Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/02/08 - Agenda Packet0701 -02 02 -8-89 PC Agenda I ` of 4 az� -DWG i aTy of O _Q d PLANNING COMMISSION U ti> nkk r 1977. f WEI)NE$DAY FEBRUARY 8,, P 389 7:00 LIONS PAX COMMUNITY CBS= 9161 BASH U NE r RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. L Pledge of ABe&nee U. Swearing in of S3uzo a Chitiea and Bruce Emerick as Planing Commissioners by City Clerk Beverly Autt:elat HL Roll Cell Commissioner Blakesley _ Commissioner Emerick Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy IV. Awxx neemente V. Approwd of Minutes Adjourned P'!ceting of Ocher 6, 1988 Adjourned Meeting of October 10, 3988 Adjourned Meeting of December 5, 1988 Adjourned Meeting of January 5, 1989 Adjourned Meeting; of �lanuary 19, 1989 January 25, 1989 IVL Camel t C'aleade The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine r-nd non - controversial. -hey will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discusslon. If anyone has concern over any item, It should be removed fordiscussioY4 A. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW' ' 87 -08 - W 'ERN PROPERTIES - r e addition of roof mounted equipment screen 7v0-s to an approved office park developme.lt consisting of four 2 -story buildings totaling 248,000 square feet on 16.58 acres of land in the'Office Park District of the Tema Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Haden Avenue and Town Center Drive - APN: 1011- 421 -06, 09, and 10. a i. B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10210 - 0. P. LANGE - The design revi , of, building elevations and detailed site plan for Lots 1, 14, 20, 21, and 29 of a pr3viously approved tract map consisting of 35 single family lots on 39.91 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, located north of Almond Street, between Sapphire Street and Turquoise Avenue - APN: 200 - 441 -01, 14, 20, 21, land 29. C. TIM;" EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT'! 12420 MBRICKEL DEVELOPMENT -" The development of -,.10 single family-attached units on 14.3 acres of land in the Low- Medium ResidentisF,'District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) at the northwest corner of 6th Street aild Heilman„ Avenue APN: 2019- 161 -04, 05, and 06. D. VACATION OF ALLEY - A request to vacate alley 50111eyiPrly of 9�tri at a rtd westerly of Calavaras Avenue - APN-. �dW- 2412,1. VIL Public Hearing The following items are public hearings it-, which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the rebated project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating yeur same and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 d The development cif li5 townhow a units on 10.27 acre$ of land in the Medium Density Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acrd!), located north of Arrow Highway and east of Baker Avenue - Ai'N: 207 - 201.32 and 12. F. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -04 GREUB&6 - 'The development of a neighborhood commercial shopping canter ao isisting of five structures totaling 20,770 square feet on 3.8 acres of land within the Neighborhood Commercia7, District, located at the southwest corner of Haven and 'Lemon- APN: 201 - 262 -48. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A..';D TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP MA - KORNuLATT - A mubdivision of 1.01 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located or, the northeast corner of Almond and Mai Streets - APN: 241- 071 -55. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88-15 - KORNBLATT - A.request to reduce the minimum average lo: size Pam 22,500 square feet to 21,954 square feet on two lots within the Very ow Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the northeast corner of Almond and Mai Streets - APN: 201- 071 45. i A� L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ahr .: FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change thethe proposed location of the Iced hill Country Club Drit!a and Foothill Boulevard intersection, as shown in the Specific °lay., by the realignment of Red Bill Country Club Drive to apprwdmately ) 09 feet east of the present intersection wi .: Foothill Boulevard, based upon as in-depth engineering study. J. TRACT 13273 - LEiATIS HOMES - A request to modify a condition of approval for a previously approved and recorded one -lat tract for 25" condominium units within the Medium- High Residentiai District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the, southeast corner of MIUMen Avenue a: d Mountain View Drive APAN. 227 - 151 -13. VIIL Djrects:z% Reports K. REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL PART{ DESIGN FOR TWO TERRA iSTA: PLANNED COMMUNITY PARKS-L M IO PARK AND TH YWCA i?;�,. AFK ME L. TENTATIVE TRACT 13886 /CONDMONAL USE PERMIT 88- 01 - NALBAND C AU Review 57 proposed raof material for a 46 -unit town me projact and a 39,000 square foot commercial center, located at the northwest cornei of Base Line Road And Etiwanda Avenue - APNr 327- 522 -01, 02, 03, 04 and 227-521-,66. M. MINOR DEVELOPMEN 12SQ'.s; °-�° - A. W. DAVIES - A request to ads 600 square feet, .,o ice space to an existing building and warehcuw totaling 4,560 square feet on 3.82 acres of land in the General Industrial DieMet (Subarea 3) of the industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the southeast corner of 9th Street and Helms Avenue - APN: 209 -031 -53 and 54. 11L CoAnd"on &oxinen< N. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 1. Public Comment Ti:is Is the time And place for the general public to address the Commission. items to be discussed here are those which do now already appear on this agenda. XL Ad*wnirent The Planning Commisslor. has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Ccommisslom C VICN17Y' MAP ONFA014 INURNanoraa �r�A CfTY OF RANCHO CUC OAO i i C L-r] A CTS' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 8, 1989 r4 o 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning. Commission FROM: Brad Bull^r, City Planner BY: Brett Horner,' Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -08 - WESTERN 1PROPERTIES - e addition o roo —mounted equipment screen walls �napproved office park development consisting of four 2 -story h .idings totaling 243,000 square feet on 16.5£; acres ;f land in the Office Park District of the Terra Vis,. Planned Community, located at the northeast coiner o. Raven Avenue and Town Center Drive - APN: 1011 - 421 -06, 09, and 10. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIOR: A. Action Requested: Approval of screen walls for roof mounted equipment. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: A rtFi --Deer creek Flodd-OW—nnel, Vacant, attached single family homes; Law - Medium Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant; Community Commercial District East - 'Vacant; Office Park District West - Virginia Dare Business Center, Brunswick /Deer Creel: Slopping Center; General Commercial District C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Of fi cb—Pte District North - Low - Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential South - Community Commercial East Office Park West - General Commercial 0. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant (rough graded) and scopes gem y rom north to south at approximately 2 to 3 percent. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The Planning Commission approved Development Review l;T -UT, a 4 building office project on Augist 26, 1987. The A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OR 87,.08 - WESTERN PROP':RTIES February 8, 1989 Page 2 applicant has subm.:ted for plan check and building permit issuancp on Building 2, and proposes to screen roof mounted air conditioning u „its with screen walls which will architecturally match the parapet walls of the building, The walls will extend 4' - V above the parapet wall and will be finished with plaster and 3” wide metal coping on top of the wall (see Exhibit 8). This screening technique is proposed for use on the remaining three buildings at the tine of their' development. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Nk:Niei, Tolstoy, Ccxrman revs -e -R a proposal and ,revised elevations on January a, 1989 and again on January 19, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed screening. However, the Committee felt that the modifiW.,tion to the building was significant enough to have the full Commission review and approve the proposal. C. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration for the project was issueU on August 26, 1907. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed modification is consistent with e objectives o the General Plan and the Terra Vista Planned Community. The proposed building design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan. The proposed modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to prope),ties or improvements in the vicin(''y. IV RECOMMENDATION: Staff reconmends that the Planning Commission approve the `mood fication to Development Review 87.08. /Br ctful mi , lty lanner 88 :8H:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Elevations Showing Screen Walls Resolution of Approval 0 0 i Original Poor Quality ITEM: MOD. T6 DR 87 - 08 TITLZ: SITE PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 87 -155A A RESOLUTION 3F THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING KIDIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -08, TO CONSTRUCT ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SCREEN WALLS FOR AN APPROVED PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORN;;'R OF HAVEN AVENUE AND TOWN CENTER DRIVE ON 16.58 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OFFICE PARK DISTRICT CF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IJ SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1011 -421- OE, 09, AND 10 A. Recitals. (i) On August 26, 1987, this Commission adopted Resolution No. 87- 155, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, an office park on 16.58 acres of land in Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan. A true and complete copy of said Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by this reference. (i;) Western Properties has filed a request to amend the Development Review with -the addition of screen walls for the purpose of screening roof mounted equipment. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject modification is referred to as "the application ". (iii) On the of 8th of February 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption od this hzsolution have occurred. 6, Resolution. NOW, THFREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follm -s: 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 February 8, 19&9, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (2) The application applies to property bounded by Haven Avenue, Town Center Drive, Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street, and is presently unimproved; and (b) The property to the North of the subject site is single family residential the property to the south of that site consists of vacant land currently being graded, the property to the east is vacant land and the property to the west is a business park and come -cial shopping center. .?9_1T_ PLANNING COWLSSION RESOLUTION NO. 87 -155A DR 87 -08 - WESTERM PROPERTIES February 8, 1989 Page E 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this CoWi jszion during the above- referenced meeting any upon the specific find,'nps of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 abo ., this Comrission hereby fiT,6s and concludes as follows: (a') That the proposed modification is consistent with the objectives of the General plan; and (b) That the proposed modification is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed modification is in compliance with a -ch of the applicable provisions of the Development Cod_, and Terra Vista Community Plan; and (d) That the proposed modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to propertiQs or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed previousy and was considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission issued a Negative Declaration on }august 26, 1987. 5. Based upon the Findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approver the application subject tc each and every condition set forth below. (a) The screen walls shall architecturally match the parapet walls of the structure. The screen wall shall extend 4' - 4" above the parapet wall and be finished with plaster and a 3" wide metal coping on top of the wall. This method of screening roof mounted equipment shall be utilized for all remaining phases of the project, 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry e , Chairman =1 PLANNING CM 49ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 87 -155A OR 87 -08 - WESTERN PROPERTIES February 8, 1989 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad u er, secretary 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 introdcced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular ireeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February; 1989, by the following vote -t"it: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS': VJ (_ ` 3 RESOLUMN NO. 87 -155 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAPDN'GA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEU NO. 07 -08, THE DEVELOPMENT OF PA OFFICE PARK CONSISTING OF FOUR Two -STORY BUILDIiGS TOTILING 250,000 SQUARE FEET ON 1G.58 ACRES OF !,AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND TOWN CENTER DRIVE IN 741E OFFICE PARK DISTRICT - APR 1011421- 06, 10, and 09 A. Recitals- (I) Western Properties has filed an application for the approval of Development Revic., No. 87 -08 as described in the title of this Resolution. hereinafter in this Resolutioq, the subject Development Review request is referred to as '11;13 application'.. (ii) On the 26th of august, 1987, the PI&Pning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public meeting on the application 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 found, determined and resolved by tie Planning Commaission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Co d ssion 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 public meeting on August 26, 1967, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) TMv application applies to property bounded by Haven Avenue, Toni Center 6r.ve, Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street, presently unimproved; aM (b) The property to the north of the subject site is residential, the property to the south of that site consists of unimproved land, the property to the east is unimoroved land, and the property to the west is a business park and shopping center. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph E and 2 above, this Ce�Wssion hereby finds and concludes as follows: ` H f A rt �( / ,� R J►J ING coMzsSC RE5QLUTia7M No. DR 87 -08 WESTERN PRpigMTjE3 August 26, 2987 Page 2 (al That the proposed project is eonsistanr with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is In accord with the objective of the Terra Vista Planned Community and: - ::a purposes of the district in which the site is, located; and (z) That the proposed uzf is in compliance with each of the applicai�,b provisions of the Development Code and Terris Vista Planned Cow;i, 'ity; and IdI That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental or material public njur ous to properties or improvements i ; the vicinity. been reviewed and Commission in cobs mpliaindceawititetrttiefCali ornia eny�jc+�ntal Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Cowri$sion hereby issues a Negative Declaration. L Based upon the findings 4nd conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, 0`7 Caaalission hereby approves the application subject to each and every cr!tcition set north below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (a) Planning Division: i. A twenty -foot aide landscape paseo shall he epntranct off Haven Av� u+s °anAttTerrisdriveway Parkway. A 15 -toot aide landscape pasta shall be prOV^4ed on one sidt of driveway entrances off Town Center Drive, and Church Street. ii. Within p'IM, pedestrian amenities such as a setting area to acem" date a large number of brie k y pavers,�bollar bollard fights, etc. shalt be provided. iii, Additional street trots shati be provided Along Haven Avenue, Church Street, Terra Vista PirkwaY and Town Center Drive. iv. All pMject entries shall have special landscaspe treatoent which includes multi -trunk trees, annual ealor and accent trees. PLANNING CO MISSC RESOLUTION NO. OR 87 -08 - WE SIX Rh PROPERTIES August 96, 1987 Page 3 11 V4 Undulating mojrding up to 3h feet and/or a lore screen wall with appropriate shrub massings shall be provided along Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue to the satisfaction of the City 'Planner. vi. The intersections of Haven Avenue and Church Street; and Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive being designated as secondary gateways into Terra Vista shall have the same special treatment. vii. Within parking areas, evergreen cacapy shaped trees shall be provided. viii. The developer shall expand landscaping into t!x Dear Creek Channel right -of -way (similar to Virginia Dart) to provide- additional landscaping provided that the developer is able to obtain and diligently pursue. A letter of authorization from the County Flood Control District shall be filed with the City. ix. Additional tree wells between the landscape planter fingers shall be provided, in order to comply with the code requirements of 1 tree per 3 parking spaces. X. The location and design for the bus shelter shall be subject to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to installation of such Pius shelter. (b) Engineering Division,. i. The existing overhead utilities (ttle- communications and electrical, except for 66 Kv electrical) on the project side of Maven Avenue shall be UrAergrounded from the first pole on the south side of Town Center Drive to the first pole- north of Church Street, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. 4rtiel reimbursement of one -half the City - adapted cost for undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is feasible from the presently undeveloped properties. it. Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway and Town Center Drive shall be constructed full width along the project frontages. Parkway iMproveyments (sidewalk and landscaping) on the ;, pidevelodpment until of the adjacent property. PLANNING COMISC f RESOLUTION NO. DR 87 -08 - WESTERN PROPERTIES August 26, 1987 Page 4 dMk M. The portion of Master Plar. Store Brain Ithe 1 from Deer Creek Chdnnel to the East side of Haven Avenue shall be constructed or an alternate method of drainage disposal provided as approved by the City Engineer. The alternate method shall be designed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building and grading permits. iv. Notice of intention to foray and /or join the lighting and landscaping district shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation of the asap or issuance of building perw3ts, whichever occurs first. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 1 APPROy-1M AWD ADOPTED THIS 'r,TH DAY'OF AUGUST, 1987. PLANKING COWIS"a�ON OF THE CITY OP tBAN w C1JCtw4Om BY AT` I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Coamission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the ftregoing Resolution es duly and regularly introducs..l, passed, and adopted by the Planrina Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Cowmission held on the 26th day of August, 1907, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COWISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: CGMISSION€RS: NONE ABSENT: COMISSIONED?S: TCLSTOY CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAi ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 8, 1989 TO: C,.airman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Deverly Nissen, Assistant Planner -u�ati ��cq O U SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10210 - C.P. LANGE - The d®--ign rev ew of u ing elwations and detailed si plan for Lots 1, 14, 20, 21, and 2�', of a previously approved tract map consisting of 33 single family lots on 39.91 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, located north of Alw=vd Street, between Sapphire Street and Turquoise Avenue - A "N: 200- 441 -01, 14, 20, 21, and 29. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of building elevations and plot plans. B. Project Density: .83 dwelling units per acre. 1977 C. Surroundinr 'and Use and Zoning o %`F 'l-s i ei- eR r&ntial . South - i'\,s Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling U.. r acrO and Department of Water and Power Ian('. East - Primarily vacant with scattered single family residences; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). West - Vacant, Hillside Residential District. D. General Plan Desicnations: ro ec I „e si de Resi dential. North - Hillside Residential. Seth - Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). case - Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling units pzr acre). West - Hillside 6.esidantial. II. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 10210 was originally submitted in gu�i —s 080 as one tract covering 160 acres. The northern 114 acres were split off from the original proposal since it did not comply with adequate fire protection response time. The original iEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OR FOR TRACT 10210 - C.P. LANGE February 8, 1989 Page 2 project was revised anC resubmitted as a 46 -acre parcel divided i nto 33 1 ots ''hi s revs sed scheme was app -over by the Pl anni ng Commission n September 23, 1981. An expanded Initial Study was completed w,rich addressed flood, fire, geology, seismology and public ice issues. On August 24, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a Resign Review for Lots 2 -12, 15 -19, 22 -27 and 30 e: Tract 10210. Lots 13, 14, 20, 21, 28, and 29 viore a7ltttd due to concorn regarding the a > -act location of an earthquake fault and the appropriate fault setback in thin area. Since that time, additional trenching in the area was performed and the location of tho ^vault and appropriate setback were deterreined. Lots 1, 31, 32 and 33 were omitted from the previous submittal since the applirAiit felt they were too steep to build the type of home they were proposiig and would be better suited to a custom design. B. General: At this time, the applicant, C.P. Lange, has s`u6miRed plans for the development of five lots within the tract (see Exhibit "A "). The applicant is submitting two floor plans (3850 and 3200) which were approved with the previous Design Review submittal. Both of the plans are single story. C. Seismology • The seismic report (Leighton and Associates, 197,wwhi h was prepared in conjunction with the tract map, indicated the presence of several faults within the area. The report also indicated that a 50 -foot setba.tk :'rom either side of the fault zone would be appropriate. However, the geology report (Moore and Taber, 1988), which accompanied a recent submittal for a project to the immediate west of Tract 10219, indicated that the appropriate setback from the fault zone should be much greater. In response to this discrepancy, staff initiated an independent review of the two reports which was completed by Kleinfelder Associa_es. TH s review was conducted i,s conjunction with the previous Design Review which was aporoved on August 24, 1969. The results of the independent review were, however, inconclusive and called for additional trenching in the area to su- stantiate the location of two additional suspected fault traces and tc confirm the correct building setback from the fault zone. In response to this, the applicant modified their original Design. Review proposal and deleted those lots (specifically 13, 14, 20, 21, 28 and 291 which could potentially have been impacted by a greater building setback.. At that time, the PLANNINS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR FOR TRACT 10210 - C.P. LANCE February 8, 1989 Page 3 applicant enlisted a geotechnical consultant to complete ^she additional trenching in the area and to complete furteer studies which should determine the appropriate ,setback from the fault zone. This study, conducted by Richard Mills Associates in November, 1968, established exclusion zones in which no structures for human habitation could be located. The boundaries of the exclusion were revised from previous seismic studies completed on the site due to: 1. A change of orientation of the fault zone near the resterai proerty boundary; and 2. Minor than es in the fault location. This revised exciusioi; boundary has essentially eliminated any buildable area for Lot 13. This lot will be eliminated and some others adjusted as necessary through the Lot Line i% ustment process prior tc issuance of any budding permits. Although the report concludes that "the site—is expected to be subject to moderate to high intensity si;aking during the life of the structures ", if the project is designed in accordance with the latest Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association, seismic hazards can be mitigated and the project is feasible. The Richard Mills report was Wn reviewed by an independent geological, firm, which concluded that it adequately stet the intent of the Aiquist- Priolo Act of 1972 and the guidelines presented in CDMG Notes 42 and 49. The consultant indicated, however, that "The City of Rancho Cucamonga should recognize that, although the referenced investigation generally conforms to CD..1G guidelines, the potential for surface rupture cannot be precluded for areas of the site lying outside the indicated setback zones." D. Grading: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on anuary 16, 1989 and recommended approval with the following condition: 1. Usc contour grading techniques where applicable to soften slopes, contours, etc, E. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee Chit i a-,--BlakesTey,— Rroutil) reviewed the project on Januar 19, 1989 and approved it with the following conditions: /✓-,3 PUNNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT OR FOR TRACT 10210 - C.P. LA.NGE February 8, 1989 Page 4 n U 1. Contour Vading techniques are to be utilized in order to reduce the harsh, engineered appearance of oil manufactured slopes. 2. A slope planting and irrigation plan must be submitted for all exposed slopes and graded areas. 3. A statement should be included on every deed for each lot within the development which informs the prospective buyer of the potential for seismic activity and the related hazards. 4. All property owners should be notified that the National Forest is to remain open and that the public wi11 take access through this development. S. All potential buyers should be notified of any restrictions associated with the land in the ..Southern California Edison Company easement. F. Trails Advisory Committee: The Committee reviewed the project on January &rd recommended approval subject to the following conditions:. 1. Southern California Edison. Company should be contacted to deternine what types of structures (i.e., fencing, buildings, etc.) would be permitted within the easement. fhe findings should be presented to potentia° homeowners in the form of a disclosure statement. 2. A drive aE,proach should be provided at the southeast of Lot 1 to allow access to the rear of the lot. 3. Staff should explore the possibility of relocating the local trail on Lots 2 -10 from the front to the rear of the lots. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the eve opmen o e an the General Plan. The project, with the recommended mitigaion measures, will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cruse significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use is in co.*aoliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code 'ty Standards. i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT i OR FOR TRACT 10210 - C.P. LANGE Febraary 8, 1989 Page 5 IV. RECOMMENDATION: Sta'f reoamirends Ch-At the Planning Commission approve a esign Reuiew of ;.tots 1, 14, 20, 21 and 29 of Tract 10210 thrDugh adoption of the, attached Resolution with Conditions. Re fullyfsu tte Bra er City P nner BB:BN:ko i Attachments: Resolution 81 -106 Exhibit "A" - Index Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit °C" - Detailed Site /Grgding Plan Exhibit "D" - Horsekeepircg Areas Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Resolution. of Approval with Conditions e RESOLUTION NO. 81 -106 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF t. 4CHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,. CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10219 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 10210, hereinafter "Map submitted by Lawlor Enterprises, applicant,�for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, deacrioed as approximately 46 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Sapphire and Almond and being divided for single family use into 37 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on September 23, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering acrd Planning Divisions reports-, and WHEREAS, the Plan..,ig Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning. Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findirgs in regard to Tentative Tract No. 10210 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with a1;, ,applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; tc) The site is physically suitable for the type of develop- ment pmppsed; (d) Thr, design of the subdivision is coot likely to cause Fabstantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 1?�''b orage `-1 That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a. Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10216, a copy of which is attached he6eto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. All necessary easements for cross lot e.rainage shall be shown on final map and grading plan. 2. All requirements of the Foothill Fire protection et District such as, but not "limited to, fifty flamabie material around all units, fire retardant building s�alob�Warp e shlem et intherremoval of lane to flammable material, inflammable material should'be planted. 3. Construction of a new forest Service road shall be dune in conformance with ,; onditions see' forth by the Forest Service. 4. Full compliance with the State Alejuist- priolo Act is required for construction and ,lacement of dwellings. 5. Full for m construction of the water syste � s required. i: istric 6. The forest service easement shall be extended adjacent thethis eastern edge of the property, north a tract. 7. Equestrian access tj open spaces shall be provided where feasible. 8. The applicant shall work with the Utility companies having easements over the subject property: to develop the easement areas for useable open space, such as an equestrian staging area. A detailed plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to recordatio! of map. ENGINEERING DIVISION g. installation of an adequate concrete lined irate- ceptor drain across the southeasterly project area as shown on the tentative map shall be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The drain shall be extended south- westerly to connect to the existing Almond interceptor drain. The storm drain fees for the project shall be credited towards the cost of this drain. nv. y1� €0. All required on -site and off -site easement for the drain sh111 he dedicated to the City. The easement shall be extended northeasterly along the Edison easement 'line to the easterlymost tract boundary. 11.. A flood protection berms and /or a channel shall be pro- vided along the north 'tot lives of lots 16, 17, 18, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, diverting storm rupoff to a safe disposal area. 12- Construction of'Almond Street impn)vem4ats with curb,. aalzigcgrsourth wide asphalt Street lights2within }a�dedicat'ed easement shall be required from the east tract boundary to Sapphire Street. 13- Emergency access road per Foothill rrre U' Strict Is requirements shall be provided along Atmd,,d Street to Turquoise Street. !4. All candition$ contained in the letter by the Forest Service, tlnitfid States Department of Agriculture, referenced 6460 Schulhof dated dun 22, 1981 shall be complied with. The existing Big 'free Road shall be vacated prior to recordation of the map„ APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SrPTEMBER, 1983. PLANKING CPPISSION OF THE C1y OF' RANCHO CilCAM01'iuA BY: lcte�_ an I, %1XK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Cowmission of the City of rtancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly acrd regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Connrission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Comrmissior held on the 23rd day of September, 1481 by the following vote to -wit: t I i 1 i l 1 i f t i i i i l l i� 11 CITY OF m? 102410 1 MAP' \ �t � r \ 4 :ITY CF t f AANr n'l , I>R TTTI.6r z tI'f7nc a w; A EXHIBIT, ALE , ' `-� C FIJ NNMI DMI"i B-[2-- 11 r CY Ibl- Q R t1i b�1 r-�, T&CAP7�i1'd �_ a E O t3. N C wl 26508 FRONT ELEVATION! i � r CITY OF nw, RANCHO CLTCAVL TrrLE= FL ti;�fCl ; i 'V . - EXH1MPa_. J.._e S �iLE• =4 � -r - LOT I= EMArOf CI C!, RANCHO CUCA4NIONGA 'vNM DIVEM 15 TnUz EXHIBIT- SC ALE. 28 50 P [Al L:_ , 290 A : F71O W ELEVATION lM 4-M 1WA* !aL'::ATIM ClIT CF RAND 0 CL HANNING EXVSM 5'r? CITY OF LOFT SM EMXVATM ,..�. 29508 11 rrEmt to x.10 qw E L;J FRONT ELEVATION �.,,..�. ro 11 REARS ELEVATION CITY CF RANCHO CLICAMLONGA R.A.LNNM [IV iN Pj'm: -D9 10210 TrrU. Ilk EXHI®ir _ +r __ SCALE: 2850 G zmfl "" i r=r�, aft r� 28500 LEFT SID€ ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION CITY `° + RANCHO PLALNNM �. ► - #� iWO; EXHIBIT- SCALE! 3200 A WAW 314E W"ATION CI'T'E' CF RAND CUCAMONGA NNI D(vl v -, .2 Z.. .3 Ll 0 ul 3200 It FRONT ELEVATION ....,... . REM ELEVATION CI RANCHO CUCAMkCI*CA R-kNNM EXVMN . a 3 e. ) 4.• 11i, 32005 LEFT SIDE IM"ATM ... , !rMff SM ELEVATM C11 Y OF, RXISCHD CLICAIMONGA R-ANNINU DIVSM 3200 C FRONT ELFVATM CITY CF Iff MEM_ any► o RAINCM CUCAMONGA TlTu: )tLD1�1�a �I �1�74OtS°a PLANNING DIVA � �� ExHiBrri FFK-Z� LEFT CM EMAi9ON .w�.W. v • I It, H' I I V J NNIiV4.F I.J4V rAQHT WE EtEMlON rrm, ,DP- iovD EXHt®!T SCALE: E L "J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR LOTS I. 14, 20, 21 AND 29 OF TRACT 10210 FOR TH DEVELOPMENT OF S SINGLE rAMILY LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF ALMONO AND l:£Si OF SAPPKAE IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT "riEREOF - PAN: 200 - 441 -01, 14, 20, 21, AND 29 A. Recitals. () C.P. Lange has filed an application for the Design Review of Lots 1, 14, 20, 21, and 29 of Tract 10210 as descritod, in the title of this Resolution. Herainafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On February S. 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adiption of this Resoluticn have occurred. B. Resolution: NOW, THEREFORE, it is he,,eby found, deu-CT -.ined and resolved by the Planaing Ce.e"ission of the City of Rancho Cucamorga as fol.lcrs; 1. This Commission herd, spccifically finds that all of the facts set forth in 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 February 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows-, a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b) That the proposed design is to accn!, with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of tho district in which the site is located; and c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Cade; and d) 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 irprovements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIO',a NO. OR FOR TRACT 10210 - C.R. LANGE February 8, 1989 Page 2 U 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approved the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated bereinby this referenc -, Planning Divisions 0 A71 pertinent conditions of Resolution 81, -106 approving Tentative Tract 10;1 D shall apply. 2) Contour ,grading techniques shall be utili;med in order to reduce the harsh, engineered appearance of all manufactured slopes. 3) R slope planting and irriga,?ion plan shaill be submitted for all exposed slopes and graded areas prior to the issuance of building pen, its. 4) A statement shall be included on'every deed for each lot within the development which informs the prospective buyer of the potential for seismic activity and the related haaar&;. 5) The developer or his sa.I agEnts shall disrlcse to all potential home buyer` he ,fact that access to the National Forest shall remain open and shall be obtained through this development. The developer ll retain signed cupies ^f all disclosures in a Permanent file fer future review by zhe City or other interested party. 6) All potential buyers shall be notified of any restriW -.;is as,saciated with the land in the Southern California Edison Company easement. 7) A dive approach shalt be provided at the southeast corner of Lot 1 to allow equestrian access to the rear of the lot. ngineering Division; 1i This project is subject to all conditions of Tract 10214. 2) The Almond Street improvements shalt extend full width from Skyline Road to Sapphire Street and include full improvements of the Almond /Sapphire intersection. A re1mburse.ment agreement may be requested for the cost of improvements of tde street from future development adjacent to the street. . r� V PLANNING COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR TRACT 10210 C.P. LANCE February 8, 1989 Page 3 3) The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required dedication for the north half •(33 feet) of Almond Street from: Skyline Road to the east side of Sapphire Street to construct the required off -site improvements. If the developer should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 20 days prior to submittal jf the final snap for approval, enter into an agree<�ment rnt th the City to complete tho improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payz nt by developer of all costs in connection with the subli4 sion. Security for these costs shall be in the fom of a cash dep,�jsit. That oortion of the security reflecting the value of the required off - site property interest shall be the amount given in ate appraisal report obtained ,by developer, at dijeloper's -cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 4) A separate parboay landscape and irrigation plug per MW City standards shall be provided subject to approval of the City Engineer for the north side of Almond street between Sapphire Street and the westerly boundary of Tract 10210 and the westerly side of Skyline Road between Almond Street and Inspiration Drive. 5) The perimeter landscaped par` for the north side of Alm(,nd Street between S3ppnire Street and the westerly boundary of Tract 10210, and the westerly side of Skyline Road between Almond Street and Inspiration Drive shall be anneRed into the landscape maintenance district. 6) Utility Undergrounding: a. The exiEtiv,g overhead utilities (electrical) on the project side of Almond Street &3, 11 be undergrounded from the first pole on the east side of Sapphire Street westerly to the first pole on the south side of Almond Street within the Los Angeles Bureau of Powair and Light easement prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever ao:. ^.urs first. The developer may request a reimburseme2t agreenent to recover one -half the difference rIetween the u.kdergrounding cost of the utilities PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OR FOR TRX7 10210 - C.P. LANGE February 8, 1989 Page 4 W] (electrical) on tie project side of the street minus those (telecommunications) on the opposite side of the street from future development (redevelopment) a' It occurs on the opposite side of the street. b. The developer shall :pay an feo as contribution to the future undeegrounding of the existing ofvrread utilities. (telecommunication and electrical) on the opposite side of Almond Street prier to issuance of building permits, or recordation of the amended final map, whichever occurs first. The fee skill be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the westerly property boundary to the westerly terminus of th•_ ;ndergrounding required per SectioU a. above. 7) An amended final crap is required for the regjested lot line adjustments. 4. The Secreti ry to this Commission shall certify tc the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. KNiel, chairman A ?TEST: Brad er, re ary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer''fy that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a rGgular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f3" 30 to IE �ugggq ttL4J.O xMM.r. � 4p �.°h l�i� +p cx d4 Yaa�O- , 6 ♦ � 4� Gi9GQ Ow ��M Td .•r. a S'~+�. `ua s a y ° « $ » c E p u +o uM�t Q 1, y0 u -,;% x Ma al y, 7p vy� eq ;�iy �r�YMY4«y D^� ° ad a N�V x 4 ~ d i MAY i L 4 ad x L++ d� v rP -g ` s 4 a s v ; MY A�M QY��N jdyT �y >}ypy� � w y _ y N+rV V �f �'ilt 4 O ► � ! Oar O ���j�y S� °Qj�y66� �+f jji((yAi'a1 +l T1�W AN 'jy. y'� gYMM« y~ of .1u� aim 4 xxg6 "'"Pr •ou ao ii •` $4Y.S�f'«a ''gg g 8� y..4 •tjs� 1�$yl Yiwy YI Nfp Mw�j $w lr 'i 4. ati -2 a a v r N t�y A w M M 4Ye ug Y tt33 .Ig ma all -Pi a a fjiv R 44 -ADZ a f.�1�e T e a 3aas 3� N « IN /ry0� Yom, �I a�u 0 o W 4 v.t w0 ac W co [q:3 V G 14502 O ass °s� x� N L �oqs GCYom}F +=o »rte �+Y Y L O11. C MM O R Y �� xP 6 Y 0 Y gy =y^$ � Y tl EpYM + M Y IC + L sao ^no-V ° M as w °Oyt s °_Z �P�r 4 .5apyuu'Ys�`L ��OA���Nryn �3w o `yY M�x�N R O�yaa � NaM^• 9 g k J1341 e2 dill w Est, 4 u1 b A g$8yt yI r 'P y—°�Y _Y Q4 wQ3g g � .d !! t3 xggY ®� P JD q ,� f Y L fyrw d Ali I 6 K•�y NN+ q44 Y Y)�: s3 �al�ig$3; �yny'FRp iN N�gs N$' N1���r•�� �flNy C� • = if - a7l - 21f a ActI s.,& �. �i �� @�r35T Me� u Ss'� hP 3 a a r 2=1 t ; Y j -1 2u t 41-i a� $ 2 1 ass �i �• p3 °P g N� yp <i' 4 _ Y B Y � Lot!" s [3-32 i �C Y L u C &s- oM -fix, I ra ai ss6 � N v{�; Nyd�V a_7; 3s8 skiff l'• H O YY x.a= P> L ° OP O� �Y + r ubu w�` GL4 d CC N 11 ®�` V Y •w r� G �Y C Y 1.. w. a C L C 4 Y H q�Y+oei4. Fit— 1'nY ark �y •'3 a. °u �u 'a '��. �pp �.. '�,Ss:Yyi,rw. �' ~a gY� +N c .-i »�, LS low L U'O.1 M � � �. 6gOOw° 4YA,. ��,•iON MM aL NYO? 1h D L �YYYY L., i•" ze s gww - XgzY-Y.0 � i ! Q V W Q. NA Slit* � � O Ap. O yE Gp 4 U^L j ~YM 9.0yto w �pw� � Wr Ygr i itD`ai YC�Cr j E4' b r $4di 64i O } Si�=YS qQ �, Ny�O W '�YLC�t�1 W� `��j. CC S Y " �°iy uac ob�� ay „Y•YY eC � l ` ^W.Y. Nw Y V y +4 °y YC�C �tJy avwC / 'yOy e�� �6e0 Y�wYy e�p ^Y� Lbw �.qY •.Ow Ali +i �pya £+ 0 38— gat �W Y"`` Ztl�0 M ao-Yas i S� O� oaf UZI � ° ® wive JA6 ._,,k p`yd` {p� V$ y i��vn'y +�1M •y•�y WK ;S Ir .p w + ^b� �CC9� 66Y <� Vsx IriJ i�.�. iY� dia. © y • Y L ° +V{L.�i yLee `c4' q Nb�. 6 0 Y7— it i.Yyq J Y.a tko ca 3 = � a• t � e��e ■ » Amu oM N +:a AY �y C w Y r ■ ��C•ttt333 O�2� Y tGyyly$ �M�'b �� ■ �Mn 333 + i LY IR y QO y • �Z! M @y Y y¢ r p t ` Y •aJJJpttt tl l �� 1. �[ °a' +S � Vb Map 6u� y � qO� -y�Y �� ��i Y09 �I .L.2a TP •a y ,^a g:a �+ i � r • . ; �Z A � a • its- , s iY 3'tl� e3 i ar rx BoY S : �� SAN jil I bit j • y �• ifs�6A �6 _IG) M ^* Y a +•M ¢ iii p a L•v 41 �10 AMV `G 'gyp; an ism a It war L!L EBY� .p�'1!n Sy": •r Y w..CY M r. Y ^.b �e 'p twY `Y'r Y.Sp Ell y� •a Y8 Y6 lC �_. `• 1$ja.2 NYY9V N C X7a JA3� <.�+ Fi0 �� 4J•i® ObY�1M� Mtj 1.8 A1� `61y F rull a LL/ U E s °dam gag «$ '4- 3 � uv a � tali !'Its $i ` L IT 00 YYY`i0� �Sv. rL:«E $a g ^aY S «+ W L 'O•�O YYG��V N O Ni w 5S 11%I O O� p6 �a�. OEM ^Si[. OI �° =at a¢ ` �NYE =es =as v Y is Ti U g_ '4- 3 ill 4 a � tali !'Its $i ` L IT AT . as rL:«E $a ,J a Ni w 5S 11%I o 31 tg 221 rim n « YHw' $ r 3'1 s :sY C' s s h S 8„ N y L11 7M SC« +y L 1� 0 N�OL vL� OIS! A. � y s tO� y��� 3�6�fiN • M �+y. Y •� WN Y� W4VVV L `N d 0.yy 0 6. $ Y AU �[ M aXO to Y$ � y�+ C � v � v b 0.4 PC N 4 $ 4 �+'• aY Q �f"'�" �� O� L Y i •Y Y�'1" � ��y $ a aY v � dov'W'S W Y � is Ti U g_ '4- 3 ill 4 a � tali !'Its $i ` L IT AT . as rL:«E $a ,J a Ni w 5S 11%I o 31 tg 221 rim n « YHw' $ r 3'1 s :sY Z s s h S A N y ee H +y s 1� 0 A OIS! A. � y s tO� y��� 3�6�fiN • M �+y. Y •� WN Y� W4VVV L `N d 0.yy 0 6. $ Y AU �[ M N 1.1 .► �� � A N V i34q «L 'Sit: . as rL:«E $a 11%I « YHw' $ 3'1 s :sY Z s s !sit His- s Nijr 1� 0 A OIS! A. � y s tO� y��� 3�6�fiN • M �+y. N 1.1 .► �� � A N V L 4 w N yy Y + H QY JJ N mYy ®. L� ��� O' VMj MttC yNM s C N mss. ylo vgqx �6 oYep� i« y ■C CL`s v� Cti � «y__ C �ff,..a 1N g N � gyy v�� O P4N CL/yy V L ` N.0 YNY a °gYY �i �► a Eta b .C6 , N� `YYNC LL tg° ^ W «Y «w a V L: DLO o a ° 480 0Y g a g �° jj N C 1QY _ f� ` GGf y, pdyl � • B �' L. S � tl Nita,..'? N . c3 1 crass; �� E.13 �� 1s. 3.: »xa� � � Z �a s �� »k s wt N 1A � I S �I A i W A « {i L r3 tl 3� gi CYY Y Y Y s ZL O s « V r: W Y u tl V i XL 132 �TL N �i N � �ggg� W 1 M gt«Y .$ 2M M 3 N « ss « v ^ O N M +.1 $ 2 s '5111 Nr € N_ a Il m € z "Itu �N =� 23 =si « tzy��3 �iyog « a 'IM iflis L tl' °« 0`� N �� _ Van �•r� i�� N iWfU� tg.�3 W 11 1 L N 4L Q O _� p O� O1 y6` r ax w ° 8gq w =' d e5s q O V L j V V■ $c3 b A I O _C yy�Op Y�Y Z;,4 ` E I 1 u !i `daa " 2•+ Ian; Mgr fill 3i @zq / �. O. � N j� • yL� +� Mw KN HIP KW 10 c a i I I i Poor Q` 01 cv O �M{{ a O wL/a� yl�l Od L. • Y ,�qry M� • � 6 ��iTT t _ o wi�� Si • c +�vL .24 Yohas ° � V ~ t 0 N ` ~ � 2s,-- S Y N P p t �.� Y Zen —0 4a C•. .-gas p yrw�e. ib L i.di � 77ii Y w 446 Na� b ..� 1� O A ` `d A =OIL qM�r Y r3-3 7 CITY OF RANCHO CIJCAMQTGA ��ic�nro STAFF REPORT fY r a F z DATE: February 8, 1989 t9r� 1 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM. Brad Buller, City Planner "JY: Scott Murphy,-Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION' FOR TENTATIVE TRA_T 124':0 - MEkICKEL IiE9E. The eve oilmen t--o s.ng a am y a acch— `units on 14.3 acres of land. R the Low - Medium Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units ,er Acre) at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Heilman Avenue ` ®N: 209 - 161 -04, 05, and 06. 1. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 12420 was originally approved ;by the ann ng :,onmission on February 26, 1986 and was subsequently ext mded to February 26, 1989. On December 22, 1988 the applicant, Merickel Development, r %ested an extension on the tentative ma}. for the maximu<a allowable time in order to allow them additional time to record the final : -ap. According to the Development Cade (Section 17.02.100) extensions on approvals may be granted in twelve (12) month incro'r�rTs, not to exceed a total of five (5) year. from the original date of '*proval. II. ANAL'tSISF Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and has compare " the proposal with the current development criteria outlined in the 7evelopment Code. Based epon this review, it was determined that the project meets the Optional Residential Standards of the nevelopment Code for the Low - Medium Residential District (4-8 vwelltng units per acre). In addition, the %aineering Division hLs reviewed the project and has no additional cvhditions to add. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the planning Commission approve a one year time extension for Tentative Tract 12420 thro4,�,r the adoption of the attached Resolution.. ITEM C �J PLANNING COMMISSibN STAFF REPORT TT 12424 » Mer9ckel Development February 8, 1989 Page 2 Re ful UlIe - Cit Planner 8B.,SMcvc Attachments: L41- i Letter from the Applicant Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit"Bn - Site Plan Exhibit 2C" - Building Elevations Resolution 86-30,--.---, Time Extension Resolution of Approval t MEPICKEL DEVELOPMENT 12$ CABRILLO STREET SUITE 200 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 ' TFLEPHONE (7t ) 722 -1000 December 22, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Brad Butler Director of Planning PO Box $07 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 12420 Request for Time Extension Dear Mr. Butler, Please accept this letter as a formal request to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to extend the aptzoval date for the Design Review and Tentative Tract Hap 12424 for a period of twelve (12) months from February 26, 1989 to February 26, 1990. The tentative map was originally approved February 26, 1636 under Resolution No. 86 -30 and a twelve month extension was granted on February 16, 1988 by the Planning 'Zammis -:t3n Resolut o; No. $8 -27. As of this date all project plans have been prepared and submitted to the City and we have received fee and bond amounts From the City necessary for Final Mac approval. In order to allow for final approval of all plans by the City* time to post required bonds and then be scheduled for Council approval of the Final iiap, we respectfully request the extension as outlined above. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Rancho Park a I eneral Partnership Ronald P. YericKel President Nerickel Development, General partner E LA O . " PLANNING U VISION rrmg 00 TnU+.... SCAM C' Imp OATH SW—WA �t _r s1e+o�,u. TLbtAJITgrKi• _ tc�4 3xT W* cawmm lib, /4p LANMWW comma SrA.rH O, {. . ip,6(rp �7Ci?= sDl�•w:•tu fttmyt wlOyaR�{.. ur .l sb (sstata csaem. rarbcau ug ovl34xc -.4 x7 /Aaa unn cem SUM .ffnDw 1,16W 5? TM& r'''` ISO {...0 atmgr 13'' STM A4aS�HG. 9-39 aM11iQ Y _•_•. 3$—.r, HIA3C 8 "—#be m11A{A q$�a� � 7',1• M 40 Mu0 MFN"!NQ a j �ICiy J�Fbq i b� TILE- Ali°" AAA-1 EXHIBIT.- QSCALE: C RESOLUTION NO. 86 -30 A RESOLUT. N Or THE PLANNING COMMISSION Or THE CITY' OF RANCHO CUCAMOt;GA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT RAP NO. 124220 WHEREAS, 'tentative Tract Maa No. 1242) hereinafter "Map" submitted by Pat Favorite, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as the development of 1A0 single- family attached units on 14.3 acres of 'and in the Low Medium Res'ldentiai District (4 -8 du /ac). located at the northwest corner of Cth Streelt and Hellman Avenue into 110 lots, regularly came before the Planning CoranIssion for public hearing and action on February 26. 1986; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all zonditions set forth in tare Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Panning CmAnnission ;has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports ani has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as followa: SECT;ON 1: llie Planning Commission makes the folllwing findings in regard to TenKtive Tract No. 12420 and the Nap thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent ;with the General Plan, Development Cade, and spc*ifie plans; (b) The aesign or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired br the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. C-9 PLANNING COMMISSIOj—"SOLUTION i'T 12420 - RANCHO p . VILLAS February 26, 1986 Page 2 (g) That this project wi1'. not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12420, a copy of which is is attached Nereio, hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Design Review: I. Material stele board shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prier to issuance of building permits. 2. A1', fencing details and perim°.ter wall design shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any woad fencing shall be water sealed or stained. 3. Special landscaped szat nt 0 .e. accent trees and shrubs, flowering grou;id cover, and rockscape treatment) shall be provided at all project entries and at 7th and Hellman,-ari 6th and Hellman. 4. Security gate details and project directory sign details shall be submitted to the: City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. S. All pedestrian linkages into centralized open space shall be delineated by accent trees W+4 shrubs. 6. Final landscaping plan with unifying theme shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 7. A decorative perimeter wall or fence shall he provided along Cucamonga Creek Channel to the sati5faction of the City Planner. 9. A detailed lighting plan to include both hiq 11 ald low level lighting shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building Permits. 9. Dense landscaping, 15 gallon trees (20' on center) and shrubs shall be FromWed along entire west: property line. 10_ 10' wide texturized paving treatment (i.e. brick pavers) across circulation aisle i show. an site plan shall be provided. C '�. I C 1 0 PLANKING COMMISSIOrV�!SOLUTION t TT 12420 - RANCHO 4. A VILLAS February 26, 1986 Page 3 11. All guest parking spaces shad be identified subiect to City Planner review and approval prior to issriancs of building permits. 12. Columnar trees /shrubs shall be planted 'Mtween and flanking all garage doors. 13. Six (C) mature Palm trees along Hellman Aytioue shall be saved and re- located elsewhere within >p,�lject site, subject to the zp,; roval of a tree ri noval' per)rAt by City Planner prior to issuance of a rough grading prmit.. Tentative Tract: 1. The applicant shall nay 'an in -lieu fee for undergroundiag existing overhead utilifij2s fronting Hellman Avenue and 6th Street for overhead utility lines (except for 66 K.V. and larger electrital) prior to buildicg pezinit issuance or tract recordation whichaver occurs first. Said fee shall be one -halfi the cost for undergrounding the overhead uti*.7ty linos on Hellman avenue for the length of the ,project frontage. On 6th Street, the cost of undergrounding the overhead utility lines exiWmq on ' both sides of the street ;shall be combined end tog: in- lieu fee shall be one -half Ithe combined amount. 2. The access location on 60 Street, although :undesirable from a traffic standpoint, is a necessity for this proje•,t at this titre, and shall be constructed with Phase I of the project, because both 7th Street and Hellman Avenue are subject to closure %se to flooding. Upon the furaure installation of flood protection measures foi., Hellman Avenue, the 6th Street access shall be removed and replaced with an emergency only access. The project CC&Rs shall contain languaige to insure that this access modification is accomplished at the homeowner's expense at a future Oate when required bi the My. 3. An access location for the project shall be provided to Hellman Avenue. The access shall be constructed with the Initial phase of developme:,t, if it can be so designed to maintain a flood barrier along Hellman Avenue. If not, the project CMRs shall Contain languaie to insure that this access is constr'acted at the Pomeowner's expensa at a future dote (after flood protection treasures have been completed tar Hellman Ave - ue) when required by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION �~ '71,UTION TT 12420 RANCHO PAi.,. VILLAS February 26, 1966 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1986. PLANN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ,1Y1/�� ^ /16 Den-Wif L. 5to5t, C ai aro ATTEST: r �i grad Bullet, epu y ecretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by f,fie Planning Commissial of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a' regular meeting, of the Skinning Commission held an the 26th day of February, 1586, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RFAPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT C NOES: COMbKISSIONERS: NONE ift ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL qW RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RAN {,HO CUCAMONeA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12420, AND M.;KIRQ FINDIIMS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209.161- 04, 05 and 06 A. Recit0 s. (i) Merickel Development has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Tract No. 12420 as ',Aesczibed ire the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Ttme Extension request is referred to as "the application". (ii) O,t February 25, 1985 th'_s Commission adopted its Resolution No. 86-30, thereby jpproving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 12420. (iii) On February 0, 1935, this Commission vdopted its Resolution No OS-27 thereby approving a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract 12426. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 0. Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Conmission of the Pity 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. Oasod upon substantial evidence presented to this Conmisslcn, including written and teal staff reports, this Commiss=ion hereby spetifically finos as follows, (a) the previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance v th the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and (b) The extension of e.e Tentative Map will not cause significant incorsistr> .Lies with the currant General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Podet and Policies; and (c) Tian extension of tiae Tentative Map is clot likely t6 cause public health ane, safety probiens; and (d) The extension is within the titan limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. PLANNIm-t -a`ti rssrON RESOLUTION NO. TT 12420 - Mericket Development February 8, 1939 fag.2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in par�:aphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for: Tray °^ A Meant Expiration 12420 Merickel Cevelopr ,nt February' 16, 1990 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolvy ion. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THEE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chalrqan ATTEST: Brad a er, Secretaiy I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoinry. Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pzssed, and adopted by try 7 tinning Commission of the City of Pancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of tv\1 P'lapning:Cowission held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following wot - to--%dt :: AYES: CO.4MSS.ONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMSS90NERS: -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCaMONGA STAFF REPOWT ftr 0 DATE: February 8, 1989 r` Y TO: Chairmen and Mexiber:a of the Planning ConlIssion FROM: William J. 31'va, Deputy i`i"y Engineer BY: Gary H.Sheu, Assi'ktanv civil Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF ALLEY — a request to vacate alley southerly of 9th 'reed t and westerly of Calaveras Avenue. APN: 207- 241 -21 1. BACKGROUND Mr. William R. Skovgaard, owner of 8N6 Caiavems Aw�r _ 'lot 25, tract � 1829) requested the aili<y sous 'j of t[.,e property be _ - -46d. This request was first received its Dec:mber of 1985 and was disapproved because the C.C.W.D. has a sewer wain line along the A,T. & S.F. right W way and requested the alley for access. Later on, C.C.W.D. withdrew their objection to the vacation, provided that easements fcr ingress and egress are established in C.C.W.O. °s nafae for the entire alley. II. ANALYSIS: The alley is 20 feet wide, 156.58 feet lrno, paved and has barn gatW by Mr. Skovgaard. In reality, it is not usee by the pzOlic at this tine. Water drains in a easterly direction along the Mley. So, easement for drainage purpese is also necessary. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reconcends that the Planning Con®ission approve vacation of the alley as consistent sith the City's Genera; Psan and reserve an access easement for sev%* 7 ne asd drainage purposes. This recumndation will be forwarded to fiise City Council for f val ;Noproval. Respectfully sub*ltted, I William J. Silva, P.E. Deputy City Engineer WJS :GHS:1 ITEM D 1d �E9 Vr. p TO: %, 41 % CITY OF RANCHO CU AMONGA AUG � 5 1996 ENGINEERING DIVISION r`'cour�r* P. 0. BOX E07 RANC;W CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 NOTICE OF PROPOSED VACATION OF ,► /_q The City of Rancho Pucamonga Engineering Division has had a reqiMz to vacate and abandon that certain street or alley shown on the attached H „P. Please review this map with referewice to any recommendations or ci , °fient;5 which should ae considered is connection with this proceeding, The proposed use of the area which may be vacated is Pie a comps t the form below and return it to this office no lateen than Cordially, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME T C..t".,ej ENGINEERING DIVISION 4, BARBARA KRALL Assistant Civil Engineer SK:jaa RECOMMENDATIONS OR COMMENTS: { t 'M` �n /, 1.J �rW�, c.� �� � V►n ��. c�.�.c e.,..al L 4�, ♦/� L'11 �1 �. �rtlV.+�Pd t t Date .�r�p ��eys�rx�� .vr -rr+e .rr�.....Y ,aj�!S�ta.•' Y -_r. •^ ` at. mss, IMP 1� (& MIT: VISTA) CALAVERAS AVENI!` —i —; C �Tl Su- ��f • ;�� • _Q a o o d c-o o _ AZE V .— rn s.r • • ��aS. siw 'L w�arr���ww��.t•�' ' • ' � Y . AitY�.'� het ''� i^ i c ,aa. el ,rrw�' ,�.� , y_J'$ �• -.arm ''S�';K•n+�'E' ~d'�i` '�.•. r .afdJ• Q' ! ~ •, is A, �yr vas .. . r �2jYts " � i•p S � � J� � =3 ,• •r•} rr .,r+ +•R.sd'a, � r^ d��i+y'�:�. � s k:�� i; 4 ;�i v .i►:l• r #,a. i�� �+�'� ��14.,3`• fa. A�' fi`i.gji c ..�.•r�3�' rG.y.�a,1 ✓.a+js.r. ��,+ r�u. �" �. �i�F�aei��. �$ T.' �' i" S� }"�«r����re�i~E.''ti:a`.�... -. �.•�. ..I•.tr.w_ -:5ti�' lw -, r J a a•.. Q Q. 'L w�arr���ww��.t•�' ' • ' � Y . AitY�.'� het ''� i^ i c ,aa. el ,rrw�' ,�.� , y_J'$ �• -.arm ''S�';K•n+�'E' ~d'�i` '�.•. r .afdJ• Q' ! ~ •, is A, �yr vas .. . r �2jYts " � i•p S � � J� � =3 ,• •r•} rr .,r+ +•R.sd'a, � r^ d��i+y'�:�. � s k:�� i; 4 ;�i v .i►:l• r #,a. i�� �+�'� ��14.,3`• fa. A�' fi`i.gji c ..�.•r�3�' rG.y.�a,1 ✓.a+js.r. ��,+ r�u. �" �. �i�F�aei��. �$ T.' �' i" S� }"�«r����re�i~E.''ti:a`.�... -. �.•�. ..I•.tr.w_ -:5ti�' Ci 'Y OF RANCHO CUCAYIONGA STATF REPORT DATE: February 8, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William J. Silve, P.E., Deputy City Engineer BY: Barrye R. Hanson., Senior Civil Engineer SUBJEr,T: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A:AJD TiENTA:TIVE TRACT 14055 AYANESS INDUSTRIES he deveTapnEnt o tawnhouse units on 7 acres —Bm and in the Medium Density Residential District (8 -`.4' dwelling units per ucre), iccaied n®rt. of Arrt +w 411ghway and east of Baker Avenue - APR: 207 - 201 -31 and 12 I. BACKGROUND: The project was withdrawn frw the January 11, 1989 Planning Commission agenda in order for the "eveloper to obtair. an agreement regarding access through the project from the owner of the easterly existing mobile home pars: adjacent and north of this project. II. DIS;USSION• . The roaaeloper has experienced a great deal of difficulty in obtaining the agreement. The Developer contends that the mobile home park owner is in agreement with the access s�owti on the project plans; however, )e will not fonwily commit to the access until the is further along in the process. He apparently bf experienced problems with the purpose proiect at the southeast corner of fo:thili Boulevard and Baker Avenue reg -Ring drainage easetrents, which hay made him leery of makin1 coir,',stints too early in the process. III, CONCLUSION: Staff frals that the Developer hat made a good Faith effort to resolve the acc s, but has experienced circumstances beyond his control. Also sVif —' f�,jls that the dasign of the access as shown on the plaits is reasiY., °le for the mobile home park. Finally, Special Conditions 1 and 7 r quire that access issue be resolved prior to issuance of permits or ret4" � ding of the Final Map. Therefore, tree issue 0 access right is from ad$ 71n'nt of will be resolved during the p1w, check phase . ±f the proj,,�t or the project will not be grant=d final approval. Respectfully submitted, WJS ' gH:ly Attachmen8 ITrM E /0701-02 2-�9 �' Agenda 2 of Q70i O -� g a E CITY OF R*?(;v_J CUCAMONGA, S` AL F REPORT DATE: February 8, 1589 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROH: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner Gt1�`rvrG+�1, G� �9 a j r f 9 O h Z UI T 1977 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMEN?AL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 e development of own ouse units on acres of land in the Medium Density Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), located north of Arrow Hi shwa;/ and east of Baker Avenue APN: 207 - 201 -32 and 12. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action. Requested: Approval of the subdiv 1( —n Rap, Site Plan, Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan and is.auance of a Negative Declaration. B. Project Density: 11.2 dwelling units per e.cxc. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning_ North - MOD! le Rome ar ow= Medium Density Residential (4 -S dwelling units per acre). Souts� - Single Family kesidences; Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). East - Vacant; Medium Density Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre). We_t - Baker Avenue and Single Family Residential +eyond; Medium Density Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre). D. General Plan Designations: Project bite - ParK North - Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) South - Park East - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) West - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) E. Site Characteristics: The project site is currently vacant excepI, for tra ler and RY str+rn.;e in the northern portion of the site adjacent to the mobile hotine park. The site slopes gently from the northwest to the southeast. A dirt road currently crosses the site diagonally, which provides access PUNNING Ct1' MISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14055 - AVANESS INDUSTRIES February 8, 1989 F ;9e 2 from the mobile home park on the northeast to Baker 4venoq . A dirt road connection between the two mobile hoint parks o rs exists on the site. F. Farking Calculations: 115 units all with 3 bedrooms guest handicapped II. ANAL'fSIS: Provided 2 spaces in a garage (230) 58 spaces 5 spaces Total 293 Required 2 spaces in a garage (230) 1:4 or 29 spaces 5 spaces 264 A. General: The proposed development consists of 115 townhouse s units which are grouped into 3, 4, 5 and 6- plexes. The proposed units range in size from 1,100 to 1,500 square feet and all have 2 or 3 bedrooms. All units are two story, except for four (4), which are- located on tha ends of some of the 5- plexes. all of the units a;* Mediterranean in character with off -white stucco exterior and tile roofs. The applicant is proposing a six foot F,tucco wall around the perimeter of the project, as well as stjecco patio, walls. An access easement across the property currently exists in the form of ar. unimproves, dirt ro &. * across the site which connects the mobile home park on the northeast to Baker Avenue. Although this exact alignment is not being followed in the current proposal, the applicant has provided two access points from the proposed project site to the mobile hone park, which would still allow residents of the park to reach either Arrow Highway or Baker Avenue. B. tfei hborhood A neighborhood meeting was conducted on r 21, 1988 at which approximately 28 residents attended. Attendees primarily resided in the two mobile home parks to the north of the project site. Most of the comments related to retention of the accessway between the mobile home park and Baker Avenue. The applicant has provided two points of access between the proposed project and the mobile home park to the northeast. However, ,.sidents of the mobile home park were also concerned witt,, traffic from the proposed project through their mobile r+ome` park and the possibility that traffic from Foothill Boulevard short cutting through the mobile home park to Arrow Highway and Baker Avenue would increase. The -3 11 Ll E71 PLANNING COMI4ISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14055 - "MESS INDUSTRIES February 8, 1989 Page 3 applicant responded to this by proposing that the access roads have a sliding gate at their common property line, to which only the mobile home park resider�*.s would have a key. Residents also voiced coi;z,�rn over the construction schedule and wanted some type of assurance that construction or grading wuuld not occur on.weekends or in the early morning hours. The residents were also com:erned with dust control on the site. The applicant assured the residents he would have no pro_lem complying with the above requests. A summary of the neighborhood meeting as well as a list of tie attendees is provided In an attachment. C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review committee (Chitiea M axes ey, Krouti I F—dr-T—ginally reviewed the project on October 6, 1988 and did not approve it due to the fallowing concerns: 1. The project appeared to be over -built for the site and the buildings generally were located ton close to each other. 2. The streetscape along the main A ne road would be unattractive with parallel parking on one side and the potential for parked cars in driveways across the street. 3. The amount of usable open space was not sufficient. 4. Siared patio walls between individual units were identified as a problem area. S. The units along the north tier should be staggered to provide a more varied streetscape. A revised project consisting of seven less units (for a total of 115) was presented to the Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy, Kroutil) on December 8, 1988. The Committee approved the project with tie following conditions and directed the applicant to bring the modifications back as a consent calendar item., 1. The Baker Avenue and Arrct Highway frontages and the side elevation of the unit at the Baker Avenue entry should be upgraded to be consistent with the lever of detail. provided on all front elevations. Upgrading should include multi - paned windows, fascia trim, etc. 2. The Arrow Highway .entry should be signif:- cantly upgraded with some type of decorative treatment similar to that provided at the Baker Puenue entry. Some type of low planter wall may be incorporated. �t 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tr 14055 - AVANESS INDUSTRIES February 8, 1989 Page 4 Ll 3. The wall along the Baker Avenue frontage should not be six feet in height, but thre,. feet instead. Wrought iron may be used on top, if desired for security purposes. 4. The second sidewalk a1;mg Baker Avenue, within the interior of the project sit; should be deleted. The above irvodificatic "s were reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Ki ,)util, Emerick, KcNieli as a Consent Calendar item on December 22, 1988. 'the project was approved with the following conditions: 1. The low garden wail along the 3aker Avenue frontage should be upgraded with a decorative cap and /or some type of the detail. 2. Additional trees should be provided at the Baker Avenu ( and Arrow Highway entrys. D. Gradin4 Committee: The Cirading Committee reviewei was . oroject on UCTODer 3,, OEM, and December 8, 1988 and did d)t approve it due to the following concerns: 1. Artifically elevated slopes along the east property line. 2. Double wall situations and other property nine conflicts. Revised plans were submitted and the Grading Committee reviewed and approved the plans on December 19, 1988 with the following condition: 1. Any unresolved property line conflicts are to be resolved prior to permit issuance. E. Environmental Assessme,;t: Staff has completed the v rommen a Checklist- and found no significant adverse environmental i;Vacts as a result of this project. If the Planning Co=iission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaratl.in would be appropriate if the tentative tract is approved. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General an and the Devielopment Code. The project, with the added mitigation Measures, will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, hr cause nuisance or significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the rgcommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with Cs v PUWNI`G COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14051 - AAVANESS INDUSTR'£S February 8, 3989 Page 5 the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing In The a y- Report newsnaper and notices were sent to all property owners wi thi n . ,�f the project site. V. RECOMMUPATION:. Staff recommends that the Plannif?4 Commission approve '',e'`n*fa o� t Tract 14055 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and Issue a Negative Declaration. Resp 7iy su d, Br er BB:BN.ml g Attachments : Exhibit "A" .. Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Gra&ng Plan Exhibit "0" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Proposed Master Pl&i Exhibit "F" - Building Elevat.ons Exhibit "G" - Summary of toeighborhood Meeting and List of Attendees Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Tentative Tract Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Design Review �01111 a. IK m r AITY CF "ANC-7-10 CUCAW,,UA rrEmg lzdlm-rl MANNING DlVlqaN TnU. :nwrmm-n!K�I� EXHI' C -4 LCU, T. Iz 37.1- 2 r a. IK m r AITY CF "ANC-7-10 CUCAW,,UA rrEmg lzdlm-rl MANNING DlVlqaN TnU. :nwrmm-n!K�I� EXHI' C -4 i CITY CF RANCM CUCAMO & rrENi: 1:M rAn)or -r r f4os� PLANNING 1)(VMN TITLE. of 4; SCP►LE= 11 CITY OF RAM .. M CLTCAIMONGA R..PtNNING DIVUM E_ O p 1-- / / 11 A ' � ( �• rl•t• �r r r _ trrt rr r■ ■rr■■ r, J� In ) 1���t1111f yi1�I�1111Y1ti1� 1i�1t•Iiirriri��rirnruur�rSi� ...r..,,. �..._1:..... `a ... `" f- Ilinurrt tuntllllMllU�'� ::��+��jjlll+ +11!11 NI! ��� �� � , .: OWINNIA, 01 w1wo KKK K OwYll�n c .q. 7A11 SHE MYM Pilo I tv j � Ly owl" tv j � .nw, min 11 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 OCTOBER 27, 1988, 7 :30 P.M. LION'S COMMUNITY CENTER AttEndees were primarily residents of the two trailer parks to the north of the site. The developer made a short presentati-c-n to the audience which was followed by a ,iuestion and answer session. Following is a list of concerns voiced by the residents: 1. Residents were concerned with the distance between their homes and the proposed project. The developer responded that the proposed build ,a are 30 feet away fr a the property line and that a six W-it masonry wa1: would be constructed on the property line. In addition, patio walls and perimeter landscaping are proposed within the 30 foot set back area. The residents responded that they hoped the proposed landscaping would not include pine trees. 2. Co - -n war- expressed regarding windows ov second stories. R~ its eferred goat no windows 5e placed on the second st �e:. on those buildings adjacent to the north property lint. residents' felt that they Mould_ lose their privacy and wvu►c. be living in a "fish bowl" if windows weve permitted. The develoer stated that windows would be provided on second story levels. However, the architect pointed out that the living room /dining room areas had cathedral ceilings and that a second story floor would not be constructed in this area. One or two bearoom windows or a bathroom window per unit were explained as being the only ones which someone could look out of. The developer also explained that perimeter landscaping would i.elp eliminate some of the fish bowl effect. The residents, although pleased that living /dining room windows would noc % tually be functional, still seemed to have some concerns regarding windows on secone story levels. 3. The residents had concerns regarding the two points of through access between their trailer park and the proposed project. Although the residents wanted to ensure they hail access out of their park to Arrow Highway and Baker 1.anue, they did not want residents of the proposed c:ondowiniums to eke access through r � 1 NEIGHOORHOOO MEETTOq OGTOEER 37, 1938 TENTATIVE TRACT 1 s Page 2 their streets to Foo'thil:l Boulevard. They were concerned with ildren on bicycles rooming through their mobile home park. ey also pointed out that many non - residents cur -ently use their park for a,* shortcut from Foothile Douli�vard to :Arrow Highway and felt this activity woulc ,3e increased.rf access was provided straight through their ste. The applicant recognized the concerns of thz residents regarding the agave points but h -s3 no concrete solution to the problem at the time of the meeting. However. after th!! nd,eting the developer raised the question of using some type of ove -way gate which would allow the mobile home park residents access to the south but that would prohibit access for condominium residents to the north. The Engineering Division is curs -ently explcring the feasibility c>f this solution. It appear -a as though it could meet the requirement of providing access acr; +ss the site for mobile haop, park tenants while addressing the concerns of the surrounding residents. 4. One resident exur-assed concern that access was being cut off between the two rubile home parks by development over the dirt loop road. The developer explained that although the loop road which is currently utilized would no longer be available that residents of the eastern most trailer park would be able to utilize the road through the proposed tract, exit onto Baker Avenue and turn right into the neighboring park. S. The owner (of the N.A.P parcel on the northwest corner requested that a highar than six foot wall be placed adjacent to his property. City staff explained that a maximum 8 foot wall could hr placed in this area if i Minor Exceptinn was approved. Both the applicar:t and horse -owner want to :pursue this. 6. Finally, residents had general concerns regarding the construction schedule. lap} rsauld like some type of assurance from the City. that construction Mould not occur on weekends or in the early morning hoars. They also wanted assurance that water trucks would be utilized on the site to aainimize dust: during construction periods. 7. In addition to the above tiancerns the residents had additional questions regarding problems in the area. The group in general voiced fear and concern regarding the "iakrr tamp" on NEIGHBORHOOD MEETr "S OCTOBER 21, 1888 TENTATIVE TRACT 1 5 Page 3 O Arrow Hwy. They felt the City was generally unresponsive to their conctrns. They noted that shortly afte- the area was cleansd up, transients moved hack into the vacant 'lot. Concern regarding traffic on Foothill Blvd. wtis also expressed. They expressed the did ^iculty they have entering /exiting the park from Foothill Blvd. They also expressed tN need for a signal at Baker and Foothill. 3 was explained that this would most likely be constructed in 1981. St)me residents atatbd that they have been promised a signal for years and were- eairly skeptical that a. signal would ever be c5limtructed, I indicated that I would Confirm the scheduled coostructf a for the traffic signal and try to gee; a more definite, ac,; for them. / r7A�T lof0�� ra ?/ � r G�Pr�T G��Z -aa- ;�- _a 4;/rAl r =mss frf l 7 .. art Oekv4e.,g 4L — 4 f Vise s— yf 48 *" P 0-;'Off 7 P--5L0, / kESOLUT'ION NO. A RESOLUT110H OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC >WNGA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14065, THE DFVEL7PMENT OF 115 TOWNHOUSE UNITS ON 10.27 ACRES OF LAND, LOCAiM NORM•. OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND EAST OF BAKER AVENUE IN THE MEDIdM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PFA ACRE), AN!J MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, APH: 207-20I -32 AND 12 A. Recitals. (i) Avaness Industries has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14055 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On the 8th of February, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted 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. NnW, 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 Co:nnission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commi ?sion hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located north of Arrow Highway dnd east of Baker Avenue with a street fr €ntage of 132 feet along Arrai Highway and 198 feet along Baker Avenue and is presently vacant, except for two unimproved dirt roads; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is in the Low - Medium Residential District and is developed with a mobile home park, the property to the south of that site consists of olde, single family residences in the Medium Residential District, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is Baker Avenue, with single family residences beyond in 'the Medivp ^ensity Residential District. C-1 — PLANNING C05'NIISISON RESOLUTION NO. TT 14055 - AVANESS INDUSTRIES February 8s 1989 Page 2 E 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon tiie specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Conv.ssion hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General 'plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with th( General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable far the type of da <Qlopment proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause `substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. ".,,red ewn the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, odid 4 above, this Commission 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: Tentative Tract 14955 1. Some type of interim access between the mobile home park to the northeast and Arrow Highway and /or Baker Avenue shall be provided at all times during grading and construction of the project. Prior to occupancy, sliding gates shall be installed at the two access points into the mobile home park and gate keys, cards or some other appropriate device steal" be issued to residents of the mobile home park only. Accuss shall be r� E PLANNING COMMISISON RESOLUTION No. TT 14055 - AVANESS INDUSTRIES F. ' Mary 8, 1989 3 restricted for residents of the proposed project through the mobile home park, 2. Any walls within the proposed project which are to be greater than 6 feet in height, but 8 feet in height or less, shall require a Minor Exception prior to issuance of permits. 3. Grading and construction shall not occur on Saturda�ls nr Sundays and shall not occur between the hours of 6 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays. 4. Any unresolved property line conflicts shall be resolved prior to issuance of building permits. 5. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (talecommunication and electrical) on the project side of Baker Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the apnroval of the Final Map. The fee shall be the full City adopt,. unit amount times the length of the project frontage. 6. The following reimbursements shall be paid prior to approval of the Final Map. a. Arrow Route - For the construction of all street improvements along the property frontage, including the cost for undergrounding the overhead utilities; and b. Baker Avenue - For the construction of all street improverents along the property frontage. 7. Access shall be provided Through this project in favor of the existing mobile home park adjacent to the northeast to the satisfaction of the mobile home park owner. The access shall be resolved and tie existing blanket easement quit claimed prior to the issuance 0 any permits or approval of the Final Map, whichever occur; first. The access as shown on the Tentative Map is acceptabJe to the City. 8. In order to maintain two means of access for the existing:tobile home park adjacent to the northwest, an additional driveway or emergency only access shall be provided onto Baker Avenue within the mobile home park frontage.. This condition shall be waived if the access is not agreeable to the mobile home park owners. 9. The e.eveloper shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the access easements granted by the tract map to the residents of the mobile home park to the northeast. E _'�_13 PLANNING COMMISISON RESOLUTION NO. TT 14055 - AVANESS INDUSTRIES February 8, 1985 Page 4 11 10. Site directory (monument) sign(s) shall bR prilvided prior to occupancy at each vehicular entrdnee to the project in confonimance with the Vgn Ordinance, 6. The Secretary to this Consnission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY 4F FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COOMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry 2 , Chairman i;TT•EST• Buller, SZecretary 1, 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 yy the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meei',if►g of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: p��^��p MO.eJ 4sI L> G.Y6 10 'C ^ONC ^u ■ �N1` !Ni yYrY~ =iY OClQQ;Ii `Y 7d�N NI VV 6?. 4V +O wYOY YY YY $�i • N - -e o A t - i oeb� °; ^o r ±Y ? &i s�leg�S u 1:4 ath rop a «i� �'sr. S 9y.. .c'g ��8 $o �'�F��` ��aNM .+i��p •a goys e..� c �� �.I. aVYy y'r OM �p�YdY ��• pm�M.��� N Mei „YEN ^q yY! Y ]ry C e O °1 ygJ w e M O N 44 °Ygyq 9 Y NN•N SE ZUR �T yG. s�VOO %. �►yyOLxL1 i\ G PC B Y N ye. tY�eYO. o�����ff a`�.� "� +��� �rec :age. • °� �a�� s"a�`�` ^_ M {. MV�dQaacC3N0tl^ M 1 5=.I 1 M f ! iY7r rY!N N Y Y Y Sj fli e S is A J ��Y` a .41 ay N�Y^ Mao. 121.9 1 N M 9Y_ Z« a D MM ca I. Y t `� > N +� 6 a � ryK r r t3 m CY O ^ {.L ae_ si O x w d ^ 4 « ° V C Y < 7 V y r a: Otte y SOB _3 f1 gy�t a o o w N r u a^ H :N z -Syys $�, r« ao_+ yyyyy■ i X11 —11"33 . A A g 'O O p f C N CO��° >Lw2lN� 4 L 5 Eli y:ZQ� �f�q Y {eY�e�Yy . M�`410 s.NS yA-I Y.y gf ptwCFl Y LYpp �� Y�C�� Cpa�M S « + ^�^ °•�YYrw Y3MNs VSs siw $ 4Y yap °y 2 =�.^ tN '� oq y +y��.ic^ a6'�� "Q� i'���� •'.a L 6MCyy��+`« Y Yp`YsYMO JsN �N ILIY�- �• 6 V�Y • `` 99 nn }M. �i *twi ZY'L '�'syy gYM'MY���Yyy����Y�((+�+QyyQ i� +�,i�V�p�Y`�. •QA �L E�1cy �L3b �s lit s !■ s h N V V C N N M b a M Y Y Y f I t� C Z• S w N .li E.4 ! Y! %d t37i; -V tali o- 2 1 Ws Alm. $fir ii e��"� e « p + 2° s Y +-jee f � 3 N Y bC N Z 129 L Ir To V `r �t •p �LY....� 4w � j Y c!•� 3. 4Z0=s+ '1k j; y- O� • 1s OOY :G fi .IfivL O .Ol p c ~T� g _ G _ .kplQ� "`� �s• ;—M�� y �`4��i� ' 4a �VO YON O� \ V V Y °� ♦ ~iY •` CO V L"Ei+ -1143 rr.00 <r° NO ;V �i rJ OC. 0i1 F.`IMe .D 4 O; {J M Y ' V CL cu to O L71 11 iY Yy � Op V ^. ^OV. pY YL C« L GV TOI �iOp. YLO�.0 �ly� « ~YC {(pI -O_ �O CI� +.m.. _yiY C'L �}GC�Y� � ■CSVL yLy Ey**N C� �' 1 Y tl ,0t Y� Z 1► � CVC = 0O cY V �1 �j V u o$e .:�.i~ t-�6+ +V Yw ••A; °�C YsY Ci44 CY�N t .a p�� � C.1 .ti p N ■■pLp.. (� ,yC - Y O s j Yy Yp V M � �. - .!n C N u c Y O YY j1 i! z C O O O Y,« N N C Y L V-1 _N L C cc o� GI 6YN9N _101i�1 cV��Y 2 jCG i L NN ^ �) �OIJO 4 � 1 C+ •. b Q O.w�00 ^� f�O� w.A�O^ ��. `/ N1n CC ,C 01� =°VL• NVaI DO ��O �y ��yYtli4a YN db.� �tSVNtl GA Q ^YV «f ye Yy lfii O ! «MLy1 �p *V W�Q tp 0�� �4t /�� O�pO ��+ �Y •fin yc _AY �.� Q3 (n CL 4 OC {yN�G� w Y pYp V O LO�� yy�� IN• 02! _ vi °xfN EMS ` YY=1W y.�P�IL +C�N P!-■�Y !i'! VL�VL1 yOOYiOC 6�w l3 �9O„iLp ~rL� YO. VSO. L OVA p�L' LO�s!EG wY YyyyZ� ilk' Y O ^M `� CSC Cq� � +NM W �`s N•'O1 r��CP � 'c CMYCa3 /''�� LOO O^ O^ �ytO- AYw, •CO YYr'L -tlT O Ste°. a L ^CyN `O Y q eN +L 6 N Y L N N i N yyy 3. Oe •�$y MLw �N! �.�[ CMY N✓Lp L�tLVyOo _V C +1 VMOYY-Y CGp G' y•Y$. �NIUa woP�l yyyp : �'4 h`u Nsw� ..v L N L L i M L ■� J N V` N w! ± +� V w pp, .VINO N <N� '•<W aM0 ML'•Mi tN V•••w •) OI�M�O R -� f.. °f.y � a90.N f� .- Itf \I14i p mpy -I �01I .oi i Cy SCE siL Cr at NaVO c "L~ d� °s �. p� -i:NO o a v !s :lo-$« as 3 TL JH 1 cp ye1 L�CIIM L W °•!.'p �yM +oT N YY -.• C ° V.vyC IsWi� g• Y O 1 W r IfT Y E Ni QMMy Y� O Y�! - LO:C Xf�GgB�Oujj�,�p: «�1 'y{�OjL y7y! ^��O C �Y.-w W3 !Y•�N <Y R,b 6sTL W/L O42r` a G ti wi i ui r u .+ ni Ff zl e3 a 5 y$ z�: ^N ae ic ED H im R H !1� ° �WU ss �'.uC.pr Kcsic d� y Q^ a L G . -g W , yy� C La V H2 oy Oq {�Q'! ` tl a) b g� C vap� Vycy'? N �+Vg5aI MUyy00 L• Yuiaa0 1 �t6 No's Gq i. i iuo 0�3� irC' :so. ,a...M sell N...sQ�i'�: W a.r $�, Ms..Cae$.xsg a =w 5� o _ p4 uia armor a�CCs ^� �$� .i � `i '�(,� �y� o � j rVAP &Y_ +�, t -tee M3pp$4 3cc oilSr N a ^ e e M �qc� ^[1 t Yi Y M ■py N �' M pA 31 a � 4 t 1�1 r c 4p, N O Y L° ®� • _N ~ Y N Y 4 i • M 4. Q Lyit MV Y "1W 41Sarupwi5 a' �.vili his yyr� �!ccay+.�'. b V Lam• IOW C. l6l W.N rya qvb W VI $tt� �I x xI • O VI � � W ETL y& M r! IL O.^ w.N Y Y i9 12` _6 Ygw +�.0 Y- 0S ^ p d yy ^3 TL air= s$ S !v'' -a® 2$r yy a. O. s .cM.L +Y ON i IN J. +�Nyy M =3CM�aC pN� pppG~Cw- �Y -il M b O�yii �-N w a 3a_. ,,taa. iq a V �Y V Q.� xg L% Y wr A � `a Y O V U 4 Y s � c •1 F3� Y� Z � y i t x� 7q O i, i °s 4 � 1 C; C r �a cNMp N �p YO �I Y � � a pF O Y ~ `/ O d 4tN .0 Z"r y G m M� yY R�� O N V w -W 11 1 �J Z U a 0 aj 3 C gg,-y� 3. �� ryOYyr. Y�Y sua�1`'g�U A11pw ^" G� C Q wA vw�u`�n Y� s II w II wi to ^° L O`O IL�� MCP �Vp Pi s+ m F ' r J A O♦ �aeoc �i C b N � Y yy uTgw�`a �w Nw�^�C MV y ti M s iLL SHE i .Mi N � W 1W ltl A Y aa. to }g CC M i 3 4 .Yp Cx � �, E 8 Ma■ Yp Y �y }! 7` O 3i -1, Y --i� W LL as y�y �Ytf v4 r Val _a $u ug1 wL ~� pi ¢� ¢¢ � !. iWp / N {Lai da 6 •; �v'�•. i ,�� ?per g. S �..� i% u gii sit r EEE■E , its. oLdtla.�y � °.. Q t IIA � t• IIj�Y(�q 4 ,+a y YYsS �--1 _ . 0:y 1 1 jarih -11 IL to 3 e `` ` yyn �+ Y Jai 0�6�6 wtlYy1 p . �bbY� �¢w iy�$iR :vqi ff.�s �c'�r•y1>r1V y AIL tCR 01oY 811! Mpyy ytM0' Lh 1i 10�.° ♦� w b � 1A1��aat rot y +p. W V 4i R �.� AP Y• +4i tC 1i V ti M M t: l+1 tV 1N �p 1Q1 10 r t� 4.Lw q� W LLi 7 pf d Egg c � .n t.�II au S H h C a i o`l1 C L� V pp q4 Aar i s 4.. ro lit it s g y666 M 9 N V~ �y1 N p•� y�YII a SyM u3 q� M Y1OO F ' r J A O♦ �aeoc �i C b N � Y yy uTgw�`a �w Nw�^�C MV y ti M s iLL SHE i .Mi N � W 1W ltl A Y aa. to }g CC M i 3 4 .Yp Cx � �, E 8 Ma■ Yp Y �y }! 7` O 3i -1, Y --i� W LL as y�y �Ytf v4 r Val _a $u ug1 wL ~� pi ¢� ¢¢ � !. iWp / N {Lai da 6 •; �v'�•. i ,�� ?per g. S �..� i% u gii sit r EEE■E , its. oLdtla.�y � °.. Q t IIA � t• IIj�Y(�q 4 ,+a y YYsS �--1 _ . 0:y 1 1 jarih -11 IL to 3 e `` ` yyn �+ Y Jai 0�6�6 wtlYy1 p . �bbY� �¢w iy�$iR :vqi ff.�s �c'�r•y1>r1V y AIL tCR 01oY 811! Mpyy ytM0' Lh 1i 10�.° ♦� w b � 1A1��aat rot y +p. W V 4i R �.� AP Y• +4i tC 1i V ti M M t: l+1 tV 1N �p 1Q1 10 r t� 4.Lw q� W LLi 7 C.� a V y Ny .� G `���� N Y d •� s N o +� `MP yo �P; aY�` �Z ppw • a L I YN „goo ••� �s� m �,: s��4d � a � 3� A � �e �� Yob. Y.1 JIE 41 � • fq.L LYp 1 V'. yC� M H. e S Y 4. COI &In w rw X— -c?-A JgN.ti cp Ca i"yayd y y V li A N� ''r. ac NCGGQ Ito to GLp OyC CL V� CO �tT .x�Z rs M mu 15 -t Ct « L «t gg �w cP :&c �.'uu e 45 A V ~ YY y 0{L.N N� Mr a��6�� f: f{y1�0 LwY 'Eli GV �Yp.M —u iGe Q� pp >M �yy�.y L 11•- Y_�M c" gv q� d4 a� a p .y� aN-0E I �Oltlf. 1:4 ' �s rw J ` a' qAH � L V oL Via° V � V b C CS 9 C C VL 0 � N Cw Y N 4 K r M °u 5 « O yV tl yLp � 9 N 7� a N Y L nY. ti 3 M �f01 N Y tl —w y a Its 12 Y 0 - O €fig xs'F► �+ cV r! N sl s E7` t S S > � M r N �B L N a v I M(� � wit Cqq CL co tdo 0 11 Al., 113 zY l aV s . N Y- I.as{,,�� �.�� �Z ppw • a L I ®G $ir�� 3� Yob. Y.1 JIE 41 � • fq.L LYp 1 V'. yC� M H. e S Y 4. COI &In w rw X— -c?-A Cqq CL co tdo 0 11 Al., 113 O L C A M C. p L YL 6 C yy _L YG L6 6 C13 y a� L w� pCSP ou i gas ° yu y3 wag S 093 2 Y L'L � � • sYy'$�M L S�� • gB Y V pem O y Y • CpaM � L��Vt' 6 P 3 '!5 vgap Y ML N "q a 4v tt+ 3YY y Y L N L { fl «fr ft A bt � 4 y 1 •® ` 9 9 (j� " N Y a 3 $ a � u s s Y� b 4 L N§ p u w Y a- 2 —0 3i K O eV all r1; co c� 0 0 a_ et� �tX4 4 n r 1 �q+ .°.,v N ■�■. ° N yo v C Z � s 3 !ice° *48 `Tt I L a3 L�O PC L d q � � C L � ® o2w i gq s Vg's Y 1C V 6 w N 0 s N SZ YO � 6 SJ 4B8 MY' N r Iasi `=4 Y VPq L p{N� °i NP^ Y�•� y �JttO eM{S ion. �aa 4 n RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROV 'r DESIGN REVIEW[ FOR TRACT NO. 14055 LOCATED NORTH OF AR; HIGHWAY ANOt EAST OF BAKER MENUE IN THE f4FDI1:`l RESIDI AL DISTRICT (0-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), Aeio MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 207- 203 -32 AND 12 A. Recitals. (i) Avaness Industries has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 14055 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On February R, 1989, the planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meetsvg 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: v .This Commi.asicn hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and coorect. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting on February 8, 1484, i.::luding wr',tten and oral staff reports, this Commission her, -,/ specifically finds as follows: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That Via proposed design is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes or the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the apolic0le provisions of the Development Code, and 4. That the proposed de3i9r, together with the conditions applicably thereto, will not be detrimental to the ,,du fc health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or C improvements in the vicinity. f' r,32, PLANNING C"ISSION RESOLUTION NO, ORT 14055 - FVANESS INDUSTRIES February 8, 1989 Page 2 3. Based ^mon the findings and conclusions set forth in pav�agraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves "fie application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Sta(Jard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1. The Baker Avenue and Arrow Highway frontages and the 'side elevation of the unit at the Baker Avenue entry shall be upgraded to be consistent with the level of detail provided on all front elevations. Upgrading shall include multi-paned wi „meows, fascia trim, etc. 2. The Arrow Highway entry stall be significantly upgraded with some type of decorative treatment similar to that provided at the Baiter Avenue entry, Some type of low planter wall may be incorporated. 3. The wall along the Baker Avenue frontage shall not be six feat in height,. bt, three feet instead. Wrought iron, up to three feet in height, may be used or, top, if desired for 5enurity purposes. The wall shall be stucco, panted to match the exterior of the existing unite and shall ii.°: upgraded -sith a decorative cap and/or some type of the detail. 4. The second sidewalk along Baker Avenue, within the interior of the project, shall be deleted. 5. Additional.- trees shall be provided along the Arrow Highway frontage. i 4. The Secretary to this Cormission shall certify to the ado;tion of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r F I BY. Larry T. Mcklel, Mairman j ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary � '33 K'J PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION N0. ORT 14055 - MANESS INDUSTRIES February 8, 1989 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, ,passed, and a&-ited by the Planning :Comission of the City of Rancho Cucam¢ Via, at a regula., meeting of the Planning Loirshission held on the 8th day of Fete .'ary, 1989, by the following vote- toaeit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMtSSIONERS: E 34 .yLrYwLY ^l L tl.�....�M M} M tl y y $L _ aw m y. q bit; `� E$ OL .:� ..x aM +Ii py } o pw i� gg gig y! d� » i. rigs sa t� !A q • _.� �YQw w IF a6 "4 age ;S 111 : -g d �> yC ��� Y - p E 3 Z a L p�Y �w{ '� 0 YaC�' iV N'��..� y.Y+p p M! Y Y M Zia! p _ M Y ppogYa Ili ° fi e, ''t�,q ;a TL ` tl i �M t �® . dt 1 N S� e 9L Y' F! M a s OP Y �K.. it u s s. M p rte. Y p K ��'++++ A � Y ; wwwww������ w a s , 11.2 �, " :; = , c. s i.c. !_aS$ .rte, cu to 64 1C Am Y ®bw V M Y M x� Y $ ++ 'j • F u C _ 3 Jr `ism: Oi VV `` MM••� I -- 11. 4, Oy= 1VSl ff O3�V i ab f -- I VV Nqq L Y Y • Q w y q P VIES i a r o SS ,tpf `Og L •y `w um si Y " .- d b r Y y 1 Mw i cgs � TO O M Sb gi N1 fA qq r awwa iT W» 6y ■■Q M a _ • r FS T j% i1- 3 Y RY CV Zvi IJ cc a •°+ .°y N » 93 ffi s Lam = Zo to t i PL "'jig S TL °s 0 i ~ B i i Z YM. O. it is it's pI ` y 1p — i M ; s a Ate 3 xgi lit M ��- Ii. dpi NJ • .T �� 14- r` - — » us e W Y ss��r rid O Y a�� b +is •sir 6 V h i ,I M w a 6 Y � d �Q a }u � Ta a ii iy iii i..FgroZ «-4 ' I. -al s it Az '` a ;1p. $'.'i.. `o 1 �� ®` � �N ^• i ». �` ` aN 2 '« �NsY C .g °_ y g yyer .$ e aa2 a ses%& r rNs = �e• r zN g ` 21 T F ; (N w« � .� ' rbr 2: fl ai� O r YN s A AL NiM «N = ..• _ 4Ni �'Y NO M s44 gFS' � •� �O •p w a w o e� ^g Is L N IL ^ A M;; _ sm 8 a V S V w �s 3yyy !� .9 . �a ~ a y sn's so IRA g 2 a «i • g �`�� _�� Va c'•e! �SG y� raN 1 s�.1 u. ga M��$yy � a� 6Y M ►. •N iul 6� f s � ::1 F 1'1' rt:a �rg� 3t i`` �� s!a VY tai lot. U 1 e 2_ « V t! e � •n Abp liv V `f rrym t1!! V 1* m N N a X's-col Aa oft- NB • a Mimi ` Z 12 t2C a y y V y + e vv- _ ,SAP s S_k r "`err � i Q Naa .'¢a <StL wgosA2a a N I .... __- L.J fib' CY I- CL to O 11 O w ti i Y•'� N A «ems a Y Sg a •� Y A. �r �� a.Y sas 33• Y: —�� V r! J si t- 1w- ��pr �.�� +moo ^� fir- °'• g��i� ��5 =�..� ��i� � �o � Zvi°s U4 s54 °7► s. «ffi s a $Zia F# -,- s y ^I XI Y =` A `a � � all .Y• —�� ��'� �® .: ?'.� `� .. tl01 s s Yak d IL oil Ze -22 TL Skis s�:: « low —NO— jAL ti M Fig a Nor Yia VICE iijv y$a tu"s fee a _ u a. 'T a i a ciilo c� 4 MF ex! a`.y Vp yi q7�Ny �qp0 `1M1� ��� 4F Wb`�° aYoi�.�■ � �^� Oy "±i I. L qty, Qt / Al iP a !l if yy ■*$ Y .HY �{ q ar Bari v ` 3 y �1 aK J' q 1R !I Y4N p 12 U' r n 1 V 14 `3 ss i � > i� s » a M �s .3 9 JAZZ a S = ° °; 'r Vill ^�s k =$ a = hr s L at t P.& Is A a ;Xy .11 AJ. .pi aV Pf = as 4� R NBt' fW N E 4 V v N O J w +77 ^1 Y Hq Be • p r . r r ^% N N =Y A N W _ N ^ N • _ 1i r " ;Ir pisz 9a � i fie° - _ "i! Yr i �L f -g.w x" IQ43*1 i is i ' s aev 'c► kj� o a it. co f a H Y YI vii: txb� �t i 1 C1'i iv oil. '6b jam � « M N �.2 - 9 � -• 6� 2 ! j 1 � Y� is I rj a Us SIX 11 �► " 22 " 1 �� V ■ its im w� � rayy F ■N w ~ u N� Y. 4i af W 7 t. • f (i1 O �. U tY ` MW NA ••� {� s s ( S o ca c but lao y� nyY sz_ 0 age -3, Y» X V �rr L• eY� aO� w V A ¢U�33 MmA rvr.0 s C1��e Y YO 1 pj= 4 a W\ r • _ ri a NVYs_� a_? a t ago = s 51 Sri �� � �� � �� :Cu �+�� Qom•' `�_ g" t sYZ� $_: °s u md r �s a3 ` f_ °� N ' NV. SIB 1. ff P P YY Mme• !. �.MM Yl i�ia~ 4 N Y -4 N � ti y w 4�0 Tf p lif pCUP: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: I. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 8, 1989 Chairmdn and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Chris Westman, Assistant Planner consisting of five structures totaling 30,770 square feet on 3.8 acres of land within the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Haven and Leman - APN: 201- 262 -48. BACKGROUND: This project was originally appro% d June 24, 1987 for a two year pericd. The applicant tas obtained building permits for Phase I at the easterly portion of the shopping center, however, permits have not been obtained for Phase II which includes the car wash at the west portion of the site. The applicant is requesting a tine extension in order to allow Phase II approvals to be granted by the City and for developing working drawings for building permit issuance. II. ANALYSIS• The project it in conformance with current development sans. Sho11d the applicant propose any use changes to Phase II, a modification to Conditional Use Permit Number 87 -04 will be required. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the time ex nsion for Conditional Use Permit 87 -04 foes ono (1) year u it June 24, 1990. P u l b d, Br e City annex BB:CW :js Attachments: Lettor from Applicant requesting time extension.. Exhidit "A" - June 24, 1987 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution No. 87 -98 Resolution of Approval ITEM P GREEUSF=L COMPAJ ' Dan., Coleman City of Rancho. Cua.,-.oy,4a P.O. Box 807 lUatcho Cucamonga, CA 91730 January 3, 1989 —RECEIVEID-P. 0" Or W.0 An JAN 4 1999 Re: CX.P. 37-04- Chaffey Plaza Dear Mr. Colemhn, This letter servee as request ijr a twelve -month extension to the above, referenced C.U.P.. The Zirst phase of the project is almost complete, and phase two is abrut start. We feel "o' that while it should be close, building parmits 20Z phase two may not be pulled aefore expiratioi. of the 4C.U.P.. To insure compliance in the wake of any unforeseen delayx, we would like to apply now, before the expiration -sate. Thank You, Jerome Greubel General Partner Chaffey Plaza Partnership It 2a aARRETT LANE 0 SANTA A . CALIFORNIA 92709 0 (71418' 1:3 61 E CI'T'Y OV RANCHO CTJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 24, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of tN : Planning Cotsmission FRW4: Brad Buller, City planner BY: Debra Meier, Assistant Planner n z 1 r 0 0 F z 1911 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE ?ERMIT 87 -04 W. ITECfa'` - -"The IFve T open f off" a Relgh55rflood commercial Zo-p ng center consisting of five structures totaling ':;,770 square fleet on 3.8 acres of land, within the Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) located at the southwest corner of Haven and Lemon - APN 201 - 262 -48. . I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re nested: Approval of site ple^:n, building elevations and I ssu` an— ca oT a X. tative Deciaration. B. Surrounding �L__a��n__d�� Use and zoning: or �WN-� raven pcFWMs and single fami'Dy ,: esidences; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per ac ~a), and Medium (8-14 dwW inq units per acre. South - ThE Garden Condominiums and vacant lapd; Mediun Residential (8-14 duelling units per acre) and Office Professional (OP). East, - Tile Lucky /Payless Shopping Center, Neighborhood Coar+:hercial (NC). West - Single family residences; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). C. General Plan Designations: �?, ec � e - .l'i'g�i%s,`r"Fiogd Commercial North - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and Kadito Residential (8-14 dwelling units par acre). South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Office /Professional East Neighborhood Corrercial West - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant except for the Mobil as t "'°at: tT, corner of Lemon and Haven. Some improvements were partially co .:tructed some time ago, including Curbs, landscaping, anei parking lot ;laving. The PLANNING COMMISSIC ;TAFF REPORT CUP 87 -04 - Donley - Bennett Architects June 24, 1987 Page 2 Cucamonga County Water Distract is utilizing approximately 10,000 square feet at the southwest corner of the property for a well site. E. Parking Calculations. Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spacer, of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Retail 25,050 1/250 100 100 Restaurant 4,000 1 /100 40 40 Self- Service Carwash 3,720 2.5 /stall* 23 23 1,nomoti ve Se -vice 1,000 3 plus 2 /bay** 7 7 Total 170 170 * 9 washing stalls ** 2 service bays II. ANALYSIS: A. General The shopping center is composed of three buildings an en e for neighborhood commercial uses as well as a fourth structure which is intended to house a Lube `n Tune automotive service facility and:a coin - operated self - service �arwash. The Cucamonga County W, , RStrict well site is anticipated to be in use for ten year ae carwash is intended to be an interim- use of the remainder of the parcel while the well is in operation. Upon termination of dater District use, the applicant expects to more fully utilize this parcel within the Neighborhood Commercial deve`.apment. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Chitlea, l:a e+aan reviews a project on May 21, 1987 and rec'mended approval of the project with she following conditions: Site Plan 1. Provide direct pedestrian circulation linkage from the center to Lemon Avenue and Haven Avenue (see site plan, Exhibit 2. The conceptual desigi of tl.e central plaza, including all appropriate pedestHut i unities as well as special landscape and handscape trcotment, shall be rreseoted in the form of an enlarged detail for review by tits Planning Commission prior to approval (see'Exhibit "DO). PLANNING COMM SZ STAFF REPORT CUP 87 -04 - Donley- Bennett Architects Tune 24, 1967 Page 3 Architecture 1. The rear elevation of Building i should be detailed with a stucco relief arch treat -ant. Also, provide an illustrative perspective of the view along Haven Avenue toward the rear of �3u,Ming 1 for review by planning Commission (see Exhibit "F "). 2. The rectangular elements of the towers be cut completely through to provide a more dfifined shadow pattern. 3. Details and /or sections that illustrate treatment of columns and soffit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commnission (sre Exhibit "H"). 4. All storefront: elements, including window frames nd mullions, will +)e wood, as indicated by the applicant. Landscaping 1. Tree welts should be utilized within the parking lot to aide in achieving the parking .,,t shading requirements (see Exhibit "C "). 2. Landscaping should be utilized along the west and south property adjacent esicences. screening plant materialpia shopping center west boundary should include tall growing evergreee trees to provide such screening. Lube `n Tune /Detail Shorn Subsequent to Design Review, the applicant modified the project to include lube bays and a detail shop in the carwash building and reconfigured the carwash portion of the site. The original site, as reviewed by the Design Review Committee, indicated two carwash buildirg3, running parallel from north to south. The revised plans propose as L- shaped configuration with the tube bays located adjacent to Lemon Avenue and a detail shop it the southe ?st corner of the building. No revised elevations have been submittA . to reflect these changes. Staff would recommend that the desi n or this building and the location o f the lube bays do asks to thi Design Review omm ee C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has re— ewe a project and c]eiemined that with recommeided conditions of approval the project is consistent with applicable standards and ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSIt STAFF REPORT CUP 87 -04 - Donley.Bennett Architects June 24, 1987 Page 4 D. Environmental Assessment: Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study an comp a ono ar of the Environmental Checklist, staff has identified a potential noise impact generated by the self- service carwash upon the adjacent one- and two -story single family residences. The' applicant has provided a noise study which identifies acceptable noise levels and minor mitigation measures necessary to insure these levels are maintained in respect to residences along the west project bo%. dary. E. Neighborhood Meeting: On Wednesday evening, June 3, 1987, a meeting was —he o scuss and inform the surrounding neighborhood about the development of the shcpping center and the serf- service carwash. A large num er of the ;persons in attendance were residents of the Garden Condominiums to the south. Comments generally were concern over noise generated by night deliveries and early morning trash pick -up behind the large retail building. The applicant worked out a compromise with the residents; by lowering Building 2, the wall and the landscaping become a much more effective screen for both view of the building and noise penetration to residents directly south of the property linl.. Another resident at the west boundary described a difficult wall situation where they would need additional privacy and protection from the carwash activity. The applicant agreed to develop a wall design acceptable to residents along the west property line. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the General Plan and ne eve oilmen o e. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed site plan and building design, together with recommended conditions, are in compliance with the Development Code and City standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The ay e r newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to a1T property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION° Staff recommends approval of the site plan and building e eva ons ar ssuance of a Negative Declaration. 4Respec ly su ted, er BB :DM:ns �` iV i, t�� PLANNING OWISSI( STAFF REPORT CUP 87 -00, - Donlny- Bennett Architects June 24, I947 Page 5 Attechments: exhibit "A" - Location leap Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Plaza Detail Exhibit "E" - Building E`ievatioAs Exhibit "P" - Perspective of Building I Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan Exhibit "H" - Soffit Detail -' Resolution with Conditions of Approval i, t�� CITY OF ITEM: PLA.NNItiG DIVISK)N EXHINT =—jeL... E: �S 0rig naI Now Quality CITY OF RANCHO CUCAuNj ,NGt1 PLANNING Djv SIGN ITF.M. Opp -- TfTi,E: EXHIBIT - SCALE= F -9 � V NMTH f GIs �1 z- !. w w9 -w KC NZ Poor Quality, ^` •MIOTIM! AY>NIppNT1AL lMpPswFTlri. 3M'4GC0:. LbOtNP � C". -tK.►. i GbMA011 TMJ.M Mr► sww.y�+,.am rr+ /�.� lan+s nb /�, ! f 7 >'S.NI'111�ANMAIJA �iGRCO�1'+/!'rL7'MR OV L�Ma++YM1 V•11K+�.J►r:'fYO,^.�ww L1UtM�p• Mw'aD W11'Y" 1 l�Mps I�OwM 1w.+KI �TM�CW, GK'1�%I�/M �!� .AWN NO W4 4,aocw .. El .V (s w/ M IMMefw'a Y'' ►rlw ara>Nrw rsrw+sv wwaM, �usrrr�xao • KA!' w39 w. Ks �TcM O +N� wfAt�+.C� eM.cMwIManY � n ewtvyL�P4w.L'oYw w 4aN�n.000i M M iet lvow 0t z- 1 s�•azwsa. M 'JNir/l9 �/ 11�i OiaS1+1�T104 p0y�Mp�M�wis WCrLMNii INa' 1.K4. W>d..► •.'ls'MY Ai► � f.'�1 •. {.1M17 M�+ICMLti K MI4cYU iMIL1'.ITOI M�6 A 1w wm WM. Y LIMN/ YNhA. Y LI/r 7> �Nlp? ♦ i1ML. i'>! w1 A�LIWi! 7D •LI�iU 110.1NPhDi�. OILM. uiM:M �'LAV Ott. b A.b1PmTp.'� Ott I�N►aSA6. /A!/.7� �//17YIwM• — NKWH CITY OF i RANCHO ;, NrtTITLE: nLAtiV /\G DIZ ISM Ev3u r= 4e ° scALE: Original '} ,+ drs.orwe� N* 2. „a.rr _ '� pPrrrrrs�— GbNGEPTUH.; t't -AZA rLAN VF�'� vivo-team - ' ®rional P ®Dr Rualety ■ �+r,ars; w INLAZ^ (ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCANION Tnu Aj 'a- ll PLANNING DIVbcla i EXHIBIT: —P_. SCALE: F -0 pe.4 ac.7r�ow; MI a a a r••ri rrc s INLAZ^ (ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCANION Tnu Aj 'a- ll PLANNING DIVbcla i EXHIBIT: —P_. SCALE: F -0 pe.4 Original Poor Quality Ri PAW IA;.- 1-9%A04 %4��. �.��1i/�T.Y� �� — e'a♦ _ ... «.ate ♦ 1 � 11111 Lti!« NORTH CITY OF 4W07-g74- T A RANG � UCAjvjQ11 ��iA TITLE= - -6>41 PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT =_..._r./__. SALE= P1 a ac:o cnacu Ofig al Poor Quality �71�'i�.if(�isiPhiil @i�a 8 mid I err, CITY O PLANNING DJVISIQV rrEm. ell SCAt.I:= ' -r C 'H original poor Quality "M fill Will' CiLw CITY Or. RANCHO CUCAIN.10 NGA PUN* 'ING DIVLSn--,t rlv NORTH ITEM. TME.- EXHIBIT. SCALE. . . ............ 13M 11 Original P1or Quality Bits YiNr ,. Ij* . i NiftfidMNTi/ll�P'Wi'/Rtl@�h r } i.r 'sue FIII _..y.�i,...A. ttif C auy i�r..a -_„"" I.® �i�,.y.a•�y iMT • - � Myyfa• jj �. Jk�EaPYG�.' �•.i 1st' �w.r�,rR;,�•,y It • • + ry....n. .......a.. � �y�y� !1M1M1`JilIl�iYI�J•P.wtl�Y•�uy {t6•wl y` 4 —N;aa w- SL'E4ieii Y-Y IM7 3 w•i:`w'w'iw rrt° l�ilpli M.'G NWH ary OF RANCHO CI:CA�-VIO i~XH'Arr. SCAU, = V-am AW Original Poor Quality C ttiQR'iH CITY OF N G MEIVI= RANCHO P"NNINE DIVISIQN EXHW -.- ",ALE. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMISSION APPROVIMF CONDITIONAL USE KRMIT NO. 87 -04 FOB A NEIGHBORHOM C"ERCiAL. SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE SUUTHWEST CORNER OF LEMON AVENUE AND HAVER' AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHM01 CCWERCIiAL DISTRICT - APN 201- 362 -48 WHEREAS, on tha 15th day of April, 1987, a complete applicaticn was filed by Donley- sannett Architects for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of June, 1987, the Rans-o Cucamonga Planning Commission, held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cuco wnga Planning Commission resolved as -', OM 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan. the objectives of tie Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which t:he site i- 1 ecateil. 2. That ;h, proposed use, together with the .ohditicns applicable thereto, will not be datrimental to the public health, eifety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvec_„its in the vicinity. 3. Mat the propogad use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2. That. this project will ' t create advera impacts on toe environmen a—M-ffat a Negative DEclaration is 'jsued on June 24, 1987. ACTION 'ra That Conditional Use Permit No. 8744 is approved subject to ee 'Mowiiq conditions: I ING DIVISION 1. A combination of decorative ►:alts and landscaping blending with the eg sting residential development and the proposed ^.enter shall be utilized along the west and south property lines to insure screen' -.g of the shopping center from arlacent residences. IN pant material along the ,lest boundary shall it 1Dde tall growing evergreen tries to pruvi'de such screening. Plans showing the abov, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to i.mance of building permits. r. Resolution No. CUP87 -94 - Conley- Bennett ArchV icts June 24, 1947 Page 2 MIM Mr 2. The rectangular elements on the tosjers shall be open completely through to provide a more defirad shedow patteril. 3. The south elevation 0 Building 1 and the west elevation of the carwash /servi€;e area shall be detailed with a stucco relief arch treatment. 4. The columns supporting the arceaYes shall include o base detaining to be reviewed prior to issuance of building permit% B. noe design of m"s wesUrly portion of the site, which includes tire carw►arh, tube bays and detail shop, shall by reviewed and appr=oved by the Design Review :omeittee prior to issuance -of building permits., ENGINEEi"ING DIVISION 1. Existing Overhead Utilities s, Lewin Ayenusk - An in -lieu ' .» .ontribution to the future undergroundin§ of the existing overhead Utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the opposite silo of Lemon Avenue shall be paid to the City prior tF the issuance of building permits,. The fee shall be one -half tht Ci'V adnpte4 unit amount tiwL!� the length frca the center o.j Haven Avenue to UA kmst proloct boumdtry. b. Haven Avror.z - An in -lieu feQ for reimbursement for the undergroanding being completed for the existing ovarheod utilitimt 1,10!conmjnlcatian and electrical) on t" opposite side of 11aven Avaiwe shall be paid to the .4ity prior to issuance of building permits. Thf f+e sha1: be one -half the City- adopted unit amount %Ames the Ungtl of th►, pro.Ject frontage. 2. of -ioI of intdntion to !,orz and /or join the Lighting and Lands,t ing wistrict spsa3l be filer; with the City Council -- ro rrordation of the map or issuance of building *Mchever occurs first. 3, r , * for mo -half the cost of the construction, incs.rO — ad5Capi0g, of tha median island an Haven Avenue ,`.atl be p&;1A to the City prior to issuance of buildir,,i ;�rmits. The fzo shall bo based on the length of the Haven Avenue frolltav of the project. Resolution No CUpB� -O.S boni Rrta�ett Jlrchiiects ' June 24, 398T Page 3 Al.AtdNii(G C,sARat�ED AW ADOPTrD T' .5 24T'4 04Y OF J"E, 1987, SISSION OF TAE 1'y OF ��„ f Cl' CND CUCAMOkSA ra 4Y- ).� �L411 ATTEST; I, Brad BUI1er Rancho C c ' Oeputy ! • V `etar re9Uiart °n�au do her(-,y <:art of the P1�:rdS ',-Omission Y nt+ dUced, A °,used and the for'g , Omission of the City City of R�,-�o Cugaawan adopted b 7 Reso,L, tun gas of an tF 24th day of jUiSg .1 7� Bk r' rtfin t Anning C s as (U4 f and fal 'Wing vothe lannIng C"' issian 1d tiYES: CCY�9ISSIONEKS: wit; NOES. TOLSTOY* ENERICK„ Bt�iKESLEY, CYITIE4 . MCNIFL C"isshs; NONE ABSENT: lag CCmrssIONEfis; RONE f i 1\ x W 9 r 9 O ■1Yyya�r j{ UN . Y g'; yy 7f JIG S• Y ;1V�pQQ Qar 1` 2y�2�tl ♦rY• r Y 4A `MY On .rte - Y�yoy1r y � N 1 i Original Poor Quality v � $ v�t 11 11 row RIP us I It ~.. t3Y� lit - 1" .. M, 141 Y1 r 11 11 ev i441 120;$ g,,E Sri_ d §§ _5=3 W� iz I k." 7'l�]JiiirS� ' o d 5.tI SS ?gaaA�o ° i3oS Ca3i� " fig!, b��� a Ir g �'i� �y`yX`3�� s+�8lrC.es� •t� _ a"�`_�ja}{t.�=j�j� � �q� 3�E � }�``$p �$� Vue 11 A Y_ 4pi— Mk; Lar..€ igY.o Nom. "bsilk, IL�■ YS t�OSM N6 Crig"'al Poor Quallt `4:?TvIx= vi � 7 4 � N I ;fit j -S NVI _ s �s s uflii JAM 3jTj.jjS ts IS Sej Wa �I +l�..SI.. [ggrpj}I� ��11"O iqqpl' a" a V oil -0 <= ra mN .-a�'c e�»°i �������� ~I �I W m a �`c +e `r b -M� �y 3 NY�N 9 a.� s 6 a� 0 rb 8p N p M tl V N N L L„ N q uI3 J N � S yN i s ar i� y e� UZ a HIi �w s� T� wf r r - ° s� x 1 -r ' e 8 jig is is- a SZ it V tral Yw Ya �p n Y.. jNr 4-8 's V •NNr �tl ������.� -•fir Y ' .JUM. ILI a Nr �� Nw < N �H s) Original 8yy`igss�� � gY,�rS �y J ayOy N �t� tots i . <. '41 i�s Poor QualitY OL a Alas IL #�.. =i�,� M�qq Sr � ffi� ���& Via, �,� � �•p.����d e LJ :_' 11 E 4 3C 7 m r »sE a� �s Ya N , 3 �Yap� cap as y a a i er y 4 P fit e M w a� hu 20 slit lilt I g Is=:. c %IV M l i — tl+ 9 3 y V A�YS &w�bii: 6= OO !u ji 4+ M M ~� Original moor s To •_ w �N� N �t �s is i w *� `�xrjr ? Ds Ora tic a g 3 y W Quality - •�s r l e�� M y— a 'j \yt) f a M �0 Y p �ef V y� ` a3�' uY Z - w liz�SE 9 M M Y � 121m Bake 6 r Q� _mo g 0 619 �Q q. mow» yMy oV�r� pia ��# Sii ,y�:jk$gg•�g: ! T R1 fit x� i • Y O *sa: ' w Y W r »sE a� �s Ya N , 3 �Yap� cap as y a a i er y 4 P fit e M w a� hu 20 slit lilt I g Is=:. c %IV M l i — tl+ 9 3 y V A�YS &w�bii: 6= OO !u ji 4+ M M ~� Original moor s To •_ w �N� N �t �s is i w *� `�xrjr ? Ds Ora tic a g 3 y W Quality - •�s r l e�� M y— a 'j \yt) f a M �0 Y p �ef V y� ` a3�' uY Z - w liz�SE 9 M M Y � 121m Bake 6 r Q� �3 �a =2 %J3 CZ � `di�•a *','.�fa `as i�i � g� Es� 3 4 IN s irl a �, 41 $■ y _a3 N yy g ,31 N ^ a Original Poor Quality M Wi W � i 8 ll 4 Y} 11 a a sill a R�a v� y� iyi II nn+ N+p i 4 �$ _= v r - v - - - - - -.. r�2 !4 Ea Li 8 y� iyi II nn+ N+p i 4 �$ _= v r - v - - - - - -.. r�2 !4 Ea 9i � �• wag Y 2 -2,2 Asp ILa :a:� a ss �w o Its _ ay2 G + 2. _i NI �i •i ARK Original Poor Quality • N Y r � V � V � o k :s ^� b M y M a 4 *ft e r-1 ` q;I *I _! s� m 3 its 1s' M 92 a l[ i I � I 1 b iV @ 6V ` .s d. g s 7 0 x w w a x a� z W t� �j�{r� R • r y f � M4f jilt M all , jilt MK1� S I*;. h� e of "I P()Or Qua,\ity n . p Si_ 1;_: still ZIN 1 w a �3 S s` a 21 tj 4 p 9Y+� sir za hip Z -1 IL 34 six . Belk A 4 H9 i L .2 RESOLUTION NOr A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAt+3JWA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR CUP 87 -04, A NEIGHBOR1400D Shi1PPING CENTER CONS13"►ING OF FIVE S RUCr3RES TOTALING 30,770 SQUARE FEET ON 3.8 ACRLS Of LAND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COK, %CIAL DISTRICT, i.Q.00 AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Or LEMON AND HAVEN, AND MAKING FIB ?DINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF (APit 201- 26Z -48) WHEREAS, a request aa., been filed for a time extension for the ab vex- described project, pursuant to rection 17.02.1GO. WHEREAS, the Manning Commission conditionally approved the above - described Neighbornood Commercial Shopping Center. SECTION 1; The ?ancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the fol lowing —TMdTW A. That prevailing economic c.?nditions Pave r t_d a distressed r:,%rket climate t r develop+ .. of tho project. - B. 'Mat current economic, marketing. and inventory coixiitions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not oe consistent with -the intent of the Development C00e, D. That the granting of said time rxtensier, will not be detrimental to the public health, sa?ety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or ir?rAvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2. The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extens"-io5 oR PrrixjeGt Anplicant Exgt�ati—an CUP 337 a GREUBEL CO. JUNE 24, 1950 APPROVED #-NO ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEERUA111Y, 1984. PLANNING COK 1SSION OF THE CITY OF RANI HD CUCAMONa'GA BYs arry T. MEMO, a,rmari ATTESTS --Fr-a-d-Buller, 56cretary - - -- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUT vN NO. UP 87 -04 GREUBM CO. February 8, 198f. "ago 2 1:, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of thr City of na4cho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Reaolut;on was duly and regularly intreditced, pas3ed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rat.,ho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the fallowing vote -to -wit: APES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISS *B US: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ri A i DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Februan, 8, 1989 Chairman and Members of the Planning Ccrtnissic�i William J. Sil.a, Oeputy City Engineer Joe S'.of. Jr.., Associate Civil Engineer clrirctotw�a���A4 AZbU'bMN1 AND TENTATIVE PR.RCEL MAP 11780 DR. KORNBLATT - su d v s on o acres o a1`1 nto pares ;j n e ow Residential District (less than 2 dwzll!r units per acre) located an the northeast corner of Almond Street and Mai Street �APN 201 - 071 -55) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Ter; P atiee Parcel Ma as ST1oNtt1 0� nBa B. Parcel Size: P "ircel 1 0.55 Acres Parcel 2 - 0.46 Acres C. Existing Zonini: Residential D. Surrounding wand Use: North .. Residential South - Vacant East - Vacant West Residential E. Surrounding General Plan and Deflopvnt Code Designations- -u North - Resicsintial South - Rasidential East - Residential West Residential F. Site Characteristics: The site slopes approximately 15% from the northwest to the sc jtheast with an existing si;� le family residence on the westerly portion of the site. ITE1.1 6 . , PLAT ,.4 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TFi . PARCEL HAP 11180 .. DR. XORNBLATT FEBRUARY A, 1989 PAGE 2 il. ANALYSIS• The curpose of this Parcel Map (Exhibit V) is to create 2 separate parcels for residential purposes. There is an existing ..'ngle family residence on proposed Parcel 1 and a future single family residence +fill be constructed on proposed Parcel 2. Ho plans have been submitted at this tit. for proposed Parcel 2. There is an existing Lien Agreement on this property for the futur4 construction oi' the off -site street im:,qr°ove* raLs for A139nd Street adjacent to this site. With the potential development of the adjacent property (Tentative Tract 13316 as shown on Exhibit "C"), a recommended Condition of Approval has been included in the P.esolution which v *Afffes the timing of the installation of the street improvements an adds the construction of the cff-sits street improvements for Mai Street: 111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of th:) Initial 75-U.- ta ico` -"na c'ted a field investigation and completed Part It of the Initi-Q StucV. No adverse ftacts upon the environment are anticipa".i%,d as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is j appropriate. , 1V, CORR.ESPONJENCE: Notices of Pub.'c blearing have . en sent to surrounding property owners and placed in ` s Daily ;Report Nevspaper. Pasting at tbm sit ; - Aas als: aeen completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommerded that the Planning Commission cvasider all input elements of the `Tentative Parcel heap No. 11780, If after such consideration, the Comissicn can recommend approval, then the aaoptior of the attached resole +tion and iss!iance of a Negative Declaration i would b appropriate. f,espe,tfu submitted. William J, Silva, Deput,v Engineer l ` JS :JSJ:ly Attachments:. lliciniV Ma; (Exhibit "A ") l Tentative Mop (Exhibit "B ") tentative Tract :1316 (Exhibit "C ") Resolution No. 81-1.27 Resolution and Racomrnnded Conditions of Approval 0701 -02 o2,-8-89 PC Agenda of 4 11 E N CITY OF iTzn...PARCEL MAP 11180 RANCHO CUCAMONGA :i t)t :5t:NA i € 2,10f;AIRI C'S. 'TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP N®. 11780 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8ELY0 A DIWSION OF PARCEL 1. PARCEL MAP F0. 329& AS PER MAP RECORDED Q PARCEL. MAP OOGC A PAGES 79 AND ri , RECORDS OF SAN KMARDINO CN NTY, STATE OF G. JXORNIA. . cm(�RtS15�t toot No1..'• coalMiR c •�i.. "GiG►1'6: .SI..9�to1 SINGLE FAMILY REOIDENCE PARCEL 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGnUUMING DIMON E 11 A 220 FARC& MAP/ .3298 Tj.PAZEL Llj a T T CC w a rPARCEL I/ $�� ' 'PARCEL 2 °/ W W i1t 4 4T zaw.ctici ,Y / / MIL ZONING ► / C C •�!i aw �ao•crr,awl "' ►tc s «.:i nos e e _-.1LMOND — — - - - - - -- STREET— OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGnUUMING DIMON E 11 A E qp ttE CrFY OF 11,10010 CUCA ONGA ENGMEMMG DrVISON RESOLUTIa.. No. 81 -t27 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL C1 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,.CALIFBRNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROVE"Y IM'ROVEMENT CONTRACT MM LIF; tGREMV MT FROM DR. MELVIN B. KOR'BLATT Aiib AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CURiC TO SIG)1 THE SAME. WHEREAS, the City 413ounci3. o! the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, adopted Resoluuion No. 80-38 of May 7, 1980, to establish requirements for landlocked ,parcels where no subdivision is occurring; and, WHEREAS, earCel 1 of Parcel Map 110. 3298 as per map recorded in Book 30 of Parcel Maps Page 79, records of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, is a landlock°d parcel within the manning of said Resolution No. 80 -38; and, WHEREAS, Dr. Melvin B. Kornbl; -.,.t hts provided the ded„a. u required by Reaoluuion No. SO -38 and has wca executed a Real Property ; mprovement Contract and Lien Agreement with respect to cut assess copy Property y :mp Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement In attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does accept seid Real prop arty Improvement Contract and Lien Agreament, authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the same, ant dgrects the City Clark to record the same in the Office of the County Recorder of Sea Be-- n--dito Cou.ity, California. PASSED, APPROVED, mad ADOPM, this 19th day of August, 1981. Ate: Frost, Mikels, Bridge,. Schlosser ROSS: None AMUM: Palowbo, ATTEST: 2ph D. Sshioaaer, Hayos - -----» ••• -aa—rrrtn, pity u;l.lLk 6-6 0 of y Cr - CE OF y) RECOROtNU. REQUESTED BY and AH£N RECORDED MAIL TO: CITk CLERK CITY Op RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Base Line Road Post Office Box. 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 11730 REn PROPERTY IM-PRRO�V-E- M'EENNTT LM TRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT 12iI5 AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 19th day of Pf ",10it, -1981# by and betwaun Melvin b. Kornblatt (hereinafter referred .tows 'Developer "), and the CITY OF RANCHD *Ctr, 'ONGA,. CALIFORNIA,. a municipal corporation (hereinetlter referred to as "City ") provides as followa; WHEREAS, as a general condition Orscedent to the iusDance of a building pa.-mit for ranidential devoiopment, the City ro.�uiraa the construction of missing off -site street improvements, including curbs, gutter#. and pavement, adjace.,tto the property to be developed( and, WHEREAS, the` 14VOtaper desires to postpone construction of such improvements until a later date, as determined by the City: and, InHEREAU, the City is agrseablw to F:ch ),-,stponarasnt. provided that the Developer entors into thin Agreamtot rsyairing the Developer to construct Said improvemento. at no expenso to the City, after demand eo do so by the City, U)1ah acid A4reemant shall also provide 4h4t the City may construct said improvements if the Developer fails or neglects to do so and that the City shall have a lion upon the real Property hereinafter described as security for the Developerls performance, and any repayment due Cite, NON, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREt. 1. Th3 Developer hereby agrees that they will install off - site street improvemants, including curbs, gutters and pavement, in accordance and compliance with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of the City in effact at the time Of the installation. ,aid tmpr4vements shall he installed upon and along the Northerly on, half (1,/2) Of the extension Of Almond Street adjacent to Developer property hereinafter described. Cr - CE OF y) ?• The installatiun.of said Improvements shall be completed not later than one (1) year following written notice -to the Developer from the City to cnmmencs installation of the gaze. Installation of said improvements shall be at no expense to the City. 3. in the event the Developer - failsor refuseu to complete the installation of satd improvements in a timely .manner, city may at any time thereafter, u;.an giv�nq the nevelojwr written notice of its Intention to do so, enter upon the property hereinafter . described and Complete said improvements . and recover all costs of completion incurred by the City From the Developer. 6. To secure the performance by the Developer of the terms and conditions of t).is Agreement and to secure the repayment to city of any funds which say be expanded by City in completing said improvements upon . default by the Developer hereunder, the Developer does by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey to the City the following described real property sxtuatod in the City of Rancho CuOlcarga, Coeutty of San earnardino, Ststw of California, to -wits PARCEL As Parcel 41 of Parcel Map 43296, as per map recorded in Book 30. Pofas 79 and 80 of Parcel Xaps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. PARCE_Bs A con - exclusive sasament for road and utility pur,`soses aver and across the Soatk 30 feet of Parcel Nuab�vrs 1, 3, and { and over and across the west 30 feet of Parcel Humber. 'L and 1 of Parcel Map #3298 as per map recorde,! in Book 0 Pages 79 and 80 of Parcel maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Except therefrcm any portion lying within Parcel A above. PARCE_', Cs A nOn- exclusive assonant for road and utility purposes over and across the following described property: tie Esst 30 feet of the West 220 fast of the East 1100 feet of the North 495 feat of the Northwest one- cuartar of Section 23, Township 1 Qorth, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof. C �► OF U S. Thin conveyance is in tract, however, for the purposes described abc -re. ii.. Now, therefore, if the Developer $hall faithfully perform all of the icts and things by them to be dons under this Agreement, then thip conveyance shall be voidr othedvise, it %hall remain in full forgo and effect and in all respects shall be considered and treated as a mortgage on the real property and the rights and e4U9Ations Of the parties with respect thareto shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of the State of California,. and any other applicable statute, pertaining to mortgages on real property. 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall insure to the benefit of the h%irs, executors,- administrators, successors and designs of each of! the parties hereto. E. To the extent required to give efff,t, of this Agreement as a mortgage, the term 'Developer" shall. mean "m::rtgagor" and tfia City shall be the 'mortgagee" as those terms are used in the Civil Code of the State of California and any other statute pertaining to mortgages on real property. 9. if Segal Abtion is commenced to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is antitled to recover from the Davvioper hereunder or to forocloce the right of the Developer to redeem the above- teseribed property from the mortgage created hereby, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and such reasonable attorneys' fees as shall be awardud by the Court. IN WITNESS WHZMr,.the parties hereto haves executed this Agreement on the day and year first above. written. CITY• DE'VEWPER: Staten! 19`•� Mtomme. faxdyoT -`��� (�Oltr«.Q`..r• the undealrad Notary Paw- oftsmily apota-cd' y loam to me to be tht perso(s) W%43e nam(s) '' subscntad 2 14P O1�tICiAL SEAL to ft W111111 insttunant and acknowledged that -'Y> 1.61 Y AM AUTHtl€T esecuted the cattle for the purposes thwein cootainCJ. t sMmetoCAOCUR • IN WiTNiSS WHEREOF, 1 henyato set my tWnd and. official sat. wwea eYw sot �. 1sR �- '. "? . , t wow• �t�.1. % t �•x t t�< :.:�. { ease nee City Dc dtA ew cumOORM4 PIANNINO DiM810N M FEB P February 3, 1989 City Planning Division Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline Roads Unit B ?.ancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 RE: Variance 88 -15 Kornblatt Public Hearing February 8, 1985 Dear Planning Commission Me:abors; I am the property owner nireetly north of the proposed lot split and variance 88 -15 Kornblatt. It is my cont,yntion that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has established •,'irm policy guidelines to protect adjacent property owners against this type of proposal. The proposed lot split would create a lot size of less than 2 acre. This lot could not be congenial in size with the surrounding properties, which are much larger. I, therefore, respectfully request the proposal be denied. Respectfully submitted, Bob and Suzette White 4947 Mai Street P.O. Box 412 Alta Loma 4949 Ramona Ave Alta Loma, CA 91701 February i, 1989 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Commissioners: It is our wish to voice concern regarding issues before the Planning Commission at the February 8, 1989, meeti `'� i'vu.o �.a. -�.�c, to vin �R-�`� � � c(vL.�,.� �3 .♦ w t' °mss tub O-gL az Q `-�, E,�. C � a� C :� cnnuatn f l aj�nu sA v--*- L4hw. &,a �� c� � u FES A 9959 k1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 11780, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALMOND STREET AND MAI STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - A;PN 201 - 071 -55 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 11780, submitted by Melvin Kornblatt, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 2 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APH 201- 071 -55, located at the northeast corner of Almond Street and Mai Street and WHEREAS, on February 8, 1989, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearii:b For the above- described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the- improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically su;table for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property.. SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been r,2viewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 11780 is hereby approved subject to tza attached standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. Approval shall be contingent upon the action of the City Council to amend the existing Lien Agreement, Resolution 81 -127 substantially as follows: a. Section 1 shall be revised to read: "The Developer hereby agrees that they will install off -site street improvenme�yts, including curbs, gutters and pavement, in accordance and compliance with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rule:; and regulations of the City in effect at the time of the Installation. Said improvements shall be installed upon and along the northerly one -half of the extension of Almond Street and the easterly one -half of the extension of Mai Street adjacent to the Developer's property hereinafter described." C'_ -d0 PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION No. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11781 - MELVIN KORNBLATT FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE 2 b. Section 2 shall be revised to read; "The installation of said improvements shalt be: (1) completed not later than one (1) year following written not to to the Developer from the City to commence installation or, R) completed concurrently with the development of the adjacent property, whichever occurs first." Installation of said improvements shalt be at no expense to the City. 2. A minimum separation of five (5) feet shalt be provided between the existing pooh wail and the east property line of Parcel 1. 3. The existing pribate sewage disposal system shall be relocated within the proposed Parcel 3 or connected to a public sewer system prior to recordation of the final map. 4. �--rior to issuance of Building Permits, a soils study shall be submitted to the Building Officill for review and approval, 5. A local Equestrian frail of ten (10) feet shall be prov'ded along the north property tines of Parcels I and 2. Any drainage device for the trail shall be located in a separate easement outside of the trait easement, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ally talc e , Chairman ATTEST: Brad u er, Secretary I. Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Cite of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C -// 3 G g r E �Y y yO Y V <g F N i.J Original Poor Quality ell a ��� L. 5 F p dFIw Fg ZS8 Ny CaW Y f sA E` S 4-k 24 iV •ca Rig * SIB ' : r i h K` o ri ai w a si a r�VU a S pa d • a r� 4h �f s i � N V s n b V b e A r #p `ld sr p VY s. IL:emu , }r U. jM ii M a� itU Y y sm N w 4 N y Duo a= r- �,� • 4s i g_ ^04 SSE �.A• o� i r 4 M GOV C°3 GY j O~ V b g q 44 pp _�p � N X44 N • N Bois Iir a8 91 g $►: uCi■ ^°. �� w ice. .�.�.�° �$ ri ell z a It I Ili 11-2 s t .$ 'am `■ .1 1.1 AI ! N � ..e N PF M � N IR �. at DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT s I. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 8, 1989 Chaii,man and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Butler, 0ty- Plainer Scott Murphy, Associate Planner square feet to Z1,95Z square feet on two lots within the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast cornsr of Almond Street ane Mai Street APH: 201- 071 -55, Related File: Parcel Map 11780 PROJECT AND SITE D €SLhIPTION: A. Action .*P- uested- Approval of Varianca. and issuiace of a gl Me ec -Tara on. B. C. surroun(ti�ng L_annct Use and zoning: oNrt^3i^ a family resider al; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling. units per acre). South - Vacant (p-s;,posed -.-'ngle family residential), Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per cgre). East - Single family residential; Very Caw Residential (less than ? dwelling units per Aare). West - Single family residential, Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling sinits per acre). General Plan Designations. Project "ST� very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre. North - Very Law Residential (?ass than 2 dwelling units o.zr acre). South - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). East - Vary Low, Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). West - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). ITEM H Pi.M MINE COi9M1ISSICY STAFF REPORT VARdANCE 88-15 - KORN9LATT February 8, x.589 Page 2 El II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into OT Tots Parcel 1 being 23,908.1 square feet in area and Parcel 2 being 20,000.3 square feet id area. Whip the parcels meet the Development Cpde requirements for lot size, width, and depth, the parcels do not meet the 22,506 ,quare foot average lot sire requirement (21,952 square feet proposed). Presently, the site has criers of dedication for streets along the south and nest sides, These 30-foot offers of dedication were required as part of previous subdivisions in the area. Immediately adjacent to the southern edge of the property, Tentative Tract 13316 (Freidman Homes) approved by the Planning Commission provided 40 feet of dedication. Ii that the City local street standard only requires 60 feet of dedicatio7 Tentative Tract 13316 had bedn ipproved prior to the exis d offers of dedication, only 20 feet of dedication wouk ;, ae required in conjunction with this parcel map. The additional 10 feet presently dedicated would then have to be included in square fo6tage of the lots. This would provide sufficient area to allow the lots to meet the 22,500 square foot average (23,054.2 square fen). Presently, however, Almond Street will ' simply have a right- of-way in excess of City Standards by ten (10) feet. As part of 4bd; Sion recast, the Planning Commission considers the • li -ility of %.he proposed lot size wlUh That of adjoining pr,._ as. This becomes more important in light of the Variance vega,est. The pvoperties locatedi to thf north, east and west range in size from 0.6 to 3.2 acre,% in size. The smaller lots (i.e. O.f and 0.9 acres) in the area could not be subdivided because they would exceed the density cap established by the Development Code and General Plan. In addition, some of the larger parcels are encumbered with drainage areas that would restrict the development of the lots. The parcels located to the south are- part of Tentative Tract 13316 app'?vod by the Planning Commission in Say, 1987. Because of its more recent approval date, the lots within the surlivision are closer in size to the 22,500 square foot average required by the Development Code. The actual size of the parcels directly :o the south of the subject site range from 20,160 to 25,700 squara feet in area. B. Enviroamental Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental Cec s and determined that the Variance request will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. If the Planning Commission concur -s, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriatI if the project is approved. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 88 -15 - KORNBLATT February 8, 1989 Page 3 III. FACTS FOR FINDIMS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve t`— Tie -Pa -ante, the Development Code requires that the following findin5, must be met: 1. That th% ° 'ct or literal, interpretation of enforcement of the Specified regulation would result in Practical difficult, or unnecessary physical hardship ir- -�nsisterzt with the objectives of the Developisnu Code. 2. That th:t are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab)e to the property involved or to the intended use of the properti that do riot generally apply to other properties in the same district. 3. That strict or literal interpretation of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations c,f other properties classified in the same district. 5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPOND ET'-E: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing, the property p— EsTe —d 'nc Tnotices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the planning Commission conduct a pu lic hearing to receive all input on the proposed Variance. If, after considering all testimony, the Planning Commission can support the required findings, then adoption of the attached Resolution would b? appropriate. Repoelf ully Cit BB :SM:ko Attachmedts: Ftt Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" Location reap Exhibit "B" Parcel Map Resolution of Approval Associated Engineers CONSULTING CIVILENG!WEERS 316 EAST 'E' STREET + ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 81704 • (714) 91141-56111 MAIUNG AGGRESS. P.O. SOX 9419, ONTARIO, CA 91761 August. 5, 1988 City of Rancho aucamongm Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Planning De_+?rtment - Tt`a Grahan Subject: Varianca for TenLt5-4ro "nrca1 Hap No. 11780 Gentlemen: We het,7 by iequest a variance of average area requirement'ie on tae subject Tenative liay. (8 1;tll copy attached) As shown on the Tbnative Hap both parcel's meet the 24,000 squaro foot minimum area requirement, but do not meet the 22,500 square foot average requirement. The total area of both parcels is 43,908 square feet making two 22,500 square feet parcels impossible. We believe that this creates a hardship on the owner and justifims a variance. If you have any questions, please call ma, Very Truly Yours, Associated Engine s, Inc. Janes Imbioraki Jl:sg 88 -38 01 AMMIMM H-4 heelrwatA Q11nVGV1Nr El L +J Original Poor Quality o - 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA,VCII°sUA PLA.NNI,VG D(VISK)IN ITEM- -4 de- 46, TITLE, EXHIBIT: SCALE: M Original Poor Quality N� V1b A 'r TL AU N- 41-d-"�4 Z�f N, �4 N CITY CT ITEM . RANCHO CLUAIN"CA TITLE: Ze,:X PLANNIPC DINrLSM E X H MIT, SCALE, �c -1 E�l N N, �4 N CITY CT ITEM . RANCHO CLUAIN"CA TITLE: Ze,:X PLANNIPC DINrLSM E X H MIT, SCALE, �c -1 E�l •^ia'fe sR.. P,. +zr ea ' Ifi inal Poor Quality MGNO_-r- -- scn�n; SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ___.— _STREET_.'. r,zc I PARCEL 2 17' EASlMfr: 3' 70. GI., i. � N S�• a4',�' Z _Y �2�Z0 Co. �riP q ..oi�¢�ro 44ZS u+o 4 / b' i+AiNW{'f•u 4oyelle¢H p h+srm.vs vam o..s. en'i /lacy. • /�rt�''p �` a ;O' i✓.eMdY f1oR Qw0 >R+t�01m1 I16R GC.'1 +19/4ii i� £ b' tOw�vlydT'fJ (ayimy6l. •'6Lm rLLOKa CO. o M YOVJ 00—sms it YI�IT/ PAsZCEL MAP 2B87 / o9 G.+WM¢+l,s ym P.�f.i 4LL�%Y hm O.l.Y10�Ib2S. La W �mr tu �iyw N / ,z / z ; W 1^ , j PARCEL I s PARCEL 2 / /23,908.1 S0. FT. 20.000.3 S0. FL v WZ tf U 1 / at VACANT 1 / ekrt zQ eats / M/L ZONING / c all �p I� O•aM.16' / •^ia'fe sR.. P,. +zr ea ' -1 - :i c..eauT, MGNO_-r- -- ___.— _STREET_.'. 17' EASlMfr: 3' 70. GI., i. � ' �riP q ..oi�¢�ro 44ZS u+o 4 �/' PY"Ikr1BJC Yb Lu4M0�1 R e0. r.tsTivC ass rO.t 1'! a�l..�t1 R O 2.'141} b' i+AiNW{'f•u 4oyelle¢H 'py si h+srm.vs vam o..s. en'i /lacy. • /�rt�''p �` � y,I �• ;O' i✓.eMdY f1oR Qw0 >R+t�01m1 I16R GC.'1 +19/4ii `b` :/KEN4.T TO GN OF ,.O! 1.1b81i} /O /,f ROa O' /'f.FC O. ¢: its /GM b' tOw�vlydT'fJ (ayimy6l. •'6Lm rLLOKa CO. o M YOVJ 00—sms it YI�IT/ o9 G.+WM¢+l,s ym P.�f.i 4LL�%Y hm O.l.Y10�Ib2S. VACANT M/L ZONING CITY OF Jp RANUM CJCAMONGs4 MANNING D(V ITEM: —0 " -« TITLE: rp Z Me EXHIBIT. Ar SCALE: P-17 NORTH RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF —.nE CITY tf RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 88 -15 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED AVERAGE LOT SIZE FROM 22,500 SQUARE FEET TO 21,952 SQUARE FEET FOR TWO LOTS WITHIN THE VERY LOG! RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALMOND SiREET AND MAI STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201- 071 -55 A. Recitals. (i) Melvin Kornblatt has filed an application for the issuance of the Variance No. 88-15 as described in the title of this Pesolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On February, 8 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All Segal prerequisites to the adoption !f this Resolution have occurred. : B. Resolution. NOW, PEREFORE, 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 public hearing on February 8, 1989 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The applicati(n applies to property located at the northeast corner of Almond and Mai ltreets with a street frontage of 220 feet along Almond Street and 200 feet along Mai Street. The property in currently developed with one single family residence; and (b) The properties to the north, east, and west of the subject site are presently designated for residential uses and are currently developed with single family dwellings. The property to the south of the subject site is designated for esidential uses and is currently vacant and 94 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE 88 -15 - KORNBLATT February 8, 1989 Page 2 El (c) The application har. i,een submitted to allow the reduction of the average lot size from 22,500 square feet to 21,952 square feet contrary to the requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code for lots within the Very Low Residential Distr.ct. (d) The existing thirty (30) foot offer of dedication along the south side of the site combined with the forty (40) feet of dedication required for Tentative Tract 13316 adjacent to iha south edge of the property results in a street dedication of ten (10) feet wider than the current City Standard. If this additional ten (10) feet was includee in the lot area, the parcels would exceed the average 'lot size requirement of 12,500 square feet. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presen!ed to this Commission during the abovo- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Comaiss.Ion hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary and sical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code; (ti) That there are exception or 4xtraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved o,r'to the intended use of the andperty 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 deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district; and (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 district; and (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially in;;urious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby ap the condition set forth below: proved the application subject to (a) All conditions contained in the Resolution approving Parcel Map 11780 shall apply. S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, PLANNI,V COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE 88-15 - KORNBLATT February 8, 1989 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNIN COMMISSION OF ThE CITY Gr.RewChO CUC'AMONGA BY: ATTEST: ra u er, re ary Is Brad Buller, Secretary of the Olarning ComPission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wa, duty and regularly introduced, passed, and $ opted by the Planning Corm #ss�a�a of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a 99 bi) reeking of the Planning CjnMiss an held on the 8th day of February, 3989, by �1'�e following vote-to-wit: lanni g AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSEhrr: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. STAFF REPORT OAT-, February 8, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the planning Commission FROM: William J. Silva, Deputy City Engineer BY: Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engines - -r SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC to t change proposed caon" of' the —iRed dill Count ey Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard intersection. as shown in the Specific Plan, by the realignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive to approximately 406 feet east of the present intersection with Foothill Boulevard. i. ABSTRACT: ' The existing skewed angle intersection of Red Hill Country Club Drive and.'Foothill Boulevard is in close proximity to an existing traffic signal at Grove Avenue. The coi6ination of this close intersection spacing and skewed alignment creates operational difficulties with traffic flow on Foothill Boulevard. An "Intersection Relocation Feasibility Study" was prepared for the City by Austin -Foust Assoc., Traffic Consultants, to analyze the existing intersection and recommend alternatives. The recommended plan praposes to relocate the intersection of Red Hill Country Club Drive approximately 400 feet east of its present location, provide a median break in the roothill Boulevard median island, an-d install a two phase traffic signal (no left turn arrows). II. LOCATION: The study area included the existing intersection of Red Hi'.1 Country Club Drive with Foothill Boulevard and alternate locations at the Sycomore Inn/San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue. Exhibit "A" shova the study area. The north side of Foothill Boulevard from Red Hill Country Club Drive east to the Southern Pacific railroad sassing is zoned Special Commercial. ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FBSP 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ORGA FEBRUARY B, 1989 PAGE 2 The south side of eoothill Boulevard frock Grove Avenue to San Bernardino Road is zoned Special Commercial and S- n San Bernardino Road to the railroad crossing is zoned Community �;c,",vercial. Areas north and south of theso commercial zones are zoned Residential. A San Antonio Community Hospital project is proposed in an office zone at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue, 111. BACKGROUND: Red Hill Country Club Drive presently connects to Foothill Boulevard in a skewed angle intersection in close proximity to the signalized intersection at Grove Avenue. The combination of this close intersection spacing and skewed angle creates operational Problems with traffic flow omt Foothill Boulevard and makes infeasible any type of traffic control other than the existing two --way stop. Red Hill Country Club Drive and Alta Cuesta Drive also form a continuous link between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Road. The existence of this connection creates a by -pass routing fdr coMter traffic to avoid longer trips involving either Carnelian Street on the east or Campus Avenue on the west. The Foothill Boulevard Specific flan (FBSP) recognized these problems and recommended an alt',gnment of Red dill Country Club Drive that intersects Grove Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "B". The City Council at its meeting of September 21, 1988, directed staff to process an ammendmmmeot to the FBSP to revise the realignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive. The City hired the traffic engineering firm of Austin -Foust Assoc. to prepare an in- depth traffic engineering study of the problem. The final report, "Intersection Relocation Feasibility Study," is attached. IV. ANALYSIS: The existing intersection of Footmqll Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive is deficient for reasons stated in Section III above. An in -depth analysis was proposed that studied the realignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive at various locations, shorn on Exhibit "C ". Alternatives I, 2 and 3 (Baker Av me and Sycamore Inn east and west) all have a substantial Sight din mice deficiency to overcome. These three alternatives would connect to Red Hill Country Club Drive by expanding an existing rrivate read a Tz PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FBSP 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE S intersection southerly of a right -hand curve (as viewed by southbound traffic) approximately 300 feet south of Calle Carabe. However, adequate sight distance for the intersection cannot be provided without substantial hillside grading or realignment of the Red Hill Country Club curve. If this problem could'be solved, the resulting alignments would be as shown on Exhil%it "D" However, the best possible design speed that can be obtained is 25 MPH. This is not realistic due to the grade of Red Hill. A reasonable realistic minimum design speed . would be 35 MPH. To obtain 35 MPH design speed would require regrading most of the hillside. Presuming that the problems of sight distance and minimum design speed can be overcome, analysis was conducted of the effects of those three alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 1 - Ertending Baker Avenue north of Foothill oBulevarri c—' The most significant advantage for this alternative is that by -pass traffic coming from the wast could be encouraged to proceed on to Carnelian Street rather than use Red Hill Country Club Drive since it would involve some backtracking, albeit a minor amount. This "advantage" is offset by the following three significant disadvantages, 1. Thp existing railroad undercrossing limits the width of Fv, -'ill Boulevard to four narrow travel lanes. The existing bridge makes the installation of an eastbound left -turn on Foothill Boulevard at Baker difficult since the roadway is limited to four travel lanes through the undercrossing. Providing the eastbound left -turn lane for a sufficient distance to accommodate the left -turn6 could reduce the travel lane widths to an unsatisfactory condition. It is recognized that this condition would not exist in the future after Foothill Boulevard has been widened to its ultimate width. However, although tentative bridge widening studies are underway, no firm date is set for construction. Therefore, the relocation of Red Hill Country Club Drive would be contingent upon completion of the railroad bridge widening. 2. Relocating the Red Hill Country Club Drive intersection east of the railroad undercrossing increases the traffic volume on Foothill Boulevard iu this critical narrow four -lane section by about 4,000 ADT. This would have significant alr uugh short term negative impact or, traffic flow in this area. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FBSP 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO!!GA FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE 4 3. The cost of constructing Rey! Hill Country Club Drive under the railroad weuid be quite costly, much more so than any other alternative. ALTERNATIVE 2 AND 3 - Red Hill Country Club Drive located west or east of e ycanore It= The primary advantage would be that the ^Qw Red Hill Country Club /roothm Boulevard intersection would become simply an expansion of an ei :istin four -way intersection and the present skewed intersection would be eliminated. A new signalized intersection is not created. Another advantage is that unlike the Baker Street alternative, (Alternative 1) Foothill Boulevard could be restriped to six tares permitting the additional 4,000 ADT from Red Hill Country Club Drive to be accommodated immediately. This advantage is counter - balanced by the following disadvantages :. I. The existing Sycamore Inn parking lot would be separated frog the building by a new roadway. This in effect creates an off - site parking lot with its associated pedestrian safety concerns as patrons would have to cross a roadway with over 4,000 daily trips. 2. The minirmun design speed of 35 WH cannot be obtained. The "best" design speed achievable is b hick should not be acceptable. 3. Even a minimum roadway width (36 feet) creates serious disruptions of the existing parking lot. 4. The right -of -way necessary for these alternatives is substantial. ALTERNATIVE 4 - Realign Red Hill Country Clcb Drive to a location appr=mately 400 teef-e-a-st-off-ffs- present oca ar.: This $iternative has become the Recommended Plan and is shown in Exhibit "E ". This alternative offers the following advantages: 1. The minimum acceptabl' design speed of 35 WH with adequate intersection sight distance can be achieved. 2. A computerized simulation of the traffic operation of the resulting signal system indicates the proposed intersection spacing will facilitate the aovement of through traffic on Foothill Boulevard without backing traffic into adjacent intersections and a good o -iordinated signal progrESSyon can be achieved.* PLANNING COI'MIr;SION STAFF REPORT FBSP 89-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE g An analysis of the impact on existing peak hour traffic flow conditions was conducted by using a computer traffic flow siroulation program, TRANSYT -7F. ThQ existing signals on Facthill Boulevard at Grove Avenue are at San Bernardino Road a..d new two -phase signal (i.e., nc separate left -turn arrows onto Red Hill Country Club Drive) wb analyzed at the recommended Alternative 4 location. The results indicate that in order %_ provide a satisfactory level of service ir. the FM peak hour, three (3) eastbound travel lanes -3n. Foothill arA necessary. In addition, unless a separate left -turn phase is provided for eastbound Foothill Boulevard to northbound Red i;t,`. Country Club Road, the existing peal: hour demand of 208 lei: a;rns per hour will be limited to a maximum of about 260. This will effectively function is a "meter" restricting the number of .commuters using Red Hili Country Club Drive as a by -pass routing between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Avenue during the PM peak hour. When a four -lane cross section on Foothill Boulevard is analyzed, the PM peak houv is 114 percent o" capacity , an unacceptable condition. 1'o mitigate this coti,uition, el'ther the signal at Red Hill Country Club Drive must be eliminated, or a third eastbound "thru" lane must be provided. It would be recommended that Fo thill Boulevard be restriped to provide six (6) travel lanes is the segment between Grave Avenue and Sate Bernardino Road. 3. Although, the relocation would permit signalitation of the Red Hill Country Club Drive at Foothill Boulevard, the existing i.,terzevtion could be retained as a two -way stop. 4. The proposed new signal at Red Hill Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard could act as a "meter" for limiting traffic onto northbound Red dill Country Club Drive, while Aft would not prevent cowuter use, it would severely limit such use ana act as a deterrent to continued future increases (analyzed with item 2). S. The right -of -way acquisition required is minimal compared to other alternatives. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FBSP 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE 6 Additional Analysis of Existing L,cation: The effect of sigr-%lizing the existing location was also analyzed by the computer traffic flow simulation program. The analysis shows that there is insufficient space to store Left - turning vehicles at Red Hill- Country Club Drive and Grove Avenue. To accommodate adequate left -turn storage, Grcae AvenuA and Ped Hill Country Club Drive must be separated by a minimum of 556 feet. The existing spacing is less than 460 feet. These figures are based on a traff.. signal cycle length of 100 se ^,onds. It is very likely that future traffic growth will require f., longer cycle and the pocket length would then need to be longer. If the left turn pockets are not long enough, cart waiting for a left turn will have to wait in the thru traffic lane, a potentially hazardous r- ndition. Neither a traffic signal, rior a median break, should be installed at the existing location of Red Hill Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard. Summary of Proposed Real rgnent: Investigation of the feasibility of relocating the intersection of Red Hill Country Club Drive /Foothill Boulevard indicates not only that such is possible, but desirable since it will not only improve the traffic flow cond,'tions on Foothill Boulevard, but provide a small deterrent to continued compter traffic use of thk. Red Hill Country Club OrivejAlta Cuesta Driv2 "short cut" through the Red Hill Country Club Drive residential area. Of four alternatives investigated, Alternative 4, realigning Red Hill Country Club Drive through a vacant lot approximately 400 feet east of the present intersection with Foothill Boulevard, clearly emerges as superior to the other three. The other alternatives involve limited sight distance which, unless vistiy imeroved, would itself render these alternatives infeasible. Even if this restriction could be solved, and though substantial regrading to the Red Hilt would be possible, the remaining advantages of the recommended Alternative 4 exceed those of Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. It is r°- c-umended that full left-turn access be provided at the proposed Red Hill Country Club drive /Foothill Boulevard intersection and that this location be signalized without left-turn arrows and timed to discourage commuter use while at the same time permitting motorists to enter, encountering somewhat trsore delay than is currently experienced. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FBSP 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONSA Ash FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE 7 V. ENVIRONME1 ASSESS+iEKT: In conjun::tton with ;:he application, an Initial Study /Prelim1nary Environmental Assessment,. in confnrntity with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, has been prepared and the proposal would have, no significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the Planning Commission may make a finding of no significant impact on the environment and recommend certification of a Negative Declaration. VI. FACTS FOR FINDINGSt a) The amendment does not conflict with tiie circulation policies of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and b) The - mendment pror",tes the goals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, -and ct The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recom Etads public hearing discussion of the prcposed Foothill Boulevard Specific !'Ian Amendment. If Om Planning Commission agrees with the above Analysis and Facts for Finding, the Planning Commission s;�ould adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Amendment 89 -02 to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Respectfully submitted,�J William J. Silva, P.E. Deputy City Engineer WJS :CBM:sd Attachitents: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "i" In -depth En - Vicinity Map - Red Hill Country Club Drfve realignment presently as shown in FSP Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 Alignment Studies for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Alternatt; d - Recommended Plan ;ineering Study = -1 by, �b Oyu cd r. o do Wj t.i-t r .� tYS0Yta3li. t�JMa l'q ilt iK R. K � I I - 'lly. r S o z 15 NYI 13NNY] _{ j IiiN 1 tL C e Y a N S o z 15 NYI 13NNY] IiiN tN' i� ••/ �• h G• �� N WOO < r9 C3 w z 0 o N3AYN 'w i t� It cc 1 ib h Iwo � Tarr � jt a 1 yVj t]aYd3NtA �Y ¢ �3AY t� t) m LL • Pte^ • tL C e Y a N IiiN q �• h G• �� N < r9 C3 w u�a 'AY N3AYN 'w i t� 1 ib q �Y K o' O � yVj t]aYd3NtA �Y ¢ �3AY � o 0 � d Q hr G: z 4 a Exhibit B 7.1.3 Red Hill Realignment Currently, Red Hill intersects Foothill Boulevard at an awkward angle. Rae to this existing configuration. Red Hill will be realigned in order to promote an efficient and safe transition to Foothill Boulevard. A preferred alignment was selected the following the consideration of other alignment scenarios.' The selected_ alignment is shown on this page. oil } a • f r l °� - f RMdi4�iii- lRealignment CIRCULATION CONCEPT -7- C) J b, � rt. J W tL � jet •Y �i°•� � Ud U IN uj cc S„� •i iw s4d w w ` r- It =0 > w u' p ... V ...o�. c- O CD � g Q 2 Lu i ice 77 �- r 4 . c v d' 1 7} W ® R ..,,yam 6� j u: `�.t_ W �d v.� w p YY ; X10 •,� ` _ 'tom .� ~• 1 , .J Is LU cc CC low t 0019 i .y�ib7 CO w�wur sE ttY ^ W w U AV uQQLL p u ��i7r� U tzU. ? L N r! K • CC •ui G.o m 6A el ms FIX AV t7 -N � ¢ , 2 o `z = T� w% C3s et vi Ul ul Lij° C ark za (J i�wi w 0011 ,I � II n `o 7AY C tu � , I LL z H , F I I u ri [� to • —r.T o � I,. Ir �, lI (� to LLJ•tea- Z—t•.• y W 4 m W W > Z Z •= iU � J O 5I 1 lip It =Q 23� '7AV SAOtl/Ct p/ i J 1 .112 k-A z CL 0 z 1 G 0 LU m V 2 W r a u 0 N N h N a 1 11-4 1/ 1/ /1 r/ '7AV SAOtl/Ct p/ i J 1 .112 k-A z CL 0 z 1 G 0 LU m V 2 W r a u 0 N N h N a 1 11-4 jo j RED HILL COUMAY CLUB DRIVE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD INTERSECTION RELOCATION FEASIBILITY SrUD': Prepared for CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOIZGA Prepared by. Austin- Foust Associates, Ire. 1450 North 'Tustin Avenue, Suite 108 Santa A�- California 92701 4F January 20, 1989 r �l /' _ E- Al TABLE OF CONTENTS EM Introduction I Methodology 1 M Existing Conditions 2 Identification of Alternative Augnmena- : 6 Analysis of Baker Extension 9 Az-- lysis of Sycamore Ann Alternatives 9 Analysis of Vamt Parcel Alternative 10 Simulated Traffic Flow Analysis 12 Analysis of Existing Intersection Lwation 13 Prohibition of Left -turns at Red Kill Country Club Drive 1S Summary and Recommendation 16 LIST OF FIGURES Fiaurc No. •1 vicinity MaF 2 Peak Hour Volumes 3 Realignment Alternatives 4 Sycamore Inn and Baker Street Alternatives 5 Recommended Plan y� Appendix E i �l /' _ E- Al l�lt••� y.l!• The City of Rancho Cucamonga has conducted a study of the feasibility of relocation of the intersection of Red Hill Country Club Drive (RHCCD) and Foothill Boulevard (SR -66). Red Hill Country Club Drive intersects with Alta Cuesta Drive forming a continuous link between Base Line Avenue and Foothill. Boulevard. Both RHCCD and Alta Cuesta Drive are typical two - lane res ,atial streets. The existence of the connection creates a 'by -pass" routing for commuter traffic to av0d a somewb:it longet trip involving either Carnelian Street on the east, or Campus Avenue on thu west., —No other connection is available for motorist to travel from Base Line Avenue to Foothill in the one mile segment between Carnelian Street and Campus Avenue, causing RHCCD /Alta Cuesta to be used as 'a "short - cut." In addition to the commuter "by-pax" characteristic of travel patterns on Re, Hill. t Country Club Road, it's connection with Fcothili Boulevard creates a skewed intersection which is also in close proximity to an existing signal at Grove *Avenue. The combination of this .lose f intersection spacing and skewed alignment creates operational problems with traffic 'alow on Foothill Boulevard and effectively mikes unfeasible anjr type of traffic control other than the lie existing two -way stop condition at the present location of RHCCD and Foothill Boulevard. i The purpose of this analysis is to investigate potential relocation /reatigi,ment of the intersection to determine if such is feasible, and if so, is signalzation possible, and what impact would relocation and signalization have on commuter use if the Red Hill Country Club /Alta Cuesta by -pass. 11WA• • The methodology utilized for this study involved the preparation of a comtr'»:_; traffic model which simulated existing traffic flow conditions on Foothill Boulevard and evaluated the effect on traffic flow it the intersection were to be relocated and signalized. The traffic model employed in a widely accepted computer program sponsored by Caltrans, an known as TRANSY- -7F (TRAffic Network StudY Tool). In addition to the computerized signal analysis of potential sites for relocating the intersection was evaluated through a combination of field observation and 40 -scale conceptual design engineering. "I J EXISTING �QjNUITIONS The general vicinity of the study area along with the specific location of RHCCD and Alta Cuesta Drive are illustrated in Figure 1. Existing peak hnur traffic volumes at critical intersections along Foothill Boulevard are shown in Figure 2. 'fable 1 presents typical peak hour volumes and ADM; in the study area. The existence of several topogr4phic features, such as the Cuc; monga Canyon Wash, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Red Hill Cout.try Club combine to effectively limit circulation between Base Line and Foothill Boulevard to the RlICCD /Alta Cuesta Drive connection. The City has examined this condition and holds out hope that the situation can be aG least partially mitigated through redesign of the Foothill Boulevard /RHCCD intersection. However, AFA's substantial experience in residential traffic control of similar residential streets suggests that shoot of installation of some type of "diverter" on the route, it apptrars doubtful that any major reduction of traffic can be achieved. However, though relocation of the intersection and signrlization, a form of "metering" can occur which reduces current peak hour traffic and tends fo "hold the line" against any further increases i, bhe future. Foothill Boulevard is presently striped with four travel lanes, arc! a left-turn median. Tratu.: signa.A exist at two intersections: Grove Avenue and the San Bernardino /Sycamore Inn Driveway. The intersection o° Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard is currently stop sign controlled (two way), but sigazlization is planned in future year 1989/1990, The total distance between these two intersections is 2,750 feet (1,545 feet betw,en Grove and San Bernardino, and 1,200 feet between Baker and San Bernardino), Ultimately, Foothill Boulevard is planned as a six -lane divided highway. Sufficient width currently exists bwitween Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road to permit implementation of the six -lane cross- section. East of San Bernardino Road, Foothill Boulevard narrows to pass under the railroad tracks which permits only four- travel Ianes. Plans are currently underway to widen this undercrossing with design in future year 1989/1990, and construction beginning in future year 1990/1991. Red Hill Country Club Drive is a typically narrow two -lane winding residential -type toadway which traverse a steels grade up what is locally known. as "Red hill" north of Foothill Boulevard as it meanders around the golf course and :hrough the residential area and transir om into Alta Cuesta Drive. Although the alignment of RHCCD is curvalinear throughout its entire length, a significan curve exists ,in the alignment adjacent to the golf course 300 feet south of the Caile Carabe intersection. This curve is significant since its existence 7 1 1 It i 1 � a+ z •H H k� U h a dK u 4 M 4 7777-7 0 Z Z LU ry lz �r Q V) a w �. cr- U o o n d u t m > Z ir d -j W F -IM+ Q z N = s x 0 L0 o � n s r e Oil •°' x° r., sA3 a F- Z LL J o0 Y co J U Q W cr- a w �. cr- U o o n d u t m > Z ir d -j W F -IM+ Q z N = s x 0 L0 o � n s r e Oil •°' x° r., sA3 a O N N A Vf v 'O N 1n� M M N 0 I y si a I • � 3 N vOi Rf • O O ^ P O N � y $W 7 I � I w s 2 F y 1 Q V h b I a / ei t'a o ci gw 1 e W W 9 N 2 W C 9 o O V to M e1 q w w severely limits the sight d?atance of any driveway and /or potential intersections in close proximity to this curve. Several of the alternative RHCCD realignment options contemplate the use of an existing narrow private drive which connects to the Sycamore Inn parking lot and Foothill. Boulevard via the signal at Sat Sernaraino /Sycamore Inn Driveway. Another option would continue this linkage with Footniil Boulevard along the base of'the hillside to .onr.ct at -Aar Avenue. The existence of this cturve is significant, because without major realignment of either RHCCD or the private roadway through the hills along with substantial earthwork, adequate sight distance for the potential intersection cannot be achieved. "DENTIFICAUMN OF ALT ENATIVE ALIGNMENTS Figure 3 illustrates the potential alternative alignments investigated. It should be noted that three of these alignments contemplate use of an existing private street which connects RzICCD with the Sycamore Inn's parking IOL Tho f -lurth Alternative envisions coanecting RHCCD with Foo'th -11 Boulevard through a vacant parcel if land. This alternative would create a new intersection situated half %ay between Grave Avenue and San Bernardino Road /Sycamore "9n driveway. The first three alternatives all involve expanding an existing private roadway intersection located souther:y of a right -ha, ,-A (as viewed by southbound traffic) approximately 300 feet ^oum of Calle Cambe. Figu. -_. 4 isiusustes these alternatives. Utilization of "xis private roadway in its present configuration and alignment is not fe, °sible, s;nce adequate sight distance for the intersection cannot be provided without substantial regrading and realignment of the I RHCCD curve. A diagram depicting this sight distance limitation is provided in the Figure 4. In addition, the private roadway, which is only 20 to 22 feet in width, would. have to be widened by -- -- imum of 12 feet or more to satisfy minimum design criteria for a residential Meet, Presuming that the adequate sight distance could be provided around the curve on RHCCD, the resulting alignments would be similar to that depicted in Figure 4. This Figure illustrates the minimum curve radii to achieve the absolute minimum design speed of 25 miles per haur. However, use of a 25 MPH design speed cannot be recommended sin-.e speeds coming down the Red Hill grade would tend ti excess 25 MPH unless the motorists were to "ride the brakes" to slow their vehicles, A more reasonaale and realistic minimum design s ;eed would have be 35 MPH, but such is virtually impos Able to achieve without wholesale regrading of the hillside. Original Poor Quaj,,y 2;1 z in M r %a w u# w Q w uo u cr, w x W. 0 > > AV U14 a U 14L 0 U. LU In IV = 14 . uj 4 L7 W ra > 4 H Cr 4 Cr 'a E- 4�, 0 r4l cc `10 00 ; . ff w C3 - rx rc C3 I is s . Lu ui a: z & m 0019 as m V. Lu tu F- 13 2 CC W cc IN cc "i up W w tc w W cc w A V m w xC 0 > en 1z . uj tz cc Cm 4 - O OZ Z 4 m 4 jac 0 w z QX -t- rah a a V ri, cc %X p is - -( V 9 if � % , 4 o cc C3 is Is LSJ ui M -7 Z 9 r 4 � 1 f lpx f gR r gC 1 J i 1 1 ( J I lot a tl FJ I} Jy IJ �I• /� JF f♦ 7 rr rl MM k � y kl V H Ins ANALYSIS OF 13AKF FX'I`TFNSION (ALTERNATIVE 1) Presuming that the problems of sight distance and minimum design speed can be overcome, and analysis was conducted of what would be the effect on traffic flow on Foothill Boulevard V Baker Avenue were extended to the north. Perhaps the most significant advantage is that by -pass traffic corning from the west could be encouraged to proceed on to Carnelian Street rather than use RHCCD since it wauid involve some backtracking, albeit a minor amount: Thi* "advantage" is offset by three significant disadvantages. Thrse are. 1. The existing railroad under - crossing limits the width of Foothill Boulevard to four narrow travel Ives. The existing bridge makes the installation of an eastbound left - turn oa Foothill BoV .ard at Baker difficult since the roadway is limited to four travel lanes through the undererossing. Providing the eastbound left -turn lane for g sufficient distance to accommodate the ta►,"i -turns could reduce the travel lane widths to an unsatisfactory condition. It is recognized that this aondPion would not exist in the future condition after Foothill Boulevard has been widened to its ultimate width. 14owever, although tentative bridgg widening. st:.dies are underway, no firm date is set for construction. Therefoce, the retooation of RHCCD would Le contingent upon completion of the railroad bridge widening. 2. Relocating tCta RHCCD intersection cast of the railroad usdercrossing increases the traffic volume on Faotiill Boulevard in this critical narrow four -lane section by about 4,000 ADS'. This would have significant negative impact on traffic flow in this area. I The cost of constructing RHCCD under the railroad. would be quite costly, touch more ea than any other r..ernative. pr1A Ycgl r7 Y AN iNi! ALTFPN.&TM -Es (ALTERNATTVF$ 2 and 3) Presuming the sight distance and grading problems at the RHCCD /private road intersection can be overcome, the trade -offs involved with realigning RHCCD around the Sycamore inn was evaluated. The primary advantage would be that the new RHCCD / Foothill Boulevard intersection would "become simply an expansion of an existing four -way intersection and the Present skewed intersection eliminated altogether. A new signalized intersection is not created. Another advantage is that unlike for the Baker Street alternative, ( Al:ernative 1) Foothill Boulevard could be restriped to six lanes permitting the additional 4,000 ADT from RHCCD to be accommodated immediately. This advantage is counterbalanced by a number of disadvantages. These include: 1. The existing Sycamore Inn parking facilities art, separated from the building by a new ,roadway. Thils in effect creates an off -site parking lot with its associated pedestrian ;eafety concerns as patrons would have to cross a roadway with over 4,000 ADT. 2. Although minimum design speed (35 MPH) of 35 MPH clitnot be obtained. The "best" design speed achievable is 25 h4PH which sftould not be acceptable. ' 3. Even a minimum roadway width (36 feet) creates serious disruptions of the existing parking facility. - 4. The right -cf -way acquisition necessary for these alternatives is substantial. ANALYSic OF VACANT PAR FT ALTERNATTVE (ALTERNATIVE 4) The fourth alternative evaluated involves realigning RHCCD from its present location approximately 400 feet easterly through a vacant lot on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. This alternative has become the 11mmmmended Plan and is shown in Figure S. This alternative offers a number of advantages. These include: 1. The minimum acceptable design speed of 35 MPH with adequate intersection sight distance can be achieved. (Assumes superelevation.) 2. A computerized simulation of the traffic opemtipti of the resulting signal system indicates the proposed intersection spacing will facilitate the movement of through traffic on Foothill Boulevard without backing traffic into adjacent intersections and a ,00d coordinated signal progression can be achieved. (The results on the TRANSYP- V computer analysis is included in the Appendix.) In addition, although the relecatiom would permit s gnalization of RHCCD at Foothill Boulevard, the intersection could be retained as a two -way stop. 11 ^k�4 1�d�1� a Ln v v H ro ri 1 a ^k�4 1�d�1� 3. Relocating the proposed RHCCD intersection 760 feet east of Grove Avenue (it is _ currently 360 feet east of Grove Avenr.e) will improve traffic flow on Foothill Boulevard. d. The proposed new signal at RHCCD and Foothill Boulevard could act as a "meter" for limiting traffic onto northbound RHCCD, while this would not prevent commuter use, it would saverely limit such ase and act as a leterrent to continued future f inrreases. -1 5. The right -of -way acquisition required is limited to one parcel, the least of any f �[ alternative under consideration. _J SIMI L T1 D TRAF C Fi GW ANALYSIS In addition to a geometric evaluation of reloca'ang the intersection of RHCCD with Foothill Boulevard, an analysis of the impact on existing traffic 'flow conditions was conducted. l" To Usist in this analysi3. a computer traffic row simulation program TRANSYT-7F, was utilized. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were utilized for analytical purposes.* The existing five -phase signal operations on Foothill Boulevard at Grove Avenue and at San Bernardino Road were retained. A new two -phase signal (i.e,, no separate left -turn arrows onto RHCCD) was analyzed at a location midway berveen the Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road intersections. The results of this analysis are presented in the following table. Additional interpretation of the results indicate that in order to provide satisfactory level of service in the PM peak hour, three (3) eastbound travel lanes are necessary. In addition, unless a separate left -turn phase is provided for eastbound Foothill Boulevard to northbound Red Hill Country. Club Road, the existing peak hour demand of 209 YPH will be limited to a maximum of about 160 left- turns per hour. This will effectively function as a "meter" restricting the number of commuters using RHCCD /Alta Cuesta Drive as a by -pass routing between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Avenue. Further review of the computer flow simulation reveals that the maximum queue length of traffic backed up on Foothill. Boulevard behind the signal at Grove Avenue will be 12 to 1 li caro for eastbound traffic. This situation will occur during the PM peak hour. The maximu lr 12 1 < %see of saturation flow on Foothill Boulevard will be 73 percent rf capacity indicating a level V of service "C" can be achieved. Analysis of a four -lane cross section c- Foothill Boulevard indicates that during the PM peak hour a maximum saturation flow rate c. 114 percent of capacity will occur at Foothill Boulevard at RHCCD indicating an unacceptable overcapacity condition will exist. 'fo mitigate this condition, either the signal at RHCCO must be eliminated, or a third eastbound °thre lane must be provided. It is recommended that Foothill Boulevard be restriped to provide six ;6) travel lanes in the segment between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. The following Table 2 indicates the standard Measures Of performance Evaluation (MOBs) produced by TRANSYf- 7F-for 9n and 100 second cycle lengths with both two and three eastbound travel Ianes. As indicat -d, a 90- second cycle length without double••cycling the new, two -phase signal at RHCCD produces the best reruns (i.e.. average intersection delay of 23 seconds per vehicle). Although a 90- second cycle is ki ,out the maximum reasonable length for a two -phase intersection, very little pedestran traffic is anticipated, and pedestrian violation of the long cycle is not anticipated. This long cycle does provide the deterrent for use of -RHCCD by commuters. � 1 Ill l�.ItIL . • �� � �;. ' '+ One of the questions which determines whether or not signalization of the existing intersection of Foothill Boulevard and RHCCD is feasible is the need for *back-to-back* left- turn storage between the two lotions. A good rule of thumb of estimating the ;left -turn storage requirement at a signalized intersection says to provide "one -foot of left -turn storage for each peak hour left -turn vehicle plus 25 feet." The source of this guideline is recommended practice published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (PTE). Examination of Figure 2 indicates a peak hour volume of 108 westbound left -turns 'oothill Boul— -i at Grove Avenue and 208 Ieft- turns per hour on eastbound Foothill Bout., at RH0_ a order to provide adequate left -turn storage on Foothill boulevard, a minimum )f separation of 556 feet between intersections is required. The existing spacing is less than 460 feet. A computer simulation analysis of traffic flow on Foothill Boulevard (assuming a new signal were to be installed at the present location of RHCCD) indicates that eastbound left -turn traffic :could continuously- exceed capacity and back out of the left -turn pocket blocking the �� 13 TABLE 2 MMSYT ^7F ANALYSIS RESULTS STREET: FOOTHIr1 BOULEVARD (4101JE AVENUE TO SAN ill-- RDIHO ROAD) CONDITIONS: RHCCO relocated to midway between Grove AVen:e WA San Bernardino, and signalized with two•phm signal. Assuse six Lanai on Foothilt Boutevard. NO. of AVG. TOTAL PERFORM • SAT. 1& .DELAY. -SAPS INDEX AN PeLK. Rom Basic OPT (904) 0 20.03 3,287.0 57.41 Node 2 DBL CYC (100" cyc(a) 0 aJ.61 3,910.4 62.74 10 Basic OFT unT Ell (90N) 15:.79 3,271.3 5645 Node 2 bill CYC w/3T EB (100 ^) 0 20.41 3,597.3 62.30 PH PEAK HOUR Basic OPT .) 1 37.44 6,295.7 139.55 Node 2 DBL CYC (1004 ayete) 2 70.84 6,585.6 227.07 Basic OPT w/31 EB (904) 0 2305 5,390.5 96.68 Node 2 DBL PYC wh. E2 C1OG4) 1 29.92 :,183.0 119.52 , Ieastbound !aside tbsu -lane. The traffic modrl predicts 11 eastbound left -tum vehicles wound need to be stored at RHCCD during each cycle. This demand represents approximately 242 feet of storage required which compares well with ITFs gewnal g- deline which equates to 233 feet of left -turn storage in this case. The computerized signal simulation analysis for traffic flow along Foothill Boulevard between Grove Aver,;- and RHCCD presumed a 100 secon.i cycle length. If longer cycle length ,. ere necessary, on the order o1' 110 or 120 seconds, 'o.z Aisfy futur) traffic increases along Foothill Boulevard then the inadequacy of existing left -aura storage for eastbound Foothill Boulevard of RHCCD would be Further onacertated. As the cycle length increases so too does the left -turn storage requirement. Co="Uentiy, rather than having to store 11 vehicles per cycle (for 100- second cycle Iength) the minimum storage would be increased to 12 to 14 vehicles per Cycle. If such long cycle lengft were to become necessary then it is• anticipated that during peak period the eastbound left -turn queue at RHCCD could back up into and block Grove Avenue. y The conclrsibn of this analysis :s insufficient separation currently exists on Foothill > Boulevard between Grove Avenue and RHCCD to ',erarit signalization of RHCCD. If such were to be done, the inside eastbound thru -cane would be contia +_.11y blocked during the peak period by eastbound lef, -turn traffic waiting to turn onto RHCCD from Foothill Boulevard. The need for continued left -turn capability from Foothill. Boulevard to RHCCD was investigated. Existing traffic counts show 7E VPH and 208 VPH turn onto northbound RHCCD from eastbound Foothill Boulevard in this AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This by way of contrast only T and Y2 VPH turn right onto RHCCD during the same periods. Examination of this fact combined with review of overall access to the RHCCD residential area suggests that eastbound loft -turn access is used both by residents as well as a commuter by -pass route. If this left -urn is eliminated altogether then residents of the area who use this access are going to be significantly inconvenienced as tl• ^v have to travel all the way around the neighborhood to Carnelian Street and RHCCD/Camino Predera for access. These same residents will make a U -turn at the f; t opportunity (such as the San Bernardino Road signal) or will use other resilantial streets, such as Camino Predera, increasing traffic there and simply shifting the problem to another street. Furthermore, failure to provide for eastbound left -turns on Foothill - ' Boulevard at RHCCD would not significantly effect the southbound commuter traffic.. J-° rG 15 U C I .1 11 To address the "commuter" issue on RHCCD, it nnocars that a better strategy to continue to allow eastbound left - turns at RHCCD and Foothill Boulevard, but to restrict the number that can enter by installing a sil -nal and timing that signal to act as a "meter" This would have the effect of increasing the travel time for the commuters using the RH :CD by -pass causing some of them to continue east on Foothill Boulevard to C'4rnelian Strcei. Residents of the area would still be able to enter via RHCCD perhaps encountering a little more delay than at present, but without having to drive all the way around to the entrance on Carnelian Street or encounter a U -turn situation at the fir. t available median opening on Foothill Boulevard. Although the recommendation is to provide full access at the new relocated RHCCD /Foothill Boulevard intersection an option exists to provide only a westbound left -tu.a into the Magic Lamp Restaurant parking lot. If this option were to be selected, presurn.abiy in an effort to reduce commuter use of RHCCD, then it is recommended that a westbound :.ft- turn lane should be constructed to provide acme- io the restaurant parking lot. However, signalization of the intersection would not be necessary nor. in fact, even would it meet minimum signal' warrants. The volume of traffic exiting RHCCD turning left onto eastbound Foothill Boulevard is less than 10 VPH in the peak hour and such a volume does not justify 0 installation of a signal. 1u � • u alt ►�� ' t o Investigation of the 1`easib1i .*ty of relocating the intersection of RHCCD /Foothill Boulevard indicates not only that such is possible, but highly desirable since it will not only improve the traffic flow conditions on Foothill Boulevard, but qmu - a small but Aificant deterrent to continued commuter traffic use of the RHCCDjAlta Cuesta Drive "short cut" through the RHCCD re dential area. Of four alternatives investigated, Alternative 4, realigning 7,HgCD through a vacant lot 400 feet east of 1 -5 present intersection with Foothill Boulevard; clearly emerges as superior to the other three in every respect. Three of the alternatives involve limited sight dis: ;ice which, unless vastly ioproved, would itself render 1. ,e alternatives unfeasible, Even if t *;is restriction could be solved, and thrugh substantial regrading to the R0 Hill would be possible, the rema;niag advantages of the recommended alternative fag exceed those of the othr candidates. Ae 2 result, it is recommended dat the city pursue a acquisition of a _ ,ant parcel of land on the north side of Foothill 'Boulevard 400 feet east of RHCCD for the purpose of relocating /r&Aiguing RHCCD i�ad signalizatioa; of a new intersecdot located midway between two existing signals at Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. I F It is further .recommended that full left turn access be provided at the new MCCI)f— tothiti Boulevard intersection and that this location bo signalized and timed to discourage commuter use while at tho same time permitting motorise to enter albeit encountering somewhat more delay than is currently eapo=ienced. 17 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG."., CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ENVIRON14ENT ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -02, REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD INTERSECTION, AS SHOWN IN reE SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE REALIGNMENT OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET EAST OF THE: PCSENT IETERSECTION WITH FOOTHILL. BOULEVARD, BASED UPON AN III -DEPTH ENGINEERING STUDY. A. Recitals. (Ii Tne City of Rancho Cucamc -ga has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amenewr.t No 89 -02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Rw- olution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On February 8., 1989, the Planning CtRsnission of the City of Rancho C.ucamciga conducted a duly, noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THERFFORE, it is hereby found, dr'',-mirmd and resolved by the Planning Connissien of the City of Rancho Cusm °7• -,gL as follow.: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part iw, of tdis Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence ,,resented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on February 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Cowipsion hereby specifically finds as follows- a) The existing skewed intersection of Red Hill Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard is in close proximity to an existing traffic signal at Grove Avenue. The coambinecion of this close intersection spacing and sSt'wed aligi;ment creates operational 4ifficulties with traffic flow on Foothill Boulevard. The referred realignment as shown In the Foothill Boulevard Specific Taro is not feasible. A feasible realignment has been determined by an in -depth traffic engineering study. The proposed plan is to realign Red Hill Country Club Drive to approximately 400 feet east of iti preaent intersection et Fcothili Boulevard. PLANNING COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSP 89 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PAGE 2 ►_1 (r) The property on the north side of Foothill Soulevard from Red Hill couritry C1ua Drive east to the Southern Pacific railroad cross•:nq is zoned special commercial. The property in the south side of Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to San Bernardino Road is zoned special commercfYi, and froi San Bernardino Road to the Southern PsciNc railroad crlssing is zoned community commercial; North and south of these commercial aonca are residential areas. c) This amendment does not cz"flied with the !and Use Policies of the General plan. and will provide for development, within the Ostrict, in a manner consistent with the General Plan acid with related development and d) This amendmrnt does promote the goals and objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and e): This amendment would not be materially inJurious or detrimental to the ad'acenn properties and would not have a sign''icant impact on fry, environment note the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial ev-. nce presented to this Commission during the abcve- referenced public hearing an upon the specific findings of facts set faith In paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Cc=,ssion hereby finds and concludes as follows: a) The amendment does not conflict with the Circulation polities of the Foothill Boulevard Spec',*,'-- Plan; and b) The &**ndment promotes the goals of the Circulation Element of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Flan; and c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the Genet -al Plan; and d) The ak&ndment would not be materially %jurftis or detrimental to the adjacent properties. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the Project has been reviewed and considered for compliance with tte Califc"ia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and fee A&r this Commission reccmAds the issiLoice of a '•egative Declaratinn by the City Council. IL IE 4 '�LANNIRG COWISSION WSOLUTIOH Flo. FSP 89 -02 - Cr Y CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 4, 1989 PAGE 3 S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, snd 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves +,hat pursuant to Section 66860 to 65866 of the California Gavernr t Code, that the Planning Co.- nissian of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hireby. recomRSnds approval on the 7Ath dad- of February, 1 6.89, Iadustrial Area Spek. fic Plan ►.,iendmnnnt No, 89 -0. 6. The DepuV Secretary to this Cow- eission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AR4 ADOPTED THIS STH'®aY OF FEBRUARY, 19G9. PLANNING COMISSION Of THE CI i %9 OF RWHO CUC,AMONGA BY: tarry _ . , e , Cha r,= ` ATTEST: rn u er, jecre ary I, Brad Builec^, Secretary of the 'Planning CoWsWton of the City of Rancho; Cucamonga, do harm certify tl:at the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Ce missizn of the City of Funcho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the P1anring Comissioer held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the followin5 vote- to -wlt: AYES: COMMISSIONEAS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS'. ABSelf : COWrS,,IONZRS: 7.1.2 Access Control Prods yarn Easiness contiguous to Foothill Boulevard currently realize no access restrlctions. In addition, existing fragmented parcel configurations promote a multiple of co-.f- flitting access point^ which disrupt teat fic flow by causing iocreasea- z1_-m rric- tior,. A •recommandeA, program of access contra: consisteni with current city am;ess policles reguiating ante rs mint, driveway cuts, and their location f-om `or another; Inciueting tl;e proviskei cf reciprccal.,access agraem,�.-.4s, and special vehicular ac-ass controls, (sucY a5 right - in, and 'right -out islands) is_ne,,e;asary dL to _the_followin!-j, o Increasers ,,--jcular traffic. capacity; o Increased perception of saf -t -v; o <educed v>I;icular traffic conflict points; and o Reduced vehicle / pedestrian, conflict points. t� Q DEL E-°, D 7.1.3 Red Hill_Realicnmen•t currently, ed Hill in sects Foo Boulevar at an aw►< rd angle. ue to this e ' brig con ration, k.e 'Hill will be r igned in der to pro ate can eff' lent and s e t.,ansitio to Foothill ulevard, A prefer d alignme was select the foliowi the cor+zi ratior of o er i a .t scenar s. The se - ed al" e it is s'r wn an this age. r. HcdFttl. l aal�flnrn F3 its CIRLULAT.ION CONCEPT - � n- x" a.1,a Aftaccess Control Program Business contiguous to Foothill Boulevard currently retslize no access restrictions. In addition, existing fragmented parcel configurations promote a multiple of con - flicting access points which disrupt traf- fic flow by causirg increased side fric- tion. A recommended program _of access controls, consistent with current city access policies regulating access 'paint. driveway cuts, and their . location frbih'"zn another; Indlading the pro\Asion -of reciprocal access agreements, and spy -fiat vehicular access controls, (such as right- in, anH right -out lslant;s) is rkecessar * due to thF- folloWini ;' • Increased vehicular traffic capacity; • Increased perception of safety; • Reduced vehicular traffic conflict points; and • Reduced vehicle /pedestrian conflict points. ,,,,,,u K 7.1.3 Reel Hill Rea.ian` ment The existing skewed inters---tion of Red Hill Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard is in close proximity to an Existing traffic signal at Grove Avenue. The combination of This close intersection spacing and skewed alignment creates operational difficulti:,s wit', traffic float on Foothill Boulevard. An in -depth traffic engineering study has studied the existing intersection and four a.'`r Natives and recommends one that is feasible and desirable. The recommended plan is tL relocate the intersection of Red Hill Country Club Give approximately 400 feet east of its present location, prc,-;de a median break, and install a two -phase traffic signal (no left turn arraws). The recommended alignment is shown on this page. rtECOMMENDIED ALIGNMZ'4T am," owm..1 au on. CiRCiJLATICIO CONCEPT Exhibit 91 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 8, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the :Manning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner- BY: Debra Meie- -, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TRACT 132!3 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify a condition oT—affir—oval tar a prey ously approved and recorded one -lot tract for 256 condominium units lsittiin the M edium•yigh Residential District (14 -24 duelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista !Manned Coms;unity, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive APN: 227 - 151 -13. I. ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a requested modification to on on of the approved Tract 13273. II. BACKGROUND: At the time this tract was approved (May, 1987), the southern - oundary has flankee by a portion of the east greenway corridor (see Exhibit "A "), which is the spine of the pedestrian circulatior system thrown the Terra Vista Community. The improvement and construction of the greenway are tied to the tract development as stated in Condition No. 11: 11. The Greenway Trail adjacent to the project's south perimeter shall be developed u a Dart of this project. Complete improvement details fo- the Greenway Trail shall be included in thy► landscape /irrigation plans, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 1977 In )event months the land use configurations south of bi • tract have been revised, primarily due to establishing a site plan for the YNCA (see Exhibit "B "). Due to 11kese changes the greeixday corridor is now part of a park site, rather than an independent trail. Additional information in regard to the revised park si;.e 1ctation is included in the report: for Itran K, the cunceptral ravlaw of the two Terra Vista park sites. III. ANALYSIS: The applicant would like to mod=ify the conditior: to allc4 their, to obtain building permits prior to the approval of improvement plans, since the improvement plans must now include the entire park site. The processing and approval of the park plans is a more lengthy process than those of the greenway corridor alone. ITEM j PLANNING cowassru STAFF REPORT TRACT 13273 - LEWIS HOMES February S.- 1989 Page 2 However; the trail system through the north portion of the park shall be completed along with the construction of the tract. Therefore, the revised condition woulO read as follows: The greenway si dewalk sr, tem wi thin the YMCA park si to shal l be constructer and landscaped from the walkway, northerly to the tract boundary, for the length of the south property dine, prior to release of 50% of the units within Tract 13273. This -dill allow construction of the apartments to begin white the park plans are being developed ara approved. However, final construction of the walkway will still be tied to occupancy of the tract. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The a y Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to property . rs within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOWEVDATION; Staff recony.ends that the Planning Commission approve °UFF— Fequested modification to Condition too. 11 through adoption of thr attached resolution. Res I' ul ly s tP.d -,f Bra r rcity PlAner 88:DM:ko Attachments: Letter from Applicant E:dtibit "A" - Original Greenway Corriour Alignment Exhibit "DO ; Proposed YMCA Park Site layout ilesolution of Apprcual J —'2"` L2 Eli Lewis Domes Management Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue t P -O. Box 5701 Upland, California 91785 7141985 -0071 FAX: 714198? -9799 January 23, 1989 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Bubject: Modi- `ication of condition of Approval No. 11 For Tract 13273 Gentlemen: Lewis Homes requests that the conditions of approval for this apartment complex be modified. At the time approval was granted, ai forty foot wide section of the greenway corridor ran along the! southern boundary :af this project, as pnv the Terra Vista Co,imunity Plan. Bath Lewis Homes and the City desired thal. this be developed in conjunction with this project, and Condition No. 11 requires that plans be approved prior to permits being isf;ued. At the City's requ-=st, we are altering the land use plan south of this site. The recreational/commercial bite adjacent to the greenway corridor will be relccated tc the intersection of '.hurc:9 Street and iMiLliken Avenue. The park site that was at that intersection will be immediately south cf Tract 13275, and will be linked with they East: Creenway Park to 7reatR one large park site. klat was a segment of tha greenway corridor joining these two parks will be widened from forty to one hundred fifty feet. Pecausa or the significant change in the land use adjacent to this project, wa respectfully request that the conditions of approval be amended. We telieve Chis is in the best interests of all concerned. Sincr;; ely, LEWIS HGMES MANAGEMENT CORP. Tom Dellaquila/ ��GffGG Staff Landscape Arcihitec.t rD:cjc /d1y8e6l �3 ,new cw-- Original Poo PAM It Ott' 7==� t dR commma": inkv LAOR TRACIr is"S, ISE PAM COVVMTMN TOM CSOTOW Am APT �JIAPARTM am PAO I SO 29a Um V -4f I ed I PAM M JIMA 3N {7 3MT FA MILT AP T_ ?I, 3f,& urn Ate um.. ON NIQUI 0 1" 11 Amniumm I ea ISO Umm PAM RMAURAM/ to MAN OF 11 1 •14 Ja Iftww' NORTH In* CUU`A M, ONGA TULE: VISIGN Poor Quality rk- SO 29a Um V -4f I ed I PAM M JIMA 3N {7 3MT FA MILT AP T_ ?I, 3f,& urn Ate um.. ON NIQUI 0 1" 11 Amniumm I ea ISO Umm PAM RMAURAM/ to MAN OF 11 1 •14 Ja Iftww' NORTH In* CUU`A M, ONGA TULE: VISIGN Original Poor Quality RVION"M I VICNITY MAP 40p-lt�' NORTH (I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PTA WVTVr. n?VT.QTAM of�7�;- ITRU: TITLIP,e-, RESOLUTION NO. 87 -82A A RESnLUTION OF TviE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO TRALr 13273 AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF FOR A ONE -LOT SUBDIVISION ON 15.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDE'TAL DISTRICT (14 -24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN t'PE TERRA VISTA PLANED COMMIUNITY, LOCATED ON TH SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVe -NUE AID MOUNTAIN VIF„ DRIVE, AND MAKING. FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APh; 227 - 151 -13 A. Recitals. (i) On May 22, 1987, this Commission adopted Resolution No. 87 -82, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, a one -lot subdivision for condominium purposes in the Medium-High Residential District (14, -� dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community.. (ii) Planning - Division Condition No. 11 states that: `The Greenway Tail adjacen�� to the project's south . perimeter shall be detelopei as a part of this project. Complete improvement details for the Greenway Trail shall be ~'nciuded 3n the landscape /irr°igation plans, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division." (III) Lewis Homcs has filed a request for the modification to Condition No. 11 c•: Tract 13273 as described in the of this Resolution. (iv) On the 8th day of February, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the requested modification and concluded said hearing on that date. fir) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 8. Resolution. NOW, TRIOZEFORE, it is hereby found, determines. and resolved by the Planning Commission of ift City of Rancho Cucamonga as .,Il ws-. 1. This Comission 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 present6d to this CorrO scion :luring the above- referenced public hearing on February 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, togther with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as fol..ws; PLANNING c"rSS10N RESOLUTION NO. 87 -82A OIFICATiON TO TR 13273 - LEwrs February 8, 1989 Page 2 Wz a) The application applies to property located at the southeast corner of Milliken avenue and Mountain View Drive with a street frontage of 634,00 feet along Milliken Avenue and 654.50 feet along Mountain View DM ve and is pE4_ently uaimr,roved; and b) The paper on all sides of the subject site *s vacant land_ 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referen zd public hsaring and upon the specific findings o' facts set fort, in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a) The tentatfve tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans- b) Mie design or i�rovm,, nts of tha t�► -~�'ye tract. 1s consistent with the General Pi,"'. De-41opereant ,,ode, and sP_ ,c plans c) The site is physically suitable fcr the type of deve".opment proposed; d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to h<mans and WI dlife ar their habitat; e) Tito tentative tract is not likely to cause serious publI, health Problems; f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of. record, for access through oru%e of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Coamaission hereby finds and certifies that the projmt has been reviewed an,i consider ^d in compliance with the California Environment-al Quality Act of 1970 a ^d; urth)r, this Cmnuission izereby issued a Negative Declaration on May 27 19E , S. Based upon the findings and concivaions set forte in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application and modifies Tract 13273 by modifying Planning Div.sion Condition W. 11 to read as follows: i PLANNING COMMI =ON RESOLUTION `;. 81-82A MODIFICATION TO TR 13273 - LEWIS February 8, 1989 Page 3 "The greermny sidewalk system within the YMCA park site shall be constructed and landscaped 'From the wall.,my, northerly to the tract boundary for tha 'length of the south property line, prior to release of 5OZ of Vie units within Tract 13273," 6. All other conditiors of Resolution 8742 shall still apply, 7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the &idoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DKf OF FEBRUARY, 1989, i PLANNING COMMISSION rF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tarry T. WNW, Chalman Al"i'EJ ?• Brad Buller. cretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Qancho Cucamonga, do hereby, certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, Passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City )f Rancho 1%camonga, at a regular meeLing of the Planning Commission hald on the 8th day o:° February, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: C"ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �=S a] n DATE: TO: MOM: BY: SUBJECT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT E.I �ff Febrrary R. 1989 Mftber ; Of Tho Planning Commission Joe :'-,hunt , Com aunity services Monger Dave Leonard, Park Projects Coordinator Conceptual Park Designs For Two Xerra Vist;ta Plam led Community ,Parks -- "2a Mission Park atijd The YMCA /Park site" Conceptual plans for two nei:gbborhood parks to be within the Tmrra Vista Planned Community are siab-,.ltted to the Planning Commission for your review and comments, Exhibit "A" is La Mission Par:: and Exhibit "B" is the u-i -hazed YMCA/Park Facility. I The 1983 City Council %dapted Terra Vista Specific Plan states two parks will bft- "conceptually designed to r~arve occasrionally a tempo% %ry roe in the community's atorAwater drainage system in lmtrrrze ,y rare ocom-rence of heavy rainfall". (see Exhil iit "c ") Levis Homes F osr rd the frequency of water e,Ataring the park /detention facil�it� to be with a Live -year or greatisr level. Atc0m.. The Oil *& would then detain the v;ataz^ for v few hours durJ nq a Vivs -year storm., to a maxiadm of ssevhnty -two hours fts a hx nfted -year storm. The Terra Vista daveltaxsant has aft -Nncad to % stage in which the detention gacilities ar needed. rivtis Homes combissioned angino*ring stuaiss ,t the ttacr f c`ilities and fond the intent of tha Te=a Vi �a Specifio Plan ities not ism met. Bused on a. change in criteria by the 5ar: cul4d not Flood eantroi Agcicy, tha t rsqusncy of water "Awning the basins would now have to be increased. The Cityls position was an increased frequency of flooding to the siaa wou; not be accepta Ye. 1977 �, ITEM K Concen+,val Park Designs For Two Terra Vista Park$ Frbruary 8, 1989 Pago Two Through a series of meetings with the 4ity +s Enginaexing and Community Services Depr-srtment, Lawis UomasI engineer fou.-+' a comprozisa Solution to the matter. By increasing the size of the westerly basin, changing the contourea to increase the area of 3:3. slope3, and by a_llcwing approx!.mately 2 of the westerly b3oin 0 acres to receive inflow or water on a two- year Gtorru lavesp the second or Rasterly basin could be deleted from cons daration as a storm wat *v detention facility. A series. of designs were developer's baond on the 13 Mission Park basin being ties only facility needed to detain water. The Park and Recreation Co=is €ion reviewed !%a designs and selected the plan shown as Exhibit *A". Tho4y request $ome modificati.onq to the plan as stated in the t%tach+sd November 17, 1988, Collvission Minutes. TAe develop ent of the second or easterly YXIC,A /Park site was relocated groxa • t°-e original TTtrraR Vista rpecific Plan location on the northwest cor*sr of Milliken and Church Strasts to tk.a sitar ahcw:% on Exhibit "D ". Exhibit "B" shows the design devoloprrd for the site. This lorzat ;on allows a better accommodation of the yMC.: proposal and tl^s adjacent park dazign. Thr4 concept hues been . `xvo=b:y rzV'iA;.wed by the Park aad Rs.raaticn Commission ;cls t 6 requef+t that r rastroom be added to the design, When viewing `:he Exhib3,t KB" desig:�, Levi% Homes has included the Gruenway Corr; dor and East Green Park for clarity of understanding of the olerients proposed fnr the YMCA sitee. Actual daslgn of those facilities will oocur at a later data. �,g��endaiti�e►� The Patnning revireirr qhe proposel plaiav for the La Himsion Park and YNMVPaerk sitz and provide, c mment,.. to City Council on pr %posal. cc: %TOO Community Servicas Manage DL /zq r10701-02 -o2-8-,89 PC,-,-Aq end a Exhibit B d 3 II C '°Y c hl ° t i' lip CL Ut Ilk- co f 6 I (Owl Id 4 � 3 �q QLuoi J E�r E®� QW W PL 1 j 0 01 !4041 LUZ Lila �J� _,(� LA 1� i Exhibit C M W ttt� �i 8p ►° a O s O.q c� ' a e ME r 3 Luui .i CC lk uj° --- $ - - - - - -� _ " UA cc NEWm b r L n a ! Y�1 a -+ = C"•t � r l r M W ttt� �i 8p ►° a O s O.q c� ' a e ME r 3 Luui .i CC lk uj° --- $ - - - - - -� _ " UA cc NEWm b �! 9 ) t . . / ■■A |m! D �■3 ■ |� `| || .� ,.§| �! 9 ) t . . / ■■A |m! D i |22. , � } � � , � & ! d ! k [ � �_ § § , e . � � � a _ Ex �-,m A P � Minutes Park and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting November 17, 1908 i WiS C0�7(: PTUA% PLANS - LA rSDYGN PAFtt� NPt3T F nM CQMAiISSIt? I Daave Leonard, Pans Proje�-,:., Ce=dinator, informed the Commission Memtbers tiat a COPY of the design La Mission Park was mailed to them jr their review, and that staff has reviewed tnS design for the La Mission Park site. The only concerns staff bad at-er reviewing the design were that the half wart basketball court was in the five year flood area, ataff will recommend to reiccate the court. The restroom building location is pustled hack against the W&11. Recommendation to relocate the building will be made. Commissioner Punter suggested to redesign and to have the parking lot mowed to the mouth entrance of the park. MC'%' AN: Moved by Henry, seconded by Punter, to see the basketball court: eltvated slightly to the north and elevated above the five ' year plain, and tha restracm building be relocated slightly to the south with a picnic area buffer zone between the tot -lot and apartments. Restroom building to be moved to the southemd of the parking lot. Motion carriad; �4 11 E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT a r O z DATE: February 8, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning CommOssion FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT'. 13386 /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-01 WALBANDIAN /GHIAU — Review of proposed root material Tor a 4o- unit own ome project and a 39,000 squar= foot commercial centar, located at the northwest corner of Base Lire Road and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 227- 52?. -01, 02, 03, 04 and 227 -321- 65. 1977 I. BACKGROUND: During the various Planning Commission workshops concon "ted for the proposed mixed use development, concern was expressed by members of the Commission regarding the use of the Cal -Shake the material. As a result, the Planning Commission, in approving the project, placed a condition on the development req-iring the developer to provide examples of successful applications of the Cal -Shake the prior to acceptance of the roofing material and issuance of building permits. The examples were to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee, On December 22, 1988, the nesian Review Committee (MCNiel, Emerick, Kroutil) reviewed samples of the proposed Cal -Shake roof ma":erial submitted by the applicant, in reviewing the roof material, the Committee expressed reservations about the aesthetics of the roof material, particularly the affect that weathering would have on the Cal -Shake tile, and the durability of the material in that it ties a relatively new product. Tne Committee recommended tPiat the applicant provide more information on the Cal -Shake material and that the applicant may wish to explore alternative roofing materials for the project. On 3anukry 5, 1989, the Design Review Committee (Blakesley, Chitiea, Kroutil) again reviewed the proposed roof material for the mixed use development. As in previous meetings, the Committee expressed reservations about the use of the Cal -Stake material due to the aesthetics and durability of the material. The Committee suggested that alternative roofing materials (i.e. tile) be explored by the applicant. Beccause this was considered to be a policy decision as well as a design issue, the Design Review Committee referred the item to the Planning Commission for consideration. ITEM L PLANNING CISSION STAFF REPORT rf 13886 /CUP 88 -01 - NALBA.NDIAN /CHIAO February 8, 1989 Page 2 El I1. ANALYSIS: Over the past year, it has been the policy of the Planning Commission to require tile roof materials to be used on all new developments. When Cal -Shake has been proposed for other developments, the Planning Commission has required its replacement with a concrete roof tile. In choosing the Cal - Shake roof material for the project, the applicant has stated several reasons for selecting the Cal -shake over other roofing material alternatives: 1. The Cal -Shake closely resembles wood shake roofing materials that is more consistent with the Victorian and Ranch style architecture proposed for the two uses. 2. The lightness of the material is more conducive to use on the commercial buildings due to the large root spans proposed. If concrete tile is used, the structural design of the building would have to be significantly altered to accommodate the additional woight. 3. The intent of the design of the project was to tie the commercial and residential uses together through the use of similar roof materials. In considering the rocf material issue, staff suggests that there are three options available to the Planning Commission, 1. Approve the Cal -Shake material as submitted by the applicant. 2. Require concrete the for th residential project and allow the Ca')-Shake the for the commercial buildings. If this option is selected, should the tiles be similar in color and texture or should they be distinctly different? 3. Require concrete tile for both the residential and commercial projects. III. RECOWMATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant and staff as to the desired roof material through minute action. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13886 /CUP 88 -01 - NALBANDIAN /CHIAO February 8, 1989 Page 3 Resp Sly su ted, M d. Bu r City nner BB:SH:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Townhome Elevations Exhibit "B" - Commercial Elevations 1911111110.� lwmwl - IN.Ttl I t3r.11K. uv rr ( M r�nFIna, �! °llli1111111l � JIB I�>d JA Ir llr � ! IP E i- i J E!!:, �IICII�II�III »llllll__ ;,J''�5���1t��iCCl�ll. � . � .� � -a, i1��L��lf►, ��iC.�if�Nif�llf��fii��il��ji�� nn�'���r� — CITY OF RANOtIO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE; February 8, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89 -07 - A.H. DAVIES - A request to a square feet or office space an existing building and warehouse totaling 4,560 square Net on 5.82 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the southeast corner of 9th Street and: Helms Avenue - APR., 209- 031 -53 and 54. ITEM M I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan and elevations for a s�OiT quare`fi'oot office addition to an existing building. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial buildings; General Industrial (Subarea 31 South - Ind+ustrial buildings; General Industrial (Subarea 3) East - Single family residence and orange grove; General Industrial (Subarea 3) West - Industrial buildings; General Industrial (Subarea 3) C. General Plan Designations: Protect Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MDR 89 -07 - A.W. DAVIES February 8, 1989 Pagel 2 D. Site Characteristics: The site is occupied by an office/ warehouse 501ding and storage yard. A 4,550 square foot building exists on -site as does a large storage area which contains t!lilding equipment, supplies, and construction materials. The sits does not currently meet various Development Code and industrial Area Specific Plan standards with respect to street landscape setbacks, parking lot design, screening of storage areas, and certain public street improvements. The property was improved prior to the City's incorporation and adoption of development standards. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Rip u� ired Provided Office 2,160 1/250 9 Warehou_4 - 2,400 1/1000 L Proposed Addition 600 11250 2 11 Total 13 11 I1. ANALYSIS: A. General: Minor .Development Review 89 -01 has beer, referred to e anning r..cemissi , for review and action. The projec', involves U sues of Commission policy with regard to upgrading of non - conforming sites (to current development standards) 1�: the time of any proposed expansion, G. Project Chro�nolog Listed in table format below is a brief description of the project's history. Date Action June 6, 1988 The appli :ant appiled for a building permit for tOz; office addition and w,t= Worried of the requirement for a -minor avellpmrnt Review (MDR). June 13, i988 The applicant submitted the MDR application (MDR 88 -25). Juste 23, 1988 City staff responded with an inciwpletpness letter iExhibit "S "). Sept. 19, 1988 The applicant stet with City staff concerning screening /landscaping and other requirements. El 0 PLANNING (OMMl5SION STAFF REPORT MDR :'9 -07 - A.W. DAVIES Februar;, 8, 1989 Page 3 Date Nov. 16, 1988 Dec. 6, 1988 Dec. 13, 1988 Dec. 23, 1088 Jars. :16, 1989 Jan, 198 Feb. 1, 1989 Action The applicant submitted a letter requesting phasing of the requirements for site improvements (Exhibit "F "). The applicant met with City staff to discuss the , asing proposal. Staff explained phasit.g of improvements is a policy issue and would remain as a condition of approval'. The applicant indicated his desire to appeal the covdi,tions to the Planning Commission. The City Planner approved 14OR 88 -25 sub .'ect to 8 conditions for site imprcvements (Exhibit "D "). The appeal period ended and n4 ,peal was filed. The applicant met with City staff to raquest reconsideration of the original application submitted June 13, 1988 and if necessary that this matter be taken to the Planning Commission. The applicant re- applied for an MDR which does not address the conditions placed on the previous approval. At the request of staff, the applicant submitted a letter presenting the reasons they have submitted the modification (Exhibit "E "). C. Issues: In a=ccordance with previous policy direction and eve eTopment review actions, the City Planner approved MDR 88- 25 subject to conditions which would have brought the subject site into substantial conformance with current development standards. These conditions included requirements for ppub__l�iic__ i:mpravemrents, such as the installation of public sidewa -Us. street trees, street lights, driveway approaches, and "no parking" signs, and on -site improvements, such as streetrcape landscaping (23 feet of-Tardscaped area as measured from curb face), screening of storage areas, and additional parking lot construction to satisfy parking demand! generated by the proposed office expansion. Additional street right- of -vay dedication (3 feet) and a lot line adjustment v-,. f also made conditions of approval, It should ne nctc-d that these PLANNING COi+1MISSION STAFF REPORT MDR 89 -07 - A.W. DAVIES February 8, 1989 Page n conditions are staiaard conditions placed on ail proposed expansion projects on non - conforming sites. 'n no way do they represet t "special or "new" conditions which have not been require of similar properiy otaners in the past. D••- the previous Minor Development Review process the applicant agreed to and szftitted a proposal that substantially complied with the .ondition. of approval for MDR 88 -25. The matter of phasing the improvements was the only rei,aining issue where agreement was not reached, the Planning anc Engineerina Divisions could not support the applicant's proposed phasing plan. The City's Municipal Code requires that all public improvements (these witnin or adDaceot -- the public right -of- way, such as z;idpwalks, street lights, street trees, etc.) be constructed with the issuance of a building permit (and not phased). Phasing of on -site improvements is not restricted by ordinance but was deemed unacceptable due to current policy and the legal details and potential enforcement problems associated wl h this action. Before City Planner took action on the initial Minor Development Review hv, invited the applicant in to discuss staff's position on the phasing. The applicant indicated that he intended to appeal the City Planner's decision on the phasing to the Planning Commissioa. However, an appeal was not filed within the 10 -day period ,sta',,lished by the Development Code. Instead, the applicant has resubmitted a revised Minor Development Review application. With this application (YDR 89 -07), the applicant does not propose to comply with the 8 conditions placed on the original (MDR 88- 25) approval. Given this situation, the City Planner determined that the project should be referred 'to the Planning Commission and either be approved subject to the original 8 conditions or be denied as proposed. Conditions may also be deleted or modified mt the direction o: the Commission except those required by Ordinance. Those would include the off -site improvements. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The facts f:.^ findings will depend on which Resolution is a op d. Sec: each attached Resolution (paragraph 3) for specific findings. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recom meads that the Planning Commission approve �kiinor beveloprent Review 89 -07 subject to conditions or derby the application (as proposed by the applicant) by adopting the appropriate Resolution. Auk QP M-q PLANNIM COWISSION SCAFF REPORT Nag 89 -07 A.W. DAVIES February 8, 1589 Rage Res, lly s ffa db Bra r city Pler BB: Bii: kf) Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site .Plan Exhibit "Ct° _ Building Elevations Exhibit "Q" - ON 88 -25 Approval setter Pxhibit "F1' Let UrsRequesting Phasing I prove its ,� w Requesting 9 � Lxhibit '"Gl' - IncoWleteness Letter Reso%tl '-. of Approval with Conditions Resalutie a 04 t3enial aj ITY OF mr- k R ► '� A i NORTH- .1 \ 1 ITEM: MDR 80.07 TME: - LOCATION MAP vq�w"Wqftwm- AL =v-c7$eArA_ �77-� 5 77 1 aF ts5;,raRA-. 5'AZ,A ITY OF mr- k R ► '� A i NORTH- .1 \ 1 ITEM: MDR 80.07 TME: - LOCATION MAP vq�w"Wqftwm- AL E )POSED 30. FT. XT" G BUIDI NG NORTH ,I CITY OF ITEM: MDR 89 -2 RANCHO CUCAMONRA TULS: 1111, ELAN .Pp .AT4wq4q s ,n*2 p.Q N -1 awtvwv%vm. ® one% G r E CITY O R.,ANCHO lliT.AVVTTJr- CUCAMON2A PROPOSED 600 SO. FT. ADDITION 5T{NG BULDiNG no ITEM: ME) 1 TME: SITE PLAN Original Poor Quality r �6t7JltMC _ It '/s✓'MR+Y aIMitTnrMaW4' /} I �d++b� aws Y-7 -""'".�""' n grsl9/yi' 1 ml� fYY9t� y " IT;yYiRp csass f 1 CITY i. ITEM-. MDR 89 °07 RANCHO C mod' oM O/ ''' lil A Y TITL& E V YMi.�:.m'r9 ".1R'sr�.r. IDT,AV WTVO. nTA?TQ 'C1Kt nor a V nw.., . . Quality CM OF RANCHO CCQO1fO \GA Oect%ber 13, 1989 Z. Jorge Garcia 0722aArrow Routing Suit* W4 Rancho CUCteonjh, CA 9173.0 suoJECr: MIAOR uvaepI EyT nEviEN es.2s Dear Mr. Garcia, A are in recetpt of your latter requesting phasing of the on.Site tmyrovsmamts Mrsired at yart Of Minor Development. Review 88 -0. no Munidkpat Casa requires that all public improvements be Constructed with the issuance of a building - peewit, Therefore, publt'. ...,d „LS can no;• be phased,. Further, staff cannot support the proposed Ofistnq of Me rtqjired construction yaard. lhis posittion is cailistent with pastcactia of he 0epart*I0t. the industrial Specific Plan requires the stream ng and does not include a provision for phasing. 7ha matter of phasing of on. site lmprovacents to a policy decision and is not ordinan.e specific as Is with the public improy"Onts, I thank you for taking the time last reek to meet wit9 the staff and discuss your project. As was discussed at that meeting you are if; Agreement with the screening requirament and only question the requframent of screenipg it now or later, Again the question of ;basing is a .potiCy decision, Therefore. I had two Chotca%. Cafe was to deny Mtnar•Develcpment. Ptniew 88.25 on the basis that straining is required and that you did not wish to Caply with the raeow%ded condition. The second was to approve your project with the appripfiate conditions as noted below, ib thOICO vas to approve your pMlaeil with condition%. This decision snail be effective following A 10•d3ly appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Please also note that following our last meetin aid the diseu %sioa,on the ex!sti,,g property lines and existing bunk! <,iqs, if evidence is Presented which conclusively si.,we that a lot tine and 2 solid, 2 hour firm- wells with no Openings exists between the two parcels and buildings, the improvements will only be r'tpbir*d of the northerly parcel. Pin_ dings A. That the proposed project with conditions is consistent vith the General Plan. S. that the proposed project with conditions is in accdrdence with the objectives of the Industrial Area SPWOC Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. C. That the proposed project, together with the conditions applicable therein, will mat be detrimental to h0 public NAM, safety, or welfare or materially injurleus to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D, That the proposed project will cowly with each of he applicable provisions of the Developennt Code, tITY O ANC CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION M --U1 I i EBI: M28 89 -0 TITLE: AJ! tit, LEfTEF EXHIBIT: Original ,Poor Quality R&dftlans This project is approved subject to the following candrtions: P eta Division 1. The applicant shall provide 3 additional parking $tells to be paved, striped, and located within a parking tat which seats all applicable City Standards. 2. the construction yards shall be screened from public view along Holes Avenue, Peron. Boulevard, and 9th Street through the use of wails, fences, and /or berms. The proposed screening shall De revfewfd and approved by the City Planner and shali meet all City Standards with regard tir design, location, and construction materials. Screening shall be installed prior `a occupancy reloase of the addition. Engineering Division 1. The applicant shall submit a tot line adjustmenN to eliminate the iat line that crosses the building prior to issuance of building permits, 2. The applicant shall prpv'Jde an additional 3 feet of dedication for street right- ef, - wt along tams Avenue,. 3. The applicant shall 14stall *Mo Parking MyttN' signs on all street fra;tages to ilna MtUf4ctiOn of the City Engineer. 4. The applicant si411 construct the following street improvements on Pero ,loulevard, Hells Avenue, and 9th Street. a) Sidewalks adjacent to ultimate right -af -way. b) Street trees. C) Reconstruct drive approaches to City Standard No. 306. d) Street 11gh4s. S. Street iaprovuant plans, including parkway trees, street lights, drive and approaches prepsred by A Registered Civil Engineer end approved by the City Enginer shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an encroactaent permit. 6. Surety shall be posted and an agreement erecuted to the satisfaction of the Ci v Engineer and "kty attorney, guaranteeing cowletfcn of the public streex, ieprovaaints prior to issuance of building permits. Please note that conditions my specify completion of certain plans or work prior to issuance of buftdinp permits. If evidence is presented Mich conclusively shawl that a lot line and a sotid, 2 -hour fire wit with no optnings exists between the two parcels and buildings, the improvaaents will only to required on the northerly parcel (APR: 209431 -63) and tngineering Dlvision's Condition I can be eliminated. If you should have any questions concerning Spec fic conditions, please feel frsa to contact Bratt darner at (714) 909 -1861. Sincerely, CCPHWI 50EVVE DEPARTIPW P' City, Planner H:mlg CITY OF C ITEM: � q9 -07 RA .Hv CUCA A TITLE: PPRO AL LETTER L- NNING DYVISro?v W(DEXHIRIT: ME Original Poor Quakily FCz— t —'.DA WCo t4r3H Charles S. Cc$ c0 -v °._ ». A'lA1 .p ; is . January 30, too's Br•d suitor, city Planner City, of .Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Post office So% 007 Ranch9 Cucamonga. CA 91,730 Res Minor Development raviav a4 -25 (ile < ?iUd January 24, 1911 Dear Mr. Bullers Our client, the Albert B. Davis* Company, has resubmitted its application in form subatantially 'identical to that originally submitted. You are avert that a prior aabmtssiOn. was the subject of discussion between usi that our cliQut did not feel that it could accept the conditions laid down by auafft and that the appeal period was permitted to run to parmit additional discussions which did not produce agreement. We therefore request that th* issue of the exactions to be required by the city be submitted directly to the planning com- mission. You are aware that it is our client4s position that an expenditure in excess of $250,060.000 is totally out of line for this minor addition to the office capacity of the premises. We will appreciate anything you can do to expedite presents- ticn to the planning commission, so, that both our client and city staff will have "t opportuni -y to present their respactiva posi- tions on this issue. Thant py for your attention to this matter. Vaory truly yours, - ' Charles '-6. Dcskcv CSO /ad ec$ client Jorge Garcia CIT"Y OF 4 8o1NW i/ C 1rd VAWN.. FAX"N IMA14., ITEM- MDR 89.07 TME: REAPPLICATION LETTER j orilginal Poor Quality January 3, 19¢9 CM war,••. •« -rvp a++ City of Rancho Cucamonga past Office Box Sol :�1Staf l�l f1lN i �NA Rancho Cucamonga, California 41730 Attention: Srad Suiiar, City planner Rat Minor Lavoie-,cant Review 80-25 Albert Davies, Inc, G.nttamant Albert tfk a d MinorDSVaIapmant Rel viewandhisorepresenative Mr. J., Garcia have consulted to this office bacauss of their ongo- ing .•oluctanc* to eorsur With the conditions sought to be imposed by th'.r City or Rancho Cucamonga for approVal Of that application. They have asked me to address Boas Commants to the City with res•act to the application. Ha have reviewed the application, and the tanditions requested by the (,sty, it is apparent to us that tha city in at- tempting to exact conditions and farce expenditures which bear no relationship to the very suell need created by this application. The request being maids by the applicant is to add 600 square feet to 4,$6o square feet of office space in an existing strut- tura, 600 Square fart represents officsaccammadations for three additional eaployeas. The building's, approximate value is S340000.00) ably $2000040 will be expanded upon this Improve, Cant. The City has imposed conditions atoirpiaddl- ltionarkinpae scrimgan4aid s theportyta at line adjustment to rasave an existing lot linat sidewalks) grading of driveway '#s lights) the dedication a; additional right of ways and parking (signs. The ,stim,t *d cost of the improvement is{ $204,doo.00. The ,inpri+ma Court Of the United State*, in );ollan IU California Caaatal Ct=iselonr 197 S.Ct. 3141 (1957) held that a property dodication r *quirament "must pass*%* an essential naxu* to the Impact of the proposal davalopment.r Conditions must be imposed for the purpose of mitigating any adverse affect which a. proposed project will have. it is evident that the conditiOns sought to be imposed by the City bear no r,latibh %hip what:noavar (such less even a ra- tional ralatianthip) to the need czeaLted by this development. She City is attempting to exact, VJ a condition Of a routine building permit for a minor addition to a substantial structure, conditions of signifigant expsr +diture. it is exactly that condu',t which the NOjjsn case hold to be a taking. it should not be necessary for citisea* of the community or throughnbureaucraticiattemptst to obtain fotight e than ;a way oper brAn pitraio o Continalsah d rtathistion. Hhsin- dicat4d a willingness — CO.Vromise, a.ui a willingness to attempt to work out a lcn,- tors flan for Boat of the iaprovasants the city wants. to be subjtctadltoudemands havingxno� relationship minor permit, which it create* or to unreasonable t*Viramenu Of the City. The Nol- Iia case imposes upon the courts the obligation to make an '#valuation of the rslatianthip between the need crested by an ap- plication and the conditions sought by the community. 1t should villbdo 90 baaf4 ,r to he invoke to meetsout outrageous and and unjustifiable requiresents. fr tion,Wwhichl ould ere ult inar4 ng you * isatirriwithanecthsea- nec*s*ity of further confrontation. Your attsntian to the eon*ideration* met forth in this let - ter 35 invited. vaVery truly your*, C CITY OF Charles a. Daskov 0 M R 89 -07 +is _ RANCHO M TjTr" : ffiaPFL Qtjo ,§ -+ e E CJTY OF RAN CE -, PLANNIN, Games & Associates 10131 Ano. Route i-g, 60. Rancho Cutw4nia C411 -10 - n4.9tl1�1b13 Vov..meber 10. 1988 CITY OF RANCHO tL'CA%I*ICA PLi.WINO. DEPARTUNT 9340 -8 Bowline Road. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 +30 Attontionn Mr. Srek� He met A!listant Planner Subject: A.W. Gaales Engineering. Offtee Addition MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 80 -25 Dear Stott; Original POOr Quality This it a supplement to our telephone conversation rogatdinq the imps —to t at l on 0f the MDR 88 -2S Requirements, Out Client is proposing the following program to implement the subl matter. i SCOPE OF INORKS: it is proposed to add approximately 600 sq.ft. o: *too to an ..tiring building within art already developed project. '4 proposed expansion is within the allowable uses set forth by the industrial specific pia *. NOR REQUIR134EWS: Planning Dtviflom 1. Parkinq Requirements: Eleven (11.) parking spaces will be provided as required by city otdinooce. 2. Servcca Yard Screening- The city ordinance requt :es that we screen Helms Avenue, Feron Blvd and along tLe northern and easteto property llnes with the required landsca,Int,. to order to execute this pro gran, the owner requested that this specific enndition be Implemented within A three ()l. year time frame.. to der to insure that the work is acconlpils hod within the time " tha owner will prov t de a Surety Bond for estimation of the cost of construction. Fur themlora, the owner will provide access rigbas to the city to accomplish such a. Mock. The requested time frame is oecded due to the fact that a major tenant is Presently occupying the southern partkon of the property with the understanding that their lease agreement wilt be due within three (St years. Presentty, the owner can not xr form any work within the boundries of the project. Speetfitly if the screening would recvtre a property let hacB of 2S feet as wit as ralocati" of the dr;veways.. The *"at has expressed his desire to cooperate. and in its order to show his good faith, he has suggested that a portion of the wort could be implemented along 9th Street which is one of the 00 to visible sections of the project, At you are aware, this raqulrwnent is extremely costly with respect to the minor building that is proposed. CUCAMONGA DIVISION M-15 ITp4M -. MDR 89 -07 TITLE: H- ING REQUEST LETTER { Originai Pear Quality E.g lace, rtat Dtv is Ina? ExistlnS Overhead Utility Rcoul,— grits. Thera is no exiltine overhead atitllt.01 within the property boundries. tss Yes 1. lot tine Adustnent: Tho owner is willing to adtust the existing lots into one parcul. Z. treat improvmmnts: al Sidewalks: The 40R rayuU es 11de„vlk improvements, We would Iika to bring. to your attention that there Is na eetstit's sidewalks an either side of Helms Avenue at Faron Blvd. The only earstfn0 sidewafk within the proximity of the property 11 a)cos the north side of 4th Street. We vVld tike to request kbar sidowai Its, be raqu Arad al on the south :side of 91h Street only Inorth property line of subject proiectl. 61 Street Trots: Landscaping will be provided sc4 Writ to city standards. e1 Existing Driveways: The driveway I, Faron Blvd... Is. new. All dtI*away$ In Helms Avenue will be upgraded it- alto standards. dj Street Lights: Street fights will be ptavtded ae:ordtng to cIsY requlreassnts. 1. Street Dedication: .Three 77j additional feet wilt be dedicated along Helms Avenue eo ultimate street right -of -way. 4. Parking Sign: ` c- Parafrtg Any Time' sign In4taliK t 4.11 street yrontase%. Since the satcrfted progrm it very otoenttvo and complua, the Cgnor would ),he to imPlemrot this project in two phsses: Phase L Constructtoo at the 600 square feet to take place imrraiiately, dw . the c"at,* needs as well as to avoid the taiov season.. Othtew,se, construction would have to be delayed for many month$ or up '.o a Year. Phase tt: Wall Sinee implemeata:ipn of this progrm will require engineering drawings to be rovlewad by m4'v city agen4lesand Surety Bond approvals will take quite a bit of time. At you are aware, we are anxious to commence this program and we request your assistance - eirardlo; these nutters. Should Von have any questions, please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience. Ro,$`aee LARVA & ASS S AR ITECTS A.iT VI k- Ir'19 AIA 6a� Pres7dertt cc: File IRCfcrf CITY OF 0 i ,. U " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Jane 23, ;988 Pe OIM 1� 10r Fs Cwaq., Cri1Mu 91110.1119110,811 Original Poor Quality tar. Jarq. 6arcta 10722 Orroa ROM sSUfta 604 Rancho Cucaecrga. CA 91730 MUM" KM UEVELOPRENT REVIEW 88415 Dear W. Garcia: y Your On June 22,ti1986. L S!" by the re Lthei COOMtsn whiich ngeedd to ibtt address prior to approval, planning Dirisfar: 1. The existing buildfnt square foctag! requires 11 parking spaces. Tht.ktare, thrM aCdttIL StaITS are rteedld. 2. The axisHng Service Yard should be scrtanod ,1109 Halsa Memo. t'eron Boulevard, and aioang9 th! northern and eastern property boundary. Street treat thou d be provided in these areas. Enafneerina Mrisfon• 1, grow existing �U�ttI�llfstyz Was on !1a Site plan. Altar refer to w0. attached 'Exist Utility Aequtrenents• handmaL and Provide a separate dr.ri*:O per Section p o the handout. 2. Shou all 4Xj%%is5 G,°' ;;GprQKhn. Issues 1. .lot Tines cannot cross builppdaaings. A lot line aitjusiatnt to thesentire site Is to be cnniidared as will w (1) lot Urd to 0oaemts for this project. ragsrd t0 the 2. The dsvoloper $hail Construct the folioarfng street taprovasants., a) Sidmaalk adjacent to pltfMt:e right- of-ay. b) Street tree. el Reconstruct drive approschas to City Standard Ue. V6 4) Str tights. 3. An additional 7 feet of dedteatfus for street right -of.wy is required an Mn ArMw. 4. 11" parking /Mina' acne skill be fnsuAled on street fronuo". picas! We the recawbided Ohanga and subilt the fmqquuired docu unts for planning and btfnaaring Oivfsion ravfar and approval. 9-14 you haw qM% one play* contact era at 9B9 -loll or Barbara grill (ptttmwm at wy.IR2. staear/ly. MW IT WIEL011k,f DtyAR11W PLAIMa NI Qtrs IDr ! _ s.,,. Br'aatt rbmvr� ALSIS K Planar BH;ve Enelouras cc; A. U. Dertas ITEM: MDR 89 -o7 TITLE$ M-22 PLE_'ENEIS LETTER EXHIBIT: p G....�, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIlt OF RANCHC CUCAMONGA, CALI1ORNIA APPROVIjlG MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIBI NO. 89 -07, LOCATED ON THE S- AYD:EAST CORNER OF 9TH STREE7 AND HELMS AVENUE ' IN TFE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTF.ICT of THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 3), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209- 031-53 AND 54 A. Recitals. (i) A. W. Davies has filed an application for the approval of Minor Development Review No. 89 -07 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 8th of Feb ,,uary, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on 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 Rec tals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting on February 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The appiicat.an applies to property located at 8737 Helms Avenue with a street frontage of 1870 feet and lot depth of 1191 feet and is presently improved with an office /warehouse building and partial street improvements; and industrial buildings {h¢ property to the north of the subject site is g property to the south of that site consists of industrial buildings the property to the east is a single family residence and orange grove, and the property to the west is an industrial property. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: M-1 � PLANNING C"ISSION RESOLUTION NO. MDR 89-07 A.W. Davies February $, 1989 Page 2 (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed project is in accord with the oF,jectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed project, 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. Based upon the ficiings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commissio hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Division 1) The applicant shall provide a total of thirteen (13) parking stalls to be paved, stripped, and located within a parking lot which meets all applicable City Is Standards. 2) -The construction yards shall be screened from public view along Helms Avenue, Peron Boulevard, and 4th Ss: -eet through the use of walls, fences, and /or berms. The proposed screening shall he reviewed and approved by the City Planner and shalt meet all City Standards with regard to design, location, and cunstruction materials. Screening shall be installed prior to occupancy ra0ease of the addition. Engineering Division 1) The applicant shall submit a lot line adjustment to eliminate the lot tine that crosses the building prior to issuance of building permits. 2) The applicant shall provide an additional 3 feel; of dedication for street right -of -way along Helms Avenue. 3) The applicant shall install "No Parking Anytime' signs on all street frontages to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ti� I i i PL&.r,sNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MDR 89 -07 - A.W. Davies February 8, 1989 of Page 3 4) The applicant shall construct the fo.lewing street improvements on Feron Boulevard, Hems Avenue, and 9th Street. a) Sidewalks adjacent to ultimate right -of -way. b) Street trees. c) Reconstruct '"ive approaches to City Standard No. 306. d) Street lights. 5) Street improvement plans, including parkway trees, sidewalks, stmet lights, and drive approaches prepared by a R- 9istered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. 6) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Ci Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the publ, stret improvements prior to issuance of building permits. 7) If evidence is presented which conclusively shows that a lot line and a solid, 2-hour fire wall with no openings exists between the two parcels and buildings, the improvements will only be required on the northerly parcel (AM: 209- 031 -53) and Engineering Division's Condition No. 1 can be eliminated. S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANLRO CUCAMONGA BY Carry T. FENiel, Mairman ATTEST: Brad Mier, Secretary PLANNING CWISSION RESOLUTION NO. MOR 89 -07 - AX Navies February 8, 1989 Page 4 Ll I, Brad Buller, Secrstary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby parted, that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, Passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, -it regular meeting of tie Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February,�39E9, by the following vote- tq -wit: AYES: COMISSIONE.RS: NOES: COWISSIONERS " ABSEN'', COK4 SSIONERS: EI �i ' E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RXICHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 89 -07, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 9TH STREET AND HELMS AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 3), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209- 031-53 AND 54 A. Recitals. (i) A. W. Davies has filed an application for the approval of Minor Development Review No. 89 -07 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application ". (it) On the 8th day of February, 1989, the Planning W_—Ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a -meeting on tha application and concluded said meeting on that date. (iii) Ali legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.- B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby fount, determined arA resolved by the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as fellows: 1, This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolutions are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referemed meeting on February 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Cohmission hereby specifically finds as follows: (s) The application applies to property located P� 8737 Helms Avenue with a street frontage of 1870 feet and lot depth of ±191 feet and is presently improved with an officelwarehouse building and partial street improvements; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is industrial buildings, the property to the south of that site consists of industrial buildings, the property to the east is a single family residence and orange grove, and the property to the west is an industrial property. PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION NO. MDR 89 »07 - A.W. Davies February 8, 2989 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- re €erenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is not consistent with the objectives of the General Flan; and (b) That the proposed project is not in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of t,Ie district in which the site is located, and (c) That the proposed project does not Meet industrial Area 'ecific Plan development standards with respect to street landscape setbacks, screening requirements, parking standards, and landscaping standards; and (d) That the proposed project does not rmeet the requirements for certain public improvements, including but not limited to street dedication, street SidewAlks, street trees, street 'lights, and drive approaches; and (•e) That the proposed project is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; arA (f) "chat i~. proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially incurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph I, 2 and 3 above, trais Commission hereby denies the application.. 5. The Se :tart' to this Coxxission snail Certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND PDOPTTED THIS STH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989. PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMOHGA BY Carry T. Wel, Cnalrean ATTEST: araa Sul er, ecre ry+ rn �i 0 PLANNING COMMISSIOU nrSOLUTION NO. MDR 89 -07 .. A.W. Davos February 8, 1999 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, SecreWY of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ttuly and regularly lntrodurza, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS, NOES: CWISSIONW: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f rt7 �.'a t ,t D CITE: OF RANCHO CUCADIONGA, �rtCnntc��� MEMORANDUM a G DATE: Feburary 8, 1989 y T0: Chairman and Members of the Plannisig Commission }srr FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The Planning Commission policy is that membersniP be rotated every six months. The current appointments are as follows: CONMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL iRESIDENTIAL Larry McNiel David. Blwesl%l Peter TAlstoy Suzanne Chitiea Alternate: Bruce &*rick 4Resul I i tted, e ner BB:ko