V L.OLY �YV lTOpi • OO �•`O� V C V.. OI ^�1;.1 � �V OF t'w4 L+d VrtyV s� `y 0.N 33 Me oO �: rY` SIP L~�>:6V GC3A O W> i (CpY 43• 1.•. INA za V wN�M C ON A a ¢ VN tt tY,O IIiOW L�N 1� 4u w �tr5 OVU �4 OOC Ci �s gwyf ,4= V1� �YrMr lam' VV +� L�F:MC �GrJ..N m ^Y daw yyC i ^G w U C � � C •" IL y� M V'E q y 0II Y3:�iS. ° ,x Oa. w0 4.G LG. O H'i, II Ow YY qT LV O c iR' ti 4c U C Y L C ■ +L'J V V w y O.G y4w _ ^a■O AO4. 2 S =M �tA4•jy rQCVY rN 4 w OC Y y4 ti Q ry _4 w9 L �w C ppON L LL o C � YIIL I~U qV VnV. �cC• �LL 6 V'.- _y -MC ~Y. C M •,,,q O. ^ate+ �yYJSeO. V `M 4Ul ^t.CY U�Y� OgC �C �yix!pw •x u�p!,CU. H.rr.{{+��`o oy�ci $°`e4JC u� N Y� `L V N.CtlwC. ^.Cw. ir.. =� N wN +wye �s4u v C% 9 -� . m. w�.°$� M��y� „w.3 LYE. 6 GQi GgUA XV tyyN. a�p4 J ��T+ O`�VLV O %y M, N�..ViY _NVL C ~ Yw :,Zia N a ��'o y „ ^N v rise a R i �`dn8 iit�'i� �_ °. � � �� �aa'ot►u� G�muYO H 2 vpY5 cu 4•^i 0a� Y 7 ���. + ^yyw wYYV oUO ;Ea A4LL Cyq CG w y O C y• Y Y d O ■ C L 0. Y r 4 V q V i G C w p �• p yty ii L 1� CC .w. SV� L qw yOyw` •^w•�M L � +. p��i� �y pq' y. 4r VO� N pII '� A M CY ^i4 ~ dLiw N` i•'G A U� V -to 9 a Q i1II� N OI 3B V LOIIz n° i•yaA co j$t�,CC iY`+� SOS >ue Cam' yi?� p a-- O � O =-+ at YJi V a. pw G$l aL eG•= . AvWY� Lc6 w iA L +UV p +ww,c VVVC yYSBY r; ^Ma a�IC µC Y.0 Gta ��// y yyyN11Q?7y yyO,.A� jig i�Ow pVe. 11 N N ` >wtC "tug A Y ' .� V p S N' ' L tf 4 y L N G• a^ L V O. c C4 ° °OYppiCn asv Taa�. `'o a4.JU rgJ�J`Y ow4 ys pYpC y CO�Lq t ~ NMC y.� 1:1 a�C= K Q �wLLLLL a1y ^'VN. p wA 6 V Y �.lW LrV� ^N MP+��• COa L "UI.i ONg4 a V w y �t >y't'JV i� C N V ^ II UNII m �iamow � C SCC Y es cm & ' wO &N2 NO�� rqG CyYiG _^i•• Y N way O�A-4..w• OCQ `` 4 3 W C tai: yl a J! �+ y {� {QpL !J ,,CVCOYOC 4 L N. 4 'YJ °�L °c fh....VJ .� NL'i e7 uG6L L' LG r. Ga`,° I�Na UM Nd wY4 FJt -V .[. a4 1� im. AVVY Nw y li (�o CY tv 14 C /Y N b ,n 00 pS € «° Oz y Y s N O S C y -w i�ID OLY. YY,yyq Y w 4 a` = Y Is- ' y. o �, g „.0 J 4y N y N 0 S p 4Y� ~4 .N... N v M. N 1(_L L 07 yN� p v Yu a' 4Oy! L L Y+y� K - Y 8. y ow Nib 2 Svc N.::.°.PugL r e H r AJMAJ. . !i`oVVO�ii'L "' x� Lc �.yR C.•egY «r o �� air a� Z6. im Y S c ,^pb ° $C a s y CA �r + ° _ lera 0 �q a rr l� Y � . YYw W 1Y •°.. . M �0 V , � SIZE T. C ww A i _r 1 te ia�+o aY..Y Vyy ` Y Z M Y a b N. E ^t+a` ;S X Cd �O :� Y �YM+ tlY ^=j LCY� it At J .c 2 N fY+ 1 p ry ^p + O^ V LL p3 Vy66r W NO + -2 Yu p6. O� ��' C Sip OyY `y�j NLO +N O.''�p6 �'� $$ rs�E •l c+i '�`�' o .� °' o. k -Olen kO VAN °�� ��wsla x� c2i es wa`Z.� Nn 33Eo g y iiu �iiw +ua a.14Ij. Z O� a y ry f Original Poor Qtwtity P a w 4C ��Ypp. �. p R �C ^�W �i g µ wL Y Nq ■■4ppLL 1'�T '0 ppq rr LIB pp 6M i M ypi NqV wL LM N 2 1,� R 0 Y LIJ y'Ogl Y•G tl q 'Y O Y Y1Wr BIi d�CYC Qa �b`�R y L� Oylt�M = OMW C NR �� pL^ cL �GC Q! Lu�YO Oiv O C. VC 4 W6R i� C QLQ OI Y W Y. p q qs'u'^. u OV• qL 4 YC �� A.. yyd i _Y C ii Y C iii O W ^ mt o°' i m ; �VN $. y �� O. 0G dw ?. Y �9 c L o. o p tl1 R^ L V p v 4 a Y.Y c} (L r 7 4 N C N R L q« VT Ew^•. '2a `i.V 7L T. L V R� V6V6 vz NVdC �H «4� Y� >, a yC N� Vq�YOC NC Y Y~ 7'�. 7w z VrR :CY `: N V -z' L V W �f _ N LyV itW i tlC G� r p 'U dC t{ii � � YLy N�.a i 6 wv C All L � OWCpi . Y N MY� �! � 9w a C � I ml a I oL « Y� V •a wy� v U L Y OyC, S q L qN�4 W q M e Y Y q oyyY S C CYi^j�� W p 31 6V « V) Y:y R ^ aN q GC OOp O V O Y O CrYM. Np��a� :.'0 1� ^ c> �• i L 4 � GI '~Id NL CiN L�L• Si 1N. g�'O yM� «C`Vjp dY C �qn Ol N p M Y q C� C E. �j �V 4V " 4CC.iY cg Q 01 u Cy _O C� _Or >7^ L L ^Q W Op n L LMY NYp L ! G O r n Css4 w g q y q >Cp• pig 4Y ��O.O Vp ^LQJ RN ■ Y L N N . •! L1 M AM R^ n Y �Y c NYC W � A L i Y EL � O f. I, , 1� OI p. Nd� N p Ij _ xGY 3.;- CW X' gCp 4u Ni Cf VY �+ V b. ep�, w ou^. RvL $�'pap :va�ayyCo a4W)c i OW L. W qYq� �. Y�7 'qp O...w �[ O u Gii�° p,' Ygee aVY B« rggVA d c D• G M.5 = N H < RE, E.N.7i Ii p�A Goo�b� qE1� Iy O tttt Y C. 73- > OVY � L O G Let;; .G .. c ,OS LPL OWY Y c G a.r > v e� PY� b :.Gar's ^' I AdIML G ^ gOaAs A4Mr � M Cy � L "HC q G S y ;�.. A L LyR ,,CGy °� g. K C +9 t/usi Vyry YO O. U.LG aJON F Nq.� UVf M C I► L'y. py LU4V y L L� LGg SODS G ^�Ln G NG �6L. �M uC �t nNGS �rSc oo Y V ' �7W �6V 55 v gg Y 'C OgU ��L� ��tC M Sm� OY LY ^N� A4�j Yp dq ■a .yp N tl YN � Nu$ YO'� y ' Ly GO. GY • ]On Oda QAp 'O. a y ^• a s+=j to � Va G 9M ��G� YY G o ^ra. ppe N,,wty p sal � WS sC Nwn .N U. Y OA �]T� A�.� `l P xC ZGY G_Ya 09 VU may. ., 4wGY ap yy�A ;p0° Oi E �A 7 YC LC OgGV �sV. `G G C �.y V:-,g N, L4 N y� YO 2 A yN L ^ ■ oslY Y C O; Cy�O V u � % °CyONa gn O �� vvC 9G SyyLM CYnw y ^66 N ti N ■■ YwiNCs C� L yGyy eiC a. n L V:W �NY �� .1(WO.w LY. iS gy« C 'y na S. yY� +y Sv CO Y U Vyy y 6aG N ^^ syS GJy Z= 3 �1 ci C iOla. ,GY r� NA 'w 14 _ � I — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL A° :MENT MEA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPX '"RE1si)A"fTETRT -M' , f RANCHO CUCPFfOIr'GAT,'ERER}�t"PC�fIT cortepra ens ve s + o en y t e environmen a c ararteristics and constraints of the General Plan area. As an HEA, the document will provide a central source of current environmental information to assist in identifying long range, area wide, and cumulative impacts of individual projects proposed i•n the General Plan area. I. ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission, will hold a public hearing to cons e'r the Draft Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Technical Update. This report summarizes the environmental issues analyzed in the Draft MEA /EIR and review of public comments on the document. II, BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: This item s been continuc from the p em er 28, 1988 mee ng in order for the project consultant to draft responses to the comments received during the MEA /EIR reelew period. Comments were received from the following organizations: o San Bernardino Co6nty Transportation /Flood Control Department o Foothill Fire District o California Regional Water Quality Control Board o Chino Basin Municipal Water District o California Department of Forestry and Fire Prutection o California Department of Conservation o California Department of Fish and Game o California Department of Transportation o City of Ontario o City of Upland o Cucamonga Elementary School DisoricL o Central School District o Etiwanda School District B PLAwNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEA and EIR for the General Plan Technical Update October 25, 1988 Page 2 A "Response to Comments" section is attached to this report and will be included as an addendum to the draft MEA /EIR text and forwarded with the minutes of this hearing to the City Council ifor final certification consideration. In addition, at the request of staff, a summary of the rather extensive and lengthy Land Use section has been provided in the "Response to Comments ". As a result of the review, errors were noted in Section II1 -H. The infrrx.)"-ion in Talle 111X, 'page 77, incorrectly reflected only a sma.l portion of the Writ Valley Foothill Community Plan and; therefore, conclusions indicated on page 78 are not a correct reflection on the potential residential growth in the sphere area under the Community Plan provisions. Revised figures will be generated and staff is confident that the differences between the potential oothills Community P] ;n the willi not bGeneral fican and the West Valley As mentioned previously, air quality impacts canhat be satisfactorally mitigated through the measures suggested i'a the CIR. As a result, the Planning Commission should consider all the project alternatives, and if none of the alternatives are determined to be acceptable, a statement of overriding considerations must be approved at the time of the document's certification. A_ suggested statement is included as Exhibit "A" to the draft resolution and if approved it will form a part of the certification action. III. Re "COMMENDATION: After reviewing the responses to comments and taalong pu c testimony, if there are no additional 'unanswered environmental issues raised, it is recommrrEded that the Planning Cortmi_sion recominend certification of the Blaster Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Environmental Impact report by the J adoption of the draft Resolution and statement of overriding considerations. Res ully m to Bra B er City nner B8:LH /AY:r1g Attachments: Response to Comments Resolution of Certification Recommendation El OCT. 1 a logo fto RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AN OCT 1: 8 1998 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7th ;Sd#tlZi Zt t2t$t tS 6 GENERAL PLAN EN"'iRONMENTAL 1-MPACT REPORT & MASTER ENN 4ONr1ENTAL ASSESSMENT FINAL EuR This section addresses comments received by the City of Rancho Cucamonga relative to the environmental impact report (EIR) on a Technical Update of the City's General Plan, in- cluding a Master Environmental Assessment (GPEIR /NIEA) for the entire City. During the review period for the Draft EiR, twelve state and local agencies commented on the GPEIR /h4EA. The following text presents the comments received and provides responses to those comments. Comments shown within quotation marks ( ") arc taken directly from the comment !ettcrs; other comments -tre summarized or paraphrased as needed. All written comments are included at the end of this section. SAN BERAWDMO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION / FLOOD CONTROL DEPAP.TJf_rNT Letter dated August 4, 19 &g from Robert Corchero, Chief of Flood Control Planning Comment: (1) "Page 46 - Y looding Parr;raph 6 The Flood Control District is charged with providing flood control and water conservation facilities only within its funding capabilities and limitations. The District's jurisdiction is limited to those facilities and /or water courses where right-of-way has been acquired." Response: (1) Comment nctdd. Comment: (2 a -f) The District requested a number of technical corrections to Figure III- 0/1, Flood Control Map, inchading showing all master planned drainage improvements. Response. (2 a -f) The technical corrections have b-on incorporated into the new Figure III -G /da (attached). This new figure includes all master planned flood control facilities as provided by !fie County Transportation /Flood Control Department. In addition, "The City's drainage master plan is currently being reviews ). A report ... covering the easternly part of the City is being analyzed by City staff while a report cover- ing the westerly part of the City (is being prepared). Upon completion of this project, the master plan will be changed to reflect the City's needs" (See City memo dated October 12, 1988 from R. Maquire to S. Buller). ) bte en Deer Creek and iDay /Creek eChannels may be surplus t District l ict needsandsbe sold for future development." Respom e: (3) Comment noted. At present, this area is designated for flood control uses on the City General Plan. At the time that any of these lands are declared- surplu;, the City iswill examine them- relative to the General Plan and make appropriate land use decisions based on the constraints at that time. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (CON'TJ Comment: (4) ''Figure III -T,2, Mastcr Flan of Trails. Many of therroposed trails follow District right of way. Their design snatiid be such that their use drzs not conflict with the operation and maintenance of the District facilities. Any gror-ssed use should ba ---oor- dinated with the Flood Control District; Field Engineering Division, Permit Section." Response: (4) Comment noted. All proposed uses will be coordinated with the District. FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT Telephone comments from Lloyd A'mond of the Foothill Fire District. Comment: (1) "Section N, Page 127 - Existing Sitting; 3rd sentenca should be changed to delete fire, paramedi;...departments. Reference to these services should list the Foothili Fire District as provider.' Response: (1) Comment noted'. Comment: (2) "Figure III'7 /I needs to indi __c the locations of proposed fire stations numbers 4 through 7. Also, under tha lep•:;nd, fire stations 0.6 should read "East, Avenue and 24th Street." Response: (2) While it may be desirable to have actual street addresses for the fire stations on Figure III -N /l, the information is provided in tl-.: text and the locations shown on the figure are accurate for the stations. Therefore, Figure I1I -N /I need not be modified. Comment: (3) ; -Ction Q, Page 133 - Existing Setting, first paragraph, the outlying areas should be changed to "IS" square miles and the total area listed as a total of "50" square miles. At the end of the third and fourth paragraphs reference should be made that sta- tions No. 2 and No. 3 provide 24 hours protection as listed for station 0.1 in the second paragraph. Also, in the fourth paragraph change the 03500 gallon" water tender to "4000 gallon "." Response: (3) Comment noted. Comment: (4) "Section Q, Page 134 - The second sentence of the third paragraph should read as follows: "This agency provides file protection services in the arca,north of the City limits on land which the State is legally v.sponsible for extinguishing wildland fires." Response: (4) Comment noted. Comment: (5) "Section X, Page 1 76 - Mitigation Measure, second paragraph (h� aardous wastes) the t=ire District is checking with the County into any responsibilities the District may have in this area. Additional comment tray follow regarding this subject." Response-. (5) Comment noted. Changes in the policies or goals of the General Flan that are required as a result of additional information from the Fire District will be made. 2 t? `l 6E.— cry `SS • P • i 0 ru y 3 -' cm3 c o --o � O v 0 C o o coo a rn : m Q m CA m z� 0' n o� M a m� A W Z Q r. m r y m z r CALIFORNIA REGIONAL i"rATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (CRWQCB) Letter dated August 25, 1988 from Anne Knight, Environmental Specialist Comment: (l) The CRWQCB notes that some of the local •.velis show unacceptable levels of nitrates and .t:bromochloropropane and suggested that, if imported water is obtains& it first be used to recharge areas with degraded water quality and "reclaim contaminated wells ". Response: (1) The water agencies that serve the City must determine the most appropriate application of in;n —ed water. However, such a plan to reclaim affected wells has merit and should be a strong consideration as decisions on water policy and use are made. Comment: (2) "If the loss of wells because of unacceptable water quality reduces the available drinking water supply, an effort should be made to moderate growth in this region to maintain zdequate water supply for present /future Population," Response, (2) Many of the City General Plan policies mandate thr.t adequate resources, both in quality and quantity, must be available c I made available to support growth. If at any point the City faces a lack or degradation of vital resources, limits will be examined to prevent cumulative impacts to City services, utilities, etc.„ _ Comment: (3) The CRWQCB relate that it is "unwise to assume that imported water will be available to support all of the projected growth in this region". Response: (3) As with the previous comment /response, at any point, if the City is faced with a lack of necessary resources, appropriate action will be taken to prevent unacceptable impacts to the City. Comment: (4) The CRWQCB expresses a concern that local water quality would be im- pacted by new developn.znt approvtd with only septic tacks. They "strongly recom- mends ... that the "Mitigation Measures (p.173) be amended to incorporate a policy that all new development must hook lip to :a sewer system ". Response: (4) The City wiii pursue consideration of this concept with the Cucamonga County Water District. Comment: (5) "The Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) provides the was- tewater treatment for this area (p. 173) at RP 1. However, it is our understanding that the plant provides tertiary service to the Rancho Cucamonga area Response: (5) This is correct and the new City General Plan contains policies that en- courage new development to take advantage of tertiary water for appropriate uses. In ad- dition, RP -4 will be online in 1993 for additional treatment capacity. Comment: (6) "We concur with the City ...that coordination of water supply, wastewater services, and construction of needed improvements should precede development" Response; (6) Comment noted. 11 3 �r � CHINO BASIN UUNICIPAL WATER DISrRicr (CBhfjr D ) Letter dated September 6, 1988 from Mark Kinsey, Planning Comment*, (1) The C13M1VD requests clarification of the land use designations in and around its administrative offices on Archibald, Response: (1) The CBMWD offices are consistent wits the zoning and land use designa- tions of its property and the surrounding area, The site is presently commercial with a school to the south, commercial uses to the north, a civic/community facility to the north- east, and residential to the east. However, any expansion plans would have to meet the same City guidelines as any other development. Comment: (2) The CBM1VD requests that "the � ,y consider t7plementing its original general plan policy regarding the use of reclaimed water supplies when available ". Response: (2) The use of reclaimed water is included in the new General Plan policies and will be implemented when and where appropriate. Comment: (3) "The Regional Plant No. 1 (RP-.", facility in Ontario is currently rated at a capacity of 32 MGM By a series of inter - related expansion prof - ^« RP -1 will be expanded to a capacity of 36 IvIGD ir D in 1990. The proposed , early 1989 and to a capacity of 44 I%IG RP -4 facility is scheduled to be operational in 1993 with an initial capacity of 7.5 MGD." Response: (3) Comment noted. AIL C.4UFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF COA'SERVATION Letter dated August 29, 1988 from Dennis Bryant, Environmental Program Coordinator Comment: "n accordance with the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Section 2762, the City is required to establish mineral resource management Policies in its General Plan that wilt: (1) recognize the mineral information transmitted by the Board; (2) assist in the management of land use in designated areas; and 3) emphasize the conservation and development of identified mineral deposits" Response: The new General Plan of the City does contain such policies and these will be forwarded as required to the appropriate Spnci, Representative with the State Mining and Geology Board in Sacramento. 4 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (DFG) Letter dated August 24, 1988 from Pete Bontadelli, Director Comments (1) Concern is expressed. about the level of detail in the MLA and the DFG recommends that specific mapping of sensitive biological species be provided in the MEA. Because of this lack of information, tae OFG recommends that the GPEIR /MEA not be certified at this time. Response: (1) Although much informatics was provided on potential species present, the MEA did not provide spectfic mapping for each species because of the cost and timeliness of information that would be used as a baseline for future developments. The I U6,1ation Measures in the GPEIR /MEA (p. 111 -35) recommend that biologically sensitive areas be preserved or monitored closely to minimize impacts. It is further recommended that, in all areas north of C`e current City limit and in any area that contains or may contain sensitive biological species, biologicai studies must be conducted by qualified personnel prior to any development. The requirement to prepare such studies will be at the discretion of the plan- ning director. Comment: (2) The MEA is. "incorrect" in inferring that species that are not formally listed on the federal or state rare or endangered lists are not protected. - Response: (2) The MEA did not m"n to infer any less level of consideration or protection should be afforded species that are no: on the state or federal lists. It is one of the express goals of the General Plan to protect any species or habitat, including streamside woodlands or wetlands, that are considered valuable and in need of protection. Comment (3) The DFG suggests that the unincorporated area north of the City be Planned for the lowest densities of residential development (1,000 units) to act as a buffer between the City and the Angeles National Forest. Response: (3) An error has been noted in the potential densities allowed by the County's West Valley Foothill Community Plan as indicated on Table III -H /X, MEA page 77. The acreages listed in the table represent only a small part of the community plan, the 11 a Sevaine area (See LAND USE ANALYSIS). As result, the 954 maximum units listed is a greatly underestimated co int of the potential unit density which cou!a be allowed undee the existing county Iand use regulations. The portion of the West Valley Foothill Com- munity Plan within the where of influence of the City of Ranchr, Cucamonga is actually just over 5,000 units, which is consistent wit', the County General Plan range of 5,400 to 7,500 units. The remainder of the planned :- its are within thf, sphere of influence of the City of Fontana (1884 acres). I: should Se noted that the ' st Valley Foothill area (16,782 acres) coprises the Caryn Planned Community (274 ar spheres of influence for both Rancho Cucamonga (7704 acres) and Fontana (1884acres), and National Forest Service lands (6920 acres). Comment: (4) "We are particularly concerned about proposed use changes in the Day Canyon area, and we recommend that ail of the areas of actual and potential mountain sheep habitat be designated Resource Conservation' Response: (4) The GPEIR /MEA recommends that "Any development proposed within the Day Canyon area should first ascertain the exact boundaries of the sheep range prior to approval" While both measures could afford similar levels of protection, the City will have to determine the appropriate level of use should be for this area that will balance growth and protection for the sheep range. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) Letter dated September 1 from Guy Visbal, Chief of Transportation Planning, District 8 Comment: (1) Caltrans requests "an analysis of full buildout which includes a forecast of future traffic on the State highways% Response: (1) (Reference City memo dated October 12,1988 from R. Maguire to B. Buller) "The City of Rancho Cucamonga is presently setting up a ms, -)r traffic planning model program (TPMP) that will satisfy the majority of CALTRANS comments and requests- A request for proposal to establish the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Model and Nexus Proce- dures has been sent to prospective consultants. This program is scheduled to begin in December and be compietyd by mid -year 1989. The TPMP will address the traffi.•. impact of full build -out of the City and its sphere oh influence, on all its streets and highways, in- cludirs State routes. The Y2MP .#ill adequately reflect existing conditions and calculate levels of service. It will also allow (the City) to use any existing or proposed highway sys- tem and measure and evaluate its traffic impact. The City will mitigate, or cause mitiga- tion of silgnificant traffic impactsof various developments by use of its transportation Sys- tem fee." In addition, it is recommended that either Caltrans or the Southern California Assoct4tian of Governments (SLAG) conduct a regional study based- on the existing RIVSAN regioi;,ai traffic planning study, which can be used to analyze regional circulation impacts Th)s study could be jointly funded with each member City contributing a pro -rated share boed . on population or some other allocation method. It is further recommended that Caltrans and /or other regional agencies pursue balancing emptoYment and housing land uses on a more regional scale. Comment: (2) Caltrans requests "a regional study of the traffic effects to the state high- way system. This would include a study that would show Rancho Cucamonges contribu- tion to regional traffic in the West Valley ". Response: (2) See Caltrans Comment /Response, #1 above for details of City -wide and regional traffic studies. Comment: (3) "On page 94, the current buildout is 25 percent less than previous estimates, therefore the generated trips should be 25 percent higher." Response: (3) From Page 94 of the GPEIR /MEA "The DKS study is based on ap- proximately 936,545 total City -wide vehicle trips per day. These in turn are based on a projected General Plan buildout of approximately 48,000 units. Since the current buts -iout estimate is for approximately 60,000- units, the impacts to City streets will, be 25% higher." Comment: (4) "On Table I11 -I /E, the figures, deflated by 25 percent, are used for Volume Capacity ratios and Level of Service calculations where the higher number would be more appropriate." Response: S: Caltrans Comments /Responses *1 -3 for additional information on traffic studies and the 25% increase in traffic impacts. CALTRAh1S (CON'T) Comment: (5) Caltrans requests an "analysis of the Circulation system with and without the proposed Route 30 freeway", Response: (5) See Caltrans Comment /Response #1 for details of the proposed City -wide traffic study which includes impacts to State highways. "The City is presently upgrading 19th Street (Route 30) with transportation system fees. The City wi:l continue its practice of growth mitigation by upgrading the State highway System when it is necessary" (See City memo dated 10/12/88). Comment: (6) Caltrans also recommended that the following measures be implemented: "Prohibition of Parking on State highways and the Planned interchange P, t Interstate 15 and 7th Street does not meet federal spacing requirements of interchanges on a freeway ", Responses (6) (Reference City memo dated October 12, 1988 from R. Maguire to B. Buller) "CALT,= 4NS presently maintains all surface state highways in the City and, therefore, can remove all parking if they so desire. In spite of their reluctance to assert this authority, the City Engineering Division intends to remove parking on all City arterial and selected collectors. If and when State Routes 30 and 56 come under City maintenance, the parking removal will also apply. Since the interchanges an I -15 of 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard are separated by more than two milts, an interchange design at 6th Street is feasible that WIfies federal spacing requirements. ( siderations. The TPMP (See Caltrans Comment /Response #1)will.allowthe traffic needs and warrants for this interchange., Comment: (7) "In the Hydrology section of the General PIan, on page 49, the flood control Projects refer to 1980 and-1982, this should be updated to reflect the current system." Response: (7) The flood control system, as shown in Figure III- G /l, was revised and the technical corrections suggested by the County Flood Control District (see FCD letter dated August 4, 1988) were incorporated into anew Figure III -G /la included in this section.. C"Mment: (8) "In view of the fact that Caltrans has no funds available for infrastructure . improvements, we recommend that the City of Rancho Cucamonga take the lead in developing a fair -share mechanism in which developers would participate to fund needed improvements to the State highway system," Response: (8) Most cities acknowledge that funding regional transportation improvements is one of the most immediate issues facing southern California, Unfortunately, cities do not have any jurisdiction outside of their boundaries to collect fees or establish funding mechanisms. The City is willing to work actively with the State and the regional San Ber- nardino Area Governments (SANBAG) to develop appropriate funding mechanisms for state highway improvements. In addition, "the City is presently upgrading 19th Street (Route 30) with transportation sys- tcm .fees" (per City memo dated 10/12/88), rl 11 CALTRANS 'CON'T) Comment: (9) "The City should consider a demand management plan along with the futur,_ corridor plan, that woui*i rro:tgate the effects of growth and reduce demand on.the State highway system." Response: (9) The GPEIR /NEA inciules mitigation measures as recommended in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan that help manage vehicular emissions by limit- ing traffic and highway demand (p. 96 -98). In addition, the City is preparing a traffic planning model program (TPMP) which will identify an appropriate demand management plan for the City (See Caltrans Commect /Response #1 and City memo dated L0/12/89). Comment: (10) -the City should provide facility mitigations to the state highway system for the regional shopping center and industrial areas adjacent to Interstate IS." Response: (10) The City will coordinate with Caltrans as to appropriate mitigation measures relati••�a to land uses'-along I.15 as specific developments are proposed ;bong this corridor. The new TPMP study being prepared by the City will identify specific mitiga. tion measures for these impacts (See Caltran3 Comment /Response #1 and City memo dated 10/12/88). In addition, "the City will mitigate, or cause mitigation of significant traffic impacts caused by new development. The TPWI will be used to measure and evaluate the traffic impact of significaa: development. Addtionaily, the City mitigates fractional and accumulative traffic impacte, of various developments by use of its transportation system fee. E 11 CITY OF 0,Vrr4Rf0 Letter dated August 10, 1989 from 7oyce Habiez, City Planner Comment: (1) "The proposed County jail, is the southeast corner Of Rancho Cucamonga. is not ,cntioned in the draft, lVe would lik. zvaee the compatibility this and surroundi a y o ng uses analyzed," Response, (1) TEs GPEIR/MEA is intended as a technir.A update only and so does not need to specifically address compatibility issues with established land uses. However, in this case, the County supersedes the City's jurisdiction on the issue of the jail. This EIR (SCH 87110916) addresses land use compatibility and site specific impacts f the jail. Coriment: (2) "We question the appropriateness of the General Industrial designation for the property on the north side of Fourth Street, across from the Guasti Regional Park, a facility which lies in the City of Ontario, but which is probably used as much by Rancho Cucamonga residents as by Ontario residents." Response:: (2) It should be noted that the designationa of industrial areas north of Fourth Street preceded the siting of Guasti Park at this location. In fact the existing Laura Scudder's plant at the corner of Archibald and Fourth also preceded the park. This in- dustrial a-ea is an integral part of the Rancho Cucamo; ga Industrial Specific plan as adopted by the City Council. In any case, City residents dd . tilize th4 facility since that is the purpose of a County regional park, Comment: (3) "We would like to see the likely effe-,ts of County proposals to recharge the upper Chino and Cucamonga groundwater basins addressed in. your section on groundwater." Response: (35) The specific effects that would acrue from this type of ,-Icharge are addressed in the Cucamonga. County Water District Water Master Phin as referenced in the GPEIR /MEA. As discussed in the Comments /Responses for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (letter dated August 25, 1988), the physica effects of such recharge depend upon the location and extent of recharge activities. Obviously, if "new water, such as fnim imported sources or tertiary tret:ted water, was utilized for recharge;, a like amount of existing water would be freed up CO" doaxestic or other uses. The specific effects of such plans would have to be addressed by the approK+;iate water agency and the City at the time such a plan was proposed. a Aft MW 0 CITY OF ONTARIO (CON'T) Comment: (4) "We think that the ulti -hate build -out scenarios ought to b, analyzed in 1 terms of SCAG's proposed growth management proposals, especially in the area of jobs and jp housing balance. Response: (4) The City currently has a very favorable jobs /housing balance and this balance should continue as the City builds out. T;.e major contributor to this condition is the large amount (5332 acres or 23.5% of the city) existing or planned for indr,!rial uses. The 19 &2 Mod'iied SLAG population /housing 7rojcctions for the -'7-}y indicate that they are planned to lu,;rease by +276% and +31_'%, respectively, from 19 � to 2010. During that same time, empolyment in the west San Bernardino Valley is expected to increase by +266S%, Unfortunately, SLAG does not make; employment projections by individual cities, However, since the City has increased its industrial acreage by 764 acres ( +17 %) since 1981, and the City already had a higher percenta-g of it6 land in industrial uses than the County -wide average, it is likely that there _ ill be even more bs created in Rancho Cucamonga as compared to houses, and pop,1a0,on, Therefore, as the City grows, it is e::- pected to maintain its favorable jobs /;housing balance when viewed 3n the context of the west San Bernardino Vaileyr Comment: (5) "The industrial designations on the north side of Fourth Street are III :IF to require deliveries by large trucks which would need to traverse our hotel and ca:�tm ruial areas within the Ontario Center. This situa;'nn is less than desire +ble from our standpoint, Furthermore, thx likely development or Onts Millen, south to Fourth, leads us to conclude that property owners on the Rancho Cucamonp_ side of that street will probably want to develop their properties in commercial uses in any case. We suggest that you would be well advised to anticipate this occurrence and have your general p!an raflect the likaiy Commer- cial development of- this area. Moreover,, commercial development would be more com pati` '•h our general plan, oa the south side or Fourth, and, one would assume, be in line with Rancho Cucamonga's Community goals. Response: (f) First, it should be noted that this EIR only addresses the iceues of a techni- cal update and so existing compatibilities it incompatibilities are not included in the dis- cussion. The issues of land use compatib41ity for this area were addres?ed in the previously approved Industrial Specific Plan EIIt. Moreover,, the industrial areas north of Fourth preceded the com:,. ;rcial designations south of Fourth. Lastly, the local property owners have indicated a continued desire to develop these properties as industrial uses. 10 E C177 OF UPLAND Letter dated September b, 1988 from Jef£rey Bloom, Planning Director Co:hment: 11) "The relationships of developmer. , within Rancho Cucamonga and Upland is not addressed: The impact of buildout on t'ne City of Rancho Cucamonga is addressed, but no mentL)n is made of the impacts on surrounding cities; Response; First of all,, it should be noted that this is a technical cpdate of the Generai Plan acc i s- in some cases does not quantify till cumulative effects beyond the borders of the City. Since traffic is the primary concern as it affects surrounding communit' ,ts, the City is preparing a traffic planni,�g model program (TPr!il) that will analyze all ti ifC :s it relates to ultimate buildout of rl,a City including levels of service and impacts to the State highways (See Cattrans Comments /Responses for additional information on the TPMP study). In adu:tion, in a memo to B. Huller dated October 12, 19$8. Russ Maquire, City Engineer, indicated that Cattrans or SLAG shm:ld conduct a regional traffic study based on the "RIVSAN regional traffic i; ?„Mlne study (and the Ci y study) will ba avie to show its frac- tional and accumulative impacts on the State Highway System" This same memo also states that "the City will mitigate, or cause mitigation of significant traffic impacts caused by new development. The TPMP will be used to measure and evaluate the traffic impact Of significant development. Addtionalty, the Ctty mitigates fractional and ticcumul.tive traffic impacts of various developments by use ofits transportation system fee.` Ccmm:nt: (2) "Mobile and point sourre emisnions as based on buildout estimates represent a Significant and adverse incprct. Every attempt should be made to promote the specific mitigation measures as outlined on Page 107 of the (MEa). The Fmidelines for pollution control should be based on the South Coast Air Quality Manageme '4n of 1988." Response: (x) The City acknowledges that air quality is one of t: yst critical regional issues in southern California. Th,* South Coast Air Quality M'- 1agement District, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the focal cities and o ^ antics are wres- tling with the mlated issues of gin wth. Rousing, ;;obs, traffic congestion, and air pollution. The City is committed to helping solve these difficult problems, However. many of th,,s* Problems will require regiMai solutions that depend act the cocperatioa of cities and counties. The mitigation measures proposed in the ME-A in lud-, those that are under the jurisdiction of the City and are based on the 1988 SCAQbV. Comment: (3a) "The analysis of the circulatisn elemett does not address the initi2cts cn the City of Upland in either short term or cumulative long terc: impacts. TL proposed cost for the proposed major traffic improvements 1' not addressed for either city" Response: E3a) The City is preparing a City-wide traffic planning model program (TPMP) that will identify all impacts to area roads (See Cattrans Comments /Responses for addi- tional details on area traffic impacts. it should be noted that the City traffic analysis also did not identify the amount of traffic within the City that is generated by the surrounding communtics. J II A9_ i Y O alm UPLAND (CON'T) Comment: (3b) "The analysis of traffic circulation indicates that the 1986 Ceneral Plan understated the anticipated traffic impact oy 25%. In light of this finding, the Draft EIR makes no reference to the anticipated additional impact to the City of Upland resulting from Rancho Cucamonga's continued development. No quantitative analysis is provided of the traffic growth on arterials as the traffic I ,aves the Rancho Cucamonga city limit. Cor sequently, no mitigation is recommended to allow these impacts to be alleviated Response: (3b) See related comments and questions for Caltrans letter in this report. The City is preparing a city -wide traffic study that will address these concerns. Comt ent: (4a) "The mitigation measures for traffic impacts of complete buildout are based on completion of the Footh lI Freeway. R is stated that the traffic volumes will have a significant adverse and cumulative impact on Rancho Cucamonga if the expressway or freeway is not constructed. There needs to be a specific statement of the short term impacts of traffic volumes on Rancho Cucamonga and Upland until the freeway is constructed and also the impacts of traffic volumes in Rancho Cucamonga and Urra.and if buiidout occurs prior to completion of the freeway.: It is not clear in the Draft Environmental Impact Report what mitigation measures will be implemented in t4c short term, prior to a freeway, to assure that traffic continues to flow Within the between the cities." Response: (4a) If substantial buiidout of the City occurs before the Foothill Freeway if. built, and there is no substantial shift to alternative forms of transportation, there wilt be significant adverse impacts to the City's circulation system. This situation also applies to all of the cities affected by the Route 30 torrid;, If development continues in surround- ing communities and conditions described previously occur, there will be significant ad- verse impacts to a majority of the circulation system in this area and the region as well Comment: (4b) "If circulation and land use plans are based on the shift from - utomobilc use to alternate forms of transportation, what are the methods for implementing the alter- native Forms? No specific policies are proposed to assure the goals for 17% alternative transportation are achieved. What are the significant adverse impacts which will result if this shift does not occur?" Response: (4b) If the 17% shift to alternative transportation does not occur, there will be a correlational increase in vehicular traffic and likewise greater traffic congestion, espe- cially at peak intersections. However, the City will work towards implementing the SCAQMP guidelines,most of which apply to vehicles and transportation. Appropriate project - specific mitigation measures will be implemented for each development proposal. Intersection and other roadway improvements will be scheduled and budgeted by the City or the City will wot.. with the responsible agency to adequately plan needed improvements. Tiic TSMP plan outlined in the MEA (p. 96) is especially important for the industrial specific plan areas because of the potential foe employment increases. The City will work with the County to be sure that adequate ;ransit service is available for future workers. The City and Chamber of Commerce should also encourage local businesses to advertise in local papers prior to more regional advertising with the idea of attracting employees that live closrr to their places of employment. lx UPLAND iCON'T) Comment: (S) "No coordination of traffic circulation between Rancho Cucamonga and Upland is identified. A system -wide impa-_ analysis should be conducted to analyze the impacts of traffic generated from Rancho Cucamonga to adjacent areas." Response: (5) Rancho Cucamonga is already participating in a number of ongoing, area - wide transportation studies (RIVSAN) being conducted by the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG }. however, Rancho Cucamonga and the surrounding cities should particiate in a jointly- funded Route 30 traff'a impacts and mitigation it study as will probably be sometime ut best before the Foothill Freeway is built in this area. In addition, see related comments and responses for Caltrans letter. Comment: (6) "The long term costs of operation to 0-:1 City of Rancho Cucamonga for Police and Fire protection should be addressed to assure the cities continued cost rffeetivc operation," Response: (6) "Since this is'a technical update to the General Plan, a detailed fiscal impact assessment of continued fire and protective services is not necessary. However, both agencies indicated that even with the typical annual budgetary prof• -:ems that the police depac -rent is facing, they believe that they can continue to adequately serve the City as it grows according to the General Plan, CITY OF UPLAND Presentation made Jeffrey Zwack, City Planner, during Planning Commission public hear- ing held on Septetriber 28, 1988. Comment: "The (GPEIR /MEA) report is well wr tten and comprehensive, but needs to address regional traffic impacts, We would request that the City add a statement that ad- verse traffic impacts will occur without the Foothill Freeway AND increases in public transit ridership, The City's circulation plan should be checked for regional traffic plan." consistency against the Response: See Response to :omment 4a of the City of Upland's letter dated September 6, 1988 regarding adverse impacts to the City -wide and regional circulation systems if the Foothill Freeway is not built and there are no increases in public transit. As previously Stated, the City is already Pariicinatrng in regional traffic studies Doing conducted by the local area government (SANB ,4.ti.r). i, would be appropriate for the surrounding cities to negotiate a jointly funded traffic Study to identify short- and long -term traffic solutions pith and without the Foothill Corridor and public transit, The City is alrcad�, preparing a Traffic Planning and Model Program (TPMP) to study city -vide traffic F(See Calt-ans Comments /Responses), 13 Ii Ic CUCAMONGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Letter dated S otcmber 6, 1988 from Dr. John Costello, Superintendent of Schools. Comment: The District has provided updated figures for en,!Jlimcnt and school capacities (Table III -R /C). The only significant changes are: 1) the enrollment of Cucamonga Elementary School is now slightly over capacity (780 / 765 versus a 706 enrollment in the Draft EIR); 2) the capacity of Guasti School has been reduced from 212 to 135 whicl. is also their current enrollment; 3) the enrollment at Los Amigos elementary school has decreased from 500 to 468 and the capacity revised from 460 to 480; and 4) the capacity of the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School has been reduced to 395 from 533. Response: These changes are noted. CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Letter dated September 12, 19$8 from Ingrid Vogel, Business Services. Comment: The District submiteed changes and corrections to their enrollment and capacity figures in Table III -R /B, requested text changes that reflect the talole data changes, and added student generation figures for 'Table III -R /F. Response: The updated fig4rts are noted and are helpful in adjusting the magnitude of impacts expected to schools from new development. The new student generation figures provided by the District far Table III -R /F are almost exactly those estimated for Citywide schools (.425 for K -8 students versus .45 estimated 'rn the Draft GPEIR /MEA). The updated enrollment projection figures for Table III -R /G show a 4% increase over the Draft GPEIR /MEA figures. These new figures reinforce the original analysis in the GpEIR /M> A that the schools that serve Rancho Cucamonga are at capacity and will need to be augmented with portable and permanent space additions as. the City grows. To accomodate this and other school district concerns, the City is willing to form a joint long -range school planning i.!k r -rce with the involved districts and city planning staff to help the districts adequately plan for long term school housing needs. 11 14 CENTRAL AND ETIIRANDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS Letter dated September 28, 1988 presented by Douglas Yeoman of Parker and Covert (attorney for the two district) at the September 28 Planning Commission public hearing. Comment. The school districts' attorney was concerned that the GPEIR /MEA did not address school needs strongly enough. "The Districts are troubled and concerned that the City has not given adequate thought or attention to the spfficiency of facility arts funding requirements over the next 29 -25 years for the public Schools serving the City. (The School Section) contains numerous inaccuracies and is totally devoid of any implementation or development policy pertaining to school facility financing to enable the Districts` schools to adequately accommodate "double the current number of students" The attorney es- timated that the two districts woud need $138 million to finance new facilities and up to $48 million for riew school sites at City buildout. The attorney also took ezcepti )n to the suggested mitigation measure of the City helping to coordinate the school districts' plan- ning efforts. Corrections to Table! III -R /B, III -R /F, and III -R /G were also provided that duplicated the corrections provided by Ingrid Vogel in the Central School District letter dated September 12, 1988. Response. The issue of adequate and equitable school financing is one of the most dif- ficult issues that the State has had to dean with over tho last 10 years. The recently enacted developer fee process (AS 2926) establishes a direct school- developer fee process which removes local jurisdictions (cities) from the review process. Cities are now therefore limited in their ability to assist sekoo1 districts, since schools can now levy up to 51.53 per square foot on new residential construction and $.26 per square foot for commercial /industrial construction. Cities are not allowed to grant develo ?went permits without a certification from the involved school district(s) that the appropriate fees have been paid. These fees are meant as a partial offset to the State School Building Program so that growing districts can stilt continue to build now schools ahead of increasing student enrollments. As to the efforts that the City will make to fund new schools, the City will cooperate with the school districts to its legal limit to assure that.adequate school facilities are provided. As previously stated, the City wilt help coordinate the planning efforts of the districts. Furthermore, the City is willing to wook with the districts to establish a long - rang school planning community committee. The City Council and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency have approved a progrow for mitigation of growth within the Rancho Redevelopment Project Arta. This mitigat:on, which includes the Etiwanda and Central School Districts, is outlined in the Report to Council adopted August b, 1987. The City will work with districts and developers to help establish Mello -moos Community Facility Districts or examine asset management and disposition of surplus property to help fund new facilities and sites. Joint construction and /or use of City and school district facilities may be anuther way of ac- comodating students. The City is ready to work'vith the school districts to this end. In addition, it should be noted that agreements have been reached between the Etiwanda and Central School Districts with developers in the community, the William Lyon Company and Lewis homes, to build needed school facilities. The results of these agreements should be recognized as additional mitigation measures to Offset potential growth impacts on school op-rations, AWL 15 6; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY .3t1'D FIRE PROTECTION Leger dated September 6, 19 88 from James Laughlin, Resource Planning Officer Commont: (1) "Pe. 136 The wording that the City "should" investigate adopting a similar fire safety ordinance is too wsak.. The department would like to see the City, actively pursue adoption of an ordinance that will address the findings published in the December 19 83 F th tt7'ommu ataftLEM&MM Report and Recommendation on the reduction of fire, flood, and erosion losses along the wiidland urban interface in the foothills of the "art Bernardino Valley." Response; (1) Comment noted. Wording will be changed to "shall develop" an ordinance similar to the one referenced above. Comment: (2) "Pg. 46-30 "Discusses flooding based on 100 year flood calculations and the historic floods of 1939 and 1969. Ivildland fire is not discussed as a contributing agent to mayor flooding and soil movement." Response: (2) It is true that wildland fires 1 -3 years prior to a major storm cause substan- tial soil and vegetation loss. These materials contribute bulk to storm runoff and seriously increase the volume of flood flows and erosive damage downstream. Comment: (3) 'EL 43 An urban (toxic) waste collection site already exists at Fire Station 173" Response: (3) Comment noted. Comment: Via) TrZJ,. Roads should not be construct, d through the st e The activity would remove much of the large animal a aivity and the resultant local air pollution would destroy cottonwoods, sycamore, and ms (quote from GPEIR/MEA). The Department would dispute that local air pollution cau.1i'd by bui ding streatnside roads would destroy trees. We can acknowledge high levels of`tree mortality caused by the im- pacts of construction over a period of years. Can you pro,,de further evidence to support that resultant air pollution would destroy trees ?" Response: (4) Two points of clarification would b,' that air pollutants including dust, would be produced by vehicular use of the roads and not so much by construction of the roads. Secondly, the statement should be modified to ;Wicato that the increased air pol- lutants mould probably not destroy but could degrade t4e health of the trees, although it cannot be determined at this point if or to what degree tads might occur. 16 LAND USE SEC7'10N SMAMRY The Land Use discussion (Section. III -H) in the GPEIR /MEA contains a number of compli- cated tables. The reason for this great amount of detailed information is to describe how the number of future housing units in the City can be calculated. It is an attempt to ac- surately estimate the number of infill housing units that can be built in the western, estab- lished half of the City and add it to the number of planned and approved units in the growing eastern half of the City. The following it a summary of the land use analysis in Section III•H with ratiocale to explain the purpose of the various tables. Section la tells how and why the total area (acreage) of the City has changed since the completion of the 1980 General Plan, Section 14 describes how much of the total City area is made up of the various land' use categori:s. One measure of how fast a City is developing is land use absorption. This sec- tion states that residential land in the City is developing at 355 acres per year. At that rate, all of the reside-tial land in the City would be used up in 13 years. However, other factors must be taken into account when estimating the actual timeframe for buildout. This is but one measure used to estimate buildout. Section Ic compares the 1981 General Plan lattd use categories to the categories used in the 1987 General Plan update as well as the GPEIR/MEA. The only major differences between the 1987 General Plan and the GPEIR /MEA are in the Open Space and Public Facilities sections. Fortunately, the Residential, Commercial, and the Industrial categories are the same so the buildout calculations are directly convertible between the GP and the GPEIR. Table f -I -H /A compares the amount of land in each land use category "or the 1981 General PIan to the 1987 GPEIR /MEA to show how the City has grown (20,900 acres in 1981 to 22,737 acres in 1987) and. changed in character (residential and industrial uses in- creased their percentage as part of the total City while the commercial percentage decreased). The Sphere of Influence also decreased in size (8621 acres to :'704 acrasr due to annex-�tions to Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana. Table III -H /B this table shows how the different lard uses have changed is the City since 1981 as a percentage of the total City area (also takes into account the overall increase in City area since 1981). It shows that residential uses have gong from 52% to 56% , commer- cial uses have decreased 1%, and industrial uses have increased from 22% to 23.5%. An im- portant point to remember about this table is that increases in residential and industrial uses have probzbly come by better defining open space, flood control, and utility /transportation rights -oi %way rather than by the reduction of one particular type of developed land use (residential, commercial, or industrial). Table III -H /C this table shows how the land use absorption figure presented in Section lb is derived. The developed acres from the 1981 General Plan (1979 inventory) is subtracted from the 1987 GPEIR /MEA developed acreage figure, then it is divided by the number of years (eight) to arrive at 378 acres per yeas (for residential uses). Section 13 breaks the City down into identifiable geographical units (planning areas) for a more in -depth analysis of land use patterns and trends. 17 r- --�0 Ll 'iND USE ANALYSIS (CGN'T) Tables III -H /ID through III -H /L shows �, detailed breakdown of the land uses within the seven (7) planning areas in the City plus the Sphere of Influence. All of these tables are on a computerized Symphony spreadsheet. Table II1 -H /At this table compares the amount of residential land and number of housing units in each geographical planning area of the City to give the reader an understanding of the size and residential character of the areas. Section 2a this section calculates the potential years to buildou: of the City by dividing the number of vacant acres per Iand use category by the land use absorption rates (as pre- viously calculated in Table III -H /C). This shows that the City could build out in a mini- mum of 12 -22 years based solely on historical land use absorption rates. This section lays the foundation of estimating a realistic buildout rate for the City. Table III -H /N provides the data to calculate the number of years to buildout based on only land use absorption (See Section 2a). Section 2b this section begins the task of calcula� � ng the future number of units that the City might support At first, a very simple method is used whereby the actual density of existing residential land use categories tactual units per acre as opposed to the suggested General Plan density) are multiplied by the number of vacant acres of each land use category left in the City. This simple method yields a maximum potential of 39,077 new units that could be added to the City. However, this is too large a range for planning pur- poses so a more accurate method must be employed. Table III -H /O this table calculates the actual density (units /acre) of the different residen- tial land uses in the City (See Section 2b). Table III -H /P to give perspective on the potential General Plan growth limits, this table multiplies the number of remaining vacant residential acres in the City by land use category times the Minimum and maximum densities allowed under- the General Plan. Therefore, according to the General Plan, the City could add anywhere from 20,000 to 35,600 future units.. However, this range is still not precise enough for specific planning purposes. Table III -Ii /Q instead of using the maximum- minimum density ranges of the Genera! Plan (see Table 1II -H /P), this table uses the actual densities for each land use categ , calcu- lated in Table III -H /O to calculate the probable number of new units that could bt. in the City according to the General Plan guidelines. So, instead of a range frot„ 16 thou,and units, this method yields an estimate of 27,854 units that could most liken e built. Table III -H /R this table shows the possible range of units that could be built in the Specific Plan /Planned Community areas in the eastern half of the City. As a precursor to ,just adding up the approved number of units for these developments, it is instructional to see what the potential number of unu3 are that could be built in these areas according to the maximum and minimum General Plan ±cnsities, 18 Section 2c this section summarizes the k011owing tables and brings the futur: unit estima- tior process to its conclusion. Accordia�k to approved plans and historical land use development patterns, it is mist likely that thy. City will add 28,483 new units as the City builds out. When this is added to the 30,385 estIMMd existing Units, it can be projected that the City will eventually have 58,853 housing units at buiidout. Table III -H /S this table takes the remaiwing vacant residential acres in the older, more developed (Central) portion of the City and multirplics them by their actual densities as shown in Table III -H /O to arrive at an cstimatod number of new units that will probably be added to this area. Table II'I -H /T this is just } summary of the existing units and vacant acres in the eastern Specific Plan /Planned Community areas. Table III -H /U shows the total number of new housing units expected in the eastern Planned Community areas by subtractinZ the existiag (already built) units from the total approved number of units. Table III -H /V this final buiidout table combines the estimated number of units, from the developed western: half of the City (Table 111 -H /S) with the number of new units is the growing eastern half (Table III -FI /U) i ! arrive at a total buiidout figure cf 58,88$ units which is 28,483 new units added to the ,'0,385 existing units. Section 2d *his section and the three tables; that follow (III -H /W through Y), show the ex- isting land use in the Sphere of Influence area according to three p%lentially applicable land use plans for this area, the County General Plan, the (County) West Fahey Foothill Community Plan, and the City's General Plan. The -nd of this section c< -Ains a cam, Parison of the minimum and maxitnum number of units that could b- built rn the Sphere area under eacia of •he three possible land use plans. It should be notyl that the units and acreages shown is Table III -H /X lore only for a por- tion (Satz Sevaine) of the West Valley voothill Community plan area. This table will be corrected in the final document. The Rancho Cu catnouga sphere of influence represents only 7cc acres 0.086? of the total West Palley atea and is proposed to support over 5,000 units according to this plan. leis figure is within the unit ranges shown for this area in the County General Plan (5,400 to 7,500). The entire West Valley area (16,782 acres) also comprie: Q the Caryn Planned Community (274 acres), the sphere of influence of the City of Fontana (1884 acres), which also contains the Lalance of the planned units, and the Na- tional Forest Service Iands (6,920 acres) nortj, of the two city spheres of influence. 19 t A LZ a` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 1988 TO: Brad Buller, City Planner FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer f= BY: Chuck Mackey, Asscciate Civil Engineer (Traffic) SUBJECT: CALTRANS General Plan EIR Response �1O LGCA3r0�' O 1977 I Ths - CALTRANS comments regarding the Traffic Study of the above referenced project have been reviewed and our comments follow: +he City of Rancho Cucamonga is presently setting up a major traffic planning model program (TFMP) that w4l l satisfy the majority of CALTRANs comments and regaxe;ats. A request for proposal to establish the Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Planning Model and Nexus Procedures has.been sent to prospective consultants. This program is scheduled to begin in December and be compjeted by mideyear 1989. Attached is a copy of the RFpo Regarding their Traffic study comments and requests: 1. The TPMP will address the traffic impact of full build -out of the City end its sphere of influence on all its streets and highways, including State routes, 2. 1.: is appropriate that a regional agency such as CALTRANS or SC % conduct or supervise a regional study. The existing RIVSAN regional traffic planning study should be used by GALTU NS to analyze regional Impacts. The City will be able to show its fractional ani ac��amuiative impacts on the State Highway System. -Refer to the RF0 tar TPMP for further information. 3. The TPMP will adequately reflect existing conditions. 4. The 7PMP will adequately calculate levels of service. S. -The TPMP will allow us to use any existing or proposed highway system and measure and evaluate its traffic impact. Regarding their State Highway comments: 1. CALTRANS presently in* ;ins all surface state highways in the City and, therefore, can remove all parking they so desire. In spite of their reluctance to assert this authority, the City Engineering Division intends to remove parking on all City arterial and selected collectors. If and when State Routes 30 and 66 come under City maintenance, the parking removal policy will Flso apply, Brad Buller CALTRANS General Plan October 12, 1988 Page Two 2. Since the inrerc!anges on I »15 of 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard are separate(► b,, more than two miles, an interchange design at 6th Street is feasible that satisfies federal spacing requirements. The City recognia:es that such an interchange will require specizl design considerations', The TPMP will allow ti:a City to evaluate the traffic need:-, need:-, and warrants for this interchange. Regarding their Flood t ;trot comments: The City's drainage master plan is currently being reviewed. The City has -hire) consultants to conduct studies. A report by BSi Consultants covering the easterly part of the City is being aralyzf,d by city s`aff while Psomas Consultants are preparing a report covering the remaining westerly part of the City area. Upon completion of this project, the master plan will be changed to reflect the City's needs,. Regarding their remaining comments which concern growth, traffic impacts on the highway sys -cem, mitigation measures and the City's ability to help fund these measures: The City will mitigate, or cause mitigation of significant 'traffic Impacts caused by new development. The TPMP will be use to measure and evaluate the traffic impact of significant development. Additionally, the City mitigates frawtional and accumulative traffic impacts of* various developments by use of its transportation system fee. The City is presently upgrading 19th Street (Route 30) with transportation system fees. The Vty will continue its practice of growth mitigati -7 by upgrading the State Highway System when it is necessary. While the TPMP wf! -- allow the City to review, analyze and formulate procedures to reduce the demand of freeway trips, the City's Master Plan is deliberaoly conducive to shortening th dis ^.ante of work trips, and in fact, kieping many trips in¢arnal to the ty and thersfore off the freeway system. We suggest that CALTRANS could pursue this balancing between residential and industrial land uses on a_ large regional scale. Trying to change human behavior by arbitrary control when residential areas are a distance from working areas by artificially . iowering demand access to freeways seems improbabi,. RHM:CM:pam I; r STATE OF CA(IF011;ytA-- C'FFtC$ OF THE GpYEJtN4R i�� GE640E C`EJK4!W4, Cyr. -erq. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH Uoo TEw" SUM SACRAM, NTO, CA 9591 SEP 0 9 Larry E nderson Se�temETer 6, 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga 988 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Subject; Rancho Cucomonga General Plan UPdate, SM4 88020115 tears Mr. Henderson- "'he State Clearinghouse has submitted the above na-Ted craft rnviron-ental �- Report (rIR) to selected state agencies for review. a "Yac` and the cc.- ne-nts frccn the i e review per•ai is now cl.;se3 respon ng ageacY(i3s) is(are) enclosed. Cn the enclosed *notice of Co"nol_tion for~„T you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked t^.e agencies that have CC, nta3. ;Please review the :Zotscs Of Cary7letion to ensure tizat Your comment package is ca;,(plete. If the convent package i4knot in order, please .notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to ref -r to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that wo may resaond :crratly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public R that; esources Coce rewires "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only .:,eke subst_nt ve cortaents regarding those activities involved in a project which are- Within an area of expertise of the agency ar which are required to be carries: gut or approved by the agency." Canting agencies are also required by this section to support their cants with specific docur.Tentation. These re information are forwarded for your vso in preparing your final EiR. Should you need bore information or clarification, we reccamnd that Y� contact the comcnentinr agency(ies) . This letter acknowledges that you gave cmolied with the State Clearinghouse sevieeT requirements for dx.sft environmental dxuments, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact .john Keenc at 916/445 -0613 f'you have any questions regarding the environmental xevieov process. Sincerely, avid C. `- %nenkam. Chief of Permit Assistance Enclosures Cc, 11 ?ourceS Agency 6 -;R4, L-1 a �J .!S„vs.,n.. ev: Y iYY aanx...r. :.x •.[w n, ,. «. "-..Y. a a'y;.- • :b•aLVa . ,. .r Y » _� cr:a er �rrrto rw � si+.w'stioa- :ASTER fHq:RDyY:4::L ASSE.S`:E4T ra.rtr :.w_C_R1L sL:4 E4S' *.P?gw<VAL :'PACT criOCT for ;eMral Flin 7ecnni_al ze"t .r ar.n• C:tY of Ran_no w.a:e.n;a :.•mx t,.., Larry, 4enderscn s R:an .ar.rn �. it, °- 3370 Sase:*nr Road.. •., :gt xancho Cauc+on a tat�f • iF �R San Sr "AN!fno 3 :u 5:7:1 :..,,,,, f 1 :353•• -E1 .^.G7<: sF•b1 4 :'++a.• $an 3e�ns.. {ns 'Sn_no :Jii�:np Y. Y.war [ rirn. • ta, i.ttut n e .a • y. a,.. iu »Y• n`a Sy re•r:w. •wrai n.'i }. \J a. hwY: SY. i•tac :S Dn;a r +p _9 L.M• M..,q ;. 3a. 5.�� .�• w �. v :n2n''t. e. w i' • T.. b SC n,a z -s �+s. t. •ry.. -a �,r t, n raa.e.. �n S, et• _v x. _.s a =w _..at ez. _ u.. x.. •s. __ •• �tuq '�aa T• �'!Q �. :•••n: r.•t aararat aem•• tar.ww• s ..^'a Sw. A. ,c ty.,•�a,aw r:u ��:a.wsF���rit. :a, r, --� i 1arw�i SM �I. :aC2u i:u x. taatat L. !t.���• 'II:r .iM. �. �;�.YS a:u ew he...w• • i••�ay 4 � 2 5,.�,Yr.•:�Ua :S. �RtY }aLattw' •C ... :� r _ieG :3.—V Sa• --'�•" , .�t�art?ei;er Enr. Asstment to 22. ::, ter •� seas 2i.. = snwe Sntr 3. Y xttM:Yjtgr •, C• �Y[O,tY.Tyarj 'aatr[[ :i. �i•.r •�ta[tgT 74 X Ntn S #{r • ! r- �,trtrituwi •••.. a..�:..Yes -tao.a �S.Yu. I a �• a. �44iY1 TSaartat + a• `��..:... :.eq..rtata :2. = a:aawlt :i. �S.::t s„y � R �• � � i0. �Tt.[.'iaia•Y[ �. _ i ^ :taiaxtY:[ :uey i •t #sa 9. ��Aa:L a•wtr . � �'Tx :i• .iw.au. a. _ �a,.at:t i:.wn : .S• �K.t�y.'awral r..tn: i�,SwY i � '1Y. i : +• +2= •.• a ue� All land :,ses ar( .onin + Car re a , .news<<fal, *,"n sot , and n•eD•i_ +tilit.es, f• les.cer ah J. Mnr. mra 1MIE,! E`L4111M,•1 !: k oL,•.N. E44SONIC97AL -l-,T AEZnnT -tr • .' +nerol + �n 'eth:iie�T :1n•latt Updi:e • * 7eneral elan s;a; +s. teal :.' and init n;ait- • zasw.res, and rerislo..c to %he Co..mni;y Design section of 2 Ot Lan: Ilse a .,(- - ..tlottsent Element. • ! Ctr RI COCTt {. Jae rXIM � 4• VIC IvC eSVaaS+O " .mot. ^RESOURCES s RESL i1O:(t g ( 1 q SATE RETIEY T#OAd :wi tgpj T-IMISIf • TµM I—t— oER. RETtEY W RiEMff; R "mE . i AWCT REYIEY TO acm: q-2 A SCH %-WRl.InCE: 9-A,5 wL�4's1lwmtm ,' «,.rAt'K sEbv =5 IRaaoe2rotat 7•� —�1�_i �iiiWtr.Qylly -ie � 4, a A ac %..p:ES 3O ••a :es :. - Sl * nWr- 39 -zer - Z. •aS at ., , •�ttf slt! , -71 7,P7.R�•C � �t: � tii�a_. ` mieosaer� f 1 RAi5iti7PlOilfl l A t IOt7IFLCJOU CONTRUL COUNTY OF SAN 9ERNAP.$iN DEPARTMENT \��til�l�(R�j // ENYlKFi2tA5EN7AC PUBLIC WORKS AGERGY $25 East Third Sirset • San Bernardino, CA 92415 -083P 17141 387 -2800 }��` KEl ',. rNtLLER (1 \ tArector , �^ p August 4, 1988 ��r• , •;� ` 1 cG File: 1- 400!1.00 C" City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA ; ^1730 or f2 1 Re: Zone t — City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Larry Hender.= General Plan. Environmental Senior Planner Impact Report The following com -meats pertain to the referenced report submitted for review by your letter dated ,'.:ly 22, 1988, 1. Page 46 — °Flr+odingn earagraph 6: The Flood Control Dintrict is charged with providing flood control and wati!ar conservation facilities only within its funding c-pzhilities and limitations. The District's jurisdiction is limited to tnose facilities and /or waiver courses where fight of -way has been acquirer'. 2. Figure III - G/1 Flood Control Map, Existing System a) The map shows debris basins and other, dralnage facilities tha',: do nor, erist ti,e. Henderson and Etiwanda Deb!'13 Basis, Etiwanda �'hanr!el between Interstate 16 and Foothill Blvd, and the unnamed channel between Day and Etiwanda Creeks). b) The map does not show Some facilities that c!a -,xist (i.e. Alta Loma Debris Basin and Day Creek L—tI13). c) The le(,,ed infers all the basins shown are debris basins. *Many of the basins are used for water conservation or flow attenuation purposes, n!)t debris retention. d) fl.a Loma Storm Drain is an open channel not an enclosed drain. e) A map is attached snowing existing and proposed Dtatrict facilities and known major drainage propisals by others., i N LJ City of Rancho Cucamonga , august 4, 1988 �y Page 2 4 �te e- ouan f) It is suggested a figure be included in the report shooing all proposed sasterglan and drainage improvements. r 3. Figure III - T /1, Open Space Plan Some of the Flood Control lands shown between Deer Creek and Dray Creek Channea4 ;way be surplus to District ne-*ds and be sold for future development. 4. Figure III - T /2, Masterplan oz Trails Many of the proposed trails folicw Dsstriat right of way Their design she ald be bcwph t %at their use does riot cdnfliat with the operation and maintenance of the District facilities. Any proposed use should be-coordinated Kith the Flood Control District, Field Engineering Division, Permit Section. The above comments pertain to Flood Control District facilities only,'The Report has been forwarded to the Transportation Department; for their c* ts. Should you have any ques'A41va cr wish additional inforcatir T Ise contact, ne at X714) 3972525. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. CGRCHERO, Chief i Flood .CcArol Planning Division fiWC.alc nttaohmefit cc: Lou Oamache Fit> -A'y r CiTY OF RA\CH0 CUCA ONGA September 7, 1985 Kent Norton Plar-ying Network 2EkLO Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 105 Ontario, EA 91764 SUBJECT: FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT 'RESPONSE TO GENERAL PLAN'EIR Dear Kent: The following '..,ns need to se addressed corrected in the Final EIR. 1. Vection N,'Page 127 - Existing Setting, 3rd sentence should be changed to delete fire, paramedic...departments peferencz to these services should list the Foothill sire District as provider. 2. Figure II' -N11 needs to indicate the locations of ;roposed. fire ctatiLns numbers 4 through 7. Also, under the legend', fir..?atior,s 0. 6 should read "East Avenue and 24th Street ". 3. Section Q, Page 133 - Existing Setting - first paragraph, the ou.:ying ari s should be changed to "18t' square miles and the total area li.:ted as a total of '50" square miles. At the end of the third and fourth paragraphs reference should be made that - tations No. 2 and No. 3 provide 24 hours protection as listed for station 0. 1 in the second paragraph. Also, in the fourth paragraph change the 03500 gallon" water tender to "4000 gallon". 4.. Section Q, ,Page 1:34 - The second sentence of* the third paragraph should read as follows: "Tnis agency provides fire protection servi;as in the area north of the City limits on land which the State is legally responsible for extinguishing wildland rire.n." 5. Section X, Page 176 tSitigation Measure, second paragraph (hazardous wastes) the Fire O%trict is checking, with the County, into any responsibilities the District may have in this ar -3a Addition 1 t a subj<<t. comaten may follow regarding this S.P. I Cr.4n:wrn.4n +r...r DOW AN. brown Jeff -ey King ern Mausr. i iZenn,s L Stout Charlrs J. $uquet II RUICIA 1. Wright Luren M. Wasstrmen 1 rtnt Norton GenEral Plate EIR Septema.er 7, 198 Page 2 These co=ents were received during a meeting with Lloyd Almond of he Foothill Fire District on Septembcr S, 1988. If you have any jestions, it is suggested you contact Mr. Almond at (714) 987 -2535. Sincerely, CORMUMITY DEYELOPM.ENT DEPAMMENT PLANNING DIVISIO }d Alan.tiarren ksociate Planner 41:111 9 K-117 $TATC QT CALITpn NI♦ GE .wGE OCIJ ♦MCJ AN l:�.,rngr 'CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 6OARO --- i SANTA ANA REGION 6809 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200 ` RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92606 s PHCNE 1714) 782.4130 August 25, 1988 Larry Henderson Alan Warren City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91743 DEIR: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MASTER tNVIRONMMITAL ASSESSMENT & GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, SCH ESS020115 Dear 14essrs, Henderson and Warren: F:e have reviewed the subject document and have the fallowing concerns: WATER QUALITY We note (pp. 43 and 17a) that 70% of the City of Rancho Cucamonga community water supply is obtained from 19 ground water tells, with nitrate and dibromochloroproNane concentrations exceeding drinking water allowable limits in wells as listed in Table III -F /D. Since the district plans to use imported water for wither recharge or direct distribution to meet projected demand deficiencies (p. 1721, serious cons ideratic -,a should be directed to use of water for recharge in `areas where the ground water shows unacceptable contamina -tion /high nitrogen levels. An effort should be made to reclaim the wells now abandoned because of con4„amination /high `nitrates. If the loss of Fells because of unacceptable water quality reduces the available drinking water ripply, an effort should be made to moderate growth in this regiou to maintain an adaquate water supply for present /mature population. Coloredo River water has been noted as being of negligible value as an auxiliary source of water for this area, and imported water supplies from Northern California present not only probl.'�;,s of blen,ing, but also of limitations due ,o overall cumulative growth demands in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. In addition, we may note that current activities of the State Water Resources Control Board to review the water rights decision which relates to use of the State Water Project make it unwise to assume I that imported watur supplies will be available to support all of the projected growth in this region. This subject should be q.. !en very careful consideration in the DEIR and in any general plan j po?icies /programs now being considered by the City. M�� aa SEWER We are concerned that septic systems, which currently service -25% of the population of this area (p. ?731, present potential for contaminatio.i of the groundwater supply. The predominantly good water quality of the Chino Basin in the Rancho Cucamonga area could be degraded by either nutrients or bacteria. We strongly recommend that every effort be made to provide sewer servii�a to replace the present septic systems, especially in areas with soil limitations, and that future growth be accompanied by ability to serve with full sewer service. We suggest that "Mitigation Measures" (p. 175) be amended to incorperate a policy that all new development must hook up to a sewer system. WASTEWATER � Chino BaE, r. Municipal Eater District (CCcttaD) provides the wastewater .:zeatement for this area (p. 173) at RP1. However, it is our understanding that the plant provider, tertiary service to the Rancho Cunamonoa araa. We concur wi`h the City Sf Rancho Cucamonga that coordination of stater supply, wastewater services, and constLuction of needed iri=vements should precLde development. sincerely, Anne Knight •`� 1 Environmental Specialist cc: John Keene, State Clearinghouse w/ BCH form a:227S s5� September 6, 1988 City of Rancho Cucamonga Ccmmunity sevelopment Department Planning Division P. O. Sox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Calif3rnia 91730 ttention: Mr. Larry Henderson, Senior Planner DI S T R I C T TELCA,; ONE .7741 S-9T 'T'2 I SELEGOPIER .:.4. PE? EST Subj act: Draft 2eastP;r Environ- wental Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report Thank you for the cpportunity to review and comment on' the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Genaral Plan Update. The District, by correspondence dated February 29, 1988 and March 1- 1988, subm €tted comments for incorporation into the Gary -s General plan update and the related Draft EIR. In our February 29, 19881 Correspondence the District peisented number of ::omments pertaining to the proposed general plan update. this co_ respondence, the District had requested that the City addres the consistency of the ekisting general plan land use designation for our administrative site (8555 Archibald Avenue; APN's 209 -041 and 47) with the surrounding "a�.d uses. At that times, it was the District's understanding that the land use designation for this site was low density residential. The District questiored tae consistency of t" low density residential designation with the surrounding land uses which include existing commercial and industrial business park uses. From our review of Figure IT-4 of the Draft EIR, it appears that the District's existing administrative office site is actually designated for commercial development not low density residential. The District is requesting that the City provide clarification on what- the actual land usa desgnatifn for oLr administrative site is. Also, in the February 29, 1588 correspondence, the District had requested that the City consider imo_lemer_tine_ the original general plan policy regarding the use of -tclaimad cater supplies when available_ This request was made in recognition of tt.e District's plan to move forward with the construction of the Froposed Regi;inal Plant 2:o, 4 (R? -4) facility in southeastern Rancho Cucamonga. scheduled to be operational in 1993, it is ant',:ipatad that approximately 20 million gallons per day (I•SGD) of high quality reclaimed water will be ultimately available for reuse purposes. BW; 44CWB4O AyEVUE . POST OFFICE 9Ct' C ?1 4,q ^Kp CUC'1%ON3A C4'.1Foq•41A o -,13 .. .v. .... —.... — .. v- pWtr+rt F rret,, ^H ranrr� A lMrrk ir: T AuPrr—•r r ^p Arn ♦ ruri)n tnpdeoF Yit. - Ni'dcn1 Sr log cLratu.ar tilt. set -rte. t.eota•rr cttsNO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER OISTRICT • 85,e5 AncII10ALD Avcnvc . P O. Ron fi ?i . CIICAMONfiA, CALWORNIA The availability of reclaimed water from RP -4 represents an alternative water supply source which could decrease demands upon both local and imported potable water supplies. The EIR should address the potential benefits of implementation of the cityis existing general plan policy, on the use of reclaimed hater supplies. Reclaimed water from the RP -4 facility could have many beneficial uses within the City. Potential uses of the reclaimed water include unrestricted landscape irrigation, recreational lakes ar-1 industrial and institutional reuse purposes. in review of Section III -W of the Draft EIR, a number of corrections regarding the current capacity and the scheduling of the capacity expansions at our wastewater reclamation facilities require clarification. The Ragicnal Plant No. 1 (FtP -2j facili.tl in Ontario is currently rated at a capacity of 1 I-IGO. By a series of inter- related expansion projects, RP-i will be expanded to a capacity of 35 IiGD in early 1989 and to a'capacity of 44 .GD in 1990. The proposed RP-4 Facility is scheduled to be operational in 1993 with an initial capacity of 7.5 MGD. The District believes that the comments presented above should be addressed and incorporated into the text of the Final Elk. If you shoule .ave any questions or if the District can be of any assistance, please contact the undersigned. very truly yours, Mark N. tKinsey/ Planning and Administrative services Ci41NO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATSR DISTRICT MNK:sf State Sf California Memorandum To 1. Projects Coordinator, Resources Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 The Resources Agency. st 24, 1988 L ; From . Department of Fish and Game Svbject Master Environmental Assessment and Gen. -ral Plan Environmental Impact Report (MEA /DEIR). City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino :oVnty - SC :-d 8802CIIS We have reviewed the MEA /DEIR for the City of Rancho Cucamongars General ?Ian update. This document was prepared to serve-ac a baseline of info:. -ation which developers and age.acies can incorpo -ate by reference into other planning and environmental cs,cuments. The project area includes over 30,000 acres, including 22,,737 acres within the City limits and 7,704 a.:res within the Cityrs aphere of influence to the north. The project area is largely developed but includes 'eral resources of significant interest to the Department cf Fisch and Game. These include riparian wetlands and chaparral habitats that may be mountain sheep wintering ranges, and a unique wetland (identified in the t:EA /DEIR as a "sage marsh ") at the confluence of Day Creek-and Zast Etiwanda Canyon. That aria includes the state- end federally- endangered slender - horned spineflower (Chorizanthe le toceras) and the state - endangered `evin's barbery (Bers nevinii The MEA /DEIR provides aril} a cursory analysis of the biotic resources eithin the planning area. In order to be useful to future analyses, specific mapping of sensitive wildlife habitats should have been prow,ded. Also, the MEA /DEIR is incorrect in its inferences r:garding legally protected species as discussed on page 32. The Ca3ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15380 Ubdicates clearly that species meeting the criteria established in the lefinitions of "rare" and "endangered" are rare or endangered pursuant to CEQA requirements whether or not they are formally listed. Thus, species listed by the California Native Plant Society, candidates for federal or state listing, and other rare and locally unique species shoul'i be considered as rare or endangered for purposes of CEQA c_mplaaree. Impacts to these species or their habitats in addition to impacts to state- or federally - listed species are significant adverse impac v pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1.055. Streamside woodland wetlands are extremely val!,able wildlife Auk habitats. It is the Deparrmer.trs policy to oppose projects +hir,'s would result in a ret loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. The City should desigrute all •t_tland &reas as 0 11 -2- natural open space and should encourage the conservation of this tesource. The loss of any wetlands which cannot be feasibly protected should be - ompensated thsrntgh the creation of wetlands o! no less acreage a...d of no less habitat value than those wetlands which would be Lost. While we agree that counties generally attempt to consider local agency planning efforts, we must point out the large difference between the 8,500 dwelin3 units Which the 'City proposes within its sphere of influence;'and the 1,000 dwelling units currently allowed under the County's West Valley Foothill Community Plan (page 10). Our recommendation for this area is to accept the County's planned densities to allow a buffer between the City an,' the Angeles National Forest. We are particularly concerned abot, proposed use changes in the Day Canyon area, and we recommend that all of the areas of actual and potential mountain sheep habitut be designated Resource Conservation. If this document is to €erne as a useful tool in planning for future growth within the City's sphere c,f influence, the MEA /DEIR should contain accuratr and detailed information regarding the location of, and fish and wildlife values associated with, important fish, wildlife, and sensitive plant species habitat. Such information is of extreme importance in planning for growth in areas where impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized. For these reasons, we recommend against certification of the KEA /DEIR at this time; and we recommend that ,ate MEA /DEIR be substantially upgraded to provide a firm foundativii upon which to plan for the future growth.o the City of Rancho Cucamonga while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with that growth. We emphasize that the MEA /DEIR lacks sufficient detail to allow either the Department or the City. to assess the effects of proposid development, and, for this reason, the MEA /DEIR .lack% sufficient detail to comply with CEQA requirements. Department personnel are available to provide the City with information regarding Vie sensitive nature of portions of the more than 30,000 acres contained within the planning area, and to provide recommendations regarding the long -term prote.:'ion of these areas. Thank ynu for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contiict Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 330 Golden Shora, Suite 50, Long Beach, CA 90802 or by telephone at (211) 590 -5113. u Fete tontadeili Director W • Safe of California` _. •' _= Ruloness, iramportalion and Howing Agency - Mernorandutl To State Clearinghouse. pn=; September 11, 1986 Office of Planning b Research --� 1400 10th Street F;I:raa: OP- SSd- 15- 4.0/8.8 Sacramento, CA 95814 \` Sw,H# 62020215 Attention: John Keene °rcm DEPARTMENT OF ? (ANSPORTATION District 8 subjed: Rancho Cucamonga General Pla We hnvP reviievrri t P Ahnvm- mtntinr;pd nrnjPrt- And hAve the fnllow4rq c ommen t a 1. In reg &rd to the Traffic Study, we request the follr,wir=,_. o An analysis of full bvildout which : ncludaz a forecast of future traffics on the State highways. o A regional study of the traffic effects to the state highway sybrem. This would include a study that would show Ranch Cucamonga's contribution to regional traffic in the wv st Valley. o On page 94, the current huildnut 4A 2.5 Percent less than the previous estimates, therefore the gererated trips should be 25 percent higher. =o` on Table 211 -1 /E the figures are deflat(sd by 25 percent are used for Volume Capacity ratios anal Leval of Service calcula- tions where the higher number would be more appropriate. o Analysis of the circulations system with and withcut the proposed-Routj 30 freeway, In regard to the State ) aghwayu ,be following should be Implemented- 0 Prohibition of Parking on State highways. o The planned interchange at Intcs-£tate 15 and 7th 5ti:eet does not meet federal sr+acing requirements cf interchanges on a freeway. In the 3ydrolooy section, of the General Plan, on page 49, the flood control project, refer to 1980 and 1982, this should "be upctater3 to reflect the current system. It s a Caltrans policy to surrcrt econeatic Growth and orderly ?and ::se development, however, new development that significantly mpatrs State highway facilities should_ hays - 'it :gation -measures addrtassea. State Cleazinghouse Page 2 September 1; 1988 In view of the fact that Caltrans has nr; funds available for infra€Mructure imorovementsr we recommend that the city of Ran(-t Cucamonga take the lead in developing a fair -share -echanism in wh.ch developers would participate to fund needed improvements to the Sta' highway system. a The City should consider a demand management plan along with the future corridor plan, that would mitigate the effects Of growth and reduce demand on the State highway system. In addition, through the fair -share mechani"m the City should provide facility mitigations to the state highway system for the regional shopping center and industrial azeas adjaccn to Interstate .5e If you have any questions, please contact Richard Malacoff at 0 14) 383- 4550. GUY G. NISBAL Chief, Transportation planning Branch RM:km cc: Oftith, Plan Coord Unit, DOTP Alan Warren, City of Rancho Cucamonga Larry Henderson, City of Rancho Cucamonga state of CCIX -nia . Merro Candum .o Dr. Gordon F. Snow Assistant Socretary icr Larry Henderson and Alan Wa City of Rancho Cucamonc. 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, .y 91701 t From s D"r1~0 of C*ns*MJ` an --0fi'i+ of tha D+rocto► f: C 134 TK RESOURCES AG.:4CY OF +;AUFORNIA AUG 2 J 112[18 Draft EIR for FSaster Env. Assessment and General Plan 4. Update, y. SCi? F8802011s `,+ "1717n, `! , The Department of Conservation has tev waii the City of zlancho Cucamon�,_'s Draft Environmental Impact Report i C.`R) for the City's 1,aster Environmental Assessment and General Plan SCH #88020115, and has the following comments to offer. As you know, the State Mining and Geology Board transmitted e copy of a report designating regionally significant construction aggregate resources in the San Bernardino and Claxemont- Upland Production - Consumption (P -C) PQgions to the City of Rtncho Cucamonga in April 1987. in accordance with the provis$,ons of. the Surface Mining -and Reclamation Act, 1SMARit), Section 2762, the city is required to establish minoral resource management policies in its General Plan that will: (1) recognize ti;q mineral information transmitted by the Board; " :) assist in �..xe management of land use in designatibn arras: and (3) elmphas.ite the conservation and development of identified mineral deposits. The City's Draft EIR includes information on the aggregate extraction resource areas, but it is not clear if management policies have been established that will accomplish the objectives of SMARA Seat -on 2762. �SMARA Section 2752(b) requires that proposed miner-' resour ^.e management policies be submitted to the State Mins,s3 and Geology Board for review and commont prior to adoption. The Department of Conservation would, thersfore, recommend that thn City's proposed mineral policies be formally submitted to the attention of Ms. Deborah herra::3nn, Spacial Representative, State Mining and Geology Board, `:416 9th Street, Room 1326 -2, Sacramento,. ^alifornia 95814, telephone (91ST 322 - 1082. The nepartment appreciates the ;pportunity to comment on the � Draft EIR. If I can be of any essiatance, please feel free to call me at (916) 322 -5873. Dennis J. O'Bryant Environmental grogram coordinator cc: Deborah L, Herrmann G Special Representative F State Mining and Geology Beard �►*, ivy' x'' .. C y 303 EAST qr. STREET QtitTARl CACIFgrlJle1 9S7d .fi96 " aa.tca (714) SF6•ti5! August 10, 1961 Mr. Larry Henderson Senior Planner City or Rancho - xc.arsorga Post office Box Say Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Henderson; Thank you ra for the opportun:ty to review your draft general plan, "Y staff has ad thr doz^ament with a 1yt toward areas of concern t'ar Y;rs %ty cf o tario. +rie have ide�,tif,ied the follawisig issues. °'ne proposed County jail, in the southeast corner of Rancho Cucamonga, is not mentioned in the draft: 11t would like to this and surrounding u3e3 analyx ,d. see the compatibility of We que,tica tttei appropriatencs3 or the General Ind ustsiel designation far the Property an then na; th side of coctrth Street, across from the Gua Cti Regional Park, a racility which hies in the City or Ontario, but which is probably used as much by Ranchc Cucamonga residents as by Ontario residents. 3. th woald litre; to set the likely e'rea.s of COuntY Prapo3ais to recharge thag 0ound aten. snd Cucamongs Srou�,Juat;e:r barda�4 ddea8de3.in your section bZ �i aundwate�t U� We think 'r':1t terms a your ultimate build -out scena: isms aught to be a:tazy"ed in #' ':�AW3 proposed grow�,h management- proposal, eapecialiy in the area of jabs and houalog balance, 5. The industrial designations on the north life of Fourth Strzat are Mely to squire t li&ries by largo trunks whic?t would need to traverse our hotel, and c�+¢ �icial areas within the Ontario Center. This situauion is -less tlaii*; ,?-, irable from our standpoint F:rrLherasc'e, the liitrly ro erty n . - +' Ontario Hills, south Ot` Fourth, teada u3 tb a��nclude that Property owne!•s on the Rancho Cv;0amanga side of that street will prababat want to r�dvelr+p their properties in aoonereisl urea re any ease. `l suggest 'at you would be well advised to antoifra`t •tit *, s occurrence and have }asp :general pl =n reflect the likely commercial dt.;,Iapr:ent or this once. Moreover, cnr crcial developaent woU ?„ be mart conmatible with our general plan, on the south side of Fourth, and, one would ass?1me, be in lint with Rancho Cucamonga,s community goals. V4 f 8 t?Fk WIN Larry Henderson August 10; 198$ Page No. a If you havi any questions Please call me or Austin Sullivan at 397 -2505. Sincerely, ONTARIO PLANNI14G DEPARTMENT R ` ✓ Joyce I. 3abicz Y City Planner JIB :AES:aa ICI rL)E 1 E. o - El E r 1_s 1 CITY OF UPLAND "Ac City of (7rocieus ". ing, '60 No. Euclid Ave. F.O. Box 4E0 Tlplant ;, E'Elirorn:2 9,, 7766 76o (714) 982.1352 September 6, 1988 ^orad Butler, City Planner ^ Rancho Cuca.monCa Planning Department 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamvng., CA 91701 0,zFr Mr. Buller: REF: Response for the taster Environme rtal Assessment, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report draft. The City of upland has reviewed the Draft Paster Environmental Assessment and offers the following coru^ierts: 1. The relationships of development wirkin Rancho Cucamonga and Upland is not' addressed. The impact of huildout . +n tte City o� Rancho Cuca^,onga is ad- dressed, but, no mention is made of tte inracts on surrounding cities. 2. Mobile and point source emissions as based on build -out estimates represent a significant and adverse impact. -Every attempt should be made to promote the specific mitigation me ?sores as outlined on Pag 107 of the Environmen- tal Assessment. The guidelines for paliution control should be based on South Coast Air 'Quality t4anagement District, Air Quality Management Plan of 1988. 3. The analysis of the circulation element does not address the impacts on the City of Upland in either short term or cumulative long term impacts. The proposed cost for the proposed major traffic improvements is not addressed for either city. Tie analysis of traffic circulation indicates that the 1986 General Plan understated the anticipated traffic i..pa.t by 25%. In light of this find- ing the Draft £nvironrertal '-;-act Report rakes no reference to the antici gated additional impact to the City of Upland resulting from Rancho Cucamonga's continued development. No quantitative analysis is provided of the traffic growth on arterials as tte traffic leaves the Rancho Cucamorca city limit. Consequently, ',o mitigation is reconzended to allow these it pacts to be alleviated. T IJ C- 1 41. : ZS Mr. Brad'Buller Page 2 4. The mitigation measures for traffic impacts of complete buildout are based on completion of the Foothill FreE'.:1Y_ is stated that the traffic vo- lumes gilt have a significant adverse and cumulative impact. an Rancho Cucamonga if the expressway or freeway is not constructed. There needs to be a specific statement of the snort term impacts is constructed of traffic volvolutes co nstructed and also the on Rancho Cucamonga and Upland until the freeway impacts of traffic volumes in Rancho Cucamonga and Upland, if buildout oc- curs prior to completion of the freeway. It is not clear in the Draft-En- vironmental Impact Report what mitigation measures will be irnplemW;ed in the short term, prior to a freeway, to assure that traffic continues to flow within and between the cities. if circulation and land use plans are based on the shift from automobile use to alternate forms of transportation, what are the methods for im- plementing the alternative forms? 140 specific policies are proposed to assure that the goals for 17% alternative transportation are achieved. What are the significart adverse impacts il` -,h will result if this shift d,;es not occur? 5. do coordination of traffic circulation between Rancho cucamonga and Upland is identified. A system wide impact analysis should be conducted to an- alyze the impacts of traffic generated from Rancho Cucamonga to adjacent areas. 6. The long -term costs of operation to the City of Rancho Cuca6onga for Police and Fire protection should be addressed to assure the cities continued cost effective operations. Thy City of Upland is continuing its analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact 7 't dur6c the.public hear- Report.* It.j!�* our intention to provide further ommen ing process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input ii this matter. Should YOU have any questions regarding our comments, please do . put hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, f freY ' x8loom, Planning Director Upland Planning Department j,,,,$/JJZ. bir anu,,, . AOL•r g- -6 r i Archibald Alwenue Rancho Cucamonga California 91730.4698 (714) 987.8942 September 6, 1933 BOARD OF TRUSTEES KENNETH BRADSHAW U1S GONZALES DAVID ORTEGA LORAINE McMULLEN JULIAN RINCON JOHN F. COSTELLO. En D. Superintendent .tarry H _nderson Senior Planner. City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 "C" Base Line Road Rancho Ct- caman,a, CA 31701 Dear 1`r. Henderson: Attached is a revised enrollment and cagacit'r report for the Cucamonga School District. The information ghat I presented should replace the informaLion'on your Table Ili +IPjc: of your Master Environment ?! Z=essment and General Flan,. If there are any questions regarding this, pl6Ase don't hesitate to contact me. Si. rel , 0j F. "!OStella,. Ed D. S perteadent 1 Attachment ..:ca Ct7P G 1 v V V Iv' :.t i. f Where Suc- assbil Learning Happens ADMIMSTRATIQN t �� � �F Frank R: Costa jv. Ed.*J. c o f Rf l i s t j"r i c t Ofstncr Supenntendv"t 8/ District s" i ingriA Vogel 4457 Foothill Blvd.; Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.'(714) 989 -8511 Assrsrant 5f,nerrwrendrnt. ttf,"nr. r. Sep`enaer 12, 1988 L ; CIS J u� Larry Henderson, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Degartzient P.O. Sox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, C7+ .11730 E RE:: Requested Revisi.cn to the Rancho mEA Planning Section ZZi for the Central School District Dear Mr. Hendersons 3 have r viewed the data relating to Central School District in the Rancho YEA Plan and request thrt the following char3es axe Wade to reflect adequate information for our school district: PAGE 139 - Exhibit "A" to reflect correct ae$ign capacity for 1987 -88 including v',d /or excluding leased portables PAGE 1 43 - Exhibit "3" to reflect current enrollment of 3$30 to agree with page 139 and projected enrollment forecast of 5616 far 1992 -3 PAGE 147 - Exhibit "C" Central School District has very detailed student genergtion ratio and this information should be reflected and the note changed PAGE 148 Exhibit "IN to reflect actual and pro ected enrollment for Central School District If you have any questions, please call me at 989 - 6541. Ingrid vogel Assistant Superintendent, Business Services jJ Encicsures ce Laure,: Isasser.ran Elranit Cosca BoARo of TRUSTEES ittlArF t. stoY '� Antaftia L. Rogers n, Bai.er Ruth A. Musstr 1''�v,�rnt Ch4 •., ,_ efr Andrew 7isidr ( �frmnCt titrTnrr 10esi9n capacity does not include- leaudd cr rutlted PortableSa.!!l�S:' "2 . WCR Log-j La-, r4rb ✓'c� i s RancSo Sick- Sc.tion III TABLE III-R/3 Amok PRESENT E- NR3LLtf£YT AND CAPACITY OF CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT t9P -7 School Current Design JC7YG�u and Location Enrollment Capacftut c #xam svamsassassauzssxssaars....sasa sataaeo rs :sat arsaa¢ te r. Bear Gul^h alemc. -miry Schoci d93 .°•w 8355 Bear Crutch Ptac: C a:•a1 Ciz teztary Sc::ool 581 :955 �- chibald �vcntre Coyote Canyon apt IIv75 ie,a Vista ?arkwzy Cucamonga sunior High School 1001 ;611 Hellman Avenv: L15-2 ions �4c:ced EI,^scntary School 723 10533 Palo Alto S rCet Vaile Vista 1cmentary 5chooI 661 x_37 Vali: Vista Sriv. mw Tat_! ._ S,s80 38Sri,, 10esi9n capacity does not include- leaudd cr rutlted PortableSa.!!l�S:' "2 . WCR Log-j La-, r4rb ✓'c� i s RancSo Sick- Sc.tion III final Poor Qua ` The Central District ha:, a compic :/_,a an prepared 'may Christopher in 1986. This district is situated in an orridor, it. the ccnt f the ty and inc!udcs the Terra Vista Planned C rmuaster Plan ident-' cs shert- : c-t Ifi� car) cnroltme ; trends and faci i.i.s nehe schools in • district. it u arts_i„a.ed that enrollments will increase fromsent %0 a "' at some point bcyond 1990. There are several proposals before the Board of Education that address stu- dent housing plans over a longer period of time. The Coyote Canyon School in Terra Vista, :-resists of all Portable buildings and wiil sous students from the planni.¢ cornmunity un_ :ii a new, state ,funded permancnLschool is. construr.ed on Mountain View lust west or `.Sil- ,ifien. The E :iwanda Shoot District occupies the nor h ast -n portion of the ty. According to the district, an elementary school designed to accom.nodate app.-Oxirrateiv 300 s dc :,.:s Is currently under construction and is tentatively sch du ..d to open in Fait 1988. A s :r•1 'e- entary s pool is planned for construction in Fall 19 €0 This school. located in Fontana Depending on :his sc..00l's eol.,ment rat_ znd the ability of a,._.-•:ate available schools within the City schools to ac_om- nods e the student pc tic ; stud-ens -ay be bussed out of the City to *the Fontana sc ool s. . T: .wail d9 School Pis• r •s : go..atir.g for ; acquisition of additional sch 01 sites •xhic have already „__n sci__..d within Rancho C- ..3rtonga and Fontana. The Alta Zee= District is located in he northwest part of the •i ;y, School sites for an el_:nentary and Junior high school, located in the Victoria Groves area and along m sm AL—::,,u spa iv 1y, av- bees purchased by the district. Co s.ruc•ion or both s_..oc.s '-as not b _n scbedul_d since :he State has not allocated the _ss_. y funds :o co- rz _-rs:ru: .. Whi,_ the _ ,. of -he rior higt .a ..00i has IZI: art 'O1• (a. ....- ° �♦ h :$ s. OOl s pC: d • :0 C� .2. 'as a lip s .. . a.aiia_i_ This school will then undergo :ons.ruc.tcn or a ,.o:. .ImV plans to coTstruc. an additional elemcn:ary school ith- site nc y-. purchase'' ?, are currently being formulated. According to the Cucamonga School District, tjse' proposed elementary school, Ontario Center School, has been designed to handle an estimated 600 students and open in 1990. The District has identified two schools, Rancho Cucamonga IvYiddle .School and Cucamonga Elementary Schooi, as being htaviip impacted by the growth occurring within the City. According to the Cucamonga District, a committee has been formed to consider enlarging Rancho Cucamonga Mddie School by'adding.a wing. This will conserva -- tively double the school's present capacity. The development stage has been provisionally targeted for 1992. While supplemental portable classrooms were recently added .onto the Cu a.-:orga EIementary School, it is yet experiencing difficulty in adequately accornmodat= i g :he s :udcnt population. The District predicts that the need to allocate additional port- able classrooms will only continue in the future. Rancho M1_A -Se: :ion III Page•ls3 1 al"aa Pbor Oaatlt TABLE III -R/F F 71:DENT GENERATION FACTORS 1 Student School District Gencrationt Alra Lama. Elementary (cI ern enary K -6) 0,5 Ccncral r.. �-. G r 33� C zrrev Union HiSh (9-1 :) 0.15 C___ -o^ga Eie ::tarn 0.5 E:iu2 .61 =ic^ cnCsry 0.40 (6.8) 0. ^0 ,, .•.tai Tc:al' H. "Sh SchCci(c-;_^) 0.1, TOTAL 0.62 'All districts dal maintain records or students per household for projection purposci. 'Averaged values based on City -snide data compiled rrom all districts except Central. ache NSA -Se :lion III Page-1 47 l.�ltf�ta .It /; f1Nf Z.Wwitc. R�n1�/3t'ttf �rll'CC. ^..;lY 168q -190,2 P,:; c xf •student Generation Ratios by Housing Types ; 47 O O 9 O j O O p N A C > ^ Q ¢ n 0 0 O 0 0 0 O: 0 p O li 0 0 0 e x Q a g 8 n n \ g 30 a o 0 0 0 C. 0 0 11 a n. 0 0 0 4 N A Y A- V G A 11 N N ?� e � •� N r1 .� .pp O ^ '04 d .Qp O rCl N O Hat v =seO 0 o,e oho oo s o n cot? r w • r .•. _Eq w as O .pp `�Q • w o x o o O O� O O O C Q O 11 C. O. O 0 A i . . 0 997 7 N 3� � � o 0 0 L N q x x V A VO z O O tl 4 0 8 4 Y < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ M •r ` H M ° Q 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 � . O c o o A v j ■ A y yV Q O O O O O w eV s p V �J � � E! ° A A O� II wf J ■ p M O� N'� A 9 =' GG N M i5 0��1 MI M r1 d O� e C Y M O VM C = p i wx .o N Y O o �'1 N• C N Its MY 11 O ©� O� 9 N E r 0 G O O D OO O O O e ri w O O p A K V ■ p N N N N 5yt Y i p N O �'1 O O O N A s d 1 rn Iw N � N ■ 11 Y ` 7 >6 •. NN1 +My� 7Jy •Nx d 4: f0 N 7t N Y A L L L L L V: w t7 0 w N a ■ %tlffQdlttftQ/t La 'J \.1 v TABLE i' ;RjG PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IMPACTS Total Am 2l Pr 4Lt0 Cepacityl 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 District Zffffffff_1L.Zfifmi....... fiffff.....iff iffft fsifff.ff>1ff. Alm Lorna 6829 5332 6042 6113 6503 6890 c1 P Cen-ral - Begs , j NA `A Cucanonga 3093 1;.43 482 l' 79 NA tiw•anda 1;32 952 13G9 1:96 _450 33 %1 CL±,irc� 7000 6870 1145 7350 7800 8251 Union! Elc .cn:ary 13,008 (1C -8) ?g Sc ooi� 4.991 ': o:a: capacity ^ay or r..sy not include r,or:able eluerooru de�ends� on diaact'e method of ca culetin6 txpctity .only % or ON students at Chaffer iilCh are from P,"cha Cucam"Sa 'Only counts students in Chaffer District from Rancho Cu"monaa :QA . rieures not preparzd by district Rancho NIZA- Scction III Page-JAB w 11 V Central School District I District Enrollment His t Summary History and Forecast 6 14; C . N .2 Id C N 9 94 49 & Z ;2 0, 4 10 W Z, 11 V Central School District Summary District Enrollment History and Forecast 1 ; 9 G R O nz 1 i i i G • r � v v� w v �r v M v u+ C C j 1 N P C a 1 r ; A P v v ri .r ri i i ri /? PR M M ri ri M M N N K M 1 0 r My r � g ! � VO t j Y1 -1N w.'.Nri NNririN p. i � =S V 4 C v u` w c o C i u tt fl` t•�� V.-�,rJ v rsiSi!!CF .SMtY:nlGli' S-EF l I LAW OFFICES PARKER AND COVERT A PAI"1NER,e.P OF P"FlU10NAL COIIPOKATp g SPENCERS OVERT - 1941 EASTFOURTHSTREET.SUITE312 TELEPHONE,TIa:i5321ST SPENCER E COVERT 114, R 1 IE 9 3 2_,39 V a9GAgEr A CH1OE5TER SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92705 TELECOP CHARLES 8 SCOLASTICO 1'ERNA P SAOMLEY MICHELLE D. ENGLISH REF OUR FILE - ' 1Gt:ATh.NJ.IJ0T7 RACHELLE NICOLLE•KAGNER %ALR FADELY September 28, . 1988 DOUGLAS N "EOMAN CE -40 FT -40 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonp 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, Cali:?ornia 91730 Re: Response to Draft Master Environmental As, ssment (MEA) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents the Central School District and the Etiwanda School District. We have received and reviewed the MEA and EIR'sor the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan "). Pursuant to Government Code section 65302, "The General Plan shall consist of the statement of development policies [to include education} and shall include a diagram or ' diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan propos &ls.° The Central and Etiwanda School Districts operate many schools in the - community. The Districts are concerned about the development policies and enormous impact which the projected build -out of the City of Rancho Cucamonga will have on existing and yet to be financed and built schools. The following are the Districts' comments :oncerning the above General Plan: x N tam' OFFIC-ES PARKER AND COVERT Am qP Members of the Planning Commission September 28, 1988 Page Two E The Plan estimates that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be built -out in the next 20 -25 years. During this time, 28,483 new housing units are anticipateu, to be built in the City representing a 48% increase in the :existing 30,385 housing units. In Section III, page 118, the population of the City is expected to increase f. °om the present 94,614 to that of 178,370 around the year 2010. In apparent recognition of this rapid growth, the Plan's Executive Summary concludes that the "build -out of the city to almost 59,000 dwelling units will effectively double the level of urban infra- structure and services needed after the year 2010. The provision of adequate libraries, parks, trails, and possibly schools may not keep pace with development unless there is adequate Yong range planning. At present, most service expansion plans appear adequate to accommodate rowth iC sufficient funding is provided." (Emp. added. The Districts are troubled and concerted that the City has not _iven adequate thought or attention to the sufficiency of facility and funding reouirementu over the next 20- 25.years for the public schools servicing the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Section IIIR of the Plan, which pertains -to schools, contains numerous inac_uracies and is totally devoid of any implementation or development policy pertaininf to school facility financing to enable the Districts schools to adequately accommodate "double the current number of students" (Section III,; page 146). Unlike the Environmental Assessment for the 24 remaining categories, no analysis or projection of school facilities or impact is made past the year 1990. What assistance does the City volunteer to help mitigate this enormous impact Which will be felt by the Districts' schools? On page 149, it states, "The City may wish to help the affected districts coordinate their planning efforts so that the result will be a comprehensive plan for providing school facilities as they are needed." ss LAW OFFICES PARKER 31D COVERT Members of the Planning Commission Septewber 2 €, 1988 Page Three In an effort to assist the City in its evaluation of the i.mp3ct whicr! the projected Plan will have on the ,Districts' schoc c, a preliminary analysis is provided for Your information and inclusion in the Plan. Initially, please find attached revised Tables III -P. /B, 1 :1 -R /F, and III -R /G. It is our understanding that the information included in these revised Tables were previously furnished to the City by the respective Districts. Based upon the Plan's projected increase of 28,483 new housing u.2its by the year 2010 and the .62 combined student generation factor, for the City's elementary (11,-8) and 'sigh schools (9 -12) , 17,659 new studentsr will be generated within the next 20 -25 years. In determiring the cost of providing school facilities, an average of 65 square feet per stz;Zent would be used to Provide adequate facilities for the Central - Etiwanda School Districts. For 17,659 students, 1,141 ,835 square feet would be necessary. Using the State Allocation Board's allowance of $120 per square foot for estimated construction costs, $137,740,200 ox present value &Mars would be needed' to provide adequate school- facilities. To facilities, ethe n e costOfoacquiring. herPropertysupon lwhich build schools must also be taken into account. Generally, the acreage reluirament for new facilities Ir as follows: 10 acres for an elementary school, 20 acres for a Junior high school, and 40 acres for a high s. -,howl, The Districts . esticaate that the market value of prc,aerLy within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is approximately $160,000 to schools andr4ajuniorUhinh oreinterms proposed 14 elementary forth in Table I1 -4 g diate schools as set property acquisition would account to between $35,200,000 and 45,400,000. Additionally, these: figures represent only the costs associated with the furnishing of schools, and in no way provide for other necessary facilit` s such as maintenance acq yards, district offices, warehouses, instructional centers, uisition, of school buses and other capital, needs. LAW OFFICES PACKER AND COVERT' Members of the Planning Commission S'epteaber 28, 1988 Page Four Accordingly; if the above concerns are taken into consideration in developing the student impact, it is clear that revenue generated solely from developers fees will not be enough to alleviate the burden that the Plan will have on the School Districts. Additional mitigation is requirad. This additional mitigation can be effected in large part through the Community Redevelopment Law. In particular, Health and Safety Code section 33401 provides a means whereby the Rancho Cuccmonga Redevelopment Agency may, in any year in which it own3 property, pay directly to A school district an amount of money to alleviate the financial impact that the redevelopment project has caused. We request that the City employ the provisions of t2-._s section. In light of the foregoing, the Plan at Section, VII erroneously mainuains that the current school deveioper fees will mitigate potentially adverse impacts upon the Districts. �We appreciate your cooperation in expanding upon the Plan's analysis to address the _impact upon school facilities and funding Caused by the projected growth within the City of Rancho Cuc- monga. Very truly yours, CHP:DNY:dm3688 61 a on Parker Attachments cc: Frank A. Cosca, Jr. Superintendent Ingrid Vogel C�sistant Superintendent, Business Services Central School District Dr. Carleton °z Ughtfoot Superintendent Gene New con Assistant Superintendent, Personnel/Facilities Etiwanda School District r' TAPLE III -R /E PRESENT ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OF CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School and Lo,3tion Current lesign Capacity Enrollment Permanent/ Portables Br lch Elementary School 493 32 5I$ 8355 Bear Gulch Place Ce ^tral Elementary 581 588 S :hocl 40 7955 Archibald Avenue Coyote Canyon 421 0 446. 11075 Terra Vista Parkway Cucamonga Junior High 1,001 670 529 School 7611 Hellman Avenue, Dona Merced Elementary 723 695 71 School 10333 Palo Alto Strece Valle Vista Elementary 661 327 School 141 7727 Valle Vista Drive _ Total 3,880 2,512 1,751 Rancho MEA- Section III Page -139 TABLE xrx -RIB' AML STUDENT CENERATIOrd FACTORS C ty.'sdide Totall Elementary oc -B) Fish Schoaig,12 0.45 ) 0.17 TOTAL �.. ".."'~� ...... ........... 0.62 l Average values used on Cic , districts, y wxde data compiled from all Ra'oho MEA- Sectlon xZS page -147 Student Alta (el er�e a Elementary ntary Generation` K -6) {,3un2.or high 7.83 0 =6 Cencrs C-$r 0.6 (9-6) (7 -8) .34 Chaffs y Union on Hi;h (9 -l2) 09 Cucamun � Ea E'lemenary 0.15 Etiwands r (9-5) "lgmea�rary 0.6 (6 -8) 0.40 0.20 C ty.'sdide Totall Elementary oc -B) Fish Schoaig,12 0.45 ) 0.17 TOTAL �.. ".."'~� ...... ........... 0.62 l Average values used on Cic , districts, y wxde data compiled from all Ra'oho MEA- Sectlon xZS page -147 r ' TABLE III -R /G PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IMPACTS Total Actual Projected District Capacityl 19837987 1988 i990 Alta Loma 6829 5332 6042 6113 6503 6890 Central 4263 3480- 3776 4083 4362 4778 Cucamonga 2093 1482 1779 NA NA NA Etiwanda 1.732 952 1349 1796 2460 3371 Chafre Union 7000 6870 7145 7350 7800' 8251 Elementary 13,008 (K -8) High Schoo13 4,991 (9 -12) l Total capacity may or may not include portable classrooms depending on district's method of calculating capacity. 2 Only 22% or 600 students at Chaffcy High are from Rancho Cucamonga. 3 Only counts students in Chaffey District from Rancho Cucamonga. NA - figures not prepared by district. I I Rancho MEA- Section III S7ASE OF CA11FORNtA -7HE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE OEUKMEPAN; Go-wt DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J, NEWMAN, Ranger Unit Chief n Bernardino Ranger Unit :800 Sierra Way Tian Bernardino, CA 92405 (7141 AS2 -1226 September 6, 198$ City of i> s ncho Cucamonga P.O. Box 307 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: DRAFT MASTER EN1.11RONMENTAL ASSESS14ENT (MEA) AND GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has reviewed the above captioned Draft Assessment and EIR and our comments are listed below. Pte. 136 The wording that -the City ' tdolald" investigate adopting a similar fire safety ors? €nance is too weak. The department would tike to see the City actively pursue adoption of an ordinance that will address the findings published In the December 1983 Foothill Communities Protective "Greenbelt" Program: E:PC.rt and Recommendation on the reduction of fire, flood and erosion Iosses along the wildiand urban interface in the foothills of the San Bernardino Valley, Pa. 46 -50 Discusses flooding based on 100 year flood calculations and the historic floods of 1939 and 1969. Wiidland fire is not discussed as a contributing agatlt to major flooding and soil movement. Pa. 45 The urban (toxic) waste collection site already exists at Fire Station 173. PR.. 35 "Roads should not be constructed through the streamside woodlands. The activity would remove much of the large animal activity and the resultant local air pollution would destroy cottonwoods, sycamore, and ash." The Department would dispute that local air pollution caused by building streamside roads would destroy trees. V e can acknowledge high levels of tree mortality caused by the impacts of const uctign over a period of yearts. Can you provide further evidence to suppore, that restltant air pollution would destroy trees? Any questions should be addressed to the undersigned at: 3800 Sierra Way San Bernardino, CA ^2405 or call (714) SE,2 -1226 .0 AU J - ;- AMES R. LAIIGIiY.IN Resource Planning Officer .1RL:jas `i^ T V i�: L, J 11 RESOLUTION N0. A ki- ,OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adopted the General Plan and certified the Environmental Imp -ict Report for the General Plan on April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resoiutio1 No. 81 -40. (ii) There has been presented to this Commission in conjunction with this Commission's consideration of the recommended adoption of the General Plan Technical Update, a final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact'Rcp.,rt. (iii) On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the above mentioned General Plan Technical Update and Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General P:.r" iechnical Update.. (iv) The final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report referred to in this resolution consists of that draft document dated July, 1988 entitled "City of Rancho Cucamonga Master Enlronmentai Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report ", written comments on that draft report and written responses thereto submitted by the staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and testimony presented during the hearings on the recommended adoption of said General Plan Technical Update insofar that the testimony pertained to environmental matters. Hereinafter, the above- mentioned documents will be referred to as "the final MEA /EIR` ". The entirety of the final MEA /EIR hereby is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. (v) All 'legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution h,-,,;a occurred. B. Resplution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Rancho cucamonga take the following actions with respect to the final MEA /EIR: PLANNING CommissION RESOLIPi ION NO. MEA and EIR for the General Plan Technical Update Octoh *r 26, 1988 pac ,!, (a) Certify that the final AEA /EIR has been prepared on the General Plan Technical Update in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and is accordance with the regulations promulgated thereunder. Further, that the Council .ertifies that is considered the contents of the final EIRiI•ttA in considering the adoption of the General Plan Technical Update: (b) Find that the General Plan Technical Update project is the preparation, review, and adoption of technical amendments to the General Plan consisting of the update of statistical information anC implementation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, and revisions to the Community design section of the Land Use and Development Element. (c) Find that the final MEA /EIR .does identify physical environmental impacts inherent in the project and, that flanges or alterations have been incorporated in the project which mitigate or avoid all significant environmental effects thereof other than a cumulative contribution to the degradation of air quality; (d) Find that notwithstanding the unmitigrated adverse environmental impacts specified in paragraph b above, that specific enonoml- and social considerations ma`e unfeasible any project alternative specified in the final EIR/N,'�A and :oilstitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; :rid i (0' As to those impacts identified if. % the final MEA /EIR which cannot f ln i measures and alternatives, adopt statement of overr dirM consderationsinsub tanti l formto that set forth irr Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated' by this reference. APPROVED AND AOOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMGA BY: Larry T. WNW, Chairman ATTEST: Brad U Or—, cretary PLANNING COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MEA and EIR for the General Plan Technical Update October 26, 1988 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of she City of Rancho Cucamonga,. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly 'ntroduced, passed, anti adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: C.DWISSIONCRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The final Master Environmental assessment and General 'Plan Environmental Assessment identifies certain impacts which cannot feasibly be avoided' by mitigation measures Those impacts consist of a cumulative contribution to the degrada:tGion of air quality as a result of "increased Population, commercial and ',industrial growth Notwithstanding these impacts, the project was apprnved based upon the finding that specific economic and social conr,T"�.rations make infeasible any project alternatives specified in th,o final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report Ani accordingly constitutes «n overriding i basis for project approval. those considerations are that the General Plan Technical Update is itself a measure to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing community which would otherwise occur without a planned and 'comprehensive approach to future development. The General Plan Technical Update includes current statistical information _on ±he Community and reflects changLs In development policies as we "„ as established policies incorporated in the General Plan at its adoption i, 1981. Ti: General -Plan provides appropriate guidance for the establishment of zoning and development regulations to mitigate growth induced impacts. Consequently, the adoption of the General Plan Technical Update will result in potential environmental effects that are substantially less significant in scope than would occur without General rJ1a - guidance, including each alternative ana ;yzed in the Final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report, t �.X CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF DEPORT DATE: October 26, 1,,86 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Piannt�r BY: Allan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONA- e pro ec as a prapara on; review, an adoption of a Technical update of the General Plan consisting of statistical information and implementation measures, and revisions to the Community Design section of the Land Use and beveiopment Element. I. ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to cons er the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Technical Update. This report outlines the issues not resolved from the September 28, 1986 meeting. The Planning Commission should consider input from the public and after deliberation, make a determination to approve the update or direct staff for any additional information required prior to a decision. II. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSIUN: At the September 28, 1988 meeting, this item was continue to this date to allow for Completion of responses tq comments on the project's Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report as well as correcting the parks and recreation sections as requested by the Community Services Department. The corrected pages have been previously distributed to the Planning Commission under a separated cover. The Community Services Department will have staff available at the meeting to answer questions regarding the proposed changes. Also, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), amendments to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were made in the form of a Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Such an update to the MEA would simplify the environmental review process and could eliminate the need for at least some future EIR's associated with individual projects. If the Planning Commission recommends certification of the MEA /EIR, the Commission may then consider recommending to the City Council approval of the General Plan Technical Update. C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Technical Update October 26, 1988 Page 2 IV. RECOMMENDATI ' : If tLe Planning Commission recommends certification the Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Enviroxpental Impact Report, it is recommended that the Planning CowAission recowend to the City Council - approval of the General Plan Technical Update by the adoption of the attached Resolution. QReul ly 5iitte ner EB :AW :mlg Attachments: Corrections to General Plan Technical Update Pages III -82 through III -98b, I1I -115 & III -116, and Figure III -6 (finder Separate Cover) Resolution of Approval i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLt'i ION OF THE PLANNING Ca•>F4ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO �- UCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT' CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE GENERAL ALAN TECHNICAL 'UPDATE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in conformance with the requirements of State Law, adopted a complete General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan on April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. 81 -40. (ii) On September 28, 1986, the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed City initiated public hearings on the General Plan Technical Update and final Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and, on October 26, 1988, the Planning-Cons tission recd mended to the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga certification of the :Move mentioned final MEA /EIR. (iii) A ".l legal prerequisites prig, ry 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.. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions with respect to the General Plan Technical Ups: `.e; (a) Find that all environmental concerns have been addressed by the final MEA /EIR as recommended for certification by the Planning commission; (b) Find that the General Plan Technical Update project is the preparation, review, and adoption of technical amendments to the General Alan consisting of the update of statistical information aad implementation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1978, and revisions to the Community Design section of the Land Use and Develop,aent Element. (c) Adopt the General Plan Technical Update, as drafted, as the approved General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. PLANNING COtMISSION RESOLUTION NO. General Plan Technical Update October 26, 1988 Page 2 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: r.B ad- Buller,--secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamongi�, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranchn Cucamonga, at 4 regular meetino<of the. Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ST "F REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning CNanission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONME4TAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT :ODE AMENDMENT U `- = g 37, men a Q , e Inc o ucamonga Musicioal Code permitting the use of on- street narking for mciei home sales offices meeting certain criteria. I. BACKGROUND: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Comnissiost direct a staff to prepare a Development r-, le Amendment which would permit the use of on- street parking at model home sales offices. The request for the amendment stemaed fir a Variance application which was filed by a developer proposing to ase on- s_ -eet parking an a cul -de -sac to satisfy the requirement of two parking spaces per model home. The Commission could not snake the necessary findings to grant the Variance but concluded that in certain situations, on- street parking would be acceptable for mndei home sales offices. The Commission concluded that the Developpont Code should be amended. II. ANALYSIS: The Commission recommended establishing the following req w:ui nts for use of on- street parking at model home sales offices: 1. A cul-de -sac location. Through street and stub street locations were not deemed acceptable because of potential conflicts between parking movements and through traffic. 2. Appropriate striping of parking stalls to conform to City standards. 3. Provision of a parking overflow area should a buyer camp -out situation exist. 4. -Where appropriate, security fen,,ing may be required. TTFM n PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 88 - -07 - CITY OF RANCRO CUCAMONGA October 26, 1988 Page 2 l'J In order to permit the use of off - street parking, Development Code Comnissi n7 odirecti( n), staff gwouid revised . thesedsections be revised to read as follows (changes are shown in bold): Section 17.04.07OC7 (f) Street improvements and temporary parking at a rate of two (2) spaces per model shall be completed to the sa,Isfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner prior to commencement of sales activities or the display of model homes. The parking spaces shall be located within an off- street facility, except on- rAreet parking may be permitted subject to the following conditions: (1) The sales office, models, and ate- street parking spaces shall be located on a cul-de -sac street. (2) The parking stalls shall be adequately striped and shall confOm to City standards. (3) An area for excess parking shall be provided off- street to the satisfactions of the City - Engineer and City Planner. (4) Parking shall be permiVed only within aad on the project site. Parking along adjacent or perimeter streets (public or private) shall not be used to satisfy the model home sales parking requirement. (g) All fences proposed in conjunction with the model homes and sales office shall be located outside of the public right -of -way, except where approved by the City Planner and City Engineer for security. The City Planner and •:ity Engineer may also impose other conditions as necessary to ensure such things as traffic safety and circulation, security, and neighborhood compatibility. Of major concern to the Commission is the compatibility of the sales office with the surrounding homes. Ideally, the models should bf - located in an area designated as the last phase �r phases of development, thus eliminating a situation in which ho%buyers are par,'ing in front of a new resident's home. Through the Temporary Ilse Permit process, the City Planner verifies that the models are properly sited. i 1 PLANNING MISSION STAfc REPORT OCA 88 -07 = CITY ar RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 26, 1998 J Page. 3 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Staff has completed the enclosed Initial u y an en 1 tea no adverse environmental impacts result from this Amendment. Therefore, the issuance of which could Declaration is recommended, a Negative III. RECOMMENDATION: Ttie Commission should conduct a public cons er hearing and pu c comments. Adoption of the attached recommending approval of the Ortxlopment Code Amendment Resolution to the City Council is recomendede' AResully mitted e City P annex AftL OB :BH :te Attachments: Initial Study, Pa -t TI Resolution of Approval Draft Ordi; ,ance r% 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONM 14TAL CHECKLIST DATE: QJCtoher lE 1.9$ A'PLICANT: Cie of ho m FILING DATE*- WUMhpr 7A`39f2A LOO NUMBER. °_._._.00A 8 -fl7 ROJv -rT: PROJECT LOCATION: model home sa "res offices I. €?NIR��ETAL IliACTS (Explanation of ell "yes" ar3 "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE LO. 1. Soils and Geola¢v. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unst..ole ground conditions or is chsnges in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? �.a._ C. Q ange in topography or ground surface s _� contour intervals? �. d. The destruction, covering or modification Of ---�. any unique geologic or physical features? Woo ...� A27 potential increase in wind or watar rosion of soils, affecting either eite e.�. s on or off conditons? �. f• Changis in Qrasion siltation, or deposition? g• Exposure of people or propas;ty to geologic hazards such as earthquakes., landslides, mud - slides, ground fallura, OV'similas hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. y. Will the proposal have significant results in: ?age 3 YES `l�1XBE v0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species cr plants into an area? a. V s d. Qa ation in the potential for agricultural prcduction? VOOO Fauna. Will thg proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity. distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? p Y 0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of arimals into an area; or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? ._ 9. Pooul2.tion. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the propor - alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? e �_ 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 values? property b. Will project casts be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users ?' 7. Land Use and plannin¢ __ lerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted 0lans of any governmental entities? V/ C. Ac impace upon the qulatty or quantity of existing consumptive or non- consumptive recreational opportu�itie ? Page 5 11. YES MAYBE NO Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any sceric vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically oz:�nsive site? e. A conflict with the objective of designated oe potential scenic corridors? 12. Util_ i_ ti_ e_ 3 .and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? 00000' �— �► C. Communications systems? -� d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g• Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? I- Police protection? —_ � Wool' --- J. Schools? — O k. Parks or other recreational facilities? -- 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood ctn¢roI facilities? Wool m. Other governmentmL servicca? 13. Enerlyr and Scarce Resource Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial Increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? e C. An increase in the demand for development of new i p eources of energy? d• An increase or perpetuation of the consumption Of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? V100- a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number of any sP -'cies of plants? ,! b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rate i V 4 or endangered species of plants? F Page 2 YES MAYBE�0 a• Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of fiowing streams,, rivers, o or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes.in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the Cate and amount o of surface wat,ir runoff`. c. Alterations to the course or-flow of flood waters? d. Change it the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration o of surface waxer quality? , ,I f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? e e g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, — —� additions or with- drawals, or through interference with a an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? I� h. The reduction in the amount of waxer other - I supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water — —r III or seiches? 3. Z. r a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect s sources? V i b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or Interference w with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? V c. Alteration of local or regional climatic .-... cgnditions, affecting a Vol air movement, moisture or temperature? — - 4. Biota — Flora. Will the proposal have significant results is Page 4 8. Transportation. Will YE5 .`L4Y9E 230 the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street r �� construction. r c. Effects on existing Parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effectu 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 result; r in; a. A• disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleoatnlogical, and/or historical resources? 1Q. Health Safet and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ` b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c• A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the —� event of an accident ?' _.._ d• An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pat.tienogenic organisms or the es.•posure of people to su,h organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? .� .-... f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? ._.. S. The creation of objectionsble odors?► h• An increase in light or glare? __.._ ..�.._. Page 6 YES iSAYBC VO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? P 14. Mandatory Findinus o£ str,1ificance. 0/ a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anima or eliminate Important examples of the -xjor periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve -- short -term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact oa the environment is one whic' occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while l_ag- —_ term impacts will endure well into'the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an Individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects. which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIR02iM£NTAL S1lALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a di'- anion of yroposed mitigation measures). 7b. The Development Code Amendment (DCA) as written, conflicts with Section 17.04.07007(f) of the Development Code. The conflict Will be resolved, however, with adoption of the DCA, which revises that particular section of the Code. 8b. The DCA may affect existing streets in that potential home buyers may decide to park on existing perimeter rather than, or in addition to the cul -de -sac spaces, (public) impact wtll'B"tigate*tiitFt &,Conditt c t�uations, for Posting of "No Parking" signs along perimeter streets. Also, another amended section of the Code requires that an overflow area be provided to accomodate excess parking de_roind. 8e. The DCA would alter vehiicle circulation and pedestrian movement around model home sales offices. The alterations cannot be considered significant enough to warrant any mitigation measures. n_c Page 7 III. DETEMMINATIpy On the basis of this initial evaluation: oI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a ,$ ;gnificant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATlpfl Hil3: be prepared. Y felt that although tbq proposed project could haven a significant effett ©n the environment, there will nqt be a significant effect In this case because, the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DE=411TION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnmailt, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT RF20RT is required. Date Ilcsa6Pr 7� 1 88 Signature Rr tt Narn r Acc��tant PTar�er Title. RESOLUTION NO. 1p A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT To TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.04, OF THE RANCHO CUCX:'ONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERMITTING THE USE OF ON- STREET PARKING FOR MODEL HOME SALES OFFICES MEETING CERTAIN CRITERIA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHEREAS, on the 26th day of October, 1988, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California Government Code. SECTION is The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this amendment w-i not create a significant adverse effect on the environment and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on October 26, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section. 55650 to 65855 of the California Government Cade, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of this amendment. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recoomc-nds that the City Council approve this amendment to the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: arry T. Mrifel, airman ATTEST: Brad Buller, ecre ary I. Brad Buller, 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 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L7 -// ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO, CUCPMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 27.04, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PramITTING THE USE OF ON- STREET PARKING FOR MODEL ROME. SALES OFFICES MEETING CERTAIN CRITERIA a Duly roticed publicthear n h d of : 1988, the City Council held Government Code. g pursuant o ec on 85864 of the California follows: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as SECTION 1: Section 17.04.070, subsection M Of Chapter 1T.A4 is amended to rea as follows: M Street improvements and temporary parking at a rate of two {2) spaces per model shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner prior to commencement of sales activities or, thr lisplay of model homes. The parking spaces shall bQ %sated within an Off - street facility. €n4treet parking may be permitted subject to the following conditions: '} The sates Office, models, and on- street parking spaces shall be located along a cul -de -sac street. (2) The parking stalls shall be adequately striped and shall conform to City standards. (3) An area for excess parking shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. (4) Parking shalt be permitted Only within and on the project site. parking along adjacent or perimeter staneb"is (public or private) shall not be used to <_ati,fy the model home sales parking requirement. SECTION 2: Section 17.04.070, subsection (g) is amended to read as fol 1 ows : (g) All fences proposed in canjunetian with the model homes and sates office shall be located outside of the public right -ea -way, except where approved by the City Planner and City Engineer for security. effect SECTION 3: This Council finds that this amendment will not adversely the env ronment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 0 r,CITY OF RANCHO CUCArAOXGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Xt ber 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -14 na om� a spaces to an existing mobile home park on 27.7 m051 acres located in the tow - Medium Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units per ac.e) on Base Line Road, 660 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN: 202- 201 -51 and 63. I. PROJECT AND a"ITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested Denial without prejudice of a Conditional Use eP-rm -it' and Negative P;zciaration for the proposed 'Installation of 15 modular unit B. Surrounding Land Use and ZoninX. North --Approved Tentative Tract 13759; Low Density South - Existing Residential ow units Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Existing Single Family, Terra Vista; Medium Density West - ExistingiModular Units ;iLow- MediumeDensity Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Designations: ro ec _e - .ow- alum Density Residential (4 -8 dwelling p North - Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low - Medium Density Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) West Low- Medium Lensity Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The site is developed as an existing mo a ome par wtfr� 186 occupied spaces. The property to the north is currently vacant, although a tentative tract map for 58 single family lots has been approved. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -14 - ADGER October 26, 1988 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: The application for this project was submitted on March W;`IM. St ;1f responded with an incompleteness letter on April 12, 1988 identifying significant inccmoleteness, technical, and design issues relating to the proposed ,,raject whi-ch have not been addresscl by the applicant. In additions to incomplete plans, staff has identified the following Issues: I. The actual property owners signature or a letter of authorization is required and has never been received. 2. The addition of 1sr modular units would result in a total of 231 units with a density of 8.3 dwelling units per acrs, exceeding the maximum, allowed under the Low - Medium Density Distri(:t (4-8 dwelling units per acre). 3. The project is located within the City adopted Special Study zone for the Red Hill Sault. As no geologic report has been completed for this site, a study to investigate the possible location of fault traces is required. 4. The applicant would be required to upgrade the Base Road utilities and frontage, the dditiondiof street lights and street trees. The environmentaltassessm assessment completed until the above - mentioned items are addressed. Staff sent a certified letter to the owner and applicant on July 29, 1988 and contacted the applicant by phone on August 34, 1988 offerctheeappartun 8 Y to withdraw h the of application, Staff received no resp(,nse. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use is not in accordance with the enera an, a objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which it is located. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. LC�� Ll I' PLANNING comrsssim STAFF REPORT CONOI �IONAL: USE PEWT 88 -14 ADGER October LS, 1988 Page 3 IV. CORRESPONDCNCE• This item has been advertised as a public hearing �n ne at33iy Re ort news a h p_ per= t e property pnstedr and notices sen oar proper�ow►ners within 300 f• ,t of the property. li. REC0MENDATiON: Staff recommends that the Planning Cmwission de, +e M t�onai Use Permit through the add -tion , ,` the attached Resoluti ^)n of Denial. Respa liy s ed l �! rad r city P1a ,ner BB:Mte Attacivents: Exhibit "A" -, Location Map Resolution of Denial Lms -i LM FC LM M - m -Aw m LM LM as L M FC Vow LIM coodoo wC NC LW m TM.P.C. LM V.P.c, IM Em LM L :L 13 4 r3 ap FC TERRA VISTA PLAN f3 M= LiJL ii it so as no Mr- NORTH Ulm. OF RANGIM0 i CUCAr A r4 TITLE: 'iONG PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT .PREJUDICE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88 14 TO ESTABLISH 15 ADDITIONAL MOBILE HOME SPACES IN AA EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN'PACIFi;; RAILROAD TRACKS IN THE LOW - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) - APtd: 20 2- .201 -51 AND 63 A. Recitals.. Conditional l Use Formithallo. filed 88 -14n at; '�ppljcaticn for in the the issuance off this Reso ution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Perm -,t request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 26th of October, 1958, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applicacion and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby f;-•nd, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Lucamonga as follows: set forthlin the iRe.i Commission Part A�bof specifically s Reso ionRare true and facts 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to tais Commission during the above referenced public hexing on October 26, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located west of Haven Avenue and south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks with a street frontage of 550 feet and lot depth of 606 feet and is presently improved as an existing mobile home park; and Density Residential, The e property to theesouthrof of that site subject nsists of Low- medium Density Residential, the property to the east is tedium Density Residential; and (c) The proposed application has never been completed nor the property owner s authorization obtained; and (d) The environmental document has not been completed as necessary seismic information was never submitted; and PLANNING ISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S88 -14 — ADGER October 26, 1988 Page 2 Is (e) The project as proposed exceeds the maximum density limit of the district in which it is locatee, 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the aboYe- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set f=orth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is not in accord with. the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Codes and the purposes of the "strict in which tha site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, (c) That the proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. Aft 4. This Comission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and is not in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies without prejudice the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: �wY e , a reran ATTEST: Brad u er, Secrarary ,: -fa PLANNING COMrSSIOU aMLUTION Nov CONDITIONAL VSE PEPIT 88.14 - AOGER October 26 3988 Wage 3 I. Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Conmisslan C of the City of Rancho t�camnnga, do hereby �,ertify that the foregoing R� solution was duly and Ci regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the ty of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regulari,leeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vat. -.to -wit: AYES`: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMO•fISSIONERSs ABSENT: COMHtISSIONERS: i I J f ti 1 �l CITY' OF RAC i gn CU STAFF REPORT GA October 26, 1988 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner parcel within -,-the' )Minimum , Impact Heavy i Industrial Designation (Subaru 9? located on the south side of Armt Route at-Milliken Avenue » APl1 229..111 -23. Staff is in receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting that this item be withdrawn. No further action is required by the Planning Commission. 8B:s4:js Attachment; Letter from Applicant a OCT 20 lee 16:39 S kX1ULUi�Iy� j$'NL(pF4'fS October 19, 1581 City of Rancho Cucamcnga Planning ])apartment 9320 Baseline Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 j Attnt Scott Murphy Re: Rancho Cucamonga Distribution center iY Scott: Please withdraw the amendment to Industrial Specific Plan regarding rail service at Rancho Cucamonga Distribution center II. Please, return to my attention the application and our check. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely" I O'DONNNLL, ARMSTRONG, BRIGBAM 6 2ARTNBRS Jams R. Westling, Partner Ind 2201 DJPQnt0rtM Sums 100 • IMne. CA 927115 • (M) e,51.0111 . FAX (714)851 log P.O. Box 18583 • Irvine, CA W13 -M i` irore • Maa-t County Stn do" F- 52.E IM �I I -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Boller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT A&REEMFNT 88 -03 - - A request to approve a �eve;apmen agreesnen for approximately 53 acres of vacant land located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225 - 082 -01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMELIT DISTRICT [Y'1 GI \Y67 Clwl OG -V! -- A MAMFl UH ULYLL4RIMTS, -1 - requeS to pre -zone approx ma e y acres r� vacaq - and located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street to Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 225 - 982 -01. I. ABSTRACT: The applications for Development District Amendment re- one and Development Agreement are part of a package of actions for development of approximately 131 units on 52.5 acres of undeveloped land located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street. The applicant has requested annexation to the City. An application for annexation has been filed by the City with the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission. The applicant has not filed any project applications with the County preferring to go through the City process. In addition a tentative tract map application has been filed with the City and is undergoing review. II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action U.5 acres Requested: The applicant is requesting the pre- zoning of undeveloped 'land as part of annexation proceedings and in preparation for development. An application for approval of a Development Agreement for a term of 7 years Is also requested. B. Surrounding, Land Use and Zonin�q,. North - Edison T-ty- C0—rrQ0r; County West Vail,�y Foothills Community Plan designation is Public (1 dwelling unit per 10 acres). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 88 -03 & ODA 88 -07 - Ahmanson Developments October 26, 1988 Pa.�2 South - Existing vacant land, City pre -zone is Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). East - Existing vacant land; County West Valley Foothills Community Plan designation is Special Development (blaster Plan required). West - Edison Utility Corridor; County West Valley Foothills Community Plan is designated Public U dwelling units per 10 acres). C. General Plan Designations: roles Site county General Plan is Residential 2 (2 dwelling units per acre), City General Plan is Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). North - County General Plaa is Public (Utility Easement); City General Plan is Open Space (Utility Corridor). South - City General Plan is Lsw - ansity Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). East - County General Plan is Residential 2 (2 dwelling units per acre); City General Plan is Very Low West - unt than 2 Density dwelling per Public (Utility Easement); City General Plan is Open Space (Utility Corridor). D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant. It is an alluvial. an s op ng approximately 8% to the south - southeast. Riversidean alluvial fan scrub vegetation covers the site. No significant drainage courses traverse the site. The soil is course alluvium including boulders, rubble and cobbles. III. ANALYSIS: A. General: The purpose of the annexation is to proceed with plans Tor residential development and to participate in financing mechanisms for infrastructure which are in place. or being developed in cooperation with the City. An application for annexation has been filed by the- City wits. the San Bernardino County Local Pgency Formation Commission. The applicant has not filed any project applications with the County preferring to go through the City process. A project application has beer, "fled with the City (Tentative Tract 14139) and is undergting review. It should be noted that the adjacent property t4 the south (T.P. Melcher) recently completed a similar p'*,tess with a development agreement establishing a density of t-'a to :3 dwelling units per acre. PLANNIr'.. COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 88 -03 & DDA 88 -07 Ahmanson Developments October 2c, 1488 Page 3 The following analysis summarizes the main points of the proposed Development Agreement. The applicant has requested annexation to the City. B. Density: The City's General Plan designation for the site is Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre%. Because of the character of the alluvial fan and distances from services, City policy aims at decreasing the intensity of use as development proceeds to the north. Following these guidelines, Staff is recommending a density range for this project not to exceed 2.25 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting density at 2,5 dwelling units per acre. Also, the tentative tract application undeo review was submitted at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, them is a disagreement between City staff and the applicant of .25 dwelling units per acre in density for the project. The site to the south also has the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). A plan of development, Tentative Tract 13527 (Melcher), has been submitted and approved by the Planning Commission ?fi a density of 2.86 dwelling units per acre. C. Fees: The applicant will pay all the usual City fees. D. Parks- As approved by Community Services, the applicant will i pay park fees instead of setting aside any lane for parks i within the development. E. Schools: In regard to school impacts to the Etiwanda School s r c , as required by the District, the applicant will be required to pay fees based on the square footage of each residence. Also, based on a voted override, the applicant will either pay a fee of $1,600 pe:� dwelling unit or dedicate a school site suitable to the District. F. Reimbursement: 'he applicant may request a credit against req iru a ra nage fees and road improvements fees in so far as infrastructure construction exceeds the demands of the project. G. Special Districts: The development agreement will require the pa— rticipa on n special districts as needed to provide infrastructure for development, including a Mello -Roos Fire Protection, District. 0 # 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 88-03 & ODA 88 -07 - Ahmanson Developments October :?b, 1988 Page 4 H. Financing The City will aid in the formation of special Tss - rcc s and other financing conduit mechanisms. I. 25th nfi,eet The circulation system for the area north of TH-Wannd' 757 west of Day Creek is being studied by the City EngfneerIng c! w ;thn the � vacating ofd? study, Street and that t:he entire right -of -way be included in the ��nnexatioa, and that the northern half of the right -of -wV be reserved for a drainage easement with the remainder being returned to the property owner. Provision for the vacation of 25th Street is incorporated into the development agreement. J. Term. The terra of the agreement will be seven (7) years IV- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An environmental assessment has been completed 1;y y s a The site is planned for development.. Because of the availability of density bonuses for development to the County, intensity of use for development in the City is expl cted to be approximately the same as if the site were developed in the County. Review by Engineering staff indicates that with development there will b— cumulative traffic impacts which will be mitigated at the time o. development through payrwntC of City fees for fair sbAre contribution to off -site improvements and/or actual improvements. Impacts for fire protection have been identified for development in the A Mello -Roos Fire Protection District for the purpose of building a neap fire station by the Foothill Fire District, as well as einencing operation and maintenance of the station is being formed. At the time of development the applicant will be required to Join the Mello -Roos district. Other potential impacts may be identified and handled during the course of reviewing the Tentative Tract Map Application. Based on the above findings, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration under tho California Environmental Quality Act. V. FACTS FOR FIkWNGS.- cite g lowing findings may be made by the wa -R.Ang mars —S oon""for Development Agreement 88-,03 and i)evelopmont District Amendment 88 -07. A. The intended land use is compatible within surrounding land uses, circulation and intensity of use. L] i U t PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 88 -03 & ODA 88 -07 - Ahmanson Develop0ants October 26, 1988 Page 5 B. The project will not have any adverse environmental impacts that cannot to mitigated. C. The yroject is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the General 'Plan. VI. CORRESPONDENCE: These' items have been advertised as a public Hearing in Tne Dally Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices gent- o—a i proper y owners within 300 feet of the project site. VII. RECOWMATION: Staff recommends that the ?'fanning Commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending approval of Development Agreement 88-03-and Development District Amendment 88 -07. Res. ly su ed = ra r _ City P1 nner BB:MB :vc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "8" - Site Map Resa7cation RecnmmeW,ng Approval of DA 88 -03 (Including Devet.T3gent Agreement 88 -03) Resolution`Recommending Approval of DDA 88 -07 a Ii11t111et City Limits "m"M" Unlssa fPea s, ste® Area Within City 1pht of ]sfiseass Cl Of OF rrEklz DA 38-03; DDA 88 -07 l PLANNING /J ) EXHUNT. »'4 SCALE- VACANT RIBS (2.41DU/AC) S89`27' 07'E 1136.58' '"VACANT 6.OW aES � (2-40U /AC � PROJECT SITE " ` VACANT . ' LOW RES (2- 400 /A►C) 0 CITY CF +ter SCAN t5 4 ITEM" , ®A 88.03; ODA 88-07 .---- IAN -ES T"t & G VACANT <l NORTH H RE; 11 RESOLUTION N0, R RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF RANCHO CLZAMONGA CALIFARNIA, RECOMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88- 03 (Ah ANSON BEI "FLOPMENTS, INC.) FOR APPROXIMAT LY 53 ACRES CF VACKdT LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHKST CORNER OF M'AANDA AVENUE AND 25TH STREET, AND 14AKiNG FINDINGS IN SUVFORT THEREOF AP' 225- 082 -01. A. Recitils.. (1) California Government Code Section 56864 now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Legislature vines ind declares that: (a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a %iaste of resources, escalate the co -,u of iiousingi and other developments to the conscsmer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning whi.h would rake maximum efficiKnt Utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. (b) Assuraner to the applicant for a development project that coon approval of the prr ;ect. the applicant may proceed with the project in �cc.:ordance with existing polices, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will -.trengthen the public pisnning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs or aevelolk--nt. III) Caiiforr:'a Government Code section 56865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Any city ... may enter into a development agreement with any perSLn having a legal or equitable Interest in real ,.,jrerty for the uevelopnent of such property as provided in this article..." f (Iii) California Government Cods Section 56865.2 provides, ;r, part, as follows: "A ? evelopment Agreement shall specify the duratievi of the Agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provision for reservation or dedication of land xor pub is purposes. The development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequen�c discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, ..erns, restrictions, and regmirements ,;r discretiorary actions shall not prevent develtiipment of the lend for the uses and to the density or is Intensity of d-avplopment set faro in the Agreement,.." PLANNING COWISSION RESOLtMON No. OA 88 -03 - Ahmanson Developments, Inc, October 26, 1988 Page 2 (iv) Attached to this Resolution, marked as Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by this reference, is proposed Development Agreement 88.03 concerning that property located at the southwest cornet of 2t1wanda A°renue and 25th Street, and as legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Resolution, that Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is reforred to as "the Development Agreement". (v) Concurre-t with this Resolution recommending approval of this Aevetopment Agreement, tha [Manning Commission has adopted a Resolution recommending approval of Development District Amendment 88-07 for the purpose of pre - zoning the property is Low [tensity Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). tvi) On October 25, 1988, the Plannung Comission of the City of Rancho G:.'eamonga held a duly notired public nearing concerning the proposed Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date. (vii) All legal prerequisites pAor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the Planning Commis tan hf the City ass Rancho Cucamonga as fellows; 1. This Cos ;is:sioa hereby specifically finds that ',f the facts set forth in the Recitals, 'art A of this resolution dre tr* , correct. ' In conjunction with this Development Aggreement, an Environmental Assessment, in conformity with the requirements of the California En"froamentat Quality Act, has been ared. The Commission has determined that this prO%t would not have a significant adverse ef=fect on the environment, and hereby adopts, a finding of no significaht impact on the environment and recommence, isstlince of a Negative Declaratian by the City Council. 3. Tais Carrmi 0rM spec - fica'ly finds that: (u) 'The location, design, and Proposed uses set forth in this Development Agreement are ctopatible ifth the Character of existing development in thu vicinit,+r. f`' The a jelopment Agreement conforms, to the General Plan of t�- City Of Re--,-AO Cucamonga. 4• and good zoni fount, that the public necessity, general welfare, �3 the approval of the Davelo ent Pm Agreement, hereto Cdhwn ends approval of the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhik 1., Q N_7 11 PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION No. DA SP -48 - Ahn;anson iwei opments, inc. ' October 26, 1988 Page 3 APPROVED APO ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY CF OCTOBER, 1988. %ANNING COf4MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Carry T.— Wgle"�; Cria rma��-" ATTEST: ecr £i fY I, Brad Buller, Sa retary of the Pty -ling Coarn,issiora of ttt� City of Rancho Cucamonga, do 3aeo�eby certify that the *oregoiyig Resolution WA.- duly and reguiariy introduced, passed, and adapted by t�!e Plznning Comnissiot!, 4� the Cfty of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Pl4nning Comanissibr► geld on the 26th dig+ of October, 1988, by the fallowing vote-to wit: G AYES: ZrAMISSIONERS: NOES: CCMMMIAERS: ABSENT: CWISSIOAMC . E E13 EXHIBIT I RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Beverly A. Authelet City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 =7 a, THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into a� 'If the thirty -first day fiTlowing final adoption of the ordinance approving it (hereinafter, the "EFfective Date ") by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMA, a municipal corporation ( "City" hereinafter) and AHMANSON MiELOPMENTS, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Developer "). NITNESSETH: A. Recitals. (i) California Government Code Section 65864 provides as follows: "The Legislature find-; and declares that: "(a) The 'lack of certaidty in tie approval of development projects can result n a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and ;her development to the consumer, dnd discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which Would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. "(e) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, _i- rules and regulatioi,:t, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private particip400n io comprehensive planning, and reduce the Economic costs of development." (ii) California Government Code Section 55865 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any city, . , may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real Property for the development of such property as provided in this article. ." (iii) California Government Cone Section 65865.2 provides as follows "A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted vges of the property, the density or intensity wf use, the maximum height and size of proposer yuildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may Include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary action, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirement;: for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of land for the uses and to the density or intensity a,-_ development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereaf be completed within a specified time." ('v) Developer owns fee title in and to that real property consisting of approximately 53 acres in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County now proposed for annexation to City. Said property is is legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and hereinafter is referred to as "the Site ". & — /1-2.. E (v) City's General Plan Designation for the Site is Low Densi`y Residential (two to four units per acre). developer and City desire to provide through this Development Agreement specific development criteria to be applicable to the SILL upon its annexation to City which will provide for maximum efficient utilization, of the 'cite in accordance with sound piaaning principles. NO This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Artfi=:r 2.5 of Chapter 4, Title 7 of the California Government Code commencing with Section 65864 thereof. (vii) City has de",ermined that the use cnd intensity of use proviced in this Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan. (viii) As part of the process of approving this Agreement, City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the required analyses of the environmental effects which would be caused by the agreement and adopted a resolution documsoting compliance with CEQA. (ix) As further consideration for the assurances provided by this Agreement to Developer that Developer will not be prevented from developing the Property, City has requested that Developer provide, and is wiling to provide, certain additional sums and agreements to construct and transfer to the public certain additional improvements. D. AaMement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. The parties hereby agree that City°; zoning and prezoning designation for the Site hereby is seemed to be Low Resid;Ztial (L) subject to the specific terms and provisions herW which shall supersede conflicting standards and requirements of the Low Residential (L) District so long as this agreement is In full force and effect. The duration of this Development Agreement shall be seven (7) years following the Effective Date, that is, upon Cti.4 —3— the expiration of the seven (7) year period commencing immediately after the Effective Date, if Developer has not then performed censtructioa work on the Site or any porl on or portions thereof pursuant to a bui%I,1g permit or perw is issued by City, the Site or any such portion or portions thereof shall glen be deemed to be zoned Low Residential (L) and the development �J the Site then and ther -after shall be governed accordingly by the ;hen current provisions of the City's toning Ordinance as to L "oning or the then applicable specific plan and /or zoning category succeeding thereto. For the foregoing purpose,, construction work shall not include preparation of plans, engineering work sr grading. 2. The following developmen' standards and conditions shall govern the development of the' -Site during the tem hereof, subject to the prov'st :,ns of paragraph I hereinabod: A. City shall allow the Site to be developed to a density of up Aak to two and a 7i>arta (2.25) per acre, calculated in accordance with City's method of calculation specified in its Development Code as of the Effective Date. Developer may apply for any density within the standards of the Low Resident :ial U) zone B. When and if requested by developer from time to time, City shall use its best efforts to initiate and process to caMple;:ion proceedings pursuant to the Mello -Rooa Community Facilities Act of 1982, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911, the Municipal Improvement &-t of 1913, the Improvement Bend Act of 1926, the Landscapiug and Lighting Act of 1972, and ark- ana all other available proceedings to proviae for public conduit financing for the construction of public improvements required as a condition to development of the Site or any portn or potions thereof, C. In lieu of the dedication of land located within the Site, Developer shall pay City's park r.;es required due to the residential development of the Site. Said park fees shall he Calculated in accorlance dffik with standards-in effect at the time any such fees are due and owing. As to residential deve'opw�nt within any final tract, said par4 fees shall be payable for a ict contaired within a final tract when City rtileases utilities. q# -ry -4- for occupanc;, of that lot for -esidential use. D. Subject to subparagraphs 2.E and F hereinbelow, developer shall pay any and all City fees required as a result of development of the Site, or any portion or portions thereof, at rates current at the time payable, including, but not limited to, beautification fees, park fens, systems development fees, building permit fees, plan check fees and drainage fees. E. Developer may request and City shall extend to Developer credit against required drainage fees only to the extent of Developer's direct constriction costs incurred in Constructing permanent storm dram: drainage facilities required by City as s condition of developing the Site or any portion or portions thereof. F. Developer may request and City shall extend to ' Developer AMIL _redit against required systems development fees only to the extent of Developer's direct construction costs incurred in constructing oversized facilities (i.e., facilities sized to service areas located outside of the site) which are not located within the site, or „butting the site. Fore -eer, if traffic signals are required by this development, thz Developer shall be entitled to credit against required systems development fees to the extent above the Developer's fair share. G. Developer shall consent to the creation of an s,sessment district or districts to provide for the constructio:4 and maintenance of any and all lighting and landscaping within publir rights- of -ktav, within tht Site or abutting th:,. Sit- pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 or, if applicable, Developer shall consent to an annexation or annexations )f the Site or any port;on nr ¢rrtions thereof to an existing assessment district formulat4d under said Act for that purpose. K ff required by City as a condition of development of the Site or any portion or portions therew, , Developer shall consent tc the application .;; the Mello -Roos Facilities Act of 1982 thereto to constrict and maintain facilities and�or to puryhase and maintain equipment reasonably necessary to provide fire protecVon services to the Site or the a licabl Portion or portions thereof. pp e I. _ If required by City as a condition of development of the Site or any portion or portions therel.?, Deveioper shall consent to the application of the Mello -Roos Facilities Act of 1982 thereto, or Developer contribution of equivalent funds, to construct regional drainage facilities. a. If the City vacates 25th Street, the southern half of the Public right -of -way shall revert to the property owner and the northern half Of the public right -of -way shall be retained by the City for drainage purposes. To facilitate these changes, the City shall include the entire right -Of-way for 2 *th Street in the Annexation request. K. Developer shall provide each prospective buyer* written notice of the rotential Fourth Street Rock Crusher pro„ in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a deposit on any Property. 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained in City's ordinances, specific pianss rules and regulations, including, but not Hmited to, its Development Code, as amended, buile!ing code, Electrical code, fire code and Plumbing .jde shall apPiy to the development of the Development Agreement, Further, any terms or phrases scontaineda herein this for x�iich there are definitions provided in City's said Development Code shall be deemed to be utilized in accordance with those definitions. 4.. In accordance with California Government Code Section 6586f's5, a certified copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, i,,Mediately upon this Agreement becoming effective. 5- The parties further agree as follows: , off• -/6 -6- A. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, no representations of any kind or character have been made to one another by i y of the parties hereto or by any of the parties' agents, representatives, associates or attorneys with respect to each subject to which this Agreement relates. S. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to each subject to which it relates. C. This Agreement can only be amended in writing, which writing must first be executed by all of the parties hereto. D. No; provision of this Agreement may be waived, except in writing, which writing mutt be executed by all of the parties hereto. E. Th parties hereto eact agree that they shall execute and ANAL deliver to the other, upon request so to do, any and all documents reasonable low and necessary to accomplish or evidence the agreements contained in or contemplated by this Agreement. E. In the event that any party should defau t in one or more of its obligations provided in or contemplated by this Agreement, the defaulting party shall pay to the other all expenses incurred in connection with efforts to enforce surf, obligation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or not suit be commenced, G. This Agreement, all other documents and agreements provided in or contemplated hereby, and all rights and obligations arising therefrom shalt be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, success_rs and assigns. 6. Annual Review. City and Develop;?,- shall review the performance of this Agreement, and the development of the property, at least once in every 12 -month period rom the date hersof. As part of such annual review, within 30 days after each anniversary of this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to City all information reasonably requested by City. (i) regarding Developer's <-17 -7- performance under this Agreement demonstrating th,t Developer has c lied in good faith with terms of this Agreement a; d (ii) as required by the City's Existing Ordinances. If as a result, a: Bach annual review, City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer faith wit "� anY of the terms of conditions a of this c Agreem�nt,eCity good terminate ':his Agreement. 7. Covenants Run with the Land. All of the previsions, terms, covenants and obligations contained !r, this Agreement shall be t4nd4lrC upon the parties and their respective heirs, succestirs (by merger, cr otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrator:., re resentativ(a cation, P s, lessees, and all other persons acquiring any nights or interests in the Property, or any portion thereof, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their resper:tive heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or Otherwise) and assigr,5. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as cquitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property hereunder (A) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property, (8) r -uns with such lands and (C) is binding upon each party and eac' successive owner daring its ownersh`p of such properties kAr any portion thereof, and each Person having any interest therein derived in any man„rr thorough any owner of such lands, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit each party and its lands hereunder, and each other pe•s4n succeeding to an interes� in such lands. Yotwithstanding any of the foregoing or in this Agreement to the contrary, any assignee or transferee or wort azee which acquires an right or interest in or with :respect to the property Oman q Y t l and hold such rights and interests subject to thi poAgreemelnt and shall tnai. have been deemed to have assumed the Developer's obligations or the other affirmative duties nd obligations of Developer hereunder except: _�A 0 (1) to the extent that any of such assignees, transferees or mortgagees have expressly assumed any of the duties or obligations of Developer hereunder; (ii) if any such assignee, transferee ar mortgagee accepts, holds, or attempts to exercise or enjoy the rights or interests of Devel��per hereunder, it shall have ar:sualed the obligations of Developer; and (iii) to the extent that the performance of any duty or obligation by Developer is a condition to the performances of a covenant by Developer, it shall continue to be a condition to Developer's performance hereunder. S. Mortgagee Protection. This k- :vent shall be superior and senior to arLy lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof,.including the lien of any mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, do breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the 'lien of any mortgage made in good faith and for value and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Property or any portion thereof, by a mortgagee (►xhethev under or pursuant to a mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deal its lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise), shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. No mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform Developer's affirmative covenants of Developer hereande., or to guarantee such performance; except that to the extent that any covenant to be performed is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder. Each mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of ninety (90; days after the receipt of such notice from City to cure or remedy, the claim of default or noncompliance set forth in the City's notice. +f the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such mortgagee upon obtaining posse3sion, such mortgagee sha':l seek to obtain possession with diligence and corinuity through foreclosure, a ieceivpr or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or noncompliance within thirty (30) day after obtaining possession. If any such defa_11t or V-tq -9- L- noncompliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such .thirty (30) day period, then such mortgagee shall have such additional time as May be reasonably necessary to r-ne4y or cure such default or noncompliance if such mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues aa-d completes such cure. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the effective date of the ordinance appro" ng this Agreement, Dated: Dated: Dated: ,ip� CITY OF RANCHO C'OGAMONCA By By OWNER. AHMANSON DEVELOP" `S, INC.. By STATE OF C.4LIMMA ) COUNTY OF ss. 2968, before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in an or said State, personally appeared + known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and ackk;owiadged that executed she same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 0 Notary Public in aso for :se a s -�1- ;11 1� I�pllljq LEGAL DESCRIPTIcH AHMNSOU DEVEIAPIi WS, :ENC. A portion of the north half of'th� southeast 1/4 of Section 20, Townahip 1 North, Mange 6 West, SBM described as follows. Beginning at the Past 1/4 corner of said Section 24.; Thence Soo 00132 11W. Along the east line of said Section 20, a distance of 1320.25 feet; Thence N89 25141 11W. Along the south. line of the north 1/2 of said Section 20, a distance of 2426.34 feet; Thence N.44 38'42 "E., a distance of 1836.88 feet to the north' line of the southeast 1/4 of said Sections 20; Thence 5.89 27 07 "E. Along the north line of tr&,, southeast 1/4 of said Section 20, a diLtrarce of 1135.68 feet to the Point of Beginning. Subject site contains an area of 54.0 ± acres., $ c EXIIIBIT A I-] RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIOM OF THE PLANNING EOWISSION OF RANCHO CUCAMOL:r,A, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEN4iING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DIMTCT AMENDMENT 88 -07 (AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS, INC.), A PRE-ZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 53 ACRES OF VACANT LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWES CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVFNUc AND 25TH STREET TO Low DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2 -4 OWELLTNG UNITS PER ACRE) - APN: 225 - 082 -01 A. Recitals. (i) Ahmanson Developments, Inc. has filed an application for Development . District Amendment 88 -07 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is raterred to as 'the Application". (ii) On October 26, 1988 the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty aotired public hearing on the Application anC concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occured. B. Resolution. Now, THEREFORE, it is hereby fouid, 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 i set forth n the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. In conjunction with '.his Develo anent Assessment, in conformance with the requiremeents�eof , the Environmental Envirinmental Quality Act, has been prepared. The Commission has determined that this project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, hereby adopts a finding of no significant impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration by the City Council. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during t`te above- referenced public hearing an October 26, 1983, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed Development District in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding are -,,; and (b) The proposed Development District pre -zone would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment, nor the surrounding properties; and 67#—Q3 G PLMNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 88 -07 - Ahmanson Developments, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 2 (c) The ro osed Development P P District re -zone with. the General.. Plan. P ne is in conformance 4. The Planning CoMission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of the Applicatio,.. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMONGA BY: 1—ar-r—y-77. McNiel , Chairman ATTEST: of-am Builer, Secretary I, "rad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Comis'si'on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted IV the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COWSSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: CITE' OV RANCHO CUCAMONGA S' 'ALP REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 9 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 83 -01 HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS - A request. by e Cityco amen c on1S, —i"tn enance Guarranty, of an existing Development Agreement for the senior housing project located on Lomita Court west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 202 - 151 -34. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 85 -01 - RUDOLPH HENDRICKSON SENIOR AWMENTS - request by the Elty to amen ction a1Ri�nance G aranty, of an existing Developm3tit Agreement for the senior housing project located on the west side of Amethyst Avenue, n:rth of 19th Street APN: 201- 232 -24. I. ABSTRACT: is requesting an amendrreent to the Development Agreement's for Heritage Park Apartments and Rudolph Hendrickson Senior Apartments, projects built under the Senior Housing Overlay District. The proposed minor changes to the Maintenance Guaranty section of each agreement would bring the earlier agreements into conformity with the language of the most recent Senior Project. Development Agreement. The intent of the Maintenance Guaranty section would remain unchanged. II. BACKGROUND: Each Senior Housing Development Agreement contains a section o provide for property maintenance. The purpose is to insure that all landscape areas, common areas, and building exteriors are maintained in gc *k)d condition. There are two existing Senior Housing Projects covered by Development Agreements under the Senior Housing Overlay District. Development Agreement 83 -01 covers Heritage Park Apartments located on Lomita Court west at Archibald Avenue. Development Agreement 85 -01 covers Rudolph Hendrickson Senior Apartments located on Amethyst Avenue, north of 19th Street. These existing projects have been inspected annually and are being maintained in good condition. Furthermore, each agreement also includzs enforcem3nt sections to be sure than the maintenance provision and other performance provisions written in the agreement are carried t -ut by the property owner. I ITEMS I & J 'LANNING COMMISSION 7, AFF REPORT D1 83 -01 - HERITAGE :!ARK APARTMENTS DA 85 -01 - RUDOLPH HENDRICKSON SENIOR APARTMENTS October 26, 1988 Page 2 On June 1, 1988, the City Council, approved Development Agreement 87 -02 for a third :senior Housing Project which will be located on Base Line Road west of Archibald Avenue.. At the direction of the City Attorney the a-anguage of the Maintenance Guaranty section was simplified as fo-.rows. Mainten/.,.,e Guaranty. Developer shall comply with all City s ma n enance s an ar enacted from time to time. The previous Senior Housing Agreements requiz-ed a maintenance deposit (Exhibit "A "). The City Attorney suggests a maintenance deposit is redundant because the enforcenerit sections of the Development Agreements, as well as property maintenance provisions in the City .Code, provide adegiate enforcement procedures. Therefore, staff recommends that the langurge in the earlier senior agreement be brought into cc,fbnnance with the most recent agreement. The property owners of Heritage Park Apartments and Rudolph- Hendrickson Senior Apartments have been contacted and agree to thi amendment to the Development Agreement. I11. REC"ENDATION: Stuff recommends approval of the attached reso a Wns. The resolutions recommend amending Section 18 of Development Agreement 83 -01 (Heritage Park Apartments) and also Section 22 of Development Agreement 85 -01 (Rudolph Hendrickson Senior Apartments). Resp lly ted Br B e City inner BB;MBrec Attachments: Exii1bit "A" - Existing Language and Amended Language Resolutions of Approval Ll E 1-3 n `ExISTING LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 83 -01 - HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS Section 18, Maintenance Guairanty. In order to insura that maintenance 07-Ue proaec s per or,ed in accordance with the maintenance plan. as outlined in the Senior Housing Overlay District administrative guidelines and in this Development Agreement, property owner shall either establish a landscape maintenance district pursuant to State law and City ordinance or regulation or, at property owner's option, post a maintenance deposit or other legal security reasonably acceptable to the City to be used by the city in the event that property owner shall fail to adequately maintain the Project as herein required. The parties hereto agree that a maintenance deposit of $12,000 is acceptable, which maintenance deposit may be in the form of a letter of credit, certificate of deposit, bond or comparable instrument. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 85 -01 - RUDOLPH HENDRrasom. SENIOR APARTMENTS Section 22, Maintenance C, ;aranty. In order to insure that r�intenance o e pro ec,, s`pe-rformed in accordance with the maintenance plan ac outlined in the Senior Housing Overlay District administrative guidelines and in this Development Agreement, property owns, shalt post a maintenance deposit or- other legal security reasonably acceptable to the City to be used by the City in the event, that property owner shall fail to adequately maintain the project as herein required, The parties hereto agree that a maintenance deposit may be in the form of a`letter of credit, certificate of deposit, bond or comparable instrument. AMENDED LANGUAGE Section - Developer shall coMiply with all City Maintenance Standards enacted r� om ti-ie to time, EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION V THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 REGARDING MAINTENANCE GUARANTY, rO EXISTING DE1'ELOPMENT AGREEMENT 83-,01 FOR HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, A SENIOR HOUSING TRACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN; 202- 252 -34. j A. Recitals. (i} The California Government Code Section 65868 et. seg. now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A development agreement may be amended, or cancelled in whole Or in part, by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or ;heir successors in interest. (ii) Tile City has requested Amendment Number 2 to Development Agreement 83 -01, for Heritage Park Apartments, as descrihed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Amendment is referred to as the "request ". (iii) On October 26, 3988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearinr, ,cased on the request. Resolution Nhave occurre legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this 8. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Comcmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga zs follows: (i) On February Y, '9F, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement concerning a senior citizen housing project (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement"). (if) Annual inspection of the property indicates that the property is maintained in good condition. (iii) Furthermore, existing City maintenance standards, in conjunction with enforcement provisions in the Agreement, are deemed to be adequate to guaranty property Maintenance as required under the Senior Housing Overlay District, (iv) The intent of the Agreement to guaranty property maintenance is unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 83 -01 - Heritage Park Apartments October 26, 1988 Page 2 set forth in the This Recitals, ParthA,eof that (ii) Therefore, pursuant to Section 65868 et. seg. of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Amendment Number 2 of Development Agreement 83-01 as attached hereta as Exhibit "I The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, '1988. PLANNING C3M(+tISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: arry -`f I"e , 1, d rman ATTEST: Brad r, SWr —e ary i I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vot ,to -wit: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i�--s r] C AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREM, ENT 03 -01 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON FEBRUARY 15, 1984 ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN CAL RANCHO, INC. AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A. Recitals. (i) On February 15, 1984, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement concerning a senior citizen housing project (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement "). (ii) Annual inspection of the property indicates that the property is maintained in good condition. (iii) Furthermore, existing City maintenance standards, in conjunction with enforcement provisions In the Agreement, are dee,�sed to be adequate to guaranty property maintenance as required under the Senior Housing Overlay District. (iv) The intent of the Agreemert to guaranty property maiinten_ e is unchanged. R. Amendment.. 1. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Section 18. Maintenance Guara�n�i� y. Devalooer shall comply with ai'! City ma n chance s an�ard; enacted from time to .time. 2. Other than as specifically amended 'hereby, the Agreement and each and every term and provision thereof, shall remain in full force and affect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Imendment No. 2 to this Agreement as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such party. Dated: Dated: Dated: K CAL - RANCHO, INS.. By: Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Sy; Attest 'by CITY CLERK RESOL ION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFLRNIA, RECOWENOING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 REGARDING MAINTENANCE GUARANTf, TO IEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 85 -01 FOR RUDOLPH HENDRIasom "ENIOR APARTMENTS, A SENIOR HORSING TRACT, AND MAKING FINOINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APR: 201- 232 -24. A. Recitals. (i) The California Government Code Section 65868 et. seg. now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A development agreement may be amended, or cancelled in whore or in part, by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest. (ii) The City has requested AmKndment Number I to Du'veYt;a° �rx Agreement 85 -01, for Rudolph Hendrickson Senior hpartments, as detcribed in the title of t1 -'s Resolution. Hereivafter in this Resolution, the subject Amendment is re,erred to as the "request ". (iii) On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing based on the request. (iv) All legal Prerequisites prior 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: (i) This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. (ii) Therefore, pursaant to Section 65868 et. seg. of the California Government Code, the Manning Coamission recommends approval of Amendment Number 1 of Development Agreement 83 -01 as attached hereto as Exhibit "1 ". The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. lu PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. DA 85 -01 - Rudolph Hendrickson Senior Apartments October 26, 1988 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COW41SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry r McNie7, a rman ATTEST: ra u er, re ary - I, Brad Buller, 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 adoRted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: i AEs '-NT: COMMISSIONERS: {� 1S LJ 0 AMENDMENT NO-. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 85 -01 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON APRIL 18, 1985 IS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN CASA LA VIDA, ASSOCIATES AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A. Recitals. (I) On April 18, 1985, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement concerning a senior citizen housing project (hereinafter referred to as "th-,-Agreement"). (ii) Annual inspection of the prcperty indicates that the property is maintained in good condition. (iii) Furthermore, existing City maintenance standards, in co*',iction with enforcen-.nt provisions in the Agreement, are deemed to be adequate to guaranty property maint,,,,ance as required under the Senior Housing Overlay District. (iv) The intent of the Agreement to guaranty property maintenance is unchanged. a B. Amendment. 1. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 22. ante srandn ardsDeveloper enac d from ltimee�t time. 2 i iehieuleoceach and every term provision thereof, remain in full Agreement and effect. IN WITNESS H „REOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment No. 1 to this Agreement as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such parts. Dated: Dated: Dated: I T -4 CASA LA VIDA ASSOCIATES BY: Title: CITY OF RANCHO CuCAMONCA By MDR Attest by: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Oct -her 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: E6'VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AG14EEMERT 88 -02 - URKTn 4UhrANT - A request to approve a eve opmen Agreement or the Etiwanda Highlands Planned Community consisting of approximately 546 dwelling units nn approximately 282 acres of vacant land located at northeast corner of 24th Street (Summit Avenue) aad W'ardman Bullock Road - APN: 226- 082 -16 and 24 -27. EkNIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -� - reques PRE-ZONE) to prezone approximately 282 acres of an ocated at the northeast corner of 24th Street (Summit Avenue) and Wardman Bullock Road to Planned Community - APN: 226 - 082 -16 and 24 -27. I. ABSTRACT: The arlications for Development District Amendment pre -zone) and Development Agreement are part of a package of actions pending annexation for development of approximately 546 single family residences on 282 acres of land in the northeast corner of the City Sphere of Influence. The County has approved the project as a Planned Community, and has also approved the first four phases of devela?ment consisting of 131 dwelling units. The purpose of annexation is to develop within the C;ty to the City's standards of development and to participate in infrastructure financing mechanisms available through the City. Further, this is one of a series of annexations in the City's Sphere of Influence which are coordinating plans for development. II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re nested: The appliccat is requesting approval of a Developf,wnt Agreement for a term of 8 years. The applicant is also requesting prezoning of approximately 282 acres of land. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 88 -02 - CARYN COMPANY October 26, 1988 Page 2 B. Surrounding Land Use and Znni�nngg h - son COrriTor; County West Valley Foothills Community Plan is designated Public (1 dwelling unit South - E Existing Land south of 24th Street (Summit Avenue) is within the City; Development District Map Designation is Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre); A Tract (TT 13561 has been approved East at a density of 2.27 dwelling upi'ts per acre - San Sevaine Wash; County West VAley Foothills Community Plan designation is Rural Conservation (Floodway) West - Existing Vacant Land, County West Valley Foothills Community Plan designation is Special Development/ Residential (2 dwellingg units per acre) and Rural Conservation (Floodway) C. Genera`( Plan Designations: Project Site - City General Plan is Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwzlling units per acre) County General Plan is Residential 2 (2 dwelling units per acre) North - City General Plan is Open Space (Utility Corridor) County General Plan is Public (Utility Casement); South City General Plan is Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - City General Plan is Open space (Flcod Control); County General Plan is Rural Conservation (Floodway); West - City General Plan is Open space (Flood Control); County General Plan is Rural Conservation (Floodway) D. Site Characteristics: The site is undeveloped alluvial fan, sloping 37-6-9--percent to the south. Vegetation type is grassland and Riversidian alluvial fan scrub with a few scattered small trees. A portion of the site on the east lies within the San Sevaine wash. The site is also traversed by Henderson Canyon drainage channel and an additional unna=med drainage course. The site is bisected west to east by an Edison utility corridor. It is also bounded on the nortr) by a second Edison utility corridor. Further, it is traversed by a Metropolitan Water District easement. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VA 88~02 - CARYN COMPANY October 26, 1988 Page 3 III. ANALYSIS° A. Csneral. These applications for Prezone and Development. 9r7F`ee`went 3`? part of a package of applications leading to annexation to the City of an approximately 303 acre parcel of land. The total parcel includes land owned by the Catyn Company and also by Southern California Edison. S. Existin County Approvals. The applicant has received final approva or eve of pmeni"of a County Planned Unit Development of 546 dwelling units zZl approximately 282 acres of land. The City and County have cooperated throughout the review process. The text of the County Planned Unit Development including the conditions of approval would be incorporated into the Development. Agreement by reference, The applicant also has received County approval to build the first four phases of develr--ment consisting of 132 dwelling snits. The tountj will not issue building permits until the Ne'llo -Roos Fire District is in place. It is the intent of be Applicant to call -for a special elei,tion to form such a District by tho and of November 1988. C. LAFCO Annexation proval. An application for annexation has a so een approved y e San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission. Completion of the annexation proceedings awaits review and action on the subject applications being reviewed herein.. D. Density. The applicant request,. a prezone to Planned o M Y. 'roe overall project tensity is approximatz *.'y 1.9 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with the underlying General plan density of Very ,ow °tensity (less than 2 dwelling units per acre}, E. OP ±A—Space. Approximately 38 acres of develope•)le land will be re a ne ri its natural state ds part o& the San Sevairie Bash. Additional amenities wili include equestrian trails on tka perimeter of the project and landscaped parkways. F. Schools. In regard to school impacts to the Etiwande School s sic , as required by the District the applicant will be required to pay fees based on the square fo3tage of each residence. Also, based on a voted iverride, the applicant wi11 either pay a fee of $1,600 per elling unit or dedicate a school site suitable to the district. G. flesi n Standards,. +';,sidelines, which will give the ,•,armed bommun Fy` an Identifiable character, are incorporated by i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 8842 - CARYN COMPANY Ocober 26, 1988 Page A 11 reference into the Development Agreement as the "Etiwanda Highlands Architectural and Design Guidelines ", Exhibit "D" of the Development Agreement (see attached). It should be noted that if the 131 units contained in the first four phass are Issued Building Permits by the County prior to annexation, the units will not be subject to City Design Review. However, these units shall be subject to the landscaping and inspection requirements of the Development Agreement Design Widelines Section. H. Fees. In general, the applicant will pay the normal City eve opment fees. Special conditions will apply rn the following: Storm Drain Fees. Because storm drains will need to be oversized o meet cumulative drainage impae::,x, *` City will enter into c� Reimbursement the appiican; which will become part of the De,.,opment Agreemenr. o Poad Construction fees. Because the area is unimproved, off-site roa cons r<;c ion will be required to handle the cumulative impacts of traffic and circulation. The applicant will pay $500,000 as his share contribution toward off -site improvements. The City Engineer, the Cour.., Engineer and the Applicant will work together to rea- a ur irstanding on the improvements which will be mak .,h ,r phasing. o Recrear,,,. and Park Fees. These fees will be paid, and their use a ica e o a specified benefit area in the vicinity of the project. I. Other Financing Mechanisms. The applicant will enter into a ancscape an g ing s rict. The City will cooperate with the applicant .n the formation of a Meilo -Roos Community Facilities District for fire orotection, and also for drainage facilities. Other financial mechanisms, such as Mortage Revenue Bonds, will be available to the developer if a bond program is initiated by the City. J. Term of the ;;;anent. The term of the Agreement is eight years. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An environmental assessment has been ,omp ece y i y -st-af f . No additional environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of annexation to and development wr.thin the City. PLANNING COMrS5ICN STAFF ROORT DA 88 -02 - CARYN COMPANY October 26, 1988 Page 5 The County has cempleted an environmental assessment and on August 24, 1997, the County Boaru of Supervisor adopted a Negative DecIr tion in conjunction with approval of the Final Development P' , 'PUDf86- 0012jW138 -49, Vi 13564 and TR 18565 }, Mitigation measures required by the Coup - include: o Significant drainage improvements are required prior to development of project phases subject to flooding. - o Contribution of $500,000 to off -site street improvements is required to address cumulative traffic impacts. o Fire protection includes formatior, of a Mello -Roos District to finance construction of a fire station, as welI as to provido for the operation and maintenance of the station. o Fire protection also includes that development will conform to greenbelt standards for lots within County fire hazards area 11. Mitigation measures for the above impacts are included in the County Conditions of Approval and included in the Development. Agreement between the City and the applicant. Based on the above findings, staff recommends issuance of a negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act. V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Facts, The density of the planned community is approximately 1.9 rtcT etTing units per acre, therefore the planned community pre -zcne is consistent with the General Plait designation 0 Very Low Density Residential (Tess than 2 dwelling units per acre). An environmental assessment has been completed and mitigation measures address cumulative drainage and cumulative traffic impacts, as well as fire protection impacts. Implementation of these measures mitigate identified impacts to non - significance. F-in_d_i_ngs_. The following findings may be made by the Planning oC mmTssion for Development Agreement 88 -02 and Development District Amendment 88 -04 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 88 -02 - CARYN COMPANY October 26, 1988 Page 6 I A. The intended land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, circulation, and intensity of use. I B. The applications will not have any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated. C. The application is in- Zonformance with the goals and objectives of the General plan. VI. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as.publir ear ng elms in The Daily RtaEL newspaper, the property has been pasted, and no ces S at to-all property owners within a 300 foot radius.. VII, RECCMMENDATION: Stn"r recommends approval of the attached Te—MU rec:inmending o� ni—s approval of E,�vironmental Assessment and Develop -znt District Amendment 88 -04 and Environmental Assessment and Development Agreement 88 -02.. Re gull s it , Br er Cits annex BB :MB:te Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit 118' - Site Map Resolution Recommending Approval - DA 88 -02 (including Development Agreement 88 -02 and attachments thereto) Resolution 'Recommending Approval - DDA 88 -04 1111/11111 CltVP Lisps °'mmk'% r UVARS+Vt►sMIled Arse Within City sphere of 111tluesse iTE%t: DA 88 -02; DDA 88 -04 Tom, VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT: "A -�.__ SCALES -2,- 7 VERY LOW RES (<20U /AC) i zZ7 CITY OF X Ct:CA PLANNINQ NL N PROJECT SITE VACANT TT 13564 \VERY LOW RES (620U /AC) i i i SAN SEVAINE WASH SCE EASEMENT PROJ°EGT SITE i VACANT I TT 135135 OPEN SPACE (FLOC® CONTROL) i i VACANT TT 13565 LOW RES (2 °40UJAO) NORTH I'I'E.4t= QA513 - ®2 QQA 5S 1�4 MU: CNATIOIJ Ask RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ComiISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88 -02 (CARYN COMPANY) FOR THE ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS PLANNED COMMUNITY cONSISTIWG OF APPROXIMATELY 546 DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 282 ACRES OF VACANT LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 24TH STREET (SUMMIT AVENUE) AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 226- 082 -16 AND 24 -27 A. Recitals. (i) California Government Code Section 56864 now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The LLgislature finds and declares that: projects can result in a waste off resources, escalate the cost of housing and other developments to the consumer, and discoll rage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which wouia make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the publi -, "(b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning prGcss, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." NO California Government Code Section 56865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: City...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having aJ legal or equitable interest in real property for the development; cf such property as provided in this article..." (iii) California Government Code Section 56865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provision for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreemen., may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions intensity of sha'1 not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density ov° development set forth in the agreement...." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUPiON NO. DA 88 -02 - CARYN COMPANY October 26, 1988 Page (iv) Attached to this Resolution, marked as Exhibit 'T' and incorporated herein by this reference, is proposed Development Agreement 88- 02 between the Caryn Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga concerning that property located at the northeast corner of 24th Street (Summit Avenue.) and Wardnan Bullock Road, and as legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Resolution, that agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "ill is referred tows "the Development Agreement." (v) Concurrent with this Resolution recommending approval of this P.evelopment Agreement, the Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution recommending approval of Development District Amendment 88 -04 for the purpose of pre - zoning the property to Planned Community. NO ) On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing con - erning the proposed Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date. (vii) All legal prerequis'�gs prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as .►llows: I. `als C%Mission hereby specifies and finds that all of the facts as set forth in Rs-citals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. in conjunction with this Development Agreement, an Environmental Assessment, in conformity with the requirements of the California Environme- -ntal Quality Act, has been prepared, The Commission has determined that this project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and hereby adopts a finding of no significant impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration by the City Council. 3. This Commission specifically finds that: (a) The locati(n, design, and proposed uses set forth in the Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity; (b) The Development Agreement conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good zoning practice require the approval of the Development. Agreement. 5. This Commissicn recommends approval of the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "1 ". PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 88 -02 CARYN COMPANY October 26 1988 Page 3 l ;PPROVED AND ADOPTED THTS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988'0' PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: + aC riry` fiFcmiel , a Fan ATTEST: ra a er, _ecre ry I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: C"ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EXHIBIT I DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Dated as of Y 1988 between City of Rancho Cucamonga a municipal corporation of the State of California and Caryn Development Company a California corporation O �m lu TABLE OF CONTENTS Page RECITALS....................... ....................,,,........ I. Definitions .......................... ........... ..,.... 6 1.1. Defined Tems ........... ............................ 6 2. Effective Date; Term ......... .........,,...................» 9 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Effective Date ........................... Term............................................... ... Subsequent Amendments or Termination., ........ 9 9 10 3. Genera? Devc;opm[ent of the Project ........................ 10 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. Project» ., .... »....... Project Phasing........................ ... ... ... Parcelization of Propertl.......................... Building Permits and Other Approvals......,..... .. Other Governmental Permits ......................... Fees ........... ........................ . Review and Processing of Approvals................. Effect of Agreement . ............................... 10 it 11 12 13 13 15 16 4. Specific Criteria Applicable To Development of theProject.................. 0 ............................ 17 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. Applicable Ordinances and Approvals ................ Governing Approvals................................ Design Rtrilew of Project. ........ Easements: Abandonments: Dedications, .....,.;. Assestment Districts and Public Financing Methods ........... ............................... 17 17 17 18 19 S. Periodic Review of Compliance ............................. 22 6. Events of Default; Remedies; Termination .................. 23 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. Events of Default ... ............................... Remedies ........................ 4...... Waiver; Remedies Cumulative ........................ Effect of Termination .............................. Effect of Court Action ............................. Estoppel Certificate. ...... ......................... 23 24 25 26 27 26 i ca, L —13 7. Transfers and Ar A gnments .. ............................... 28 7.1. Right to Assign, ... .,, ,,.....,..,.- ....,.,,.,......,. 28 7.2, Release Upon Transfer,. ,..,, 29 7.3, Covenants Run with the Land ................. 8. Amendment and Termination.,.,,.,. 30 8.1. Amendment or Cancellation ......... # ................ 30 8.2. Recordation of Amendment .........................Y. 31 9. Notices................................................... 31 10. Miscellaneous .• ................. 32 10,1. Negation Of Partnership ............................ 32 10 ,2. Approvals.,...!......... .. ` . . . 33 10.3. Not A Public Dedication ........................ 33 10.4. Saverability ........ .......................Y.,..... 34 10.5. Exhibits,. ................. .,. 34 10.6. Entire Agreement ..... --o .................... 34 10.7. Construction of Agreement ........................ 35 10.8, Mitigation of Damages .............................. 35 10,9. Further Assurances: Covenant to Sign Documents........................................ 35 10.10 Covenant of Good Faith end Fair Dealing ............ 35 10,11 Governing Lair................................ , 36 10.12 References; Terminology ............................ ; ;6 10.13 Time, , ... :36 SIGNATURES........................ .. . EXHIBIT A - DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT B PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TEXT EXHIBIT C - FORM OF REIMBU"SFAENT AGREEMENT FOR STORM DRAINS EXHIBIT D - ETIWANDA HIGi;LANDS ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN GUIDELINES EXHIBIT E METROPOLITAA WATER DISTRICT, FASEMENT OF FEE TITLE E N. R RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is made and entered into as of this ____ day of , 1988, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation of the State of California ( "City ") , and Caryn Development Company, a California corporathn (J1Developer "). RECITALS :: This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: A. These Recl tal s refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes City to enter into Development Agreements in connection with the development of real property within its jurisdiction by applicants with a requisite legal or I equitable interest in the real property which is the subject of a Development -I- Agreement. The Development Agreement Legislation also authori.;es cities and /or counties to eUct, by resolution or ordinance, procedures or requirements for the consideration of Development Agreema" to meet the goals of the Development Agreement Legislation. C. The Project is a large scale residential, phased development requiring major investment in public facil {ties and substantial front -end investment in on- and off -site improvements in order to make the Froject feasible. The Project represents a master planned project analyzed and reviewed through the Existing Approvals in light of the land use standards and policies embodied in the City's Existing Drdina;ces. D. Developer has applied for, and City and County have granted, the Existing Approvals in order to protect the interests of their citizens in the quality of their community and environment through the planned development process. City has scrutinized with particular care the adverse impacts associated with veMcular traffic conditions within the City and the effects of the Project on such conditions. City and Developer have ag-eed upon a series of mitigation measures in connection with the development of the Project to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the adverse impacts on City traffic conditions, including, without limitation, developer's e contribution tt!ward off -site improvements.. E. Because of these mitigation ti-.asures, City has found in connection with its review and consideration of this Agreement that no r subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Reports C'EIR's ") are necec.,try or required under the California Environmental Quality A::t ( "CEQA") in order to enter into or undertake the terms and conditions of this Agreement, since they are consistent with, and within the scope of., the previous EIR's for thi Existing Approvals and because the mitigation measures provided for in those EIR's are implemented and assured of fulfillment by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the Foregoing, City has foune, and determined that there are no substantial changes in the Project, or in the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, wn;eh involve new impacts not considered in previous EIR's, y,. that no further environmental analysis is required under CEQA. F. The Existing Approvals implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and impose appropriate standards and rcequirements with respect to land uses, building heights and dens ties, traffic improvements, support facilities (such as utilities) as development of the Project proceeds, and measures for mitigating adverse environmental impactf in the City ; " the surrounding region. City believes that the orderly development of the project will provide many public benefits to City through the imposition of the foregoing standards and requirements under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the retention, of 37 acres (Flood Control) open space, installatiea of on and off -site public improvements, and the creation of job and housing opportunities through the construction and development of the project. -3- G. Developer and City desire to provide the parameters within which the obligations of Developer for public and other improvements will be met, and otherwise to provide the final and definitive criteria for the development of the Project in order to obtain the foregoing benefits. H. For these reasons, City has determined that the Project is a development for which a Development Agreement is appropriate in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the Ci:,'s land use planning policies and to provide appropriate assurances to Developers regarding its ability to complete the Project.: This will in turn elitwi ate uncertainty in planning for and secure orderly development of the Project, assure progressive installation of necessary improvements and provision for public servic --s appropriate to each stage of development of the Project, insure attainment of the mcximum effective utilization of resources within the City at the least economic cost to its citizens, and otherwise achieve the goals and purpose for which the California Government Code, Section 65864- 65859.5 were enacted by the State. In exchange for these benefits to the City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the Existing City ordinances, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, in order to implement the intent of the City, I. In order to effectuate the foregoing, the parties desire to enter into this Agree.Aent. Developer is the owner of the Property described in Exhibit A and is entitled to file the application for and enter into this -4- O FIT- Ift Agreement. ` J. on 1988, after due review of and report on Developer's application for this Agreement by the Planning Director and other City agencies and departments, and consideration of all other evidence heard and submitted at a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Sections, 65090 and 65091, the planning Commission found and determined that this Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general plan uses and programs sp, led ir. the General Plan; is in conformity with and will promote public r;w .,iiience, general welfare and good land use practices; will not be detr uental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City or the region surrounding the City; will not adversely affect the order",--f development of property or the preservation of property values within the City and, will promote the .Game; and will promote and encourage the development of the Project by prnviding a greater degree of certainty with respect to such devalopr•nt. K. Thereafter, on , 1988, th^ . ty Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this Agr.ement, found this Agreement consistent with the City`s General Plan and introduced the Enacting Ordinance in order to enact this Agreement as its legislative act. Thereafter, on 1988, the City Council adopted the Enacting Ordinance enacting this Agreement au its legislative act. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. 1.1. Defined Terms. Each reference in this Agreement to any of the following terms shall have the meaning set North below for each such term. "Approvals" means any and all Permits or approvals of any kind of character required under the Ordinances in order to develop the Project. "County" means the County of San Bernardino, Stato-of California. i "Development Agreement Legislation" means Government Code Sections 65864- 65859.5, authorizing City to enter into Development Agreements as therein set forth. "Enacting Ordinance" means Ordinance No. enacted by the City Council on _ 1988 approving this Agreement. "Existing Approvals" means those Approvals for the Project obtained or enacted by City or the County as of the date of this Agreement, iJith respect to the foliowing items (a), (b), and (c), (collectively, ".County Approvals "), "Existing Approvals" also includes such items as adopted and /or approved by the City as provided in Article 4 below. The following specific -6- approvals constitute the Existing County Approvals. (a) Tentative Tract Map No 13564 Aaproval. Tentative Tract Map No. 13564; covering a portion of the County Property, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on Aug,,st 24, 1987, . under its Ordinance No. 3174 and revised by the :vunty Planning Commission on July 14, 1988. (b) Tentative Tract Map No. 13565 Approval. Tentative Tract Map No. 13555, covering a portion of the County Pr %arerty, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors or. August 24, 1987, under its Ordinance No. 3174 and revised on July 14, 1988 by the County Planning Commission. (c) Planned _ Development Text /Plan. A Planned, Development Text /Plan was adopted by the County for the County Property on August 24, 1987, by the County 80ard of Supervisors of the County by Ordinance No. 3174 including the Conditions of Approval, revised by the County Planning Commission on duly 14, 1988 and also revised by the County Planning Commission on July 14, 1988. A copy of the Planned Development Text /Plan ( "Development Plan,") is attached hereto as Exhibit 'B. "Existing Ordinances" means the Ordinances in effect as of the date of this Agreement. "Fees" means all exactions, in -lieu fees or payments, dedication or reservation requirements, obligations for on- or off -site improvements or -7- construction requirements for public improvement facilities, or services called for in connection with the development of or construction on property under the Ordinances, whether such exactions constitute subdivision: improvements, mitigation measures in connection r•th environmental review of any project, or impositions made under oftgr O dininces or in order to make a. project approval consistent with City's General Plan. "Laws" means the laws of the State of California, the Constitution of the United States anv any codes, statutes or executive mandates in any court decision, state or federal, thereunder. "Ordinances" means V- ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official r.alicies of City, governing the permitted kses of land, density and design, applicable to the development of the Property and all amendments to any Ordinances heretofore or hereafter enacted, necessary or aprropriate to confer• the requisite lawful right on Developer to develop the Project. Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Ordinances shall include the City's Ger"ural Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, but shall not include the City's Building and Fire Codes or other codes applicabie to actual construction. "Project" means Ae residential development and associated amenities, and on- and off -site improvements, contemplated by or embodied within the Existing Approvals as the same may hereafter he fzrrther refired, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. .g_ "Property" means the Real Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto. Developer intends to develop the Project on the Property. "Term" mons the Term of this Agreement: determired under Section 2.2 below. 2. Effective Date; Term. 2.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be dated as of the date I the Ena.tting Ordinance was approved by the City Council as specified in the p Recitals above ( "Enacting Ordinance Date ") and that obligations of the parties hereunder shall be effective as of the last date ( "Effective Date') to occur of: (a) the Enacting Ordinance Bate or (b) the date upon which the Property is annexed to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. After the Enacting Ordinance takes effect pursuant to Government Code 36937, and not later than ten (10) days thereafter, the City, by and through its City council, and Developer shall execute and acknowledge this Agreement, and thereafter the City council. The cost of recording this Agreement shall be borne by Developer. 2.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided, terminate on the first date to occur of (a) the eighth (8th) anniversary of the date that the first final subdivision tract map for phase 1 -9- of the Project shall have been recorded n the Official Records of the County, or (b) January 1, 1997, 2.3. Subsequent Amendments or Termination. If the parties. amend or cancel this Agreement as herein provided, or as otherwise provi -ed by the Development Agreement Legislation or this Agreement is terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, then the Clerk of the City Council shall, after such action takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of such action to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 3. General Development of tia Project. 3.1. Project. Developer shall have the right to develop the project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and City shall have the right to control development of the Property in accordance with thr, provisions of this Agreement. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Existing Approvals and the Existing Ordinances shell control the overall design, development and construction of the Project, and all on- and off -site improvement, and appurtenances in connection therewith, in the manner specified in tH s Agreement, including, without limitation, all mitigation measures required in order to minimize or eliminate material adverse environmental impacts. In the event of any inconsistency between the Existing Approvals and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. -10- 4 3.e. Project Phasing. The parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time commit, When or the order in which, Project phases will be developed. Such. decisions with respect to phasing of the Project will depend upon a number of circumstances not Within the control of the Developer, including, without limitation, avaiiability of necessary infrastructure and other public improvements, market conditions and demand for the use or uses within the Project, the condition of capital markets and availab!'° ty of appropriate financing for the devej meent of the Project (such as construction or interim and permanent loans, and /or equity capital) and other similar fa(,tors. Developer small therefore have the right to develop the C'roject in phases in such order and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business analys .a ^£ those factors determining, in Developer's judgment, the appropriate course of development of the Project, so long as the Project is planned as a residential development as con plated by the Existing Approvals pertaining to the Project to date and the provisions of this Agreement and the necessary infrastructure and other public improvements necessary for such phase have been constructed. 3.3. Parcelization of Property. Developer shall have the right, from time to time or at any ,., to reconfigure the Property as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 13564 or Tentative Tract Map No. 13565, as may be necessary i'n order to develop a particular phase of the Project, or to sell, lease or finance a portion of the Property in connection with the development of the Project. Developer shall initiate such reconfiguration through an application under the Existing Ordinances. City shall accept any such application, provided it is accompanied by an appropriate statement in writing, certified by Developer, that such reparc6lization is undertaken. pursuant to this Section 3,.4. Each such application shall *be processed in accordance with the Existing Ordinances, and if such application is Consistent with, and otherwise conforms to- the standards, terms and conditions contained in this A?rgem9nt, then City shall approve such application. The parties acknowledge that the adjustments contemplated hereunder are an appropriate means, to accomplish the purposes herein specified because the Existing Approvals provide for all necessary on- or off -site improvements to service the Project, imposed in accordance with the requirements of Laws and Ordinances, as contemplated by Government Code 66428. � 3.4. Building Permits and Other Approvals„ Sa))Ject to any necessary reconfiguration of the boundary linas of the parcels and /or lots comprising the Property under Section 3.3 above, Developer shall have the right to apply for any necessary Approvals under the Building and fire C *des then currently in effect, pursuant to which applications are judged solely on the basis of structural and fire safety, as ministerial decisions of the City. City shall issue to Developer -, upon such applications, all ct4essary building permits, occupancy cfItificates, or other required permits for the construction, use and occupancy of the "-eject, or any portion thereof, as applied for, including connection to all utility systems under the City's jurt: diction, subject to compliance with this Agreement and City's Building and Fire Code requirements and subject to Section 3.6, below, payment of City's usual and customary fees and charges for such applications, permits and -12- r certificates and any such utility connection, lot split, or similar fees a,-,d cLarges of general application as specified in this Agreement. In the event building permits are issued by County for any portion of the Project under the jurisdiction of County, City agrees that County may continue inspection of all phases of construction for which such building permits were issued. Amendments to all street and other infrastructure improvement plans originally approved by County, for any portion of the Project, shall be processed and approved by Cou►iy. Upot anneitation Developer agrees to replace County Agreement and Bonds with City Agreement and Bonds. Thereupon, City agrees that County shall release the security posted by Developer n- street and other infrastructure -improvements constructed by Developer in accordan4e with conditions and requirements imposed by County, and plans, and W_n`dments thereto, approved by County, upon compliance by Developer with County requiremc.ats for such release. 3.5. Other Governmental Permits. In addition, Developer shall apply for such other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasi- governmental agencies having, jurisdiction over the Project (such as public utilities or utility distri -ts) as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project under the Existing Approvals. City shall cooperate with Developer in its endeavors to obtain such permit; and approvals. 3.6. Fees. City and Developer agree that the city's Fees for develop sent of the Project shall be modified as follows if due and paid before -13_ the expiration of the Term of this Agreement. Is (a) Building Perrsit and Construction Fees. Flan check and building and construction permit fees shall be paid in accordance with the City's fee schedule as it exists at the time Developer submits appropriate applications for building or construction permits, except for building permits that are issued by County in accordance with Section 3.A. (b) Storm Drain Fees. Inasmuch as tyre storm drains required by the Existing Approvals exceed the standards of the City, no storm drain fees of any kind wilt' be required of Developer if the Project is developed to the requirements of the Existing Approvals. Such stoma drains are or will be oversized in order to serve the needs cf the neighboring land located to the north of the County Property. If airy portion of , A lands is annexed into is the City, the City agrP-% to enter into a reimbursement agreement in substantially the form of Exhibit C with Developer pursuant to which a portion of the costs incurred by Developer in constructing and installing such storm drains will be reimbursed to Developer. (c) Recreation and Park Fees. Park fees will be required of Developer; however, said fees shall only be used for park land acquisition and /or park development within the benefit area described as; the area bounded by 24th Street, 1 -15 Freeway, rower Summit Avenue, ana East Avenue. (d) Road Construction. Upper Summit Avenue, (24th Street) EM may be improved to acceptable two -lane road standp.,ds as determined necessary by the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga from the west reinforced concrete box east to the east property line of San Sevaine Channel. Developer shall post with the City prior to issuance of building permits $500,000 as his share contribution toward off -site improvements. This cost shall be posted in properties to each phase of development on a permit by permit basis, and for the purposes defined in the conditions of the tentative map ez approved by the County of San Bernardino. (e) ° Other Fees. With regard to the Property, Developer shall not be required to pay the City's beautification fees or systems development fees. No new fees shat: be imposed upon De•_lop:r in connection with the developmer.d of the Project in accordance with the Existing Approvals for any of the purposes or services mentioned in this Section 3.6 prior to the expiration of the Term. Nowever, new fees shall not include an increase in C- .Jsting fees„ and the Developer agrees to pay any such increases. 3.7. Review and Processing of Approvals. City shall accept for processing and will review and take action in a timely manner on all applications for further Approvals with respect to the Project called for or required under this Agreement. Such application shall generally be processed in general compliance with the City's review process. City shall schedule the _is- 4 °.j<v)_-=�Cf application for review by the appropriate representatives of City having Jurisdiction in order to achieve the time liz tations herein Set forth. Upov request from Developer, City shalt, in a timely manner, inform Developer of all n1acessary information apd submission requirements in connection with each application hereunder, and shall review ar,, such application prior to its submission f <,r completeness. Specification by the City= of the necessary renuirements and information hereunder shall be sonclusiye and binding on City, and City shall not have the r4ght to require any additional information or impose any additional requirements with respect to such application in the same manner as specified in Government Code 55943 and 65944 with respect to applications thereunder. The approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13564 will expire on July 14, 1990. Upon receipt of , ,,roper t,pplicatioa from Developer prior to such expiration date, City agrees to extend such approval to July 14, 1992, if found to be in conformance with the local Subdivision Ordinance and State Subdivision Map Act, and any or all other applicable State and local laws. 3.8. Effect of Agreement. This Agreement, and the Existing Approvals, and all plans, specificati;>;t, scaematic drawings and models upon which such Existing Approvals are based, shall constitute = -part of the Enacting Ordinance, as if incorporated by reference therein in full. To the extent this Agreement modifies any Existing Approval, then such modification shall constitute an Approval thereunder as specified by Sec4 on 65866.2 of the California Government Code. -16- 4. �ecific Critera.Applicabie to Deveio ent of the Project. f 4.1. Appl cable rdinances_Ind Approvals. The Existing Ordinances fj are the Ordinances which shall gorern the development of the Pro :rty hereunder and all subsequent Approvals with respect thereto, including the f provisions of the Existing Ordinances governing the permitted uses of the land governing density and governing design, applicable to cevelopment of the Property, provided, however, that. nothing her: shall prevent City, in f subsequent actions applicable to the Property, from applying new Ordinances, r not inconsistent or in conflict with the Existing Ordinances or the intent, purposes or any of the terms, st-ndards or conditions of thin Agreement, and which do not materially interfere with the development of the Property for the uses and to the height, density, and intensity set forth herein or with the rate of development selected by Developer hereunder. 4.2. Governing Approval, Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size Of proposed buildings, provisicns for reservation or dedication of Land for public purposes and the location of Pwi.. improvements and other termi and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be those set forth in the Existing Approvals. 4.3. Design Review of Project. In order to implement th? density, allocation and height provisions herein specified, Developer shall follow the applicable design review procedures of the City. This provision shall not apply to structures for which building permits are issued by County, and duly constructed. In addition to the design, review procedures contained in the City Development Code, the "Etiwanda Highlands Architectural and Design Guidelines Exhibit "D" shall be .ised in the design and review of all development within the Property, accepting therefr -o the 131 lots which have h:-an duly recorded by a final tract map by the County and have received building permits from the County prior to the effective date of the enacting ordinance of this develpment agreement. 4.4. Eas�sents: Abandonments: Dedications. City shall cooperate with Developer in connection with any arrangements for abandoning existing utility or other easements and facilities and the relocation thereof or creation of any new easements within the Property necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project; a.�d if any such easement is owned by City or an agency of City, City or such agency shall, at the request of Developer, take such action end execute such d=, -- as may be necessary to abandon existing easements and relocate them, as nacessar_ or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project, The Developer shall lain an easement of fee title to the Metropolitan Hater District right -of -way described ii Exhibit "E". which the Developer shall use for road purposes. All improvements required as Fees pursuant to the Existing Approvals shall be constructed by Developer in connection wfl'l its development of each phase of the Project, as such improvements relate thereto and are necessary with respect to such phase of the 'Project development. All applicable construction improvement Alars shaft cOrOly with City standards and be approved by the City _18- f. Engineer. tlpan fiscal construction completion and City inspection, Developer shall offer, and the City shall accept for maintenance, the dedication of each major and minor roadway on V-Z? Property, and all other public improvements, as each is substantially completed by or on behalf of Developer in acci)rdance with th fi e nal map and improvement plans and the City's applicable public improvement standards and regulations in effect on the date hereof, as modified by this Agreement, includim t the Exhibits which are attached to it. The City agrees that at any and all times efter acceptance of dedication,_ and notwith tanding the termination or expiration of this Agreement, and subject to such guarantees as are sit forth In the City's public improvement regulations as the same exist as of the date hereof, as modified by this Agreement, including the Exhibits which are attached to it,,ibe City upon the City Council approval of constructed improvements Shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all portions o7 the Property so dedicated and improved by Developer. Propar°ty dedicated to the City may be annexed to a maintenance district at the direction of Civy. Except as hereinabove expressly provided, no additional dedication shall be required to be made by Developer provided Developer develops the Property substintidily in accordance with the Existing Approvals. 4.6. Assessment Districts and public financing methods. (a; Mello -Rods and Li htina and Landsca in Districts. If" requested by Developer, the City agrees to initiate and use its best efforts -1g_ J! i to pursue to completion proceedings pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapte" 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the California Government Code ( "Mello- Roos "), to finance the installation, maintenance and provision of fiooc control, fire protection and other regional facilities identified by Developer to the City in the request by Developer and authorize) to be financed pursuant, to Mello -Roos. City and Developer hereby agree to cause the annexation of the Property to the tiuhting and Landscaping District established and existing within the,City so as to ;provide the Property with all services presently provided to other properties within the City by such District. The City shall consider annexation to such other special benefit assessment districts as may be requested from time to time by Developer. The annexation of the Property to each of such districts shall be ae ±msplished at the earliest possible tiwe and shall be on terns and conditions generally applicable to other properties presently within such districts. The City will not assume maintenance of any Landscaping and Lighting District facilities until the assessment is in effect. (b) 1913 Act Assessment District, If requested by Developer and found consistent with City Council policy, the City agrees to initiate and use its best efforts to pursue to completion proceedings pursuant to the M!anicipat Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code, to finance such improvement casts as identified by Developer and agreed t•, by the City in the request by Developer and authorized to be financed pursuant to such Acts. Developer shad advance all-costs, including those of the preparation of engineering plans and specifications, economic or financial 20 I __J appropriate for the supervision and administration of the issuance and sale of assessment district bonds. The costs so advanced shall be reimbursed to Developer from the proceeds of the bonds issued. One or more series of improvements district bonds may be issued to finance such improvement costs. However, no bond shall be issued in an amount great*ar than 411 the cost of constructing those improvements identified by Developer to City plus (2) amounts included in the bond issue to cover the cost of financing fees, discount fees, reserve fund (not to exceed maximum debt service on such bonds for one year), concu'lting fees attendant to the formation of the. assessment district, bond insurance. premiums, bond attorneys' fees, reimbursements to Developer, and other costs normally and reasonably associated with the issuance of such bonds. r (c) Mortgage Revenue Bonds. If the City initiates a program to I issue mortgage revenue, industrial revenue or similar type bonds or notes, the proceeds of which may legally be used to finance, in whole or in part, the purchase by home buyers ur zzny portion rf the development of the Property by Developer, or the construction of such development by Developer, Developer shall be allowed to participate in such a program. Such participation shall be based on the rules and procedures of the City arplied -on a uniform bases to all other developers withal the City. (d) Maintenance Assessment District. Those portions of the Property to be dedicated by Developer to the City as provided ins Section 4.4 hereof shall be maintained by the city through a Landscaping and Lighting Act -21- of 2972 assessment district now existing or hereafter formed. Developer agrees to cooperate in and consent to the formation of the assessment district (or annexation to an existing district), for the maintenance of all such property, and including all of the Property within the district. (e) Consultants. City and Developer agree that the following individuals and entitias will be the consultants for any financing referred to in this Section 4.5 Underwriter Stone & Youngberg Financial Consultants Fleldman & Rolopp Bond Counsel Brown & Divert S. Periodic Review of Campliance. City shall review this Agreement at least once every twelve month period from the date this Agreement is executed, at which time developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Evidence of good faith compliance shall include, but is not necessariTy limited to, the preparation of improvement plans following the issuance of Approvals, the commencement of construction upon any portion of the Property, or the periodic public advertisement far sale of single family residential units within the Property. Developer shall be in default under this Agreement if it provides City with a written notice stating that it does not intend to perform further under it or if City makes a finding and determination following the prescribed periodic review as sst forth above and as provided in California Government Code Sections 65865.1 that, upon the basis of substantial evidence, Developer has not complied in geed faith with the terms of this Agreement. 6. Events of Default; emedies; Termination. 6.1. Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent n writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 7.1 regarding permitted delays, any failure by either party to perform any material teem of provision of this Agreement shall constitute an Event of Default, (i) if such defaulting pairty does not ;cure such failure within thirty (30) days following notice of default from the other ,arty, where such failure i is of a nature that can be cured within such thirty (30) day period, or (ii) i if such failure is not of 'a nature which can be cured within such thirty (301 i k day period, the defaulting party does not within such thirty (30) day period, commence substantial efforts to cure such ;`allure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to completion with diligence and continuity the curing or such failure. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures is performance which the noticing party claims constitutes the Event of Defau',t and the manner in which such Event of Default may be satisfactorily cured M accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or issuance of any building permit ;with respect to the Project. -23- 6.2. Remedies. (a) Developer's Remedies. -EXcept as provided in subsection (c), below, this ,agreement shall be enforceable by Developer notwithstanding any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning or subdivision regulation adopted by City which alters or amends the rules, regulations, or policies specified in California Government Code ,Sections 65866. To the extent permitted by law, ths,lefore, it is expressly recognized that specific performance of this Agreement for the benefit of Developer is a proper and desirable remedy in addition to any and all - thcr remedies which may be available to Developer. Provided it is further agreed that Developer shall have no right to damages upon the occurrence of an Event of Default of this Agreement by City. (b) City's Remedies. City shall have no right to any damages or other relief upon the occurrence of an Event of Default by Developer except that city may suspend its obligations and t:rminate this Agreement. Provided, this shall not limit City's remedies under any other agreement with Developer or which would otherwise be available to it in the absence of this Agreement. (c) Actions of Other Agencies. If, as a result of the laws, regulations, or actions of federal, state or other agencies having supremacy oven, City, compliance with this Agreement by City is prevented or precluded, -24- the provisions of this Agreement may be modified or suspended so as to comply d; 'h such laws, regulations or actions. If, however, such modificatiun or suspension substantially deprives either party of the bargaineu for benefits of this Agreement, such party shall 'ae entitled to terminate this Agreement;. provided, however, prior to any such tE-mination, City shall negotiate in good faith with Developer to reach a reasonable alternative development that may be undertaken by Developer in 'lieu of the development or otherwise tv provide Developer with the benefit of such covenant by City which is prevented or precluded by any haws, regulations, or actions of any federal, state or other agency having supremacy over City. 6.3. Waiver; Remedies Cumulatft , failure by a party to insist upon the strict performancF, of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the (Zher party, Irrespective of the Length of time for which such failure ccmtinues, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future. No waiver by a party of an Event of Default shall be effective or binding upon such party unless made in writing by such party, and no such waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to such Event of Default. No express written waiver of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event of Default, or cover any other period of time, other than any Event of Default and/or period of time specified in such express wai; One or more written waivers of an Event of Default under any provision 6. is Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent Event of Default, and the performance of the same or any other term or provision -25- E. Y contained in this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 7.2 above, all of the remedies permitted or available to a party udder this Agreement, or at law or in equity, shall be cumulative and not alternative, and invocation of any such right or remedy shall not con-;+itute a, waiver or election of remedies with respect to any other permitted or available right or remedy.: In connection with the foregoing provisions, Path party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such party's choice in connection with the rights and remedies of such rarty hereunder, and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such party's rights and remedies otherwise available at "aw or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies, to the extent specified herein, and to rely tj the extent herein specified r•olely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by ANIL the other party. 6.4. Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is tcnnirated on account of an Ew nt of Default, such terminalon shall not affact any right or duty emanating from city entitlements or Approvals with respect to the Property approved concurrently or subsequently to the approval of this Agreement, but the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereunder sha;1 otherwise cease as of the date of such termination. If City is the terminating party, then any and all benefits, including money or land received by the City, shall be retained by City; but if Developer is the terminating party, then Developer shall be entitled to all of the benefits arising out of, -26_ or entitlements on account of, any Exactions paid, given or dedicated to, or received by, City under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the Foregoing provisions, no termination of this Agr•e!,saent shall prevent Developer from completing and occupying buildings or other improvements authorized pursuant to valid building permits previously approved by City or under construction at the time of te-mination. As used herein, "construction" shall mean work under a valid building permit, and "completing" soal' mean completion for beneficial occupar.cy for Developer's use, or if a portion of the Project is intended for use by a lessee or tenant, than for such portion `rpleting" shall mean completion except for interior imProver:;rr.zts, such as partitions, &rt and electrical runouts, floor coverings, wall coverings, lighting, furniture, trade fixtures, finished ceilings, and other improvements typically constructed by or for tenants of similar buildings. All such u;es hereundt�r, sball, the extent applicable, be dee;nEd nonconforming uses, and shall btu subject to the nonconforming use or,:-visions of City's Punning Code. G.S. Effect of Court Action. In addition, if any court action or proceeding is brought by any third person to challenge any Approval, this Agreement, or 'Iny other permit or approval required from City, or any other governmental entity, for development or Construction of the Project, or any portion thereof, and without regard to whethEr or not Developer is a party to or real party in interest in such action or proceeding, then (i) Developer shr,.11 have the right to terminate this agreement upon thirty (301 days notice in writing to City, given at ;4,, , time during the pendency of such action or proceeding, or within ninety (90) days after the final determination therein -27- 'r 'e i (including any appeals), irrespective of the nature of such final determination, and (ii) WAY such action shall constitute a permitted delay under Article 6.1, 6.2c, and 6.4. v.5. Esto e1 Certificate. Either party may,, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full €ogee and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, ,ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, and if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in Agfault, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within Wrty (30) days Foliawirg the receipt thereof. The Planning Director of City shay) have the right to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgages. 7. Transfers and Assignments. 7.1. Right t to Assign. Developer shall hara the right to tell, assign or transfer in whole, or in part, this Agreement, and all of its rights, duties and obligations hereunder, to any person ut any time during the Term of this Agreement; provided, however., in no event shall, she rights, duties and obligations conferred upon Developer pursuant to this Agreement be ..2g.. 1 L �1 at any time so sold, transferred or assigned except through a transfer of an interest of Developer in the Property, or portion thereof, transferred. 7.2. Release Upon, Transfer. Upon the sale, transfer oi• assignment of Developer's rights and interests under this Agreement under Section 9.1 above, Developer shall be released from its obligations under this #greement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, so trws3ferred arising subsequent to the effective date of such transfer (i) if Developer is not then in default under this Agreement, (ii) Developer has provided to City notice of such transfer, and (iii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written agreement in which (A) the name and address of the f Insferee is set forth and (8) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the obligations of Developer finder tnis Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, transferred. Developer shall, in any event, give notice to City of any transfer hereunder, disclosing therein the identity of the transferee and such transferee's address. Failure to deliver a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not effect the running of (ny covenants herein with the land, as provided it Section 9.3, below, nor shall such failure negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of any transferee pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 7.3. Covenants Run With The Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, rinsolidation„ or otherwise) arid: -29- assigns, devises, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all ether persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of taw or in any manner whatsoever, and shalt inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) end assigns. All or the provisiotrs of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and con -7titute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, inr -Wing, but not limited to, Section 145° of the Civil Code of tha State of California. Each covenant to do or refrain from do`ng name act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any MY ownFd p uperty, (i) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (ii) runs with such properties, and (iii) :� binding upon edch party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and each Person having any 'Merest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such properties, or any portion the,+of, and shall benefit each party and its property hereunder, and each other Person sU°•geding to an interest in such properties. 8. Mendment and Tectrination. 8.3_ Amendment or Cancellation Except as provided in Article 5 i above with respect to City, s annual review thereunder, this Agreement may be cance'i;d, modified or amended .only by mutual consent of the parties in i writing, and then only in the manner providew for in Section 65$68 of the California Government Code. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not I -30- r 1 AbL relate tc the Term permitted uses, density or intensity of rase, height or size of buildings, provisions For reservation and dedication of taod, conditions, terms, restricZiors and requirements relating to subsequent discretionarI actions, monetary contributions �y Developetp, 4)r any. conditions or covenants relating to the use of the Fropet°ty, shall require the giving of notice pursuant to Sects x,:65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation as specified by Section 65"0. 8.E. Recordation of, Amendment. Any amendment or c ncella ion of this Agreement effected by the parties hereunder shall be recorded by tht�: Clerk do the City Council as specified in Section 2.3 above not later than ten (10) days after the effective date of the action effecting such &M.-enckAeft or cancellatt'i'an, which amendment or canceiation shall describe the property subject ib ereto. 9. :Notices. Any notice to either party shall be in writing and givoa by delivering the same to such party in person or by sending thr same by registered or certifies] mail, or Express Mail, return r -elpt requestr:.. with postage prepaid, to the party's mailing address. Tree respective mailing addresses of the parties are, until changed as hereinafter provideul the following: City: G7ty of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Base Line Road Post Offica Box 897 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 rttentlon: Ms. Beverly Authelet Developer: Caryn Devel opi gent Coi�rpany 23?1 Terry Road Laguna Bea%;h, CA 42551 Atte6tion: Mr. Joseph N. DiIorio Either party may change its mailing address at any time by s;ivtng written not+'ce of such change to the other party in the manne• - ovided herein at least tea (10) days prior to the date such change ie° ,ed. All notices under this Agr ocznt shall Le deemed given, received, fiade or commnunicated on the date personal delivery is effected or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. 10. Miscellaneous. 10.1 Negation of Paetgership. The Parties specifically j:cknowlAdge that th >; Project is a pri'aete development, that neither party Is Ectirg as the �__nt of the ether rn atW respect hereunder, and that each party is an indepeader} --itrartina ersit,I with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions cont;:_nt, moment. None of the terms :�r provision:; of -32- this Agreement shall be deemed to create .a partnership between or among the parties in the businesses of De ✓ eloper, the affairs of City, or otherwise, nt,r shall it cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any ,joint enterprise. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create any third party beneficiary rights in any person who is nr.t a party, unlrs:7 expressly otherwise provided. 10.2 AVrovals., Mess otbe►wiise herein provi led, whenevier approval, consent or sizlfsfa,tion ( hereti collectively referred to as an "approval ") 'is required of a party pursuant to this Agreement, it shall not be unreasonably witaheld. Unless ;rovision is made for a specific time period, approval shall be deemed Oven within tnirty (30) drys after receipt of the written request for apprrtva ", anJ if a party sheNl neitlier approve nor Jisapprove %,,ithin such thirty (30) day period, or other time period as may be specified ir tY s Agreement for approva?, that party shall then be deemed Vj have given its'app ^oval. If a party shall disapprove, the reascns therefore shall be stated in reaLonable detail in writing. Appraval by a party to or of any act or req,.est by the other party shall not bp deemed to waive or render unnecessary approval to or of any similar or subsequ:�nt acts or request. The standards, terms and conditions for Approvai- under this Agreement shall extend to and bind the partners, officers, directors, sharei►olders, trustees, beieficiaries, agents, elective or appointive hnards,, commissions, employees, and other, authorized repre�'entatives of each party, and each such person shall make or enter into, ar take any action in connection with, any ,gpproval hereunder in accordance with Such standards, terms and conditions. 10.33. Not A public iledication. Nothing herein contained shall be -33- f: dr-emed to be a gift or dedication of the Property, or of the Project, or portion thereof, to the general public, for the ge:ieral public, or for any public use or purpose whatsoever, it being the i9tention and understanding of the parties that this Agreement be strictly limited to and for the pL ,poses herein expressEd for the development of the Project as ;private property. Developer shall have the right to prevent or prohibit the use of the Prope, °t,*, or the Project, or any portion there.t, including common areas and buildings and improvements located thereon, by any Person for any purpose inimical to the operation of a private Project as contemplated by ts,,. Agreement. 10.4. Severibility. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or of the appl catio7 thereof to any Person, by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hareof or the application, thereof to any other Person or circumstance and the same shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so invalidate -t would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or woulc - ,,intrate t`s purposes of this Agreement. 10.5. Exhibits. The Exhibits listed in the Table of Contents, to which reference is made herein, are deemed incorprarated into this Agreement in their entirety by reference thereto. 10.6. Entire Agreement. This written Agreement and the `:xhihits hereto contain all the representatichs and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties or representations are superseded in total by this Agreement and -34- Exhibits hereto, and such memoranda. 10,7. Construr -lion of Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement and the Exhibits here-1.0 shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any party and consistent with toe provisions hereof, in order to achieve thi objectives and purposs of the parties hereunder. The captions preceding the text of each Article, Section, subsection and the Table of Contents hereof are included only for convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Wherever required by the context, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the wgsculine gender shall include the feminine or neuter genders, or vice versa. 10.8. Mitigation of Damages in all situations arising cut of this Agreement, the parties shall atte4:pt to avoid and nsiMmize the damages resulting from the conduct of the other party,. Each party shall take all necessary measures to effectuate the provisions of this lgreement. 10.9. Further Assurances: Covenant to Sign Documents. Each party covenants, on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns, to take all acticns and do all things, and to execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if required, any and all documents and writings, that may be necessary or proper to achieve the purposes and objectives of tYis Agreement. 10.10. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Neither, party shall do anything which shall have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other party to receive the benefits of this Agreement; each party shall -35- refrain from doing anything which would render its performance under this `- Agreement impossible; and each party stall do everything which this Agreement: contemplates that such party shall .do in order to accomplish the objectives ' and Purposes of this Agreement. 10.11. Governing Law. Tis Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties, shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 211.12. References; Terminolcgy. Unless otherwise specified, whenever in this Agreement, reference is made to t° a Table of Contents, any Article or Section, or any defined tern:, such reference ,hall be deemed to refer to the Table of Contents, Article or Ststion or defined tp-rms of this Agreement. The use in this Agreement of the words "including," "such as" or words of simelar import Aen following any general term, statement or matter shall not be construed to limit such statement, term or matter to the specific items or matters, whether or not language of noniinitation, such 4s "without limitation" or "but not limited to," or words of similar impart, are used with reference thereto, but rather shall be deemed to refer to all other items or nutters that could reasonably fall witnin the broadest possible scope of such statement, term or matter. Reference herela to a "party," or the "Paities," shall refer tc City and Developer, or bot:%, as the context may require. i 10.13. Time. Time is of the essence or" this Agreement and of each I and every term and condition hereof. 36- I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreemer:t as. of the day and year first above wfitten. CITY OF RANCHO CUCMONGA, a CARYN DEVELO;14ENT C,-4ANY, a municipal corporation of the California corpor' on State of California By' By Dennis L. Stout Joseph H. Dilario { Its Mayor Its President By' 'Developer" Beverly A. Aathel et Its City Clerk 1 i I i .y i t -37- j Approved as to Form: BY: Its City Attorney "City°' A STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF j On before me, the undersigned, a Notary AOL Public in and for said State, personally appeared _ and , persona? iy ' norm to tree or proved to me on the basis: of satisfactory evidence, to be the persons who executed the within instrume:rt as Mayrjr and City Clerk or on behalf of CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, the municipal corporation therein r fed, and acknowledged to me t`at the municipal corporation execLted 3t. WITNESS my hand and official Beal, Notary Public In and for said State STATE OF CALIFOP.NIA j } ss. COUNTY OF } Or9: before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Joseph N. bilorio, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satin- ?actory evidence to be the person who executed it. WITNESS may hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State EY,NIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY The west 1/2 of tha east 1/2 and the east 1/2 of Section 22, Township 1 , ran north 1/2 of the west range S west, San Bernardino base and meridian, e official plat of said land. according to t Also e� - epting therefrom that certain sti ip of land 8 ` feet ila width, as described in that certain grant deet ; Cexecuted by Samuel J. Wassem, et ux*, to the Metropolitan o poratiion. recorded ul erft a public 603, off"tial „records. - y California, 1969 in book 7276 page Also excepting therefrom those certain strips of. land 330 feet in width, as described in that certain giant deed executed by Samuel J, Wassem, as trustee to Southern Surplus Realty b , a California Corporation; recorded April 27, 1973 3n book 9171, page 84, official records. Also excepting the south 30 feet thereof. Also excepting an undivided 1/3 interest in all minerals, from gas, Q D vexaa.�ion gas as reserved in the deed Main, an unmarried wom&n, recoi ed May 5aC mica 2583, page 129, official records. book fl EXHIBIT C REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This REIMPURSEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is ontered into to he effective as of , 1988, bet-een the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONeA, a municipal corporation of the State of California ( "C-It; ") and CARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California Corp- nraticn ( "Developer "). City and Developer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Piunies ". PREAMBLE A. Developer is the owner and developer of real property in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ( "Property "). the Property is the subject of Annexation No., for annexation to the City which ztas been initiated by landowile- petition to the Local Agency Formation Commissio.t. B. City has entered into a Development Agreement with Developer pursuant to Government Code Section 653;54 et se. and has an,proved Tenteive Tract Map Nos. 13564 and 13565, has approved a Plar+ned Development 'text /Plan by Resolution'No. and has approved the West Valley eoothi7 Community Plan by Resolution No. (collectively, the "Governmental Approvals "). C. Pursuant to the Governmental Approval, Deal leper is being required to install storm drains oversized to serve the needs of other properties, located to the north of the Property as shown and described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ( "Benefit Area "). Purs -,tt to the Governmental Approtirrls, Deve.oper is being required at its sole expense to install such storm drains subject to reimbursement to the extent that the costs incurred by Developer exceed the amount that Developer would otk erwise pay fit OW W SON Wto ftC - -1- 5 D. By Ordinance No. , City has established the Eenefit Area containing the properties which will h:? benefited by installation of the storm drains by Developer. At the time filial maps are rec "'°ded for properties Within the Benefit Area, or building permits are issued for such properties, whichever occurs fit'st, storm drain fees will be collected by City from such property owners and reimbursed to Developer. E. The Parties desire to entcr into this Agreement to implement.tke Development Agreement, to provide for the installation of storm drains, an3 to vrovide for reimbursement to Developer for a portion of the costs .'if oversizing the storm drains to the extent such costs exceed the amount of owing by Developer f$f ¢fvOMt gpr,(iij fojq, The Parties agree as follows: i> installation of Storm Drains. Developer, at its Solt expense, shall ccnstruct and install the storm drain facilities and protective works required by City Engineer f#$ 2ffylf Wgf$e pyge of ifIrg Ffgi� $go ff ¢►'B�(d�`d Vfr �drrr�frd�� ay OfxY rrf� fYgxa(rvf Wtofe WiTIVIOMI The Storm Drain Facilities to be installed by Developer ex", -d City standards and will Je oversized to serve the Property and the Benefit Area. Therefore, ,qursuant to the Development Agreement, Developer is not obligated to pay any storm drain fees to City, and construction of the Storm Drainage Facilities is in lieu of payment of such fees. To the extent that the cost of installing the Storm main Facilities exceeds the amount which would otherwise be owning by Developer f$e $*$M 0f$j# f #dg, City shall cause other developments to reimburse 6oveloper for such excess cost as further provided in Paragraphs 2 and 3, below. 2• Method of Calculating Developer's Reimbursement Entitlement. LM ia) Calculation of Capacity. As establ-ished in the storm drain improvement plans for the construction of the Storm Drain Facilities. the capacity of the Storm Drain facilities is , of which capacity __ _ percent is allocated to the Subject Property, and percent ( %) is allocated to excess capacity ("Excess Capacity" ). (b) Alloc:�tion of Costs of t o Drainage Facilities, The total cost of construction of the Storm Drain Facilities is Dollars (5 ). Bsed upon percentage, of total capacity in the Storm Drain Facilities allocated to the Subject property, „ g pro rata °:::are of costs attributable to the Subject Property for constructiolz of the Storm Drain Facilities is Dollars ($ and the pro rata share of costs attributable to Excess Capacity based upon percentage of the total rapacity is Dollars. (r) Devoloper's Reimbursement Allocation. Developer shajl >,a entitled to reimbursement from other develoments throughf.,.it the City of an amount Equal to lWe 70 #$$4 Of IYJ the pro rata share of the costs of constructing the Storm Drain facilities attributable to the Excesf; Capacity computed pursuant to subparagrap;� (b) of this Paragraph 210 lily f¢ MOO Ify 010Y Mfg Of 0Olflit'r`llstlr 91 M Wrw WON W111fait 090 0f, W AWM WOTOW 140011 O)WON10 04Y 0 MY 91 WIV Wide V011 '190070000 Kd %gA0000100f AIJi'FdOV06111 Developer sha11 not be entitled to any reimbursement of Develsoer's costs incurred which are attributable to the Property. The unpaid balance of Developer's Reimbursement A1lovation will be increased annually on the anniversary date of this Agreement by the percentage Increase in the construction cost index as reported in the Engineering Yews Rec d during the prior twelve (12) month -3- 11 1 3. payment of Vimbursement. (a) Storin Drain Fay¢ Benefit. The City shall estr,biish a storm drain 10$ benefit for properties within the Benefit Area payable upon the first to occur of (i) the recording of .a final parcel map or final tract map for properties within the Benefit Area, or (ii) thn obtaining of a building permit 17 ti f?V Wf$ig F0471. (b) payment to Developer. WitlA n thirty 130) dkis after the payment of any Storm Dram- F¢¢J cost by other deralopment to City, City shall reimburse to Developer the Storm Drain Fees so collected until the amount of Developer's Reimbursement Allccatiun has been paid in full.. (c) . City of Adapt Ordinances. City shall adopt all ordinances, resolutions, rules or regulations neces; ;:try to effectuate the puraoses of this Agreement. 4. Successc.-s and Assigns. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and u3 binding upon the successors and assigns of City and Developer. S. Termination. This Agreement anC City shall no longer be obligated to r,7 burse Developer t!7on the expiration of twenty (2) years following the date of this Agreement. 6. Notices. Any notice to either party shall be in writing and given by deliveripq `!e same to such party in person or by sending the same by registered or :tr." °[ed' mail, or Express Mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the party's mailing address. The respective mailing addresses of t<} =- par,.ies are, until changed as hereinafter rovided, the following: _4. r t W— c W MR, 0701-02 o 10-26-88 PC Agenda o 4-of 5 ter, City: City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Base line Road Rancho Cucamonga, Carifornia 91730 Attention: Developer Caryn Development Company 2834 Terry Road Laguna Beach, California 92651 Attention: Mr. Joseph N. Dilorio EitFer party may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein at least ten (10) days prior to the date such change is effected. All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is effected or, if mailed, on the delivery elate or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. 7. Sever�abilty. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained In this Agreement, or of the application thereof to any Person, by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the o y „Zr provisions hfreof or the application thereof to any other Person or clmuPfistance and the same shall r-amain in full force and effect, unless enforTsnt of this Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly ineltatable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes oe tkiit, Agreement. S. _Attorneys' fees. If legal action is brought by either party against the other for breach of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute on instrument. .5- The Par ;ies have vixecuted this Agreement as of the date first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF RANCHO CU6XjONGil municipal corporati+-4 of the ' State of California By: city Attorney By: Mayor ATTEST: t Clerk GARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation By Joseph orjo President "Developer" A�cHZ�cc���K1g1� V �h1�t11i6s or the uide%ines ta,ish t 42ctli�EC�s�LPS- i`,e to pro�Ce forced is alsoaene It ` 5• Tntent this artents Which 1 Ar °a' d in a m of .1A0 3 '� intent °f or elus° �aothil design@ aracter 1e the adores tjwark ent be the ch Zt n of str of deyeln4m bye with° the��har otassure t" t ' eana c°�jat4,an Area iew con'mitte6 fo jntent t ��ns tiye iWanda 54e sign 9, recaOepd t a is da t!►e ct oQi4�iQn Of t'(%e not be E o3ect5 w,A(, in factors tent of this art v s th- me- jc n pprolal. s ,d bH` site+ ph Surr Ilse 7 Guideline be gb, topo9r �'ne .2p0 Genepa! d @g gn s a eye velae cQnsj er t1 ot��� Site o� Aoca1 t. protect views VA Simi -\0 for aP fie, 1 ed di such as t, and s preg \jjAl deyejo4'nen d sits pans su�ue�sf to the doe s an ted uries rebate Ls: 'ls be pjt eats o hjc�.tiWahaa,Foot conditions • d' -is� e1 ev of � th rural an8 -,red charade .2e� Arc % +ltecs and des5 abed as exAriea`Qre best de l`J .*3.- .C1d�J - rural, rate x than urban - informal, ather than formal - tradition,, rather than contemporary - rustic, ,ather than poli -3- i .302 At least 50% of all lots shall he side -on garages, However, for the L (Low) Tract 13565 a further reduction in this requirement, in 5% increments, down to a minimum of 20% of all garages within single family tracts for side -on entries where an additional floor plan per each 5% reduction is provided and if approved by the P1arning ('- AMIsstion. .43 Driveways shall not exceed 15 fet D inches in width through the public parkway frontages en lots less than 75 feet in width. On lots 75 feet or greater in width, driveways shall not exceed 24 feet, with a smooth transition provided to the ultimate driveway width within a depth equal to the parkway depth. .304 Two story structures should nog 'ae planned. for corner parcels, unless sideyard setbacks of 25 feet or greater are used. However, within the L (Low) Tract 13565 the Planning Commission may consider that 2 story homes that have a 1' stery condition on one side (i.e., a maximum plate fine of the sideyard of corner parcels not exceeding 12 feet in height) would be allowed a minimum 15 foot street sideyard setback, .305 The protect shall be designed in a manner that is not only sensitive to, and compatible with the character' of Etiwanda, but also reinforces that character through an integrated design and architectural theme. -3- .306 While no specific architectural style is required, the integrated thane selected shall reflect the traditional architectural styles found in Btiwanda, including but not limited to those listed below. Any one of the following � themes miy be Utilized as a doruinant theme or they may be interspersed. Both one and two story buildings are appropriate to the follMng categaries. (a) Victorian Characteristics fieldstone foundations steep gables and roofline porches and verandas bay windows vertical windows roundheaded windows clapboard and fascia board and batton siding large roof projections (b) California Bungalow Characteristics: Hip orgable roof /gently sloping front porches0aerandas enriched foundations, (revised). (c) California Ranch Characteristics; Low, rambling rustic, informal, front porches/verandas (d) any other integrated design style which in the opinion of `he Design Review Committee meets the intent of this article, -4- .307 Materials, textures, and architecturaO detailing shall be Consistent with the design theme. "Stucco stone" products , may be used to create stone effects except where river rock oceu;•ss which shall be native stone. .308 view fencing consisting of 6 foot high tubular steel with masonry pilasters will be used adjacent to all S.C.C. corridors and the easterly boundary road. Along major (ccllector or above) strsets and the street sites of corner lots enhanced masonry (possibly "woodcrete ") shall be proMed., All other fencing within the rear and sideyards shall be provided at the option of the builder-0 subject to City review and appr�jval of the design and construction. .309 Street. side landscaping and irrigation shall be required prior to occupancy, Sold landscape and irrigation improvements shall first be approved in plan form by the City Planner, prior to the Issuance of any building permits. ''his section sh &ll' apply to all dwelling . units within this project, including Vie first form phases $1313: which may be started and finished under a County Wilding permit. 'these plans shall contain the following elements; (a) Architecturally designed nail boxes shalt be provided for each h:.use by the builder. fb3 Enhanced driveway and front entry walk treatments, utilizing decorative pavements and wide walkways. JMhL (c) in addition to the standard parkway trees, at least 'Four 15 gallon trees per house would be planted by the builder no later than occupancy of the home. Also, accent trees of at least 15 gallons in size will be provided in numbers sufficient to equal one tree per corner for each intersection within the tracts. This tree planting is to be designed in a manner to relieve any monotony of the streetscdpe, perhaps by Bluster planting between the homes.. (d) Irrigated and turfed areas °:hall be provided for each front and corner street side lot. I RESOLUTIG.7 NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88 -04 (CARYN COMPANY), A PRE -ZONE FOR APPROXIMATELY 282 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 24TH STREET (SUMMIT AVENUE) AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD TO PLANNED COMMUNITY, AWD MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 226- 082 -16 AND 24 -27 A. Recitals. M The C &�*yn Company has filed an application for Development District Amendment 88 -04 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Reso'ution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the. Application." (ii) On October x6. 1388, the Pianninr, C)niplss on of City of Ranr.ho Cucamonga conducted a 11ily noticed public hear:ng on the : ,1icatfon aiQ concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to tke adoption of this ResoluttOA have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and reso?yed by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that ail of the facts set 'forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. In conjunction with the Application, an Environmental Assessment, in conformity with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act has been preparn_i. The Commission has determined that this project would not have a significant adverse effect on the envit:,nment, and hereby adapts a findla9 of 50 significant impact on the env�r•onmert and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration by the City Council. 3. Based upon substantial emidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on October 26, 1986, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: i i 0 J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, DOA 88 -0lf GARYN cOMPANY October 26, 398$ Pege 2 v (a) The sub3ect pr4rerty is suitable for the uses. pe*mitted it the proposed development. district in terms of arces, size, and ompatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and (b) The proposed Development District pre -zone would not have signititan�, adverse im!)acts on the environment, nor the surrounding properties; and (c) The proposed Development District pre -zone is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Manning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of the Application. APPROVEO AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY Or OCTOBER, 3988, PLAN13ING COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: arry 'ti"e"t;{taf rmtass -ATTEST., Praad u er, _ ecretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho cucamorga, do hereby Certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introd"ed, passed, and adapted by the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the planning Commission held an the 26th day of October, 1988, by the followinC vote-to-wit.. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: CORMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANJD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -33 TURNER----X-r-e—qu-P—sf7F5F a blanket Conditional se erm> to a ow administrativeloffice Rises within three buildings; of an existing industrial complex located at 9375 Archibald Avenue in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. APN 210- 072 -47 and 48. I. ABSTRACT: This item has been continued from the October 12, 198EI Planning-Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with staff to resoive the parking issue. II. A13ALYSIS: As originally presented, the proposed Conditional Use industrial allow complex office as deficient eighte(8) parking spaces exiSince that time the applicant has submitted a restriping-_ which provides 10 spaces more than the number required (183). Attachadnt A illustrates the revised parking layout of 193 spaces. Essentially the number of parking spaces was increased by adding additional compact spaces. The number of compact spaces proposed is 64 which is the maximum allowable (35 percent of the amount required). III. RECOMMENDATION• In light of the revised information submitted by t e app can staff" recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 87 -33 through adoption of the attached Resolution of approval and issue a Negative Declaration. R e "fu , d, B le City lanner BB:BN :js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Restriping Plan Exhibit "B" - Previous Staff Report of October 12, 1988 Resolution of Approval with Conditions 11 &4h 09"r I-rt -I In: • NOT A PART JQ L El 3� U t -v 00 Af 1500 400 L= J�lwrgm it rl C/-� NOkTH CITY. ITY CF AAAi- M( RANCHO 3 0 113 CtJCAN"CA MUI. o Avg% AV ""-sixiii PLANNING D(VLqION EXHIBITt—A — SCALE: ftz"Wl� IM --AiA6 6-5pto* 1,qu& M-,L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Octcber 12, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, assistant Planner R 6e . SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -33 IUKNCK - A request for a o:dnKet Condi onal Use Perijilt fo" aTr administrative /office uses within three buildings of an existing industrial complex located at 9376 Archibald Avenue the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) of ine Industrial Area Specific Plan. APN: 210 - 072 -47 and 48. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Review of a "Master" Conditional Use Permit to allow o ce /administration and office medical within Buildings 100, 200 and 300 (28,202 square feet) of the ArchiCerter I complex. B. Surrounding La-id Use and Zoning: North - Southern California Edison Substation and 6th Street; Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 4) South - Existing Industrial Park; Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 4) East - industrial; Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 4) West - Vacant; and Archibald Avenue Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 16) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The site is currently developed pith eight buildings' on 4.66 acres. The entire site is currently provided with 175 parking stalls. The five buildings on the eastern portion of the site are industrial in character 1)7-,3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REKRT CUP 87 -33 - TURNER October 12, 1988 Page 2 a ;id appearance while the three buildings on the western portion of the site adjacent to Archibald Avenue are more traditional office style in appearance. E. Background: The Planning Commission approved the ArchiCenter pro ec on December 13, 1978 u;rer Director's Review 78 -31. The approval was granted for both professional office space and industrial space. e u the area was mnufacturi g), as thIndstrialSpecificPlanhad not yet been adopted. F. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Proposed: Industrial/ 32,800 1/500 66 175 Manufacturing Office! 24,452 1/250 98 Administrative Medical /Health Care 3,750 1/200 19 Total I8 I II. ANALYSIS• A. General: As indicated above:, the ArchiCenter cohiplex was approve in 078 for both proi'essional office and industrial space. At the time of approval, the area was zoned M -1 which permitted office use as a matter of right. The Planning Commission has previously stated its reluctance to grant "Master" CUP's; however, staff is of the opinion that this request is reasonable for the following reasons. The cr,mpiex was designed and has been operating as garden offices since construction in 1979. The three office buildings (100, 200 and 300) are situated In a campus -like setting with extensive landscaping. The three office buildings are inter- connected by extensive pedestrian cOMMOctions. The office buildings are constructed of a wood siding a►nd no roll -up doors or truck loading areas are provided. It was not until 1981, with the adoption of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, that the zoning regulations changed to require a Conditional Use Permit for office type uses. In this case approval of the "Master" Conditional Use Permit would provide the City with control of the entire center rather than just individual tenants. In addition, the range of uses which the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 87-33 TURRER Uc tober 12, 1988 Page 3 applicant is requesting (see Zxhibit 118 ") is consistent with the original approval and existing tenancy. However, it should be noted that the site wooild be eight parking spaces deficient if the proposal was approved as presented. The applicant has been notified of this condition and has agreed to a two week continuance in order U) prepare a f' parking study and work with staff to resolve the parking situation. B. Environmental Assesswent: Part I of the Initial study has been comp e a y e appp cant, Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found no �Agnificart Impacts on the environment as� a result of this project. III. CORRESPONDENCE:' This item +as been advertised as a public hearing n e _ Daily Report newspaper_ the prcpk,rty Posted and notices sent to 7 property owners within 300 feet oP tho project site. IV. kECOMMENDATiON: Staff reconveena_ that the Planning Commission gran a wo week continuance so thvt the applicant may work with staff to resolve parking issues on the site. Res lly ted, �r Br Bul City nner BB:BN:mlg Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map 1 Exhibit "B" List of Raquestod Uses Exhibit "C" - Site Plan CORDO A & RIJZICKA W, N CORGCYA AYTORNEYS AT LAW GRCGORY V. RUZICKA 359 SAN MIOUEL ORIVE of COUNSCL R0$ZRT L. LING SUITE 301 NEWAOC<'T OCACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 1714) 1$9 -to80 September 16, 1988 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Planning Division Re: Justification for granting CUP Application #87 -33 Initially, the pay ty :equestina this Haste' )nditional Use Pex.ait did not construct the buiidin•_ -,at is the. aubject of the pending application. The building was constructed as an office building and was designed for entry level and middle size businesses. The property is currently zoned foa, research and development. Tii `iuilling is currently only 39% Occupied, P. ;.ne' -1y dwe to the fact that no Master Co. t:si. Use Permit is in place. The application once granted shall create no negat:.ve ivuacts on the city, but will in the alternative enhance t.Le business climate desired by the City by facilitating ng full utilization of a modern upscale business complex, with the concurrent beneficial ispacts ca local economy and other businesses in the area, plus enhanced tax revenue from the Project= The Archicenter is the perfect locale for clear., small entrepeneurial enterprises, the image the City would reasonable want to encourage. It is therefor respecti'ully requested that the application for Master Conditional Use Permit be approved without delay. Sin c ely, ' u BURNER er Properties "` 7H H �r y. �� C%. R-AINNIING D(VEM M-7 crEm= TM.E. 44VOAf EXi �(Brr. ALE= B d . Unit 100 lot 100 102 100 103 300 .104 lot? 105 too 107 too 116,111 10() 112 100 114 Total Building I: Total Occupied: Total Vacant. 200 201 200 2002 200 203 200 2040706 200 20i 200 208 200 20'3 Total Building 2: Total Occupied: Total Vacant: 300 301 300 302 300 305 300 07 >00 307 300 310••312 300 314 300 313 Total Building 3: Total occupied: Total vacant: Summa; TURNER BUSINESS CENTp SjFt. 3,750 400 400 350 400 2,354 950 600 10,600 3,496 7,104 3,750 :300 350 1;150 4511 380 --L0.2 7,0$o 2 #950 4,130 1,875 1,837 2,0010 1,84r 473 1,1.30 410 92$ 10,522 3,382 6x640 Tenant Vacant Presbyterian Min. Fund Vacant Berkman Derkin Vacant Nafra Vacant A.L. Williams Vacant Eck Miller Advanced Transport Matrix Clenton Vacant Golden State Vacant vacant Vacant Southland Bath to, Magic Terminex Sage Vacant Alk exist____ ink /preptised Use Office /Medical Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Of fice /Administrative Office/Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office / Administrative Office / Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office /Administrative Office/Administrative Office/Administrative +Office % Administrative Office /Administrative Tata1 S Euit�.� � 892 8uildin 3 ---- ...�..,. Tc+t3l Occupied Square Footage: Vacant square Footage-. 7,0x0 34960 2,950 10,522.. 3,882 28,202 Occupancy: 35.6296 7,104 4,130 6,640 10,328 17,874 VacarcY. 63.39% Parking: Existing Stalls: 110 After fie- Stripe, 123 5Hc:jtl2 -ks,1 /)') -g E lu t Gi NOT A PART 1-J 11!!lI11lw i 9111 1� 1 JTT1.�,.J�,�,i► ili -•r O soo t 60 1 111 hO i X11 � l Q =;00 EXH[BkT- ALE_ RESOLUTION NO. A RESO!UTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87 -33 FOR AOMINISTR,`TIVE /OFFICE USES AND MEDICALMEALTH CARE SERVICE I; ES WITHIN BUILDINGS '1001; '2001, ;:NO 1300' OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD A0 6TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, P,ND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPOkT THEREOF - APN: 210- 072 -47 AND 48. A. Recitals. (1) Turner Proyxtrties has filed an application for the issuance r.f the Conditional Use Permit No. 87 -33 as described in the title of this ResolF.ition. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional U,.-,e Permit request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) tin the 26th of 9ctober 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pubic hearing on the application and concluded said hearing oa that date. (iii) 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, Pap. A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission durirog the above - referenced public hearing on October 26, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds a,- follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the 9375 Archibald Avenue with a street frontage of 341 feet on Archibald Avenue and 191 feet on 6th Street and is presently improved with an industrial /office complex consisting of 8 ouldings; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is an SCE. substation, the property to the south of that site consists of an existing industrial park, the property to the east 1- general inustrial, and the nr ^7erty to the west is vacant and designated as Industrial Park ('Subarea 16). (c) The Archicenter complex was approved in 1978 for both NW professional office and industrial uses. At the time of approval, the subject s:te was designated M -1 which permitted office use as a matter of right. /i1 —/v PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION N0. CUP 87 -33 - TURNER October 26, 1988 Page 2 v (d) Buildings 100, 200 and 300 of the Complex were designed and have been operating as garden offices since their construction in 1979. The three offices are situated In a campus -like setting with extensive landscaping and interconnected pedestrian walkways. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commissien during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the sFacific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the pur,.oses of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposei= use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrWa tqa to the public health, safety] or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provision ►,nf the Development Code. 4. This CommIssion hereby finds and certifies that the project has beEn reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality 'U.t of 1970 and, further, 014, Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the following uses: 3,750 square feet of Medical /Health C&M Service and 24,452 square feet of Administrative and Office . 6. The Secretary to this Commissio0 shall certify to the adoption of i4is Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OC RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: airy T. e , a rman ,._ ATTEST: Brad Buller, ecre ary PLANNING COMI'SION'Rr.SOUTION NO. CUP S7 -33 TURNER October 2E, I9f Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pissed, and adorted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COW- ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT DATE: 0ctziber 26, 1985 T0: Chainvan and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant .planner ., FRO-6 0% SUBJECT: VARIANCE 88 -22 LEWIS HOMES - A request to increase the MUM= a gn o Free -s an ing light standards from 15 feet up to 30 feet in the Terra Vista Town Center located on the northeas *;;Aer of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community - APN 1077- 421 -05. I. ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting a Variance from the eve opment Code regolation of parking lot l *tirg (Sa;:i ;,n 17.12.'030 A.8). Thic section limits light standards to 15 Felt in overall height from finished grade. The Terra Vista Community Man does not address h!fight of light standards-, therefore, the Development Code Standards would apply. II. ANALYSIS: A. General:: The irtant of the height restriction of 15 feet is to main aTn light standards in a low profil design and to be compatible with architectural design. The 15 foot height also minimizes adverse effects of lighting on adjacent properties, particularly residential uses.. Functionally, maintaining a 15 foot light standard allows trees to grow to a mature height above the light, lean,ng the light source to shire below the tree canopy (see Exhibit "D,% The applicant has outlined a variety of aesthetic and functional reasons why such a varianc: would be justified within a project such as Town Center isee Exhibit "B "). The applicant proposes to increase the bight of the lights within the parking lot as well as other lighting used within the promenade, courtyards, and m3in roadways. The parking 'lot light standard would be 30 feet 8 incites in height while the other pedestrian- oriented light standards would be approximately 18 to 20 feet in height. The intent of this concept is to provide a contrast between the lighting of the parking 'lots, which is functional in nature, with lighting of pedestrian scale amenities .which are design features of the project. The applicant outlines in detail these factors related to the 15 foot height limit: ITEM N PLANNING MISSION STAFF REPORT VA 88 -22 Lewis Homes October 26, 1988 Paga 2 The canopy of light created is so low it obscures visibility of the project (i.e. signs). - The light created by a field of 15 foot light standards has a high, degree of glare and is less effective in directing light to the ground where it Is most important. - The hundreds of 15 foot lighting fixtures required to 1�ght the parking lot would no longer be a design feature and the uniqueness of the courtyar z and e mnenades would be lost. III. FAITS Wri FTNc -INGS, The Development Code gives the Planning MOMW sT,'-�n' * a ,au ority to approve z, Variance for a development standard Vnen special circumstances apply to the project, and the following Findings can be met; (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in hardship inconsistent lwithp the no jectives ptf this Code. .b)- ':hat there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property invoivei or to the intended use of 'Lie propt.rty Mat v, not apply generally to other properties in the.same zone. (c) That strict or literal interpretation a!nd enforceireni; of t`e specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. (d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public hearth, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. it is the opinion of staff that the necessary findings to support granting this Variance cannot be made. The intent of the Code to require 15 foot Tight standards is that lighting is directed below the canopies and is intended to maintain illumination on -site 11 —g-, E 11 PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT VA 88 -22 - Lewis Homes October 26, 1988 Page 3 without effect on adjacent properties or passing motorists. The intent has no relationship to site size or configuration. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in THE a eeort newspaper and all Property owners within 300 ee e Projoc't site have been notified. to addition, public hearing notices hove been posted on the subject Property. V. RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny variance 65-22 throrigh adoption of the attar ed Resolution. If however, the Commission feels that the applicant's request has merit, then staff would recommend an amendment to the Development code to allm taller light standards for regional shopping centers. Res ully ted, Br er City anner 8B :BH:te Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" Variance Justification by Applicant Exhibit "C" - Proposed Light Standard Designs Exhibit D - Light Standard with Tree Resolution of Denial Al-,3 �.a C 1 g • DIVISION W �- ITEM: ob -zz- TITLE :_5172f / Ml EXHIBIT: . SCALE: A C 11 i" � f Western Properties 1156None Ma kA'y lP,0.2mt6101VPU04CUWXWtl 9VtSf7 {491&.735& September 26, 1988 Froject: TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER Fur:. Lewis Homes APL Project No: 135021 -02 VARIANCE REWEST OF TF.E LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA This applicaBion is being made in order to request a variance from the City of Rancho Cucr..,,nga lighting standards for a retail project. Normally, thee, standards would limit parking lot lights to a Maximum of 15'. In smaller projects, this criteria is effective in producing a type of lighting that is both effective and aesthetic. However, In a project of this size (71 acres), with large fields of parting, this height limitation becomes ineffective and extremely unecanomicai. It is the intent of the developer as well as the team of design professionals on this project to produce the highest quality lighting design possibis while maintaining reasonable standards of security, ef£ic ancy and aesthetic quality on the final prxiut._. The design being proposed would allow for the large parking areas to be lighted with a fixture approximately 313' tall and would allow for the main roadways, entries, courtyards and pedestrian promanades to be lighted by 0corative fixtures at approximately 15' in height. The purpose of this concept is to achieve a contrast betwesn the light "_ng of parking lots, which is functional in nature, and the lighting of the above mentioned amenities, which are design features of the project. The decorative fixtures at 15, will servc to articula,:a the major areas of circulation from a distance as well as treats an enhanced aesthetic feel for persons in these spacos, It is felt that the landscaping baina provided should be the major featuro for mitigating large expanses of parking lot and that the decorative fixtures should be restricted to principle points of interest and circulation. Ci3CAMON A PLANNING DIVISIDN N:-1- 1TEXaaVAA1A NC t34" -ZZ. T1%m&LEa V—A. tA�+10E EXHIBIT: Irl OF ,,RANCHO 'LANNING Page 2 �.aii��`�a§.t1+'�` Quality Nare these large parking• Areas to be lighted by the decurative standards of 15', a nucber of negative factors would occur. The +'trajor roadwa s and pedestrian waya would no longer be distinctive 'n nature and would blend in to the parking areas to the poiat of invisltility. The height of the fixtures would creator a canopy of light so low as to obscure a clear view of "I Sings in the evening. It xmuld also obscure good visit ,.E project signage. - Generally, landscape and hardecaps are damignad in layers: high a' laments, medium high elements, groundscape elements, e.c, The concept being proposed would achieve this approach, elevating the light standards above the trees In areas where the trees are the item of most interest, allowing the trees themselves to provide a layer unencumbered with the potential conflicts of multiple light fixtures that, as the trees grew in the yours to CCme, would be an increasing maintenance problem and, of course, the groundscapa design features.. Decorative light standards, by nature, are muciu leas affective in terms of providing light on the ground and tend to create muci, more glare than the taller fixtures being p ;cpoAd. This i;, because the decorative fixtures are dea;gned to be seen as lights and not to provida light to a secondary area. This is, of course, appropriate where the light becomes a design feature and is iitagratad into the overall design of a hardscape area. However, ir. a large field of pa -kinZ, such as in this project, these fixtures would produce a high degree of glare and less effective light on the grow..: Thera it is most important, both for visibility and for creating a feeling of security. The taller light fixtures being proposed for the parking lot are designed with the Opposite in mind. The, fixture has a reflector which puts all the light on the ground in a pattern designed for maximum efficiency; hcwaver, the fixture itself is muck less visible. Lighting fixtures can certainly provide much to a design, however, the hundreds of decorative fixtures that would be requirs3 to light these parkipq lots would no longer bacon a P ositive design featu.e but would appear literally as a sea of P0109, and the effectiveness of the lighting design and the special , tature of courtyards and promenades would be lost. In addition, the decorative poles are prcpoged to bo painted consistent with the appruved design colors on the project and would be completely integrated into the color and design pallet of the hardscape areas. Taller perking lot fixtures world be painted in such a fanhicn as to becws virtually invisible during daylight hours. In conclusion, the lighting concept being proposed will provide quality light meeting the basic criteria for security and visibility, will create highly enhanced primary circulation corridors, aasthsticaily pleasing courtyards and proaenadon, and will creates an ambient light that is effective in lighting the buildings, wbsie at the same time not obscuring their visibility from a cstance nor reducing the clarity or visibility of building signage. r4 A CUCAMONVA DIVISION W-4 1] ITE& -. VARIANCe 9B -�,zz TITLE tl 81ANCE J14i7"I1r1GATION E AMBIT: 8502. E FIXTUFI£ TYPE 8 DETAIL �o 0 M FIXTURE TYPE A 4ETAIL Light fixture to be used in parking lot only Pedestrian area light fixtures Note: The diagram above is not to scale However, the fixtures depicted above are shown in the correct proportion to each other. VF r ITEM: V. X 86 - Z Z CITY O, RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISIO t TITLE: �.�PA��'"° SAMOARD Amok RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYIaG VARIANCE NO. 88 -22 TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE - STANDING LIGHT STANDARDS FROM 15 FEET UP TO 30 FEET IN THE TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL °OULEVARD IN THE CCMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COPMUNITY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077 - 421 -05. A. Recitals. (i) Lewis domes has filed an application for the issuance of the Variance No. 88 -22 as desr, sd in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, thr meet Variance request is referred to as 'the application ". (ii) On Octuber 26, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga cor•lucted a duly noticed public hearing on the application . and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. mw, THEREFORE, iz is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commiss ?on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 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 pr.:sented to this Commission during the above- referenced pt..,.ic hearing or October 26, 19E8, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applie3 to property located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, a 71 acre parcel, the site of the approved Terra Vista Town Center; and (b) The variance request is specifically for the use of 30 foot light standards within parking areas; and (c) The property to the north of the subject site is future office park, the property to the south of that site consists of office development, the property to the east is future office park, and the property to the west is office develr —nt; and p_ r JV- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VA 88 -22 Lewis Homes October 26, 1988 Page 2 is not effected by site size or design oandtisraQmattergofo function. light 15 foot height was determined to be appropriate i;eight to provide ligh.;ing under the canopy of mature trees and also to restrict the illumination to this parcel and avoid adverse effects on adjacent properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence preanted to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the speLific findings of facts set forth in paragraph : and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent. with the objectives of the Development Code. (b) That there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propertftSrin the same district. (d) That the granting of the Variance will constitu-Ze 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 injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. MC-Niel, a rman ATTEST: Brad oul er, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RBOLUTION Y VA 8822 - Lewin Homes October 26, 1988 Page 3 T Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho 4avmonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regrlarly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rannho Cucamonga, at a regular rteeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th -!Vy of October, :388, by the following vote -to -grit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lj N -/j CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 2988 TO: Chairman and 'Members of the Piaraing Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City PlannEz- BY: Cindy Morris, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88 -10 t - e eve opmen o ase o a re" ggNSo —rod commercial shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood :ommercial District located at the northeast corner of maven and Highland Avenues - APN: 201- 271 -65 and 71. This project was rAginally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their June 8, 1988 meeting. However, the applicant requested that their project be continued to the August 24, 1988 and again to the October 26, .1988 Planning ;ommission meeting so that it would be reviewed concurrently with a proposed application by McDonald s, 11bich is located on the adjacent northern parcel. As the review of the McDonald's application has not progressed as rapidly as originally anticipatd, the applicant is now requesting a third continuance to the January 25, 1989 meeting. RECOMMENDATION, Staff recommends that this item be continued to the Uanuary , T9M8 Planning Commission meeting, ices ully sub itted, Wnne BE :CN:mlg Attachment: Letter from Applicant ITEM 0 DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CM or PAN= cummim CktJ�'!<RS = il, 1988 r: 9324 Bawling Road P.O. $cot 847 Pao Ctnga, CA 91734 I. Attention: Cinay NO=is PA: Haven village gum III j Dear Cindy: f Y =pspectPt:71y �' t21at fltli: bearing be postponed ttnti3 Jan1� 2Z, 198Q f?t 'off h I3 CtY1 iX.i t wi,t h hmomIcI +la. Dowd you have vy fang or reglixe aWitiomi 3nf=sticn, p? M*- hesitate to onntact . siz=z"iy, DWERSVM TM p L. presidant ",M) lied Hiltnv'r!" . --- CITY OR RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAF F REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 » C"ERCIAL CARRIERS, INC. appeal of e con ons o —approval— or the grading and paving of approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minimum Impact /Heavy Industrial District of the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 91 , located on the south sir ±e of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenues - APN: 209 - 143.7, 8 and 9. I. ABSTRACT: The applicant is appealing the conditions of approval or the grading and paving of approximately 12 acres of land on an existing non - conforming lot at 10807 Jersey Boulevard. Ii. BACKGROUND: On September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission heard s appeal. There was a consensus of the Commission that all of the Planning Division conditions be retained; however, that the number and location of driveways could ba modified. The project was continued in order for staff to meet with the property owner concerning the driveway issue. III. ANALYSIS: The original conditions of approval proposed 'limiting ' e pre ect to one driveway on Jersey Boulevard. During the appeal hearing, staff modified its position to allow a second driveway (see Exhibit "A " ). The property owner did not agree that a second driveway was sufficient for him to withdraw that portion of his appeal. Therefore, the Commission directed staff to meet with this property owner to further discuss the driveway issue. Staff made several attempts to meet with the property owner and his engineer. Finally on October 12, 1988 a meeting was held but only the engineer could attend. He was not able to commit for the property owner, but felt that two driveways as discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting were acceptable. The Engineering Division has revised the original special conditions of approval to reflect this additional driveway, The revised special conditions read as follows: ITEM P r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOR 887 -71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 2 Engineering DiviAon: 1. All existing driveways shall be removed and replac, -d with curb and gutter. 2. Two driveways will be allowed onto Jersey 804'evard, One shall align with the eastern driveway on the north side of Jersey RoV-kyard. 'The Second shall be located 100 feet west of tl. \westerly ,hack of curb return for Red Oak Street. Both shall conform to City, ;,tandard No. SOS, 3. Additional off -site access locations near the project's east and west property lines may be granted subject to app: °oval of the City Engineer if shared access agreements can be obtained from the adjacent property owners. Refer to the attached staff report of September 14, 1988 for discussion of the entire appeal. As indicated at that meeting, the Planning Commission had a consensus that the planri Division conditions of approval would not be modified by the Cot ;lion. AA dit�cted by the Commission, staff has worked with the oeveloper a': modified the Engineering Division conditions as stated above. IV. RECOW- ENOATION: Staff n1commends that the ¢landing Co miission approve Minor Development Review 87 -71 through adoption of the' attached Resolution. Res, ully itted, Bra. ler City anner DB :CK :vc Attachmonts: Exhibit "A" driveway Constraints Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report of 9 -14-88 Resolution of Approval - LAI AML E L •1 • I$�c�Pnae.E --=-° 5► ti — '� CLOSE APPR OV.ED DRIVE-WAy a Locf}77a� ice,•: ; ofPAedjveb m ! LOCA770AJ s { e!., j z g ? W fi - --- a � � :c it•� ��17P..� Aee,E�s �. r ^-... r•r RR q : A r 1� W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i STAFF REPORT I OW. DATE. September 14, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner By: Cynthia S. Kinser, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 - COMERCIAL CARRIERS, INC. An aPpe7a ions or pprova or a grading and paving of approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minimum Impact_tHeavy Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) located on the south side of : lersey Boulevard between Jtica and Vincent Avenge - APN: 209 - 143 -7, A & 9. I. ABSTRACT: An appea? of the Conditions of Approval for thf grading and paying of approximately 12 acres of land on an exfsting•non- conforming lot at 10807 Jersey Boulevard. II. BACKGROUND: On November 19; 1987, the property owners filed Minor eve opmen Review 87 -71 requesting to grade and pave approximately 12 acres of land. The applicant proposes to pave the existing site which is utilized for truck parking and storage. On July 7, 1988, the City Planner• reviewed and approved Minor Development Review 87 -71 subject to conditions (see Exhibit ".4"). The Conditions of Approval and Standard Conditions were pvaced on the project in order to bring the legal non- conforming lot into conformance with the city s current Development Code. On July 18, 1988, the applicant requested that all of the Conditions of Approval be appealed to the Planning Commission (see Exhibit "8"). III. ANALYSPS A. Plannin Issues: The subject site consists of three legal pane s w c are currently improved with a single -story office building and a metal warehouse building (see Exhibit "D "). The remainder of the site is utilized for truck parking and storage. The site is enclosed by chain link fencing. The site's 820 feet of frontage along Jersey Boulevard currently has substandard parkway landscaping with parkin beginning directly behind the parkway strip. The Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) requires that properties fronting Jersey Boulevard have an average landscaping setback of 35 feet and a minimum 25 foot parking setback, as measured from face of curb. El PLANNING CUTMISSION AFF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - Commerciai Carriers, Inc. September 14, 1988 Page 2 Further, the site is enclosed by chain link fence. The Industrial Specific plan (Subarea 9) requires that outdoor storage within 120 feet of a street frontage shall be screened. Storage area screening may include masonry, concrete, or other similar materials. Rather than deny the project for uon- conformity„ the City Planner approved the project subject; to conditions requiring landscaping and parking improvements to meet Code Standards (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant n -ever applied for variance from these Code requirements.. B. En ineerin Issues: The site currently has four driveways wi in b ee o street frontage. The City's access policy for arterial streets specifies that driveways on the same side of a street be spaced 300 feet apart. Therefore, two driveways would be allowed on this site. further, left turn conflicts shall be minimized by positioning new driveways opposite eisting driveways or by off - setting the centerlines by at least 235 feet. No driveway may 4 - closer than 100 feet from the back to the curb return at a:r insignalized intersection. There are, however, some existing limiting factors (see Exhibit IT I: I. There is an existing driveway five feet from the property line on the adjacent westerly property; and 2. There are two existing driveways on the north side of Jersey Boulevard; and 3. Red Oak Street ends in a "tee" intersection opposite the existing office building on the northeast corner of the subject site. In regards to the above conditions and constraints, both of the existing c'riveways for the existing structure in the northeast corner of the site are too close to the Red Oa {c Street. intersection (see Figure E). The westerly of the two cannot be moved further west and maintain 300- foot spacing from the primary driveway. Moving 100 feet east of the intersection would work, if the access could be located off -site on the vacant property to the east. The City is willing to require a shared access easement of the property to the east at such time as a development proposal is submitted for that site. If this developer wishes to obtain secondary access sooner, he will need to acquire the off -site easement privately. IV. FACE'S FOR FI?6nNGS: The Minor Development Review permit process is 7n en e o assure that such limited projects comply with all applicable City Standards and Ordinances... ". The City Planner-IT P-5- PLANNING U MISSION . AFF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. September 14, 1988 Page 3 Ll authorized to impose reasonable conditions upon an approval czins;stent with this purpose. Absent a variance request being approved by the Planning Commission, the City Planner could not have approved this permit request without the conditions approval because the requisite findings listed below could not have been made in the affirmative: 1. That the pr,aposed pr -oject is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the proposed project is in accordance with the cbjecti,es of the Industrial Specific Plan, the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 3. That the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or mater ;ally injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. That the proposed project will comply with each or the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recavends that the Planning Commission (Jepy+ t 's appea-F—of the Coi diti,�is of Approval for Minor Develop,:,t Review 87 -71 th- *ough the adoption of the attached Resolution. If however, the Commission determines that the proposal is acceptable, then direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at your next meeting. Re ul y 4u ltted, Br er City anner BB:CK•vc Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "Cu Exhibit "P" Exhibit "E" Resolution Letter of Approval Letters of Appeal Letter from Applicant Site Plan Driveway Constraints E. i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Me Box $07. Rancho Cutamonp. California 91730.(7141989-1 8f t July 7, 19888 Gabel, Cook 6 Becklund F47 N. Main Street Suite 1 -B Riverside, CA. 92501 SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 Dear Mr. Becklund: The Minor Development Review process for the above - described project has been successfully cospleted and approval has been granted based upon the following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation during this review j.rocess. We sincerely hope that this process has been a positive experience for al' involved. Findings A. That the proposct. project is consistent with the General Plan. B. That that proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan, the purpose of the district in which the site is ,ocated. C. That the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ce welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. Ti at the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. Conditions Thi., project is approved subject to the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Planning Division, 1. Construct the following missing improvements along the entire street frontage: a. Streetsca; landscaping at an average 35 foot setback from curbface and a winimsma 25 foot parking setb =k from curbface. This will require removal of existing paved parking areas within the setback areas. ata .rr cft -ww.am 6�e�s�a� , er.ye. Deborah N. Brown q JatTry Kin Daunts L. Stout ChM" L Buquet tl ! Pamela L w the MINOR DEVELOPMENT 'CiEW 87 -71 GA.BEL. COOK & BECKL ,,ND July 7, 1988 Page 2 11 b. A screen wail at the back of the streetscape landscaping setback, to scree? the storage area frem viAw from the public right -of -way. Screeni,j shall be massonry, concrete or other similar materials. �. Due to the removal of existing parking areas for landsca ist new oarkings areas shall bo striped per ci Q star.,.-ds. Parking site plan within 9%. days. Submit 3. Parking lotc shall be planted with 1 tree per 3 parking stalls and a 5 foot planter is required Around the perimeter. 4. Landscaping and irrigation plans, including scree. wall design, shall be submitted and approve' ;4ithin 9C says. 5. All improvements reas;ired by Conditions of Approval shall be completed within 12 months. Engineering Division 1. All existing drir ,jways shall 1 removed and •epl.aeed with curb and gutter. 2. A single driveway is allowed on this parcel. It shall align with. the eastern most driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard and shall conform to City Standard No. 30,6. 3. if the developer wishes to obtain secondary access to this site, he shall negotiate shared access agreement(s) with adjacent property owner(s). This decision sh -1;l be effective following a 10 -day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. If you should have any questions concerning specific conditions, please feel free tM contact Cynthia S. Kinser at 714 -989 -1861. Sincerely, CORN DEUE -LENT DEPAR774E.m rad Bul ty PI ner BB :CK:mlg Attachment: Standard Conditions i jf c; � 7 3 41 • C G A B E L e C O O K & B E CK L U Civil Engineering * S-irveying * Structures • Environmental a planning 18 July 1988 City o.' Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Bon 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attn: Cynthia S. Kinser Re; Minor Development Review 87 -71 Dear Ms. Kinser, He wish to appeal all of the Conditions of Approval for this Droject and have enclosed the appeal fee of $62.00. Due to the issues involved in appealing thi', review, I would request that a meeting be arranged during the week of August 8th to i?th to discuss with staff these conditions, rather. than attempting to cover all of these issues in a letter. I_° you have any questions or require additional information, please contact this office. Respectfully, G.bel, Cook & Becklund, Inc. Grant Becklund Civil Engneer Enclosure i 11 Record of: Date 8 d�88 Meeting Conversation Proj, Desc. /�,�.€�8 71 Time Phone No. ? 5 ��7 Name: Represent. ng : -- r s � r. a _.,C'�� ,HERS —• -- BLV[�. •_.. - -- - � - � � A tttacmamnn _ nR V ei y F _ _ � i WAF•6Flau5L F i � a (e� C+sna a wao-.g � a J _. AREA \�- r NORTH CITY OF ITEM: MV(Z 57--+1 _ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: S I-ra. PLAN MNG DrasioN la. E$HIE$T: D SCALE: " O r AGCEP7��t� J fi a LoeAnoN Zz v�J �� r--- IL; CD a W Z aecnnec E ,� -��A RrbD CYR.K { .�: ��r _. palvEiw�lt� C',�o5e a r L �L 3 l LOCAVOA/ d. LL) Z ? 41' R J _ 9= W '-L-=) ;r- �► _ z z --I x t - AIL x''-13 <«.J.- .. ...w2 y.. . }\ \ \§_ ..,y . .. . . w ... . > 7\ »wf � «. x: ..> . ... 2: .� - ©.. ...� � .. - ., . �� - m l� e� R �i l� e� R ri 11 I�i��_y��f1..' -. Q� ��'� „s3 ,w .li,t:�ty� e y,,.,' �. � � �" "- `�` r ';h `� > :tea Ask RESOLUTION NO. El A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCKHONGA PLANNING COMMISSIOR APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -71, AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRADING AND PAVING OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND FOR TRUCK PARKING AND STOP %E LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT /6EAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC ALAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209 - 143 -7, 8, AND 9. A. Recitals (i) Commercial Carriers, Inc, has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 87 -71 as described in tia title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolutio:=, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application ". (ii') On July 7, 1988, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed and approved the application subject to eight stated conditions. (iii) The City Planner's conditions of approval for the application were timely ippealed to this Commission on Jtily 18, 1988. (iv) Or. the 14th of September, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and continued the item until 01ober 26y 1988. (v) On the 26th of October, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho. Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting prior to the adoption of this Resolution. NO 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 specificallv finds that all of the facts set forth In the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substar., sl �_widence presented to this Commission daring the above- referenced meetings on September 14, 1988 and on October 26, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLANNING COM:'`lISSIOH RESOLUTION N0. MDR 87 -71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located at 10807 Jersey boulevard, an irregul_ qy- shaped parcel with a street frontage of 814 feet and ar average lot depth of 673 feet and is presently ltroroved with an office, warehouse, and parking lot; and (b) That Jersey Boulevard is classified as a secondary arterial street; and (c) The p=roperty to the north of the subject site is a multi - tenant industrial park, the property to the south of that site consists of warr.5ouse, the prcperty to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is warehouse; and improved with n office ebuilding, w rehooseebuilding and parking slot and tis considered a legal non - conforming tot; and Planner to impose. reasonable conditions upon a Minor0Deve'lop authorizes Review a City permit eg including landscaping, Improvements, of vehicular ingress, egress and traffic culation, establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or cavp°iut'on; and (f) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020.A states that the purpose and intent of the Minor Development Review permit process is to assure that such limited' projects comply with all applicable City Standards and Ordinances; and (9) Tin- site plan submitted in conjunction with the application, does not meet the Industrial Specific Plait standard of a 3S foot average landscape setback and minimum 25 foot parking setback, as measured from the ultimate face of cur!,. Further, the site plan and c fsti -g chain link fence improvements do not meet the Industrial snecific Kai tandards fo- screening outdoor storage of vehicle3 within 120 feet of a street frontage with masonry, concrete or other similar materials; and ih) The site currently is improved with four driveways within 820 feet of street frontage. The City's access policy fc. arterial streets specifies that driveways on the same side of a street bu spaced 300 feet apart. Therefore, only two driveways would be allowed on this site. r,trb,er, driveways should all -n with driveways on the opposite slide of +.;e street or by off - setting a safe ;,stance to avoid conflicting left -turn movements. The City's access policy also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet from intersections; and (i) a applicant has not filed any appiicat.iorr for variance from tha Industrial ecific Plan Standards and requiretrents. PLANNIUrz C"ISSION' RESOLUTION NO.. MDR 87=41 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 3 3. based upca the substantial evidence presented to this Commission (luring tr.e above - refer -enced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the rite is located; and (c) That the proposed use is in cGmpliance with each of the applicable provisions of tk1 Davetopment Code; and (d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the oublic healta, safety, or welfare, or mrteria??,� r,- ,Jarious to properties or improvements ;n the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following conditions: Planning Division I. ConstMnct the following missing improvements along the entire street frontage. a. Streetscape landscaping at an average 35 foot setback from curbface and a minimum 25 foot parking setback from curbface. This will require removal of existing paved pat -ing areas within the so-A'Lack areas. b. A screen wall at the back of the streetscape landscaping setback, to screen the storage area from view from the public rigit -nf -way. Screening shall be masonry, concrete, ,or other similar materials. ?. Due to the removal of existing parking areas for landscaping, new parkings areas shall be striped per City Standards. Submit parsing site plan within 90 days. is 3. Parking lots sWl be planted with I tree per 3 parking stalls and a 5 foot planter is required around the perimeter, 0 P -aD PLAANINXG COWISSION RESOLUTION No. MDR 0-71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. Cciober 26, 1998 Page 4 4. landscaping and irrigation plans, including screen wall design, shall be submitted and approved within 90 days. 5. All improvements required by cc "ditlins of approval shall be completed within 12rnths. Engineering Division 1. All existing driveways shall b_ r- -moved and replaced with curb and gutter: 2. Iwo driveways will be aliowed onto Jersey Boulevard. One shall align with the easteri driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard., The s:con. shall be located 100 feet west of ty;e o::sterly back o. curb return for Red Oak Street. Both shall conform to City Standard No, 306. s Additional off -site access locations near the project's east and west property lines may be granted subject to approval of the City Engineer if shared access agreements can be obtained from the adjacent property owners. 5. The 5d ret try to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. A.RPROVED .Alm ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF QGT, BER, 1988. PLANNING commrSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUtAMONGA BY: arty .-T;E. e , ATTEST:— =-ery y - I, Brad Buller, Sec,etary of the Planning Commission uf t.ie City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herby certify that the foregoing pesolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comsmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of Octoher, 1988, by the following vote -to, -wit: AYES: C0441ISSIONERS: NOES. COK4ISSIONERS: ABSENT: cOMMIsSIOk!-:RS: P -,.?- f E LI ra �. Original Poor Quality i 1;4a -.w.$ �YO0V4 °:D" Via'` ��-.ed u� Ym ••Y Sb s Rn -_ 0}VYn ^i N I- N a��Yi _Yry N4 O8 s aViY =a� NUB Qom, Mz iY�r Y° 8b iE Iffi zi Ida •7�» 'aY �i M.4Q YV'+�i yep Z t! Y. l!��. Myq a� qMM� aM��p�� M •�e 4'J,! ^Y.. 6 � IS-3,35- . R7zi _ i__ {� • Y � ag s ,� Y ® Y ¢6��OAYg H eye" a�iN 5� .. $ G y 6Lq g �gH���Y s��x� e� .23 Ed �i -8 .� r�: Y�i Ia$a W � o $ V m W �yy 4 • ptS i d j W3 S �f N V �g 3 V N S eL sm vx . t "-j a f V < •I e s F g w f O O s: s y NI o� hl 1 � -u r .. tr a�y•�r � �� O�i� a A O O` ffiNj�a Y a� o� hl 1 n- i s � Y PAM f� lea MON 1 �OgpU� YL`Y° Cp Oy_y0 L4 VOy L' ���~CC Y�S7?�r �p23 .Z =12 NIX-i ���'YY° ��� ��■a�� >'� a r�__. yO V q .N 33 it i �i� AY �.W «�° ovi :2 If " ZOE �_ % s" :3 y3 k' °s wil w O Y. O I-cv a 9 _ 1�y Y i � ■ Y i Y ry �B. ygggi 6g .4 iv « d «4L mill O1a IF 9 � r �cza Zj ■;, Z qi s�i -� 5 1 i 7 S 1 Q 4 j ! � f i { . a_ ,3__s N� 4T o s � Y v1W a • � y 02 3: l�il . JL. 2,119 ZIA i %�_1~ a' Y tltl�+ 1 n-0;2 i 1�y Y i � ■ Y .4 iv « d O `• 9 � r �cza y� qi s�i ii° LV; no r,. » s0$ `s o y M, O J Y dE� 9 y� iL � Y 8-1 y = � O 0 -;h « v f m XF *-4* ago I .• poor Oualit a Qy�.n ca � gM C t w 4 V Y O •n ♦♦ Y O� Q uC G Qt x'h `� a♦ Q 0 spp° a ca^�CUVr�'�"a�(��: fDp ►� ���jjw.� 'yp�i ��^} V Oy O + �'.i fy V9K ~0..q firsg L.� g4fNY.` �Lj xv V♦{ ''•Ot +A 4Qtl C -4�M Y� yW » V i wN q.LL C� O + Y a t ! �x ;r N.Rp sE QF-] .n"Yae+gt�D` °$si�•'SSq »h L" ZVw. ilk 1 `fYy y{Sg n l Ky a ]r G! Pl gYt YgNjgy�y •M {t` w ��0 a aa'i yg� G°L it, i if s,. 3z sit. if ` vs t €, 89 � Fps n�yg� S4 XJ 6�tl w��� � q± Y 8 "No �Ti'r y ,�•R Y �/ i q s i 6'ary qp E L rj..° : i # ,n Vii„ 41; g ig OYC1 Y�� h �� 1► w r ^� O l ; -H ^f. u jr 4p -2 �+ j 4S °a $gig" $► T_yyn mssy{ ss� ..u6'Ji �y!« i 7K» tlr � @• � aMK � y a9 ytl � ZM 4Q. Lw�p tali V �Utl to •G L «ems 4 ~� ag Ada 147 py{{►► 4 ■ i w L sff s.M �p. '� �a� �y� Ny t� r ~���M l�.r. +•L 4 `s�K� Us _'� M► �?t w 4! =23— to t O y9 L � Yg0'44 KV K a4,.L Q k� L 4 wl�awea Cb Fc71 Fd r3�-f !l3 as arq w y..qi i >♦ q�� ir y C m ZIP F ti a! WE wr.�. A ee ,.cos g�� w sen M tic HE JC pa. ppyN 4 q a i�S nnO 4 b eYCtS� V Gq�[_M y Y ' G+ r e. �s � 1..13& � ,� � "S g • �S ,� N A - ;u Zvi ALA V -11 V ^> M St Cw� N . w w Y yiL �a(. p1g N�� OOOOOT� 3fpQL..y r �+� �LY �awawb H C ti�M )i 4�it + st M $ MAI Ri d t.j 3 � IS'A e vwVS yv s l V tc xw +,aLi 4 Y O• Y gt r. E q i« V x b r vv wi at y lei a = `O 1 1Tp 1y �w w ai eJ � ' ♦ i� 1r'e 14 w N OY M S M Q 4 r M1 w .tip mo=w C'�~ r �T biga s s �aj .G „ w C2L �y AbW v� i:V Bqg rgId iY4� aN W+� b' a y Y " 0` moo f `� a'. y! pY Y S y= it g Y rae r 0 r 0�� e e +Y y �ypy b %X l it gam. M ✓Q � :8 r it =s es .:es gill y I -tlk 1 >- &2 r L »r O` �T biga s s �aj .G „ w C2L �y AbW v� i:V Bqg rgId iY4� aN W+� b' a y Y " 0` moo f `� a'. y! pY Y S y= it g Y rae r 0 r 0�� e e +Y y �ypy b %X l it gam. M ✓Q � :8 r it =s es .:es gill I -tlk >- &2 r L »r O` wr.�. A ee Y33 p T g�� w sen M tic P p.- 24 ��� g Y i w M ' a 7 r s o Q 2-u N A - ;u Zvi ALA V -11 �qe w w >�Y +r 6 4! 4! Yrww a 'uOsY M L tiaw ps !6� 4v�v k eS'9 .1� r g Y i w M >i 8Y o Q 2-u :M O 352 Yy - ;u Zvi ALA V -11 �qe w w W $ kog M t.j F A ry� s: f. v y a IA- Q"ginai Poor Qualfty CC Obi 'aNtl w� IdL ° 3 ° �= ° !gig B Val �g a L S CY md aka 12. u �i amYm �_ w:tl VY �wW� �w � fO y� rg yw � � K.■�JSGy �� qN ��• ��Ll�� ~ tlftl � Y� Z LY 4 W ��I 6 i a t ®aiw gC O a:�,3 3��`0s� �'� � �eQ w •. L. v`+ � �.w°,�a.N. OE L 3 Lg3 vz I- �Sul O � L �_N a g $ 77 N � O Q ` Q f3 ^� a :I. Etl 7F ;S Y b • �f•w �� + tl _ Ow Y_w V ' N 21 y ro s Q Oda G$ Y Y O b y� b 3 m Y '8 m� = 9 Y Y d °`j v ' OI■ ° O awVi f L Q f � a N p tlI► y. V NIA < Y tlrL.o L'eyEy } C L9 yy t qy WN uvu �� 6 N � O ` Q • �f•w F �b O + 4�Y Y3 Oda G$ _Y V Y =�1`!Y Y M b = 9 Y Y d v y� j OwfN OI■ ° O awVi f L Q f � a N p tlI► y. V NIA < Y tlrL.o L'eyEy } C o tl Y yy t qy � C ' � Q -fail f OYf V J' g�,E3 Tit air O t � .Y �aaj a Hut `; W� pp l !!y O@ F Oit 00�� ..�3y -� u far ill fig N �s s Q•`J O j 3s �t s N p L i wr6*4 $ -I� VAO� N N w y ! Z V O � b ♦ * ad�Iit .4v�o cp N L V N.gC �Y a 1 �Yy ypi °S� ... » Y w O a *Q 1 .''Ci" . : „ y}»� u .`�' d -°• ' Yi �w• Gi O a• r ®! `` � y L� .T. + 4i _Y a �'y� s � i'L'• ywy.,�� p4 qy1G/ an qql u+�.µy•i f3 7i a� yew` !N�ji r.v C � irC -1 Val vre Iry�s! •� it M r ws !w Qg s�V.t. gyp{ v4 0L you$ _s ,at as pa A cfa A rro G.�{ 4_ « Yr41y eN V{gbb� �E aLy..JE �O y91 � Dh RA Y~� YM �r psis. ` ! w q 4 y q s yy AYrYS. N~ V wy� a•w°iw 4� wan 01 :411 Jz ,7� -Y1C It ! A _ M S+ 4 Lb Its fix 82 _ -fir YQ aN a�•si6i V6 A i!6 i I.-I's R tl y a yR �M R Nww6 p 2 -3,— 16 1G !+ O L �� f�4 W L Y 8 $j 1 LpW M . ! a v 4n Ll 11 y O o� n� j, aY o �`N ce g�N x m�4 �u Su b� yY n Lie ; � 3�p :M., M L wb O` C Qw� r N Fg O �w Oy1g► Y Eyy_ y��!■ i 0 JB Y b 1 O ge L L y 4 Vim° vctl �3 $ � vvYAVap M yyS. �r ir, A L vqV au N b u I L� spit rL� � C L ? r p�+► Y � q VY. y_wa s» c.tln "7i _C Cp tl �sJ t Ertl � ii 9 17 � 3 r �3r r ®� tl i r a b b r 6N�M crtl N q •N yy Mb)� Cs Yp 2su N `61 r tl 3 a� � � r w a � 4s V s� cc.O Yay 00 d r3 Nm 3 €: ay`= Y R ® 6 d R.� w m V ilia sg J.- y y °a 3Yl O 4 V 94 7 A Y L V.� p Y.► i R Z 4r1.i p�� ~wt1 i • N 1 CITY OF RANCHO CU(CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Mayes, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88 -14 h - The development of an-a—uto-motive and light rue repair center totaling 33, 238 square f,-et on 2.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 8th Street. - APN: 209 -31 -78 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: of site plan, grading, and elevations, anc Issuance of a Negative Declaration 8. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning lsraject Site - Single Family - Residence (to be demolished or relocated); Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 3 North - Retail; Industrial Area Specific Pled Zuba,ea 3 South Residential; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 3 East - Retail; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 3 West - Manufacturing; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 3 C. Genera' Plan Designations: r ol�ject—iie—Z-Tritnera industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial and Low Density tes�Lz'ential Best - General Industrial 0. Site Characteristics. The site presently contains a .41 e aml— iTy re�Mei6ce wi related acczssory structures. The site contains no significant vegetation. The streets are improved with cu b*ng and sidewalk and drainage facilities. Parkway improvexint will occur with development of the project along the Archibald Avenue frontage. lied u f PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRSS -14 - N k ARCHITECTS October 26, 1988 Page 2 E. !Mting Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage- Ratio Re uicg red Provided Bldg A Eating & Drinking 5,936 1/100 siq.ft. 60 60 Establishments Bldg B Automotive /Light 5,873 S :says x 14 10 Trt,ck depair- Plinor Z /bay Bldg C Automotive /Truck 5,400 R bays x 16 16 Repair-Major 2 /bay W,dg D A:ttomotiv.Xight 8,730 14 bays x 28 30 Truck Repair -Minor 2 1bay Fldg E Automative /Light 4,500 O�bbys x 12 16 'truck Repair -Minor Bldg F Automotive /Light 2,800 4 bays x 8 14 Truck Repair -Minor 2 /bay .-.-- T0TAL 134 146 11. ANALYSIS: A, General: The applicant is regt°esting approval for the cans ruction of an auto service center with six industrial buildings t taling 33,238 square feet. L. Historic Preservation Commission: The HisWic Preservation om tj ss o't rev ewe a pro a on August 4, 1988 to I e whether the existing residence was of any historical signi-icance. The coasanission decided that the house was not historically 'significant and therefore the house could be deme,ished or relocated. C. Design Review CommitteE: On June 16 and July 7, 1985, the taa"i€l'ee a e ey, o st)y, Buller? rtview;d the Project and recammendod revisions. The following issuos were discussed: 1. Tht- Committee suggested that Building E be configured as a HV - shape to open the middle of the center and create a more cohesive overall project. The parking around Building E should be adusted accordingly. (Since that time Building E has been redesigned to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee). LIM a 0 Iii PIANNINa COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR88 -14 - N K ARCHITECTS October 26, 1988 Pagn 3 2. A secondary plaza should be added near Building A. If Building A is intended for food users, this area would ,:ost likely be an .area where outd ^4r seats would be used most. 3. A. pedestrian connection should be added to link the north and south portions of the site pla,r. 4. On-isite pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk should either be eliminated or expanded using a wiwier walkway, light bollards, accent plant materials, etc. to create a design statement at the street, 5. The Committee suggested some use of patted . annual /perennial color along pedestrian walkways. The Design Review Comittee (Elakesley, McNiei, Buller) recommended approval at its July 21, 1988 meeting subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage would not be permitted along the rear of Building A, except for the first tenant on the easterly end of the building. 2. Awning material should be carefully selected to Insure proper wind resistant qualities, D. iezhnical Review Committee: On June 14, 1988 the Committee eviewe a proaec an de ermined that, with the recommended standard conditions of approval, the project is consistent with a]( applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee conceptually approved the project at its meeting on June 13, 1988, subject t, a drainage report being submitted to and approved by the City Engineer *. E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initi -( Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed P,rt II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. If the Commissior, concurs with Staff findings, the issuance of a Negative Declaration would he ir. order. �,3 pCARNIR'G 4OWISSION STAFF REPORI DRBS -14 - H K ARCHITECTS October 25, 1988 Page A III. REVOi+iP1ENDATION :' St�(f ' j7ecommends approval and ixsua!a�-v of a Negative Declaration =or OR 88 -14 through adoption of th% attached Resolution. Resp:c * iy s qbn ed, a Sity Pia er BB:SH:3s Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "V Building Elevations Resolution of Approval 1 E -J �M.0 ewr is wsres ' at''E♦ ere. /grad I�p w.a 9 a �'�raar rem 0 Ial • I Tj o �y4 ` �. ♦eo e,evr en.wti,r '.- ewe..weran \ ® \. ® \ e: ,o *TY OF ,,,RANCHO CUCAMONGA PNING DI VISION R -I—,. __ :ri U 2 V a�5 Z NORTH ITEM: UL M19-111 TITLE IL4� geeeeeee�tarvs EXHIBIT:. ClYN OF � RA?*TCHO CUCAMONGA �3 "-AXJNG DIVISJOIq L3 40A� NORT3 ITEIV.- TITLE: a 19-26-88 PC' Agenda a 5-of 5 ox. CdAit ING119 � N It [IN L A NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA lf�,q plan PLANNING DTVISION Q..g EXHIBIT: - "0" SCALE--- en 1 is WmUoz 9,q NORTH ITEM: ?O , r q TITLE . ExIII$IT: SCALE:4 -=. WTI OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVIS.IoN on �A. Ll zol� NORTH a ITEM r-- 637 EXHIBIT: RESC JTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE R•;ACEO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMEW REVIEW NO. 88 -14 FOR AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER TOTAL_NG 33,238 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON 2.8 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPE.IFIC PLAN LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - APR: 209.31 -78 A. Recitals. (i) N K Architects has filed an application for the approval oe Development Review R'o. 88 -14 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On the of 26th day of October 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucanwinga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on Oat date. (iii) Ali 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 presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on Oztobai 26, 1988 including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the northwesosrn corner of Archibald and 8th Street with a street frontage of 464.03 feet and lot depth of 30;,26 feet and is presently improved with sidewalk and curb and gutter, and single family (residence to be demolished); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is retail, the property to the south of t. =.e site consists of residences, the property to the east is retail and the property to the west is industrial. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission durinn, the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth fin paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. D' 86-"14 - N K ARCMiTE.. TS Oc"ober 26, 1988 Page 2 (a) "hat the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the Purposes of the district in which the sit is located; acid (c) scat the proposed use is in ccmpl'iance with eac` of the applicable provisions of the il.reiopment Code; and (di That the proposed use, together with tha} conditions applicable the --eto, wi)1 be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially ipjurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. " 4. This COmmission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliary � with the California 1 EnvironWrital Quality Act of 1970 and, further, Z is Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions scY> fortis ira paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions at;.ached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. A. Planning. Divis:oj.. I. Signage will not be perm tted along the rear of Building °A °, except for the first tenant on the easterly end of the building. 2. Awning Material shall be carefully .selected to insure proper wind resistant qualities. 6, Engineering Division; 1. Overhead Utilities: a. Archibald Avenue - An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding zf the existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the opposite side of Archibald Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits, The fee shall be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of 8th Street to the north project boundary.. b. A.T. & S.F. Railroad Communications, lines - An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future Undergrounding of the existing railroad communication lines, shall be paid to ttie City ",he prior to issuance of building permits. The fee PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' OR 68 -14 - N K ARCHITECTS October 26, 1988 Page 3 steal{ be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Archibald Avenue to the west project boundary, C. Eighth Street - An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future endergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical,i on the north side of 8th Street shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of Wilding permits. The fee shall be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Archibald Avenue to the west project boundarv. 2. The landscape and irrigation plan for Archibald Avenue shall be in conformance with the approved City's Landscape. Master Plan. 3. The drive approach shall be constructed per City Standard No. 306. 4. A "no stopping any time" zone shall be insta41ed on the Archibald Avenue frontage. 5. A final flood study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. All drainage and flood protection .%nasures necessary to protect the project site and other properties shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED PHIS 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry , McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad u erg ecre ary I, Brad Wl'ler, 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 26th day of October 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOES: COMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 9 -�3 - r Z V Ll.l iY. a aa Ori01�2J1 Poor Quailty tiY�C `uL 4�.! MMVi q'0 qV +'""Y C. nGp awiNSL ..M..,.. q C L� Y� C. 3 L+ M �� L e �_o � O wv x y`°• y� 6 6 � OL V V G� �' a typ� Y N fq v Ti G V a C M N p . Y v ti y -,I G j V C O p d .fi Y ca h Y �,. a. W 4 g4p V I. °q ad ■CO Y'p_[� 4:CY0 "V�y pC LL °EL C q n a G �.si C CV L ��.� pq U �' G u� v h i O. Qjpp Y. 4 ~9 YL41 =BYO �0.qu_ GGOgY C�OCN .iii~ Y��ytl _�A'Y �� pY..q.' GON jN�10T g N y h G 3 G p� CCC��I N v� qq�isLU �C qTq 0 O.��C� �'i CNM q VLAa L C M h Y q Y v ^ an. V n p E y� 4 0. C .- qA i aq 41 4�tlYp .G a .Gwss a4. wy o.a c OMB i•° T �. cc {,e cu�Na�Fiw�u rd NCCay �ha O�4Mbu �rw V'G V• L 6�HYr.�a�J E.a L° MY �i O= +py� y 4MC 3 u no. o H m %' '+ �ii c' "w M 0 4 4 r3 ° ^ Y M 4 �• L qp.. N Y W � o � v v O O 1 •M' d� A g a n O G�rQ'yyG¢��n °C Lp� pY �6V.. T& MO. .y�. �pq a•JD�1U� O qnU 3 Vh O.CYw� Yt�J� t. �. u 0 N �4 � �ygQ7Qp�q. its Y ,aN� 62. W f io O�1OY+.Va pN rr Y E qV Y` ~ NMSL ��Gl * pIM iyryp� q Y. Dm M Li N Prl9ln.a )oorQ ualRY O.+I -. M � �Y = G c �o ii a Y. a�+r A w. �w� ca o..7S�ouy�gffi' �. ^ a+ Ap UV YY � LQ.Y{. ^ o'uioi o.. ss ■GSss■ `6p1�y qu .�Y cu A ^anapY YYC N pO N.��p d.^. 0L' N•A Y� «9 4w'Y a VGSSV �. O�Q M� oV V° ss wow N,YG moe A � Y �LCaL.LNV .90 .�. o v�+y ~.�+ 'a .t..� .N. Ly0 N� G.M N L} 6L MAY 6G Y' 8pY gyp � 4G6p A V NE�� L CCaOT° O+�v U N O�j� �Y ���a03 {{Y��OIV {��Yi V�'Y•N °� LGS a L>Y■ > �� � ^9 q•rY. C N Y q9L w3 � eN COi{" L4Lp.���N O. '� ^pp w' • L M�Yq Y. ! ®wb5 N.0 LL <LNCNML NCOC 4 {{��� Y. w` ^r LYY V p Y^ w ]N]....VY GNYY01s Si L. _ . .q 4Y M {Y+ L Cvl+1 =L �' yL. G Y 9 �C pq CN � qwN O .Wa`C..0 r 4292 uG {K •. O q ,g9uC f�G; �ttC L Y. t w�{pE�E '! N� YVK. 'r aaaaL�� �{ 4wL� q y � Y\ i c =NL N0 Vv— L Y �N NN{� t C Y N 4 GYL V W Y ) + r ^O cc Y s pA �Y~V ^^�wV G OwGC ~ YCy TM u�sw ' L wet . YO4C 0=✓LN oz!- aaff AN + + {• «CA�Lg01� aGN • • N �L,GY y gLQGV N ^CNm OI�N O Y�+wf�N Yq.,• +e 6�,• w0 p� g6�VyY� ^. �:� wO10 G�ggi . C C3 Y. D.m w�W NaA N�� + ^C N O { . Y pN VOI�MG3yy4 G!i �. pY N� �.W C.A OC VO U O ■N{■��Nqq� "t!l- L QYyw^i U•G.Ni �,« L��s ..w gqaw._Y A.w 6YU Lyy YLNC1ruJVSwR�� L�AO� y4y,4Y�YpOLLy4Y�GN yyN w6GY���p uqN•. i.V L4w6 in NO g0 .6Y <EGyYY-O+=.G � KUN4�Y•Y ' ^{L'� NpUp ,,MlGG d GN NNY{yI.�L�Y . VVY U.4 N C 01� YV. 9®6 LVrN Y DUS a VLpGiLJ _� Cn�C�M {1 GCLAa� V1dG UMn—. ' WLoiC av -M w Q L!'.�O,VG OY`_gY O .-b- y.}{+ �twJq OO P ga1.7. VL N^ I.' NVL C N QGNM Y�YN NpLfy 4'YG.YE YY4 Y s W O± Aa l Y .� a {k� rw r d� b= y LLBA ^ 7. i �r� +E giT "' wsi ^,•L. GGY� t :-m N d G•A. Y OLG Y _ O` 9U Oq0 u{'iY0 z;l -to V N b• C Y� OgEud `{y�VO d Y V $V ■YO 2G{LN w.L ^a0 NN.NSy N L� w MM N L ■ C w G Y> YC� Y 4 N L.N V« Y ^ L N�fw_iY �f' C �n O 9 .8 wL N iwpy bwq�iY Nai Y FYI.- G yVy G OIO wO CV a^ ■G N7 rY_p�2ppttN V C •.N Y`Q OiY N i =i ���� .A, uCCN a0A pql w• it YY UyOjd Y. �O• L+ N^ F�4 CO/.g� Y. 7F CnY �0 °YY vs }G�r ytj Out C �x Ly V$� � l¢¢a+i.s 52, +; LV Nry�.'��V NuN Y� �V Oy ±yCrrM �u E..YY.OM yNCUrY 9�'N �9� pEyN y aa YY �,G 4� 'i +N {u� N ^ 9 �Y €Yy� Mc.0 �Y. r �O` Y { CC :h V~ Y�V4 pOGO+.s.p {NIw Cp p!?O M y.. OfG Ny,. J. w d 9� LLNN 4�LL M? w Y wL 7w+0.V�q�..9 G'G^ Y D G Y NwN�gC N��L�i Y^ 4 G G 4 1► 6 n 0 C —79 p w�`1 �a +p 9.`7 NY =o C�'.� NC 4•-wy Y4 �V Ap Y80 CO9 i 9`V GN yY y..^•.Ly ^G �Y6NUJi Q.�7 ti }4 Yw OQA V�j)1 C Le n¢dCJ $Y.LG��. Ga� E {_C� �E 9Y bG Ltw +C G `O~AF�nn�w �NM ..O,OGAlAN V •Y, {{tf wTMY L, y Q p MA V VC V `j _ ip Y 01C V OM .p.0 aEpY�� ^ +bC G Y GO'O"A'•` C+q 0 Y N'MM UoL AWL srryy Mir, r, <4 mCO C ^.•. �py�V^ -yyam V� rN 1�L N° •C.•. N.O' H.� 01Y ����q <V Y r, O,,C{j`C�Y Nti OC >C�Q �wrSVY VEi 11•.S yy'LYA 4G.a<p+V C5 C4 N I Z F v W Q a Y>• y i a d w o .. q.Y« r O.44 N L dC O Y N C Lz4 •- O .q.UNN C t G1 n ova Olq� V 2.2-5 s'C s 0 7iwy� C V w�, u O L O P 4 L N E N A N �I q L c° o a O N yy 1 W .ri ws 0 0. v 4 w Lg C C d OI iq; 4 M K 6 = V L CCU^ y�q O OI / �Q0l.10 Oq�l 4•N mil■ O N Rw �G OY C1 G < w •w` w:. N of Quality 4 a� ^� O 4� O 4 w O y'Gj d � F y wu , 4 � N O Y N T 6•N a +� y ^. N t CIG Yq O' t1 6 N MIyN N L w V � °IL 01 C V C ._. N~ 7Y NO d V =5 G o aa� ■•.�.O O.�yC11 O i Y P. M 4 d a Is O^ N pv 0•' CU-5 4: vlv Yc L C ' 4.Cw�ry w w L OY^ CI w C4 � .c ws $6 C Ge M w r • a� Y4 c v c. iN iS w 4 •� G W V 0.� V 3 C r 9 sy O� y L y 0 a�r�r ■ b Y L w °svo PYy y�4 Y p � r u =c c y'Y a L ly •� N Ny'4° C Y N wr8 y Y OI Y L �� N+ L C E ` tN C V OI� 1rV1 Nam p ...a. C C�N �OI�yM M K a,- g CCv `y. IL OY ON E 1 N) 1 0 ^3 +GLyg ��� qc9 4LN ^ ' ; G yl N BG Oa Z U M 6. GG3, .2- W GMf 2.2 =Nw N C ^� ..GG gy NS N °� �al, Y� &0 OGO.�G'MY .0 O Off. .� y O� fi Y'1 9p y a ° a- N V� N _C` NT O. pQA YNy ^. ���111 m� 1:0 w9. i N G QL^ 6 M 6•^ .Os� 9 L .5 2.1 d NA� >�O. vJO.0 + �$ s OIN Nw Y 4 016w UQ. ff 4$ N G w L' ^ > it � aMya �N.L• �L. ° � tY i1 C P wp V Y� C U N V V i OIuC Va,y 7 OC Xi u� w «wd 41y C>1 °O N +M OI O M N C LIE. .. ya. Y• _ v v _a N.w BwSd 6< C 4 ;; L' N� pV C r ~� G C. V �. ow 1�. �6 7 O O QNp L G 4+{1 ^7 C N� q` �0. E.I. Sffi A!I.O; PV_ Ny4 vyYa ild 9w Py •0. OY �U G``O. 5 E-Z wt LL OI il\ wyy L Cy O. N L LLO. N M .-E ^ M w `� V M N` �• L w y O �'G w Y w w �N NN NO {S 3s Cam. y4� ^. Oe�Nwy Y d La' G^ M .v�.. II >VN V .Q.aaY QL. ° �ca �MO Y;Yawi y= aLY� 'Z.!! p;� N�CM C 'VIM. L� •1 }4wy }'L A01Y`� V 4; .NGwQ1 GM.^ Pm 8Y^y^ ^1i' CL.yO1w 4�w1 Oi�.3 OwgM `GXL� '� +4 «y� w . OCt9� 'O=VL N't V10ri° a9 N.OTTY O'LO N. 9z Yg as �' &' Y A9�N — M.:!*O�L °I ,C 9 Y y 0 M.4 N w 4 N�K L. w T 10C 4,9 2! Nu Ic„°IC q 1... Vwy� L Np ^_° L {{S.y 4NVg Y.y'O ._XG C °.yam. 0.5 GA NN iSe yR I•. Y .° ^y +.�qYG 10. 4�� OV�C A 40wG. Y� ±. a Y�• GgwO V. LYCJ �uN ie(1� MT �..G.NA OO Gyp .DMi CGMy 9V. N: y. ub^ 294 � }N _r -,,2 F-1 _2 -a ^L�' ^�M 4P4 ^Y •�> GGU LrV pjL Af v{.�6 aO4 t w..r Cl Y iCN <O F.QN.G.9 2`[i� �.G }O• yt l. V,..a• Ks V]y - o 1 a COC.4.�- ewo vc °o2" so � -� M= Y'O WW4nCC1 q�. ^qY ^U LW p °CN CLYO�_�w 400 4NNy �q1M OY lq OV N +p^p AM 1►.6,q NOO Pa A V V N GC`a tq `1.0 ES G S n%� V G� L L Q O V n GN °w.GY. AL1e7:naZJS 4O1 �.N N a 4 Lr. f! M L.v. Va`•w. C � 1^i.O N � Z CCP QG ^41 Y�yCt'11y� <Ny .2 rw+C.Y OISMpp. d V =5 G o aa� ■•.�.O O.�yC11 O i Y P. M 4 d a Is O^ N pv 0•' CU-5 4: vlv Yc L C ' 4.Cw�ry w w L OY^ CI w C4 � .c ws $6 C Ge M w r • a� Y4 c v c. iN iS w 4 •� G W V 0.� V 3 C r 9 sy O� y L y 0 a�r�r ■ b Y L w °svo PYy y�4 Y p � r u =c c y'Y a L ly •� N Ny'4° C Y N wr8 y Y OI Y L �� N+ L C E ` tN C V OI� 1rV1 Nam p ...a. C C�N �OI�yM M K a,- g CCv `y. IL OY ON E 1 N) 1 0 ^3 +GLyg ��� qc9 4LN ^ ' ; G yl N BG Oa Z U M 6. GG3, .2- W GMf 2.2 =Nw N C ^� ..GG gy NS N °� �al, Y� &0 OGO.�G'MY .0 O Off. .� y O� fi Y'1 9p y a ° a- N V� N _C` NT O. pQA YNy ^. ���111 m� 1:0 w9. i N G QL^ 6 M 6•^ .Os� 9 L .5 2.1 d NA� >�O. vJO.0 + �$ s OIN Nw Y 4 016w UQ. ff 4$ N G w L' ^ > it � aMya �N.L• �L. ° � tY i1 C P wp V Y� C U N V V i OIuC Va,y 7 OC Xi u� w «wd 41y C>1 °O N +M OI O M N C LIE. .. ya. Y• _ v v _a N.w BwSd 6< C 4 ;; L' N� pV C r ~� G C. V �. ow 1�. �6 7 O O QNp L G 4+{1 ^7 C N� q` �0. E.I. Sffi A!I.O; PV_ Ny4 vyYa ild 9w Py •0. OY �U G``O. 5 E-Z wt LL OI il\ wyy L Cy O. N L LLO. N M .-E ^ M w `� V M N` �• L w y O �'G w Y w w �N NN NO {S 3s Cam. y4� ^. Oe�Nwy Y d La' G^ M .v�.. II >VN V .Q.aaY QL. ° �ca �MO Y;Yawi y= aLY� 'Z.!! p;� N�CM C 'VIM. L� •1 }4wy }'L A01Y`� V 4; .NGwQ1 GM.^ Pm 8Y^y^ ^1i' CL.yO1w 4�w1 Oi�.3 OwgM `GXL� '� +4 «y� w . OCt9� 'O=VL N't V10ri° a9 N.OTTY O'LO N. 9z Yg as �' &' Y A9�N — M.:!*O�L °I ,C 9 Y y 0 M.4 N w 4 N�K L. w T 10C 4,9 2! Nu Ic„°IC q 1... Vwy� L Np ^_° L {{S.y 4NVg Y.y'O ._XG C °.yam. 0.5 GA NN iSe yR I•. Y .° ^y +.�qYG 10. 4�� OV�C A 40wG. Y� ±. a Y�• GgwO V. LYCJ �uN ie(1� MT �..G.NA OO Gyp .DMi CGMy 9V. N: y. ub^ 294 � }N _r -,,2 F-1 _2 -a ^L�' ^�M 4P4 ^Y •�> GGU LrV pjL Af v{.�6 aO4 t w..r Cl Y iCN <O F.QN.G.9 2`[i� �.G }O• yt l. V,..a• Ks V]y - 3 T G)a F-4 ' R U 7 11 a yv N Y V p x S O L^ N +q r o u^ ^v a w`. r Y 7 .20 G2 r �I 01191rfaf Poor Quality �N ■ TL 't4 O. M{L DL ` XCX CC w� aL 'NY t$ ugr'f. LY ( ■� C y y 01Y Y v dNLW j.ON m'Vp a V v.G-- upGO C).qy vLO�.N ZEN t!N ■ ■■` T r G C.+�Y S. pwp �_ N w^ C» C r S^ S N 1 C W p ��e gg au$gY g &ii G shy w C �Y i C"C C � LaN f : Cpw4 Yr y�> 7sa qLl Oy L a .C� y4�„Y.� Vamp_ Cym o La L C y pQQ T O V LV W ■■pepw' �aa~Jt Py^ eN. y L Y O a¢ Cr V �V U-.4.2 L7�Y I VOw C�,4V�4A OYYY V al :2C N> Cq Q uY{� w OA OLrNC CC w� aL uA .tr yyy �u Ip t TV huOS m o ^ _O a■ q oL o> GO " Ywy viC Q Y a Vag V v.G-- CL �a J. ■r y� y av�i w �_ N p 6 ^ . X N C N V& ^ N u' o ppS C> ^ $ o d 9 AC Vey■ �Y�uw�� � m Yid^ ~ G4 MM y� Him V ■!V- p '�±♦i.Y tl. Vamp_ Cym 31. u gr «^ L Ww V DU.r3y O.Y O V LV botu c 9 ■■pepw' �aa~Jt CLsyG a eN. y L Y O a¢ Cr V �V U-.4.2 L7�Y ov NS1 ~ � YY h.'!! _ hx.0 2VN I— �vw .V -1.9 as h ' ` N u �g pY N pN+ 4� p ya €AWE" ti;ar� °�o YrY � CG �yy wsm 4 VVc tl E C O� L' o� T Q_. 41 w Y C C G4y N> Cq Q uY{� w OA OLrNC Q VsLV aLY 6 e�'o UY NYi NpL Y � W w Vag 1050 p��Y MVG� NG at ■ L. w y.. O Y 01 V .yam L q� �_ N may. CO �wr7 oS~ L� DL. ^L ^• .( eGG q p � ppS C> ^ - dw M L AC e �eti —s Y p :7,N � 'rya Y i 6 V ' C Y ` t 4 _ C Y h r Q O 3 Cpl {oVd p L LV botu c 9 N Lti Y Li 4� L.. sp L Y O a¢ Cr V �V C L7�Y as h Om r ?w0 Y q YrY � CG �yy wsm 4 VVc tl E C O� L' � AL .Lj o N 9 v eY t V CI NyvY Wuyu ^ Y Y d C a p c yy VY n4: 4c Y 90rL .s y H N C Y✓ N M � d L 9 �. G ^ Q_. G-Aa ^x' 3-" T G YT C C 41 w Y C C G4y N> Cq Q uY{� w OA OLrNC Q VsLV aLY 4 Y 'O 6 e�'o UY NYi yy 'V Y � W w G-Aa ^x' 3-" T G YT C C f } 41 w Y C C G4y N> Cq Q uY{� w OA OLrNC Q VsLV aLY 4 Y 'O 6 e�'o UY NYi yy 'V YL New tl L's-EO O.s'Lm 1050 p��Y MVG� NG at ■ L. w y.. O Y 01 V .yam L q� O G OT may. CO �wr7 oS~ C�CwO Cp Y �O.^nY e �eti —s Y p :7,N � dL �a cxp w _ C Y h r Q O f } 41 w L Yu yu w q V m V M p� L V L i r YL New � T y N C m L Oj 9 may. tiNS! �wr7 oS~ /Btu cxp .yi1Q OXN�� cOc� L {oVd p L m11.� N N^ s�gYi M N l O pi N Lti Y Li 4� L.. sp L Y O a¢ Cr V �V C L7�Y 1 0 Z v W PV 0 a `�4 U ^rte L L R 4.Y�Ci°• L L C f' 7 Y I" G`C IL aCtl O L� tN YYE ~� NuCpL�YYI N � ^O 7�w23' v ��` ix� Y.,zY.. `o`' V°V1 nu a��,LL uo w ^ °« « °�: .ESN `Y L. «ca° M. '^ , -M. p. CC C CC CC. ON 9 ^6 � aYMN gC+•Ya yO yE2 ;s ¢. �y V a% C N m - v`s�a' aa'•sa A. A YQ._ 4A yuN ^ D 4@■p M V Y .oC K V N.0 W V•�� OV ^KO uLtl101Y � L � G a t M C y�3YtµVpO I 1 >V �iL f >YY4�Y ; .Q NSW tom♦ iiY i i ££i o u y w �� o .LiN u� Ten �°•°+om b" oi.w 6 � Y LID, V y° L C s s V A OIL A 0 0 ^y LL d C O i � p US .M �N pA9 Li MO),O C y� OJ C C O � C�C�i �CNY O�Ls _ 4 y� • s^ C �L0 E N `°a8 g «QO «'y¢Lh•'yq:- ■A C vas Y� e. pMG 4 9 C «V.r 9 yy a r: s C d � Y n N c� ,' O C C i a o.. Y Y „i -z-- p� «O N� m 6 + siS 9 C c66 L O v g �O ^Cup «CCit Y :N My T O L C L 4, v L YY o Cv L•� «C + N� M C E ~C` P IL y M +� «111... LO L+ HpYt w N�` C ¢N ~ a� EgCy L l4. wi o a'IU L .a;5 ■yA.Od NtlL� Gw 3.;3 Nq A N p L C!L M w" it «oL L'� �" qo Yom4 i..• 4 Q�' �L U. q�� «« Lc tlCY.O js� C7 N 0�. V 9� �Y71 �/Y �L�• 8 Sod$ c.' -v�5 't�L`o�ov w N L' $'p��iyL q Epp O py�( Y 0e YE WI°VV W YL°i c6 �O Yp.. Y_ O f NN ip 2T•• w 4 Q a=" � a wW ° L a Y Y V �C � F N v 2 w 4 a C � u O Y �I C H VL 0 4y�g V « YV 9 L O � Y r � a L L W L rj 4 y GG ■ N N C N V L L W iv $ v« � u « A d Zi Z $ c u .m a yyG�L � Y ■ ° Y q JY C C it N Ci,MG N� Q C Y� iJ yy� w V ��•N �M W h J Y `�a Oriarna Poor Quality ub as's 7�ycY «NN •`negy iW ��� ° �w � � G '" =uy N o tNG ���I/J� `wN L.« Aolo isr -S .- �dy "i .mow •�P� ppN C67 '•�LN 6 Nr. ` NC Lu V ^ yA> ZE N ! i!YV •j�; 6 Z g� G g 4 d dN 4^ �A aq� CP �4 r•'ttLCN � � w �O R �_� L ,GC r�Q ^N �•c�a fie." ��N ,c ° 9L.ML1 N6W Ay. K6W ^o. Ycc°f99O� tra' �e= G+°. w Coq oC e'Y{"� &�' ■a i.� N GS° « G�Gi Y C�O Lru v� a yy 1� Lr � �{��w j'V p�Ay4. d bw w Y °Y� y O� 01 M yV s YY C N W 0; d W L C1 G i.iy �U1JL L.NL 'Cp; q'Y V�MN 4y. y° R441 .0 CIG t+� Q N� v GaJ ` 1 ` 5 °s eyL�VV�ADµ �.ry $qq� G� 0� 4j GI,GO G Z � L.N.= Q D �•• � C " v-0)y. O Gy Iov p y6� V a G C C 4l C1p RY OQ N V � ^Z CA aYO ° V •Y^ �ti'QI. L � ZY Nue!„ C CVI 4 ~W Nx YN° RoC Nt w,� a L O V N 4�. YN Y V D•:l Y ty! d L N^ C W aaCr w� C V V (vI C qAy M7 CL N Y■ Ctp1 4p. o .. yY� W d od1 w 4�Ort3 w�"S Y. i� NO Lg'Y wwN >a 4.��W MA Ai LLOr uC w. pw L.L G C OY.■ G1V �q ii LY i r LtaM {j yY �: {OiV !vC C 4po A ,CNCLOf NYIY -c qN ca i a=" � a wW ° L a Y Y V �C � F N v 2 w 4 a C � u O Y �I C H VL 0 4y�g V « YV 9 L O � Y r � a L L W L rj 4 y GG ■ N N C N V L L W iv $ v« � u « A d Zi Z $ c u .m a yyG�L � Y ■ ° Y q JY C C it N Ci,MG N� Q C Y� iJ yy� w V ��•N �M W h J � � Y `�a rYCV �i�a «ri ub as's 7�ycY «NN Ly'i �Gq�~ �w Ye N6 L L ���I/J� `wN p Y d(cg�`. Aolo isr -S .- �dy "i .mow •�P� ppN C67 Y � yA> ZE N ! i!YV •j�; 6 Z g� G g 4 d �O R Y G a V y� C R M yYL y`y 9L.ML1 N6W Ay. K6W � � I1 6 4Ci 1 OO g 0 LLJ V a °t °mod L L cIL e3yuy a L O so Vyw q o Cvf vl'e Quc. V � L C o e §v ss 4� .-ua Y c— co M w.N. 1 N1� OYO 02D. CCN?yy yyM' �CNO 2D� ale v y w r 32"1 vc a'u �Fi 4... C Q1. O1oy° {� C A Y c u ° N L w N 6 pY LC Yi 1 NYa NIm L � C Y� O f D.` SLY C o�v L 9 tY, y <M I�NM 9... h sp V °^ Y yv 4p y L Nfvpp w G G q Y $ re wLi L N _Y■ C ^ C 9 Y 45 £ Y �odv 3 Ct Y 66�M 4 pp~ Irq °4 •4 M. W «S1�1I t� <'s O C'*^ 0ZZ so MIS .- Gi't V Y 1Li Y L R E3& o u $ wV� N$ µy0 dY sC�-� sa O Y A Lt G d y G L L —E '^C. YI O't�i - ,`, V N V � O DV ova v rt AL �itt1 sn 1.2 v A J�1LY O C V � � ,• GGV X31 Y Iy MR•�. I e ) 1 4y�C0BE 6 4�. tYiY Y yY t O 4 T �yLLf1 `8 o O C'*^ 0ZZ so MIS .- Gi't V Y 1Li Y L R E3& o u $ wV� N$ µy0 dY sC�-� sa O Y A Lt G d y G L L —E '^C. YI O't�i - ,`, V N V � O DV ova v rt AL sn 1.2 J�1LY C M V C V yO L�t L CFp Y.�lii. w�lL x ^4p�_y` YY 1� Dn ci1 'V r'. MR•�. I e ) 1 E v' C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAXONGA nT.AFF REPORT DATE: Cctober 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris Westman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-04 - CARNEY- THEOGOROU - Architectural revisions to two ree -s ory u ngs within an approved 11,26 acre Master Plan development consisting of 8 buildings totaling 165,700 square feet in the Industrial Park and Haven Avenue Overlay Districts, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 209 - 142 -17. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. ActionRecpiested: Approval of modification to architectural elevations. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: IFFrte- Existing commerc- a eneral Commercial (Subarez S) South - Industrial Park; industrial Park (Subarea 6) East - Vacant; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 8) West - Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 6) C. General Plan Designations: protect Site - - -In sd tr-faT Park North - Commercial South - Industrial Park East - General Industrial West - Indust.rial Park II. ANALYSIS: A. Background: The Planning Commission approved DR 88 -04 on May 7I7rI9W- Wind mitigation and materials review were referred back to the Design Review %mmittee for further review at that time. B. General: The requested modification is for the two three -story buildings along Haven Avenue. The applicant has retained the general character of the original proposal (Exhibit "C ") but has made changes which will better address the interior design for tenant imp;ovem:ents. No change is being requested to the site layout of the Master Plan, nor wail the architectural modifications have any impact on the required parking or circulation. ITEM 1] ON SZ ��„ RGP3�N� 'C1iRQ��ROU on I i G'y4iCPt1�NZ ho�e�eC.Aach 8''04 x$ §s �r fy the tO ¢�fr tober ent e m §f ° arts tye. �Se rah ;te e ces�ceou §n c QoSed in d ;a9 °nsee SIX rieN a vsota�Cents bui�a��9• l�6� e �aee cuts been. � at�°n 9ra�`Atthe antfCe i �t�0ber a �U §�ain9 e oA�d axt aroena ;Q Re�Gat §onr, c §on W ;th St. the not coatinuoUS ittee: t e a 4ea;thco j s ;on• Wit's a fob V;ew �o� Cev� has to p,ann�n9 consiste-me b%►;a a An aes� % a o ° its oil to ese �5 plate• a4pp °�aae G. o s rnCeco�enda a �Ca4O$ a51jeC ors even W`yen §a8 °Cab} a ndusteoded if ;C ��a[% naards • �°gicA sse FOR C n ;t,� eeCt h� �t Spa ?A CIO, .'nC s eA IZL • r Pin ;�aRS t0 Wi he aerap��,ca �n�s bent od 1 i des 1�2;& and al CeC �e�te f AQBC k COP 5 C ;et, 5taat %on °1Ut §on ° RRppCifl '%OL' Cred Res e e atta IV • aad peon of 11 n MaQ � aplan R,�ey�,ti oos / t" E �w °q e ReVati r°d S'S. 1 cwnts; bit " VahoAO� ta t Res ��ti!�n Lw% arm IL m w B Cv MREJC IV AdOL Adak A&, im 112 &,"%a W p e PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT OR 88-04 (MODIFICATION) - CARNEY- 7NEQD(DRO!! October 26, 3988 Page 2 The same diagonal granite element is present; however, on reverse cuts (see Exhibit 14011). The main entry to each area - Theanew orientation helps toareduce windoimpacts FfroM the northeast. Additional granite accents arn, proposed in the form of continuous bands around the entire building.. C. Design Review Committee; The Design Review Committee (McNiel, 'Phis° oy> — o eman reiAewed the modifications on October 6, 1988. The Committee has forwarded the application with a favorable recomzmendation to the Planning Coteaission. III. FACTS FOR rINDINeS r e proposed use is consistent with the e7era an a "` hr, industrial Specific Plan, The building designs, together z, €th recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with .cne Industrial Specific Alan, Haven Avenue Overlay District, and all . "nr applicable City standards. IV. RECOWEUDATION: Sufi' recommends that the Planning Commission ar;,r'ove a modif +cation to Development Review 88 -04 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Res a fully itt , ad.. l City anna BB:CWte Attactiments> Exhibit "A" -, Location Map Exhibit "B" site plan Exhibit "C" - Approved Elevations Exhibit "D" - Proposed Elevations Resolution of Approval C'- AWIL Nt "Al U.1 GRuvts St lk `� I iP o001 d Pmi �i 71q \ail Z.< J if x FOOTH L.L .r �Li�hr w REGIONAL. LAW aLaur -1 ❑ L qi 2 f sr��. S JUSbC� CENTER St, F <.GatvatUg_ �._ 3AR /ON PLAI.k �u i ti r..,:C Ca�•er o I Or. COY a� s CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK •�: j 9rr� till' n .r. iS i�G is HO - .n. s SY _ ....... t' �;,• U aMOxGA r IL E ; x .. dNrseV .Blvd. 5t • ' �. �' (t.. all cL. W �i St y U IL U tre >( 22r f: .IL S:. ''•la a ? U f i'^ ru C!feet < �c (� 9 ul RANCHO CUCAMONGA S^ roe st DISMIBUtION CENUP t stfeat S H. STSEET- ARROW ROUT Y Z i' i d I :�Iru I y a� kl r fii I I I ' a I� I i �- '! f I z ffirw�V� y { 't. . i KIF I��1�111I1 ' 1 � (ice•,.,' r rr r' .; �� � � ��3 �t , ■�r� .. � � .. �!l lilt lliil�> > !! ,x OWCA 'MI a�- C e f } 1 x N PV Re tct it E ►It'd d at d_ s Gal INS* tea= I- I Ea air 12 12 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIOr APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR DEVELOPMEAT REVIEW NO. 8844 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW OUTE AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APH: 209 - 142 -17 A. Recitals. (i) Carney- Theodorou has ,filed an application for the a;,provai of modifications to Development Review N4. 88 -04 as described in the title of this Resclution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application ". ,ii) On the 26th of Crtober, 2988, the Planning Commission of the City of Ramho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on tha application and concluded said meeting on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. Idift NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: I. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recital, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- rzferenced meeting on October 26, 1988, including written and oral staff reports;, this Commission hereby specffically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow H19he. +3y; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is an existing retail center, the property to the south of that site consists of an industrial project, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is vacant; and (c) The architec wrai modifications retain the character of the original approval. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and 1 concludes as. follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plat; and R_9 KANNING COW. ISSION RESOruTION No. DR 88 -04 (MODIFICATION; - CARNEY- THEODOROU October 26, 1988 Page 2 Ll (b) 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 !c). That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This been reviewed and conside ed in hereby finds with ethefCaliforniathe Environmental Quality tact of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issued a Negative Declaration on May 11, 1988. - 6. 1, 2 and 3 above, thisnCommifindings n ereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Division: (1) This approval is for architectural modifications to Suildirigs "A" and "B" of to Haven -Arrow Corporate 'Park as shown in the attached Exhibit "D ". (2) All special and standard conditions as found on or as a part of City of Rancho Cucamonga Planninr, Commission Resolution No. 88 -94 shall be 'W icable to the approval of this modification. 6. The Secretary to this rrWssion shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPRDYED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1488. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CLCMONGA BY: Y e , a� rman Ark (9,0 1 DR PLANNING CISSION 8 -04 (MO DIFICATIONIOL�CARNEY- THEODOROU i' October 26, 1988 Page 3 ATTEST: -a u er, cre ary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Cowission 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 Planninq Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �, 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING P" ..S REGARDING TRAIL ACCESS AND CORRAL SIZE.. certain policies .regardingnaccess to local ceder trails necessary ral establish to implement the General Plan's goals and objectives. City of Rancho THEREFORE, does hereby ressolvh1andhdeclare iwheirCommission policy to of be: 1. In the Equestrian Overlay District, all new subdivisiorF. shall be designed to accommodate a minimum 12' x 241 corral area. The dev_'?opment plans shall clearly delineate the area on each lot where animals could be kept in compliance with the setback limitayions of Municipal Code Section 17.09.030 E.2.(b }. 2. Where local feeder trails ar. required, access from the corl,al area to the trait shall be graded with a m -iximum slope gradient of 5 :1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING CC:'MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. MMCNi-el ATTEST: Brad uller, Secretary I. Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning P,ommiesior of the City of biancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreOoing Resolution was dul; and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a .regular meeting of the Planning Comwission held on the 28th day of October, 1988, by the following vote- to -v,'%: AYES. COMMISSIONFRS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 ITEM S