Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/05/22 - Agenda Packet0701-02 oP.C,,AGENDA MAY 22, 1991 o I of 7 r f Ad 1 ®' N N ig �l 10, OCLtCAMp CITY OF m cp- RANCHO CUCAMOIVCA PLANNING CO1 fIMISSION AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY MAY 22, 1991 7;00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Aft Commissioner Chitiea _ Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner M(-,Niel Commissioner Vallette Commissioner Melcher III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes April 24, 1991 V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. VACATIONi OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate a portion of an alley located west of Malachite Avenue and south of Foothill Boulevard - APNt 2q8- 261 -20. Ak V1. Public Hearings ,. Aft The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual Lox each project. Please sign in after speaking. B- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Z TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low ResidentiaA District (lass than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) C. VARIANCE 91 -04 - LIMA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet and a reduction in the minimum lot depth fr ^^t 150 to 130 feet for a two -lot parcel map in the Very Low Residential District (1, s than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201 - 182 -29. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - HWANG - A residential subdivision and design review of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very .Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units -ner acre), located on Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062 - 051 -01. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91 -05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. E. VARIANCE 91 -03 - HWANG - A request to reduce the minimum corner lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet and the minimum lot area from 20,000 square feet to 14.502 square feet on Lot 28; to reduce the ?ninimum lot depth from 150 feet to 146.19 feet and 145.75 feet on Lots 11 and 14, respectively; and to reduce the minimum average lot size from 22,500 square feet to 22,228 square feet within Tentative: Tract 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on Wilsoa Avenue worst of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062 - 051 -01. F. TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVA FOR PARCEL MAP 11738 HERMOSA /ALMO:aD PARTNERS LTD. (NORDIC}, A subdivision of 2.48 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District, Located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Alrond Street - APN: 1074 - 051 -01. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ; 90--25 - DARLENE WEBER. WISE O_$K. SCHOOL - A propo,,al to build an approximately 1,050 square f00t multi - purpose room addition and to operate a. private elementary school on 1 acre within the Low Re_ ^idential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue APN: 201- 342 -04. Related .File: Variance 90 -12 and Tree 'removal Permit 91 -14 to transplant a single palm tree to a new lc:ation on site. Staff recommends issuance of a Negat: '',ze Declaration. 3. VARIANCE 90 -12 -- DARLENE WEBER MrSE OAK SCHOOL - A requez,," to reduce the regui'red side yard setbacl: for a school use from 20 ,tzet to 9 feet and the required side yard lanc.scape setback from 10 f et to 3 feet at a private elementary school on l acre in the Low 'Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per zcre), located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 201341 -04. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANQ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -028 GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend. the C. ?:nd Use Element Map of the General Plan from Xed?um Residenti,a? (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. T+Q Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative designations - APN: 1100 - 161 -04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. J. NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AM FOOTHILL SOULEYADD � SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03 GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Cowsissiun will also consider Low Medium Residential. (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and specialty Commercial as alternative d- signations - APN: 1100- 161 -04. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMTNT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01A - PZ,A21,ING NETWORK - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium: Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Co='- tssion will also consider Low Medium Resdential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative. designations - APN: 1100- 161 -02. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOUL "rWARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT__91 -03__ PLA IIIING NETWORK A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 From Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres of land 'located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative designations - APN: 1100 - 161 -02. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land We Element Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APR: 229 - 041 -10. r 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on -the north by the Foothill Boulevard specific Flan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Cc unercial and Office as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100- 161 --01 through 04 and a portion of 1100 - 201 -01. 3. Approximately 2.7.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue asid existing Lew Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land borderincT Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet nortr of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling unitv.per acre,) as an alternative land use designation for ':-,his - entire area - APN: 1100 - 131 -01 and 02., 1100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02, ?.100- 181 -01 and 02, and 1100 - 191 -01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100 - 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, 1100- 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100 - 071 -01 and 02. 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residen� ai designated land. The city will consider Office and Neighborhood. Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100- 051 -01 and 02 and 1100 - 061 -01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. S. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north -south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area APN: 227 - 131 -05 and 227 - 141 -14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSIIEN`P AND FOOTHILL BOULIARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal te,amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan band Use Map from Ank Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific 'Plan: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 2i9- 041 -10. 2_ Approximately 18..46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100- 161 -01 through 04 and a portion of 1100- 201 -01. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. r O. M;[RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN A MENDMENT 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1, Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by ce mercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area -_ APN: 2 27- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the weac by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider. Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100- 131 -01 and 02, 1100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02, 1100- 181 -01 and 02, and 1100- 191 -01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -I5) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by M ?;;er Avenue. The city will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1200- 031 -08, 1100 - 041 -04 through 10, 1100 - 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100- (11 -01 and 02. 4. Approximately 11.19 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (5 -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100- 051 -01 and 02 and 1100- 051 -01. 5. Approximately 10. 09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Mediuum Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consid -r Office Professional as an alterTLAtive land use designation for this entire area - APK: 227 - 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in ;a north -south direction by East Avenue. T.e City will consider Low Residential (2,4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -05 and 22'"- 141 -14 any' t5. Staff recommends issuance of a ;ative Declaration. VII. Old Business P. TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PL_A1,, VIII. Now Business Q. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89 -18 - BOOTH - .4m appeal of certain conditions of approval for the development of a building contractor's office and storage yard totaling appror�mately 8,500 square feet on 1.35 acres of land in the Ganeral Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial krea Specific Plan, located at 9037 Charles Smith Avenue, east of Rochester, north of 6th Street - APN 229- 27i -41. I8. 8irectorfs Reports R. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE S`PORFSE - Review of current City regulations affecting storage and parking of Recreational Vehicles on private residential properties. X. Commission Business XI. Public Comments E This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this Ask agenda. IF e HIT. Adjourl: Ent The Planning CorLdission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items coo beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I] vlainity mad city of rancho cucamanga LA- A El E CITY OF RANCHO CUCA TONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY- Lucinda E. Hackett, Contract Civil Engineer n SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate a portion of an alley located rest of ac ite Avenue and south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 206- 261 -20 I. BACKGROUND /ANN';.YSIS On Jac:uary 10, 1991, Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88 -28, which is located rin the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue. The property owner is proposing the development o' a 5,380 square foot retail building within_ the existing shopping center. The site is currently vacant and lies i0i"diately east of the existing Perry`s Market shopping center. The Conditions of Approval for this project require that the existing alley that abuts the southern property line of this site be vacated prior to the issuance of building permits. The subject alley right -of -ray is 10 feet wide and 114.82 feet long. When the existing alley is removed, it will be replaced with landscaping and the existing drive - „proach onto Malachite Avenue will be removed and replac ,ed with City Standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk. II. RECOMMENDATION aff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings through iinute action that the subject proposed vacation conforms with the rc.othill Specific Plan. This finding will be forward to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, , Z7, -- jz�r'�� Dan James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:LEH:diw Attachments: Exhibit "A” - Vicinity Map Exhibit "8" - Location Xxip Exhibit "C" - Site Map ITEM A E V10IN I-1 'l MAr No l TO.�L. - - 7 OF CML RANCHO CUC AMONGA PLANNING DIVISION NORTH ITEM: CUP 88 -28 TITLE; VICINITY PW EXHIBIT: "A" SCALE none blgsEml uNE 4a ILL u ' ��vp � Q DEvQN sr Ala rkvj (: W Z j1f V10IN I-1 'l MAr No l TO.�L. - - 7 OF CML RANCHO CUC AMONGA PLANNING DIVISION NORTH ITEM: CUP 88 -28 TITLE; VICINITY PW EXHIBIT: "A" SCALE none �j ' TIS4'Ri 7 Rat -Ta) Por.a ! 869AC 563- A CW rpp 8-2C 0- .9-1AC - t-.F.lf qqq7 I 965AC -1 9-sol ti Art le—r POR. PAR. 2 47 40 9.. 9 iS5 3 PQ,R- PAR, POR.PAR. 2 .83 Ac 046. Por.a ! 869AC 563- A CW rpp 8-2C 0- .9-1AC - t-.F.lf qqq7 I 965AC -1 9-sol ti slat CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C, ENGINEERING DIVISION T TD BE VACATED ITEM: CUP 88-28 TITLE.' tocATION MAP EXHIBIT: "B" —4(N Art le—r POR. PAR. 2 47 1.00 3 PQ,R- PAR, POR.PAR. 2 046. slat CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C, ENGINEERING DIVISION T TD BE VACATED ITEM: CUP 88-28 TITLE.' tocATION MAP EXHIBIT: "B" —4(N HW CIOR HE 1/4 HE 1/4 SEC M "fit 1 FOOTHILL 89-59 . 30 .. W 13CULEVARD fl js, mjl Ott E7 AREA 0 BE VACATED T 0 �4 No. 24263 ZI z Y. i 4 4. 8'-z c Vl\l NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 1. 5121 WI 211 • --� L1.1 E3 PLANNING r!OHHILS.7N RESOLUTION NO. PM 13693 e.UNA May 22, 1991 Page 3 9. Prior to tho recordation of the final map or issuance of building :permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall convent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District pertaining to the project site to Provide in conjunction with the applicable school district for the instruction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District,: the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project sit- into the territory of such existing district prior to thu recordation of the i?nal map or the iseuance of bv_,lding permits, whichever comer first. Further, if the affected school district has not, formed a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District wi,:hin twelve months of tbb date of approval of the project and prior to the xecordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and vc_d. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T._KcNiel, Chairman :ATTEST • _ Brad Buller, Si r I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and reV,ularly 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 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: VOSISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLgTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CATJFOR1'IA, 17ONCITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP .UMSEA 13693, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 14ORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF' - APN: 201 - 162 -29 WHEREAS, ^`%ntative Parcel Map Number 13693, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. S. Luna, applics, !- for the purpose of subdividing into 2 parcels, the rear property situati . in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Onunty of San Bern'trdino, State of California, identified as APN: 201 - 182 -29, located or the north side of Northridg& Drive, west of Haven Avenue, and WHEREAS, on March 27 and continued. to April 24, and May 2k, 1991, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised pubic hearing for the above - deacribed map. .iLLOWS: NOW, THRREF03E, THE RP.NCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS SECTION It That the following finftngs have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan: 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with Cie General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause sutstantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting propez ties. SECTION_,: This Commission finds and certified that the project has been reviewed and considered' in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 19701 and further, this Commission noretp issues a Negative Declaration. ,SECTION 3: Tentitive Parcel Hap Number 13693 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Spacial Conditions: 1. Parcel 1 shall take access from Cabrosa Place and Marcel 2 shall take access from Northridge Drive. She access easement over Parcel l in favor of Parcel 2 shown on the tentative map shall be removed. 2. Provide a 15 -foot wide local fender trail along the entire northerly boundary of Parcels 1 anC 2. All c•ier trails shown on the tentative map shall he removed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 13693 - LUNA. May 22, 1991 Page 2 3. Building setback lines shall be plotted on the Final Parcel Map to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4. The structure on parcel 2 shall be reviewed by the Planning Divislon for compatibility with the Northwoods Community to the south. S. The irrigation system for the existing landscaping on the north side of Northridge Drive shall be modified so that the portion fronting parcel 2 is connected to the new house, upon development. The Northwoods Properties Community Association shall be relieved of maintenance responsibility for the portion of Northridge Drive fronting parcel 2 once that connection in made. 6. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) shall be placed on 1-ar-oil 2 which are compatible with the CC &R's of the N:rthwooa9 Properties lommunity Association, as approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. In particular, they shall prohibit the parking of horse trailers and recreational vehicles on Northridge Drive. 7. Install a decorative screen wall along the south property line of Parcel 1, the design of which �3hall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. S. Private drainage devices to convey flows from the site and from the property north of the site to the existing public facilities along the wee; anal /or south boundaries shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Private drainage easements shall be shown on the Final Parcel Map as required by the Building and SafQty Division. 9. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested ur final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk o the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the EngineerLng Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 13693 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 3 In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. 10. Prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District pertaining to the project site to provide in conjunction with the applicable school district for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. Bowever, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing district prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of hnilding permits, whicheier comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months of the date of approval of zne project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: Larry T. MCNiel, Chairman Brad Buller, Secretary It Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the C--.ty of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E E O v u C u� \1 to O C i O � a W °yy U � < 2 2 so- I T sY a N z Y _ z 9_ rE T a Y to Tom. C + °' L M aeon q 1:.. 17i c°ar 4 x ��a Y IY CCNI` C. Z I i0 L O - - aLiO r .-.� • �a do T -z G L O� N � _ O 2 A x V f Y T -Y O L O Y •6 11 -•t vy` A. CigO oAt �A qU •� T` Yx - UI u a♦. L.6 VIU� } r O L a .xC. N NN U U v D � a U qs Y v u Z4 A Z4 - aC ,`O•N I T sY a N Y M x 9_ rE T a Y to Tom. IN °' L M aeon LY a° 9 c°ar `✓ CqY V 4 x ��a Y ? p C. Z r .-.� • O -z G L O� N � _ O 2 ^ L C aar E N pa O Y v u O A qY N - aC ,`O•N 4a L WU O Uu 6 ¢V n I u � LD •'Jr. _ � v � a. d nub u ^ • °1 a 4V r Er � E_ _ i L gds o °c ..r t i t.di.i � E z q 4 uL dC V " 1w C_ �rF C O• d yD_ j E i D E L.I d q py O o y v d C d 4 « 4 ^ c E y Lu T u i L � L F{ �V L Oi K 200 `nI. 2Ji O u � LD •'Jr. _ � v � a. d nub u ^ yo E � a 4V N i°n L gds o °c ..r t i ou o q uL Ncd " O• d yD_ j E i yaDq i. L.I d q py O o D a — v ds N as u�°s Y d y L V= ` 'o NcU 6N U d •� Y 4 a D E S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REP0RT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of acre of an into parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Related file: Variance 91-04. Staff reconmends issuanca of Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991) I. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the March 13, 1991, Planning anon ss on meeting to allow concurrent review of the related variance. ` It was continued from the March 27, 1991, meeting so that staff could investigate alternate master plans for the area to the north, to see if better access could be provided to Parcel 2. On April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously selected option 2(a), approving the Parcel Map modified to require that both parcels take access from Northridge Drive. Since tht corresponding resolution was not available at that time, the item was continued so that staff could prepare one. In addition, the related Variance 91 -04 (separate report) required revision and readvertisement. Copies of the previous staff reports are attached for your reference. The applicants met with staff on April 29, 1991, and indicated that they are not in agreement with the Planning Commission decision. If the original proposal for both parcels to take access from Cabrosa Place (option 1 in the April 24th staff report) is not accepted, then the applicants would prefer option 2(b), which has Parcel 1 taking access from Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 taking access from Northridge Drive. They are also opposed to Joining the Northwoods Properties Community Association. The applicants' letter is attached as Exhibit "A ". II. DISCUSSION: The Commission selected Option Zia) because it represented the e`6st p3anning decision for the area. Northridge Drive is a public street which was intentionally located along the north bousidary of Tract 10827 (Northwoods Community) to provide access to the then vacant land ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSiON'STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 -- LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 2 north of that tract. Eitcumbering Parcel 1 with a 20 -foot wide access easement seemed exr wive in addition to local trail requirements and the need for Parcel 2 to have a driveway more than 200 feet long raised fire safety concerns. The alternate of providing additional streets from the north is not in the best interest of the City at large, because it increases the overall public maintenance burden. Use of the existing Northridge Drive frontage seems the most appropriate solution. The applicants disagree. They feel that compatibility should be maintained within the Very Low (VL) Development District. They also feel that mixing custom homes on VL lots with tow Medium (LM) tract homes will have a substantial negative impact bn the value of their future houses. The applicants are suggesting that Parcel 1, at least, be allowed to Face Cabrosa Place, as all other houses on that cul- de -srAc do, instead of putting a rear yard between two front yards. While the applicants would prefer not to front either parcel onto Northridge Drive, they feel that facing Parcel 2 only in that direction is a viable compromise which they would like the Commission to consider. Staff is concerned that it may be difficult to fit local equestrian trails into this arrangement. This alternative has been scheduled fsr a Trails Advisory Committee review on May 15, 1993. Their comments will be available at the Planning Commission meeting, along with an alternate resolution reflecting the alternative proposal if the Committee finds it workable. The Planning Commissinn's decision to require! =hat both, or even one, of the parcels take access from Northrid; ;e Drive necessitates some additional conditions of approval which are 'reflected in the attached resolution. The landscaped parkway on the north side of Northridge Drive is currently maintained by the Northwoods Properties Community Association. The Association has expressed concern that allowing the access will lead to deterioration of the existing landscaping and that the Association's strict architectural controls and CM prohibitions will not apply to these properties. Therefore, Condition number 4 directs the Planning Division to review the houses for compatibility, Condition number 5 relieves the Association of maintenance responsibility for the Parcel Map frontage, and Conditl,,M number 5 requires CC&R's for the Parcel Map compatible with those of the'Vorthwoods Community. C R ---� Ir-'1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 3 III. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission should consider the new proposal by the app cants and the additional Trails Committee input. If the Commission wishes to proceed based upon their decision at the April 24 meeting, then adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. If the applicant's new proposal is preferable, then staff will suggest modifications to specific conditions at the public hearing. Respectfully saioitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Enginev? BRH:dlw Attachments: Exhit/ t "A" - Applicant's Letter April £4, 1991, Staff Report Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval P -3 City of Rancho Cucamonga May 13,1991 Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re: Rnvioronmentat A-s cment and Tentative Rarcel Map L6o -l.�na Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, After 1L3tening to the proposed recommnedations from the Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting on April 24,1991, we had some concerns that we felt deeded to be addressed. When we purchased this property in- Rovember of 1984, it was zoned Very Low density. It was our intent to sub - divide and build homes consistant� with others in the Very Low density area. By` asking us to front onto Northridge Dr. you will be mixing custom homes designed for the Very Low density area with Low Medium density tract homes. This will have a substantial negative impact on the value of our future homes. We feel that fronting both parcels onto Northridge Dr. is unnecessary. By allowing Parcel 1 (the proposed westerly lox) to front onto Cabrosa Place as o :iginally intended, we will have : lot that is compatible with the surrounding area. No additional roadways or improvements will be required from the city as1we have already dedicated our portion of the cul -de -sac acrd the street is in place. The area will have a balanced look with all of the homes fronting onto Gabrosa Place facing the cul -de -sac instead of ha =ring one home with the rear yard facing the street. Another concern, we would like to address is the recommendation that we join the Northwoods Homeowners' Association. Again, when we planned on subdividing, it was with the intent of having 2 private lots. Not lots that are part of a housing tract or association. We are opposed to joining this Homeowners' Association. We see no reason to be encumbered with their fees since we have no intension of using their facilities. In addition, from the response of the Homeowners' Association President and their attorney, at the 312.7191 and 4/24191 meetings, they do not appear to have any desire for us to join. im.FARML f°1AP 0 369 M Trna APPLICANT'S LETTE 0OF In conclusion, it is felt that while we have no desire to front onto Northridge Dr., there is a viable compromise. In the interest of all concerned. Parcel l facing Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 facing Northridge Dr., with the Parcel 2 property owner responsible for the landscaping fronting their lot, in lieu of joining the Homeowners' Ass ciation, seems to be the best solution. We respectfully req.est the commission to seriously consider this option. SinceFely, Steven k. una Monica A. Luna AWL cc: Betty Miller Associate Civil Engineer PARCEL MAP 13693 Is ARRU CANT S LETTER. 6 -5 ,A" (2 of Z)_ CITY OF RAMHO CUCAMO:dGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Betty A, Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of T.0 acre of nd i nto Z parcel s 1 n the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven' Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Related file: Variance 91 -04. Staff recommends issuance of Negative :sclaration. (Continued from March 27, 1991) I- BACKGROUND: 76 ;is item was continued from the March 27, 1991 Planning Commission meeting in order tp staff to investigate alternative master plans for the area to the port; try see if a better access could he provided to Parcel 2 of this proposed parcel map. A copy of the previ'jus rtaff report is attached for your reference. II. DISCUSSION: The prepa ed parcel map and its relationship to the master plan area Ts shown on Exhibit "H". Note that the Exhibits start with °H" in this report to not be confused with A thru G contaired in the March 27, 1991 report. Several master plan layouts were investigated. The main constr&'.'nt controlling the waster planning effort is that only one street, aligned with Cartillu Avenue on the north side of Wilson Avenue, can sere the master plan area from either Wilson or Haven Avenues. Both of these streets are arterials, with intersection spacing restricted to 600 feet. Even if closer spacing were allowed, an additional street connection would p-ovide secondary access to the master plan area, but would not solve the concern of access to Parcel 2. The master plan shown on Exhibit "I" is the most straight forward in providing direct street access to Parcel 2; however, it has the following disadvantages: 1. It utilizes a four -way local to local street intersection which is discouraged because studies have shown that they produce more accidents than "tee" intersections. 2. It imposes substdntially more street improvements and right -of -way upon existing Parcel 28 which already has streets on tti�s sides. 3. The additional street right-of-way will preclude the portion of existing Parcel 28 at the southwest !„rner of Cartilla and Street "A" from being subdivided into two pa,•cels. M's Affikk PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 2 4. Lot 2 of the future subdivision of existing Parcel 30 will be dependent upon the development of Parcel 28 for access. S. It restricts the future subdivisl— F the portion of existing Parcel 30 south of Street "A" to iour parcels versus five as shown on Exhibit "K". 6. It increases the variance required for the proposed Parcel Map (an additional 6001 square feet of lot area lost to street dedication on Parcel 2). 7. Most importantly, the master plan does not solve the immediate concern of access yo Parcel 2. The southerly extension of Castilla Avenue, which would provide that access, is on property not owned by this applicant. The second master plan shown on Exhibit "J" somewhat lessens disadvantages 2 and 3 of the master plan shown on Exhibit "H ", but introduces a skewed intersection which adversely affects safety. Exhibit "K" is a refinemz�rt of the master plan shown on previous Exhibit "C"". It shows that an additional two parcels could conceivably be obtained south of Street "A" using that master plan street alignment. III. CONCLUSION: Staff was able to design a master plan that could provide long street access to Parcel 2, but that master plan does present other disadvantages and does not provide an immediate access solution. The Commission appears to have the following options: 1. Approve the Parcel Map as proposed with Parcel 2 taking access across Parcel 1 to Cabrosa Place. 2. Approve the Parcel Map 'modified to require that (a) both parcels or (b) Parcel 2 only take access from Northridge Drive. 3. Deny the Parcel Map as proposed directing the applicant to refile a new Parcel Map (and variance) conforming to the master plan shown on Exhibit "I" or "J" and to obtain access rights across the adjacent property extending to Wilson Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hansom Senior Civil Engineer BRH:diw k Attachments: Mast P1 PPlan Area t(Exhiibblitib "Ht ") II Master F� an - A� t: �' IEX1. bit "J "j tester Plan - Alt. 4 (Exhibit "K" March 27, 1991 Staff Report 4�v _ j i i w _ i , ° t �1 1 � a 1 �_1 1 ' I s I 'Ply ro ---- - - - - -- 2 ------------ -J �avJar a�c�gg� cl io� I R;� I �� 1 203M. 'U r E I S19 t` rl d-M L. 5-1 - ----------- Li E ZZ' ---------- -- - L F3 - -� p�y taw C) w a1 j I I II -T-L- rS - Ib I I II 1 , 1 1 _ 1 y� i a 1 1 Q i 1 ® 1 i l t 3 a z� I - - -- - - - -- -� aaajd vstefv9 ' - -- I r p Q W'WJl�. 1 2 J I r w a1 j I I II -T-L- rS - Ib �I EJ toy map V I � w ! -- —� IL � h e..p i o to iid[c W gill •.Ay { t� ji, i 1. ' wffi.�,j8D1F$ 41 Iwl .� I ' S X4711 t IO —' -- --- — - -- - -� aanja� oscwgr� ci g u1 I .r_rrY} z r I z Q ci 1 c I e..p i o to iid[c W gill •.Ay { t� ji, i 1. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 27, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plarntng Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer ro am ; Xffl BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT,, ENVIRORMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND T ..TATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA A su6�f'v3s o o acre o an n Parcels n a ery Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Related file: Variance 91 -04 I. PRDJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:. A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed tentative Parcel Map as sown on Exhibit "B" an( issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - 20,560 sq. ft. Parcel 2 - 22 500 sq. ft. Total sq. ft. (0.99 ac) C. Existing Zoning: Very Low Residential D. Surrounding Land Use: North - East half vacant; west half has two single family residences and a third under construction South - Single Family Residential East - Vacant West - Horse: Corral E. Surrounding General Plan and Develooment Code Designations: North - Very Low Residential South - Low- Medium Residential Fast - Very Low Residential M %st - Very Low Residential F. Site Characteristics: This site is vacant and slopes to the south at 7.5 percent. ere is an existing wrought iron fence along the south project boundary on the north side of Northridge Drive. —1_� E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA MARCH 27, 1991 PAGE 2 II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to subdivide a one acre parcel intf two h if acre parcels consistent with the Very Low Residential P'Strict designation, Staff initial.y recommended that both lots frun;y onto Northridge Drive, because it was Alt that the fronts of h,uses would present a more aesthetic streetscape for the homes to the south, than would a rear yard wall. There was also some concern about the master planning implications for vacant parcels to the north and east of the project site. Staff recommended that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting on the tentative parcel map, since Parcel Map 5992 in this vicinity had generated significant neighborhoo! interest. Residents of the development on the south side oar Northridge Drive have made it clear, both during the neighborhood meeting and in subsequent communications directed to Staff, that they object to lots fronting on the north side of Northridge Drive. Respecting the neighbor's wishes, the applicant is now proposing lae. withoa 20efootowidparcels a cess easement alonarthe approach roperty trine of parcel I in favor of parcel 2. Both access configurations, using Cabrosa %?lace versus Northridge Drive, Were presented to the Trails Committee to determine what the local equestrian trail requirements would be under the two optional master plans. The applicable recomaendations have been "ncluded in the conditions of approve,', A Fire Protection District representative has also reviewed the proposed map and suggested a condition of approval allowing them to "11 ew the access to parcel 2 upon development. A. Master Planning: Three large vaunt parcels remain north and past of the roect site. The Cityy "s access policy for arterial streets will allowjone additional intersection on Wilson Avenue b`t4tgen Mayberry and Haven Avenues. Exhibit "C" illustrates how this area might be developed if the concept of no access to Northridge Drive is also ode ell ed the balance of the vacant property.. Exi, "ibit "D" shows how the same area could be developed if up to 5 lots were allowed to front onto Northridge Drive. The issues are as fsilows: 1. In both alternatives, all of tile master planned cul-de-sacs exceed 600 feet in length. In Exhibit "c ", three cut -de -sacs (21 lots) will utilize a single access on Wilson Av . In Exhibit D , tV0 cul -de -sacs (18 lots) will do so. The Fire Protection District has not expressed concern with either alternative, since all new home constru:tion requires sprinklers. The difference between 18 and 21 lots is nominal. V,2, — ) `3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA MARCH 27, 1991 PAGE 3 2. Exhibit "D" does allow the local equestrian trail system to be interior to the VL district rather than on the perimeter, adjacent to Northridge DtAive. 3. A detail was provided,,on the Conceptual Gradin Pl ;n (Exhibit "E ") of a north -south cross section (Exhibit "F "1 taken through parcel 1 and Northridge Drive, to illustrate the relative position of houses, streets, trails, and slopes. Note that sides of houses will be visible from the south side of Northridge Drive in the proposed configuration, unless the height of the perimeter wall is increased. Under the alternate master plan, that view would be of front yards. 4. If access to parcel 2 is taken from Cabrosa Place, that driveway will be more than 200 feet long. The Fire Protection District will need a way for its vehicles to turn around or have an alternate exit route available. B. Neighborhood Concerns: A neighborhood meeting was held on December 18, 1990. Attendees included residents of Northwood Vistas, a Lois- Medium Residential development (4-8 dwelling unI is per acre) immediately south of the project site, and the owners of a vacant parcel east of the project site. The residents of Northwood Vistas objected to fronting either parcel onto Northridge Drive for three masons: i 1. The larger lots on the north side of Northridge Drive can accommodate equestrian uses. Use of the neighborhood streets by large vehicles such as horse trailers would conflict with the homeowners association prohibi•,ion against recreational vehicle storage. 2. The homeowners association currently maintains the parkway slope on the north side of Northridge Drive. Residents object to driveways disrupting the existing slope landscaping and perimeter fencing. 3. The residents perceive Northwoods Villas as a close -knit community and feel that the VL lots proposed would be uncharacteristic of that community. They would not anticipate the acceptance of those lots into the homeowners association, if such a request were made. Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting, the City has received 133 signed form letters (Exhibit "G ") from members of the Northwood Homeowners Association, objecting to any plans to construct driveways or streets leading Into the commmunity from Northridge Drive. They feel this would compromise their privacy and security. 6_1Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA MARCH 27, 1991 PAGE 4 C. Trail s Advisory Committee: The Committee reviewed the project on February 20, 1991, and recommended the following trail requirements: I. If the or-aposed access configuration is used (access from Cabrosa .lace), a 15 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the entire southerly boundary of Parcels 1 and 2, and a 10 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the east slOs of Parcel 2. 2. If the alternate is used (access from Northridge Drive), a 15 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the entire northerly boundary of Parcels i and 2. III. CONCLUSION: The proposed subdivision is compatible with adjacent property on the north side of Northridge Drive and the related master plan (Exhibit "C "), although not optimal, i.L workable. Staff has reservations about providing access to Cabrosa Place for parcel 2 across parcel 1, but given the concerns of the existing residents on Northridge Drive, believes the applicant has offered a viable solution. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I o the Initial t'tuudy. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of 'this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. V. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to'surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all npu a— n- relements of the Tentative Parcel Map 13693. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ol Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer B RN - BAM: dl w Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A ") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B') Area Master Plan (Exhibit "C") tl ternat st P1 E i bi t "D" onceptual Grad ng ari �xfiitiit "J ") North -south Section (Exhibit "F ") Sample Homeowner Letter (Exhibit "G ") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval ,ygvE! •\ N77 1 M� � \ p I I- --���� w x CC CL Li uj ae Zs tj ! I VnAtOAV IJOAVH e-I 0 A7 A u El H i. w �I amuanb' �s�lwy 4 i I A `( ► 2` �a0- ` 7 __ CT71t d Q IL SA, 0 �Vllv� - .ZIF Ti A". wq jq CL cc x 49 cz z z r � tug CL • • •, o h i 7-z,- February 09, 1991 City Of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ATTN: Steve Ross, Assistant Planner Dear Mr. Ross, =,i CUC.,tI�`tua LI I am a Homeowner in the Northwood Community. I strongly object to any city plans to construct drivewayo or streets leading into our community from Northridge. The privacy and security or our community are of great importance to me. As a member of Northwood Homeowners Association and .Having a shar-edft interest in all Northwood Community affairs, I am entitled to recei information and notification concerning hear4-js or meetings affecting the Northwood Community. Sincerely, CITY OF RANCHO CUC,AMONGA 6- -z? ?�tE-L MAI? 13651- FAIT: RESOLUTION NO. A R=OLUTION OF CHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIR, CONDITIONALLY -;PPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13693, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF `:ORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE, AND MAR_.NG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201- 182 -29 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map N'Aber 13693, submitted by Mr, and nz.. S. Lunr., applicants, for the purpose-of subdividing into 2 parcels, the real property situated in the City of "ncho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, ;,tate of California, identified as APR: 201 - 182 -29, located on the north side of Northridge Drive, went of Haven Avenue, and WHEREAS, on Marc-'. 27 and continued to April 24, and May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission hell a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THER2FORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS SEOZION 1: T1,et the following findings heve been made: 1. That the map is consi "tent with the Qeneral Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is cca:sistent with the General Plan. 3.. That the sits is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental d:magm or public %ealth problems or have adverc2 affe_ts on abutting properties. SE IoN • This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 19701 and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. g SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 13693 is hereby approved eubject to the attache3. Standard Conditions and the following Special Condition: I. Both Parcels 1 and 2 shall take access from Northridge Drive. The access easement over Parcel 1 in fa: -Dr of Parcel 2 shown on the tentative map shall be removed, 2. Provide a 15 -foot wide local feeds_ trail, along the entire nort%erly boundary of Parcels 1 and 2. All other trails shown on the ten -alive map shall be removed. a_--�3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. PH 13693 — LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 2 Amh qP 3. Building setback lines shall be plotted on the Final Parcel Map to the vatisfaction of the City Planner. 4. Structures on both parcels shall be reviewed by the Planning Division for compatibility with the Northwoods Community to the south. S. The irrigation system for the existing landscaping on the north aide of Northridge Drive shall be modified so that the portion fronting each parcel is connected to the respective house upon development of eacli parcel. The Northwoode Properties Community Association shall be relieved of maintenance responsibility for the portion of Northridge Drive fronting parcels 1 and 3 once those connections are made. 6. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Re) shall be placed on the parcels which are compatible with the CC&Re of the Northwoods Properties Community Association, as approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. In particular, they shall prohibit the parking 5f horas trailers and recreational vehicles on Northridge Drive. 7. Private drainage devices to convey flows from the site and from the property north of the sits to the existing public facilities along the west and/or south project boundaries shall be installed to the satisfactxor. of the Building Official. Private drainage easements shall be shown an the Final Parcel May an required by the Building and Safety Division. B. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (HOD) regarding the asaociated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisora of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clark of th^ County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the sAv—.t this application is determined exempt from such fili,,,V fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Cods, or the guidelines promulg,;ted thereunder, exce-it for payment of any required handling charge for filing a ­rtificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. _---) y PLANNING WMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 13693 LUNA May 22, 1991 Page: 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMXSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY.- Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST• Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 6o hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plannirg Comnissi.ort of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS- NOES: COMMISSIONERS: W I ., ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C� a a C C °e c .p g C z p Q � JJWWi3 U u R v° WW r N V-> ---e tv a 0 13 s L V c Y n •- a u r Y + 3 M` Y M k4 K C L�yyy wS.GYr Lnk � �4 Loow W.Y `' �O L � w.q �y C ,OL a.y 10 C.pv 1Qr M +�Q F a q5 Q O O i`L'o n.E NEw N`c Y.L ux. Lar op sY �. �UY �v� �uY =S o$i: No YL g =L aNLi o$= °b ao CY` Q M. W —24= ryy¢ Y Y �..�Q MOtl LO L+IV ♦ "� a�w o NLIw a L rGi N.S..1. N)ZLi b cCN Ow VN KO Y Y O p t V%41 r -04 u.0i4 1C WV O 6 K�.i 1I V-> ---e tv a 0 13 s L V Y + 3 M` Y M k4 K C iS iv cl r 1Qr M F q5 Q O O ` upyF �. �UY u � A r a N V-> ---e tv a 0 13 q5 � ` upyF �. �UY F —24= ryy¢ LYy L � z V N V4 C y� Y •Lr .rr r L b A Ow VN KO Y Y O p t V%41 r -04 u.0i4 1C WV O 6 K�.i V-> ---e tv a 0 13 61n w� ne'r L NL Yi L Y ac r m � w uo ogga ML �E O N 1 Y w � 17; � N n1 Y1 �LL i O f i t+� n C •� C L = O 1� V E� 3 S^ p N ° oY: -0. . Z J L O O� .01E o e a E ZA_ � Y U vCC N Y L g�A $ y C VW ,`OpY� �M f U M a a a of u dE gY 6 p y p4s �t C oM L W® 0 }g� y $u o a °a► •• N rrO l� Cil f � of a L pN � V Eu° V V L 4�4 nE V i V L E9 pr. �a °no a O C C u Y l O °M a �Yn c uy e° vc �` 52, 5� �o v �r Va a v° e3y a" Y v aE■ Yu` _■ CMG a> V SQY � CC V V N C S ly0 L' Ya> o .2 L YeYY b O N Y 6 O» Y Y M C 2C �. O Y LL L q V C b Y =^ V V V O C mo. f Fc N i °� io`s tai m b 1 61n w� ne'r L NL Yi L Y ac r m � w uo ogga ML �E O N 1 Y w � 17; � N n1 Y1 �LL i O f i t+� n C •� C L = O 1� V E� 3 S^ p N ° oY: -0. . Z J L O O� .01E o e a E ZA_ � Y U vCC N Y L g�A $ y C VW ,`OpY� �M f U M a a a of u dE gY 6 p y p4s �t C oM L W® 0 }g� y $u o a °a► •• N rrO l� Cil f � of a L pN � V Eu° V V L 4�4 nE V i V L E9 pr. �a °no 0 c W a O C C u Y l O °M a �Yn c uy e° 5� �o v �r Va a L C Y Y a�� aE■ Yu` _■ CMG a> V SQY � CC ly0 L' 0 c W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Hembass of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner- SUBJECT: VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA - A rekuest to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 21,500 to 21,540 square feet and a reduction in the minimum lot deoth from 150 to 130 feet for a two -lot parcel map in the Very ow Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre),, located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avsnue - APN: 201- 182 -29. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of t, Variance. B. Project Density: Two dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Uae and Zonina: North - Existing single family residential and vacant land, Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). South - Existing single family residential; Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units l+ar acre) East - Vacant land; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) :hest - Existing single family residential and vacant land; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South - Low - Medium Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Very Low Residential E. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south at approximately 7.5 percent. A combination of native and introduced plant species are located on the site. 12. ANALYSIS• A. General: The purposa and intent of the Variance is 10 provide flexibility :.rom the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, sl,�ape, topography, or location deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same district ITEM C / PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 2 inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. In reviewing individual cases for Variance, the following criteria must bi considered: 1. Special Circumstances: a. Is the property unique with respect to size, shape, topography, or location? b. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstraces applicable to the property or proposed use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone? 2. Preservation of Prnperty Right (Hardship): a. Can reasonable use be made of the property without this Variance? b. Without this Variance, is the applicant 3enied privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the area? C. Is the hardship self- imposed or created by the physicra constraints of the site? 3. Damage to Others: a. Will the Variance be detrimental to the public health, safzty, or welfare? b. will the granting of this Variance be a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone? B. Background; At their public hearings on March 27 and April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a number of alternative parcel map layouts. These alternatives presented different ways of fronting the two proposed parcels. On April 24 the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the Parcel Map as shown in Exhibit "C" with both parcels fronting onto Northridge Drive. This orientation created the need for an alditional variance regarding lot depth. See related staff report for Parcel Map 13693 for further information.. C. Specific: 1. Lot Size: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a lot, approximately one acre in size, into two parcels. Parcel 1 is 20,580 square feet, and parcel 2 is 22,500 square feat. The Development Code requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for the Very Low Residential District. Both lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet. However, C s PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 3 the parcel map falls 960 square feet short of meeting the minimum avei.'�le lot size requirement of 22,500 square feet. The parcel ma;; is bounded on the south by Northridge Drive, on the north and west by larger single family lots, and on the east by vacant land. Present and future lots to the north, east, and west of the site are within the Very Low Residential District, and must maintain a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The minimum average lot size requirement was adopted in 1983 to foster and encourage more creative subdivision layouts (i.e., more cul -de -sacs and curvilinear streets). The standard was not intended to prohibit the subdivision�of smaller parcels of land into lots consistent with the Very Low Residential District. A number of the parcel maps which created the surroure.i, , lots in the Very Low Residential District do not have a mh.!mum average lot size of 22,500 square feet. The adjacent Parcel Man, 5996, which created four lots on the west side of Cabrosa Place, required a Variance (Variance 87 -08) to a:est the minimum average lot size requirement. The average lot size for that Parcel Map is 21,750 square feet. Located along the east side of Mayberry Avenue and adjacent to Parcel Map 5996 is Parcel Hap 7902, which created four lots with an average square footage of 11,257 square :Feet. Approved in 1983, and granted an extension in 1985, Parcel Map S745 is located on the west side of Mayberry Avenue anC is a mirror image of Parcel Map 7902. 2. Lot Depth: The proposed Parcel Hap also requires a Variance from the lot depth requirement due to the requirement to front onto Northridge Drive. The minimum lot depth allowed by the Development Code within the very Low Residentie, district is 150 feet. The lot depth for both parcels, when access is taken from Northridge Drive is only 130 feet, which is 20 feet less than the minimum allowed. Howaver, Parcel 1 is approximately 160 feet wide and Parcel 2 is approximately 170 feet wide. Both parcels exceed the minimum width requirement, 90 feet average, by a considerable amount. The previously mentioned Parcel Hap 5996 required a Variance from the lot depth requirement as well as the minimum average lot size. The average depth of those four late is 129 feet. The lot immediately north of the subject property is also less than 150 feet deep. Allowing a reduction in the average lot size or minimum lot depth requirements will not _create an unusually small lot because both lots will meet or exceed the minimum lot size and lot width requirements. Both lots meet or exceed all other n PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 4 applicable development regulations. It does not appear that the approval of this Variance will constitute a special privilege, nor will it impact adjacent pr(,;erties in any way, III- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before granting a Variance, the planning Commission must make all of the following required findings: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical. hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Development Code, B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property irvolvEd or to the intended use of the property that do not app.y generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on the other properties classified in the same zone. E. That the granting of the Variance will not b! detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property bus been posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners wit. *.in 300 feet of the project. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that cne Planning Commission approve the Variance 91 -04 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with findings. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SR:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Parcel Map Exhibit "D" - Minutes from March 27, 1991 Resolution of Approval C - -q E City of Rance.,:' Cu.. .Tonga Planning Deptartaent 10300 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 RE: Tentative parcel Map # 13693 To W..om it May Concern, AM MAR 5 isTI 713141u0u`1120141516 At The purpose of this letter is to fulfill the second requirement utner section. B. Filing Requirements of the Variance request form. This item reque.`ts written justification outlining the reasons for t ",e variance and why this variance is compatible with t °_le surrounding area. This variance is being requested in conjunction with tentative parcel map number 13693. Under the provisions of the s•lbdivision being requested the individual 1ct size has been exce>> - in the case of both lots, however, the minimum average lot size is just barely below the required level. It is felt that this variance would be compatible with the surrounding azea. A variance of this exact nature has already, been granted for other lots in the immediate area along Cabrosa Fl ice. We .Feel z,iat the small deviation from the required size would ,ot aZversely affect any of the home or land owners in the area. If you have afi` questions or concerns regarding this application p'lea.se feel free to contact me at (714) 987 -3868 between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. sin re 5ter -:, R. Luna c�+ ;t IIN OF F Cr-£"( � U?JyOyGA ITEM: yA Q t ANCE G 1-04 TTiLE: l.z Fray.• Ay usw' N FLAlWItilNt'r• DIM ON , ExHiBrn"A" SCALE: e 1G U IME 774 wwr r cn•ws® !1l r o ® J NK�N - W YN MR It, Iml AratK I 0 v.,..f a c i 0 .r crry OF �C�& �UCAMONGA I lau N►-nr m R� PL41jrn r ) sio�v 1 10 EXHIBIT•.' 3 SCAL -E: Z, ti LU '44 'ClIF Z ---I .2jT,, =� � L ,6Vt/ N 3 aO� �� � 1 � 69 ?V tr tr7d U 4 0 cn C x ...n. 0 D. fiNVIRONMSNTAL ASSESSMENT hR_ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - TUNA - A Subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Resi.lential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), to "ted on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201 - 182 -29. Stafz recommends issuance of a. Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 13, 1991.) E. VARIANCE 91 -04 LUNA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feat for a two -IOU parcel map in the Verf Low residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Betty Hiller, Associate Engineer, presented the stiff report for Parcel Mnp 13693 and Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report for Variance 91 -04. Commissioner Melchor naked if the streets are public or private. Me. Hillor responded that the streets are pubae. Commissioner Vallette asked if the street connects to the development to the want. Mr. Coleman stated that, Northridge Drive in the only 2treet from this community which abuts other undeveloped' parcels. Commissioner Melchor a6ked the. intent of Nrahridge Drive at the time the project to the south was approvt_ Mr. Coleman replied the intent was to provide acs. ;no to the projects to the north. He said at the time the neighboring project wen approvrd, the land to the north was toned Low Medium, but it was subosquently rczoued to 'Fary Tov Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Northridge Drive was origivii&y intended to be a cul -de -sac. Mr. Coleman replied there have been several master plans, some an a knuckle street and acme as a cul-de-sac. Barrys Hansen, Senior Civi[ Engineer, stated that the street VLS constructed to cut --de -Lac standards. Commissioner Melchor asked if a solid block wall wan being addad an a condition on the trail. Ms. Miller responded uZfirmatively. Commissione: Melchor questioned the equestrian easement. a Plann.ng Commission Minutes -5- March 27, 1991 JEZ f/ /,d g Hr. Coleman .stated there is a 15 -foot private easement for equestrian AdcbL Ip pvrpoces. Commissioner Melcher asked if the amount of frontage left at the southeast corner of Cabrosa Place mould be enough curb face for a standard residential driveway. Mr. Hanson responded affirma":ivelY. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Stever: Luna, 899,1 I'th Street, Rancho Cucamonga;- stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman MCNial asked how soon he planned to bu'1d. Hr. Luna replied that he hoped to build two single family resic'encas within a year. He said he planned to live 'n one. He said that following the neighborhood zneting, he redesigned his lots t. `ccommodate the desires of the neighbors. Linda Frost, 10560 Mahogany Cor_rt,. Rancho o. ;camoega, stated she is President of the Northwood Homeowners' Associs'.,.on, whic.s represents 294 homes immediately south of the project. S$r agreed with the steff report and the decision agreed to by the developer. She requested that residents free the Homeowners' Association stand up in the audiunca, and approrimately 20 people stood up. She said she had over 150 signed letters from residents, and the major concerns were in the i as of ACGR enftrcament, particul,-,riy concerning landocaping and traffic /parking control. bha said they frelt t' -1t the addition of equestrian late on th5 t.arth side with an egres► to Northridge Drive would not be in keeping with the higher density neighborhood to the oouth. Shu object.a to die_- -bane of the slope's landscaping whirr, is maintained by the Homeowners' Association. She said the CC&Rs restrict streat patting. She indl.rated the Homeowners• Association supports the present configuration with the -ots backing up to Northridge Drive. Hike Hickies, 10409 Northridge Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated %veryone felt they had purchased in a sem private: eCanunity and they liked the limited access and were opposed to any housed taking access from Northridge Drive because of increased traffic. He also felt the limited acoass deters crime. He thought if either of the new homes wsire to take acusss from Northridge Drive, they would potentially have large horse trailers waieh could cause traffic problems on Northridge Drive. Charles Doskow, 222 North Houn6ain, Upland, stated ha had Lean asked by the homeowners to comment. He said the maintenance agreement req%,J-:ing that the Homeowners' Association maintain the slope to '",he north of Nurthridge Drive cot.stituted a morally persuasive covenant, if not a legal � :4ement, between them and the City that the integrity of the noighbo: hoed L._ld be maintained. fie said the residents feel the neighborhood's security and privacy would be threatened if any lots to the north are given access to Northridge Drive. He felt that the change r." zone to lapg,�r lot- to the north Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 21. 1991 C_G would change any original idea that there should have been acce,» t,o the north. Wayne Graf, 6347 Northridge Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has worked hard to 1--.v his home and he had thought there were no plane to open Lip the stsar He opposed access to Northridge Drive for any housss from the north. HQ was afraid peo, ?le would cut through the community as a shortcut. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Me tel cloued the public hearing. Chairman MrNiel stied that the Planning Commission must maks sure that traffic can flow throughout the community. He thought that everyone could like a private community, but not all communities can be private. He said that people should not assume that lots will remain vacant or streets will remain closed merely because they are currently vacant or closed. Commissioner Tnloy asked It Cabrosa Placs is in place tnd improved to Wilson Avenue. Mr. Hanson responded that it is in plats, but not fvUy i.rproved to Wilson Avenue. H-a said the cul de -sass in currently served by a temporary access to 4ilson Avenua, and the ave,itual street alignment to the east and to the north of the jog is not dedicated or improved. Commissioner Melchor observed that the Planning Commission's job is to ensure good planning. He felt the proposed plan appeared to represent planning oy the neighborhood, whi_h does not nucessari2y produce the best results. Hs Aft thought that Parcel 1 would be undesirable because it %,ould have a horse trail an one aide and a roadw%y to Parcel 2 on the other side. He felt the map was a bad plan with poor access and said he would pretni; that Parcel 2 would be entitled to future accass to Northridge Drive, r.s ba felt triat the owners of Parcel 1 maaht onu day buck accass to Parcel 2. He did not feel that allowing one i_ot to gain access to Harthridge Drive would negatively impact j tha community. Cocmuis3sioner Ch£tisa stated shu agreed with ctmissioner t4O.lcher up to a point. She did not feel that concerns of excess tr&MC cyra justified because the streets were not planned to go through. She did not feel 3 -. .could La appropriate to access both parcels off Cabrosa Place. She also tt:.: >aresl 1 should not face Cabroses if Parcel 2 faces Worrhsidge.. Commissioner Valletta stated that the community to t.3a south or the proposed lotia decided a long time ago to be an associr,,t£on and she gees.. further access to the community would invalidate the controls of the association. She said she had seen similar drivewa}.- i- plannrd comunits.rsv and although she r;id not feel it necessarily represents good planning, she did feel it to ya an appropriate compromise tr, the nerds of the cm—. tity to the south. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the two lots rx­ Ut face karIzltridge Drive, but thought there should be a better plan to p_ - 'nr rurcel 2. He felt the plan should be st -•cart further, at hbr should have access to Wils-_• Avenue Ln c . ther way. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 27, 1991 C. _10 Chairman McNiei asked what plans there were for access for the lots to the east of the site. Me. Miller responded that staff had prepazed the master plans included in the staff report, said there are no concrete plane for the area au no projects have been submitted as yet. Mr. Hanson felt the current docisi.on -.ode by the Plannirg Ccumnissiun may well set tis precedent for which other lots will face. Chairman M.Niel reopaaned the pv *lit heari•.q to ask if the applicant would consent to a continaance to allow further consideration. He asked if it would be possib ?R t-- _=tact the other property owners to mrster plan the area, because he folt cuT -du -sacs may be placed where they do not maY, ^s a lot of sense. Mr. Luna responded that he hoped to start building within a year, but it was not necese ry to receive approval this evening. Chairman MCNiel asked if it world be accapt "bla to the rgplicant to continue the item for two wawas to address a bettr,r m. .ter plan. ?Sr. Hanson stated that tao creeks would act &Uow enough time. Mi. =11er stated that staff had sketched cut the master, plans and not asked +_to a�alicant to do a lot of master planning 'because it was felt that might be dsk excessive for a two -lot parcel map. qu ccamDissicner Melchor felt a Witter layout su;ld be found. commissioner Tolstoy .,recd that more thought should be given to the layn.t. Mr. Coleman stated there was considerable: discussion &+ the Trifle Committee as to where the trail would be located on the two pkvicels. He recommended that tba project be returard to the Trails Coaaaittee if changers were proposed. Commis-'oner Chities stated that if the 1t.a wc•' '-plit wil-a one facing north and the other facing south, 1.,,o- sekeeping on br th propextieq would be effectively eliminated.be.^auxe of the distance fLom the neighboring house. Brad Haller, City Planner, stated that providing access would not necchsarily wAvan that a hems would architecturally front a strAst. Cemalasioner Relcher stated he was in sympathy w!�th thm idea that the zone chantls is a argnificant one because it is a matter of equestrian late adjacent to ion- equestrian lots. He said he would like the lane' north of Northridge Crive to be dev9lopad without access to Northridge, but he did not feel the pruposad plan was a good one. He felt time should be taken to consider if a better plan could bs developed. Hs. Miller asked if the cox -rent proposal could be considered as a temporary solution until development is proposed on tie @djoi-,Jkng parcels to the east. Planning Commis .on Minutes -H-- March 27, 1991 C_k,� Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that any ?lan drnfted At this point would have rs be treated -s purely conceptual and action could only ,.,e taken JEWA on the two pa.;cals under consiOeration. Co=issioner Melcher felt a public street could r7tentialty bg brovght down to the northe-st corner of the applicant's lot to allow access for both parcels to the north. Fps. Buller •'_,ited that any master planning would si,sply be used as a reference document 1 be used as future applicat.ons are aeceived for adjoining proportion, He asked if the =o van anything in the conditions prohibiting Parcel 2 from cbtaining accefr■ frnm tae east or the north. He thought the Gommise'.on could approve the projz:t and further direct staff to develop a mactez plan for the surrounding proportion. Commissioner Malaher stated he wanted to see the master plan developed first. Ye wanted to know what would be a logical street system which would eventually give Parcel 2 legal access to a public street without having to go across another property. Hart-,e Hanson statad hii would lilts the develcser to work on the master planning. Mr. Buller suggested thrt the Item ba continued to April 24, 1991, with the potent±?] of continuing the item further if it were determined that more time would be needed. Chairman McKie! asked if Mr. Lund would object to a continuance to April 24. Mrs Luna replied that would be accerV!j,,ble. Commissioner Chitiee stated that if temporary aceesR *ro given from Northridge Drive, it wo, „d interrupt the landscaping and there would be no guarantee that access u.ald over be available to the nort.' Commissioner Valletta asked if the other Commissioners agreed that access should not ',a taken from Northridge Drive. Commissioner Chitiea did not fael it would be appropriate to precluds access fr ;:a Northridge Drive as no streets were being proposed tc be punched through to the :forth. She did not foal t' would be a severe impact to allow acce:ia U4- two lots, with a potential of caip tfroo additional lots, to a :ublic struiat built to regular City standards. Motion: Moved L +y Melchor, seconded by Tolatcy, to continua Lnvironmental Assessmant and Tor.tative Parcel Map 1559A and Variance 91 -04 to Ap.:il 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following votes AYRS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIZA, MCNISL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTM NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commissio-: MinNtes -9- March 27, 1991 C --1---), 1 P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUrAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 91 -04 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LCT SIZE FRO 22,5010 TO 21,540 SQUARE FEET AND A REDUCTION IN THE HINZHUH LOT DEPTH FROM 150 TO 130 FEET FOR A TWO -LOT PARCEL MAP LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 201 - 192 -29. A. Recitalz. (i) Steven R. Luna has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 91 -04 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Rcaeolution, the subject Variance request in referred to as "the application." (li) On the 27th of March 1991, and continued to the 24th of April and the 22nd of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and concluded said hearings on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, << Is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the ^.ity of Rancho Cucamonga is follows: 1. This Commissin. 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 subutantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearinga on March 27, April 24, and May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hershy apecifical..y finds as follows: (a) The application applies to a vacant, undevelor -rd property located on Cabrosa Place, north of Northridge Drive with a depth of 130 feet, a street frontage of 330 feet along Northridge Drive, and approximately 40 feet of frontage along Cabrosa Place; and (b) The property to the nc+rth of the subject site is residential, the property to the south of that site consists of aingle family homes, the property to the east i® vacant; and the property to the west is also zoned for residential use. C --1.3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLU2_ON NO. VAR 91 -04 - STEVEN R. 7GNA May 22, 1991 Page 2 ,i (c) The four parcels to the west have an average depth of 129 feet, and the property to the north ib also less than 150 feet. (d) The application has beet submitted to allow a reduction of the minimum net average lot area and minimum lot depth requirements contrary to Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code within the Very Low Residertial District. (e) Both parcels meat or exceed *ne minimum lot size requirmnent *"' 10,000 square feet. ice) Both parcels have lot widths of 160 feet and 170 feet, which greatly exceed the required 90 -foot minimum width. (g) Ex3,ating subdivisions immediately north and west of the subject site have a minimum sneraga lot size of less than 22,800 square feet and have lot depths lees than the required 150 past. �h) A variance to allow a reduction. In the minimum tvarage lot size and minimum lot, depth requir& -mente wan granted for a fcur -lot subdivision adjacent to the sub- .set sit,,;. 5. Based upon the substantial evidence prevented to this Commission during the above- referenaad public huarings and upon± tits spbelfic findings of AlIkk facts set Ljr-,h in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal intarpreatation and enforcemant of the specified regulations would . -exult in practical difficulty 4r unnecessary physical hardship :. nconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property .nvolvnd or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties it the same diat_•ict. (c) That strict or literal interpreration and enforcement of the specified regulation woule deprive the applicant: of privilege¢ enjoyed by the owners of ozaer properties in the same district. (d) That the granting of the Vsriar. ^® will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitationnc or. other properties classified in the same district. (e) That the granting of the Vari7sacs will not be detrime.ital to the puoiic health„ safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conu'-usions set forth in paragraphs 2, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application. C-1%_'( PLANNING C0MMIS1 {ION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91 -04 - STEVEN R. LUNA May 22, 1991 Pagw 3 Adak 5. The secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED IM ADOPTED THIS 'l2ND DAY OF 'SAY 1y91. PLANNING COMMI,SION OF TIM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. MoNiel, Chairman ATTEST• _ •Brad 8u1.6r, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of 'R=nz�ho Cucamonga, do he -pby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and Legularly introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following w)ta -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSt C -� / 05/07/91 To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 — RtCMki Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 CITvOFPANCHO CIICAMONGA From: Nicholas D. Crow 9080 Cottonwood way MAY IS Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 AM p'' RE: Variance 91 -03 - Hwang & ¢ Tentative 'I -act 19207 - Hwang I strongly object to any variance which reduces the designated lot size for residences In this area. I have been a continuous resident of this area since 1958, before the incorporation of P.ancho Cucamonga, and I hasten to point out that one major reason for zoning and planning is to protect residents from developers who would otherwise overdevelop the lend in the interest of profit, and reduce the quality of the community as a consequence. I think that you, the planning commission, should ba prepared to answer the question "If this developer is allowed to reduce lot size by 27+ %, then why not reduce next time by 35 %, and then by 50 %, etc. ?" A MINIMUM lot size means just that. Nothing smaller. I certainly understand why a developer would wart to squeeze one or two extra lots out of any tract, and I equally understand that it is your responsibility to protect us from overzealous developers who would perpetrate such actions. I expect you to do so. My home; and its value, will be directly and adversely affected by this plan. I believe that it is incumbent upon you to uphold the long range planning and zoning of this area. Failure to do so is a failure to perform your primary responsibility, and warrants some explanation as to why there is need or benefit in suspending the existing requirements in this specif'c case.. I certainly would like to be apprised of any special circumstances which warrant any zoning variances in this development. In the absence of any such circumstances, I Strongly urge you to uphold the existing zoning standards, In the absence of upholding the existing zoning standards, T would like to be advised of the rationale and justification for issuing the variance. I further would like to object to the negative impact upon my residence which will result frog a peculiar aspect of the development. Lois s24 and 825 of the plat, have an east - west orientatir;,, unlike all of the other lots in the development and unlike my lot, and my neighbors lets. As a result, the planned home north of my house will only be about G5 feet from my property line, which will significantly block my view of the -mountains to the north. The same will be true for sy neighbors. However, if those two lots were oriented north- south, the resulting homes would be more nearly 100 f_.et from the property line and would not present such a significant degradation of view, AND would be more consistent with the other property development In the neighborhood. Furthermore, as planned, one -f those homes will block the view of -he other. It would seem preferable, even to the new home owners, to have those ^Xo lo.:s placed consistent with the remainder of the development. I would also like to express reservatiora upon the requested project for tree removal. It is not clear to me which trees are to be reuoved, but there are many trees in the area which support a wide variety of birds which add charm and character to the area. Large crow populationA, as xeil as ree- tailed hr.wks and even owls frequent the skies in this neighborhood. They roost in the many _)ld trees which can be found. In the Interest of keeping the natural aura are charm of the area, I urge that you take steps to preserve the natural habitat for these animals. Respectfully, j Nicholas D. Crow�jy� El DATE: TO: FPOM: BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Mal 22, 1991'a chairman ani Members of the Planning commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, Asaociace Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 HWANG - A residential subdivision and design review of 28 single family lots on 1S.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling unf.ts per acre;, located on Wilson Avenue, west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062- 051 -01. Aesociated with this ptozect is Tree Pon-oval Permit 91 -05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VARTATICE 9 -03 - HWANG - A request to reduce the minimum corner lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet and the minimum lot area Cram 20,000 square feet to 14,502 square feet on Lot 28; to zeduce the minimum Sot depth from 150 feet to 146.19 feet and 145.75 feet on Lot 11 and 14, respectively; and to reduce the minimum average lot size from 22,500 square feet to 22,24 square feet within Tsntativ& Tract 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dweliing units per acre), located on Wilson Avenue, west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park APN: 1062- 051 -01. I. PROJECT AND SM.BRSCRTPTION: A. Action Reauest L Approval of the subdivision map, Bite plan, building elevat<:ans, conceptual grading and landscapa plans, Tree Removal Permit, and Variance, E. Proieet Denssjtjy: 1.4 dwelling units per acre. C. SSurroundira Stand use anj Zoning: North - Heritage Park Open Space South - Single fami:, residential; Very Low Residential District (lees than 2 dwelling units gar acre) East - Vacant and single family residential; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West - Single family residential; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling unite pa- acre) ITEM D & E PLANNING COMMISSION S?AFF REPORT TT 14207 & VAR 91 -03 - AWANG May 22, 1991 Page 2 D. General plan Designations- Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Park. Sou,h - Very Low Residential East - Very Law Residential and Flood Control West - very Low Residential E. Site ChaXai"stice: The site is a formrx vineyard and has no st „_- . -urGo. A pr -tial windrow of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees exist along Lne southern boundary of the site. A ravine, which was filled upstroam with -he development of Heritage Park, runs north /south through the property. The a' a slopes from north to south at approxime.:ely 7 percent. II. ANALYSTS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide and construct a 28 unit single family detached subdivision on the subject property. Only 27 units will be constructed ae part of this Design Review= Lot 28 will be procnased at a cus�:om let residence through the City's plan check process for reemons skated in III A and C of this report. Although not subject to the requirements of the City's Hillsile Grading Ordinance, the architect and engineer have deoigned houses with elements to must the intent of hillside development, (such as, stepped building pads, stem walls, confornAnce with building envelope height requirements, etc.). Therefore, 'ie only major grading proposed is for driveways, streets, ovO trails. Three floor plans (one with three exterior elevations,' two with two elevations) range in size from 2,900 to 3,50D wquare feet. All plans are two -story and include three -car garago.s. Elaven of the 27 garages are platted in a eide -on condition to provide more interesting streetscapes. Lots range in size from 14,502 to 29,074 sgaare feet with an average size of approximately 22,228 square feet. B. Street Lavaut: The overall subdivision was necessitated by the straet alignment of Wilson Avenue. The westerly termination of Wilson Avenue through the tract coincides with the existing dead - end through Tract '.'181 and the east and intersects Beryl Street at its pro-approved location, which will complete the four -way Wilson /Beryl intersection with Tentative Tract 13951. Secondary y, the existing stub of Buckthorn Avenue was logically continued to thra north to form a *T* intersection with the proposcA continuation of Mustang Road. Finally, Mustang Road (as opposed to Arabian Drives) was longthonad to access the n�-sthsrn portion of the project.. The proposed, street layout meets Engineering Division and Fire District policies for secondary access, cul -de -sac length, and spacing of streets and /or driveways on secondary otreets (Wilson). ID C4 _)f __ lkoft PLANNING :'7HMISSION STAFF RE -l'ORT TT 14207 & VAR 91 -03 - LWANG May 22, 1991 Page 3 C. =Attacaoe ISGM28: Two existing residences are lncatkr: near the southwest corner of the site. The easternmost house 1i set kAcl� a minirnm of 44.4 feet from the face of the ultimate W.Lison Avenue cur:. Given this substantial front aetbaa.:, the proposed streetecape design car. be continued across the frontage of this lot and the lot "A'• frontage wire tly adjacent to this raaidence. Vowever, the weuternmost property owner has an existing block wall /wrought: iron fence ranging from 7.5 to 9�8 feet behind the ultimate face of the Wilson Avenue curb, which is significantly ..2es than tfa required av,_age landscape /gall setback of 18 .aet. In order to allow this structure to remain in place ax,a not significantly detract or modify tie streetacape design, the applicant has provided a modified parkway design across the frontage of this lot (see Exhirit "F "). D. of "4:,L Ra mentioned earlier, a lettenRd Lot "A" is shown on the Tontative Tract May abutting Wilson Avenue. This triangular shaped lot resulted from the alignment of Wilson Avenue and is too small for development. In order to eliminaU, maintenance concerns mentioned during the dw,valoprment :review process, a condition has beer provided in tie attached 73sactiution of Approval for the Tentative Tract Map th4t this lettered lot be merged with the lot to the south by means oL lot line adjustment. III. VARIANCs: In ct.ajunctioa with the Tract Map and Design Review, the applicant has also submitted a Variance application for the following: A. Lot 28 Area apd Width$ Because of the alignment of Wilson Avenue, an irrw. , zarly shaped 19,01:,,, square foot piece of land will exist a-uth Gf Wilson Avenue. The applicants intent it to take the westernrost 4,536 square Boat and make an interim lettered Lot "A" with the intent to merge this area with the adjacent lot to the south, which is owned by the came developer. Tho remaining 14,502 square feet would then be proposed as Lot 29. Section 17.08.040(5; --tf the Development Code r6quires z minim-= not lot area of 20,600 square fast and a minimum earner le width at 100 feet for all lots within the Very Low Resiftntl i riatr+.ct. This lot would & ve an 84 -foot lot width. V'ha Design Review Committee ape --ifical.ly recommended that this aria become a numbered lot - -aa opposed to a lettered lot --if this area cannot bs sold to the adjacent property owner to the south. Staff would support_ the Variance for lot area and corner lot width, provided any residence on this lot be designed to be compatible with other residences wit3in_the subdivision, as determined by staff. D'.ls — B PLW "dtING COMMISSIC V STAFF REPORT TT 1:307 & VAR S_ -03 - HWANG May 22, 1991 Paqe 4 0 B. Lot Depth: Table 17.d8.040(B) of the Development C 3e requires a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. Lots. 11 and 14 do not meet this minimum derch standard by 3.81 feet aid 4.25 feet, respectively. The applicant feels the variances are warranted due to the creation of the cul -de -sac bulb for the terminus of Mustang Road. Again, the Wilson ivenue street alignment placed a unique constraint on this property. In staff's opin "on, this justification is valid, especially since the requirements for minimum lot size, minimum rear yards, trails, and structural setbacks can be provided on +loth lots. C. 2 njmum Net Averace .Lot Area: 7inally, the applicant to requesting a reduction of the 22,500 square foot minimum net 'lot average area to 22,228 square feet. The reason for thin request items from the small size of Lot 28 and lettered Lot "A "; the average lot size is approximately 22,514 square feet if Lot 28 is not counted into the average lot size calculation. If the Commission determines that the Variances for Lot 28 (see part A of this discussion) are warranted, then staff would recommend that this segment of he Variance also be granted. IV. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE; The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Tolstoy, Coleman) on March 7 aad April 4, 1991, with approval being recommended subject to the fmllowing: A. Additioral wirdow msalions should be provided on all front, side, and rear elevation* visible from major streets (Wilson and Beryl). B. Rock or brick, whichever is applicable, should be utilized exclusively on all free- standing climneys on the "Ranch" and "Colonial" models. C. The wood fascia band should be continued across the exterior of the free - standing chimrey on the Plan 1 "Mediterraneaa" side elevation. D. The ffensstratic,,i above the front entrance of Plan 2 "Ranch" should be more symmetrically balanced. E. The fora -e green accent color an the Plan 2 "Mediterranean" shoul' be muted somewhat.. 2. Structural details of all return walls should be worked out with the Planning Division prior to issuance of building pewits. Aieo, the transition points tetwee* wall styles should be hidden with dense shrubbery, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. b�c�l IL -'J PLANNING COMMISSIO?7 S,TAFP REPORT TT 14207 6 VAR 91 -03 - -wANG May 22, 1991 Pass 5 O. The entire 1.8rimeter wall between Lots 26 and 27 should be constructed by the developer to avoid odd wall relationsh..ps adjacent to the flag of Lot. n6. M. A radius planter at the property Une, adjacent to the corner of the wall, should be pro -'ided in conjunction with the modlfxed parkway design to frost of the existing residence on the south side of Nilson Avenue. S. If the parcel at the southwest corner of Wilson and Bmck horn is not sold to the adjacent property owner to the south, t' '-.:a this lot ahOU 0 become a buildable numbered lot, with the intention that Variances will be required for lot size, width, and possibly, setbacks for structures. A specific house design should be reviewed by the Planning Division as a custom lot residence through the City's plan check process prijr to tha insuanca of building permits. Also, if the lot be. canoe a numbered lot, then the Wilson Avenue stremtscape wall should" terminate near the intersection of Nilson and Buckthorn. The exact termination point will be determined - ::when plans for a residence on this lot are procested. J. Lot "B" should be incorporated into the lot immediately "uth by means of a lot line adjustment. Comments B and G have boon incorporated into he revised exhibits Included in this report. All other comments hay.i been made conditions of approval and included within the attached Design Review Resolution of Approval. V. TECHNICAL RTVIFw ( MMITiBE: On Marsh 6, 1991, the Committee review-; the project and determined that, with the recommended cor-dition6 approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading c �:4eittee conceptually approved the project at its meeting of April 1, 1991. VI. TRAILS NVISOR7 CDMMITTEE. The Trails ADVISORY Committee evlewsd the project on February 15 mad Jena 21 1989, and February 20, 1591. 'The Committee recommended approva' at the February 21?, 1991 meet$ -n) subject to the following: A- A community trail should be provided on the want side Gc Beryl Street adjacent to Lots 24 and SAS. Trail fences stftiuld only bu used on the interior side of the trail. B. Textured trail crossings should be provided across Beryl 8trset, north and south -° the intersection with Wilson Avenue, and acroee Wilson Avenue sI.- the went side of SH:yl Street. .b tt _� PUiNNING COMISSXON STAFF REPORT TT 14207 & VAR 91-03 - HWANG May 22, 1991 SPago 6 C. A local trail should be provided on the south side of Lot 25 to connect the local trail with thn Beryl Street Community Trail. No curb cuts uhould be provided on Beryl street at this location. D. A north /south local trail westerly of Lrts 24 and 25 should term'.nate just north of the southerly property line of Lot 24. E. The hVuse an Lot 27 should be flipped rend the garage should be made front entry. The equestrian access to the rear of the lot should be providel adjacent to the iMew garago location. F. A curb cut should ba provided at the local trail on Buckthorn Avenue at Lot 26. C. Horse crossing sign' should be provides- at tho Wilson Avenue,Beryl street intersections. H. since the chain link fence will remain per the Community Service Department recommendations, no serail fencing will bu required an the north side of the trail adjacent to Heritage al rk, but local trail forcing, or an upgrade, should be provided on the south alle of the trail. 1. T,,e design of the terminus of Aeabian Drive and the entry to the local feeder trail should be reviewed and approved by the Trails ADVISORY Commi tee priar to the issuance of building pa:mits. J. Non- vehicular equestrian gates shorld be provided for Lot^. 13 through 23 as op Wood to the step thrc .g?i data:as indi� -Ated on the pi.sns. K. An equestrian envelope map should be stlbmit`ed to the Planning � Division for review and approval prf to the issuance of building perr:tp. All stable lccW_ons al.ould be a minimum of 70 feet from adjacent residences, per DevelopmeAt Code requirements. L. Se- -tions of the► community trail on Wi"oa Avenue which are a,!fscted by sig: line concerns should be a minimum width ai 14 foot. M. A step through apt the south and of the local tra =1 adjacent to Lot 23 shoLA7,1 be c.eleted and located at the north end oi` the trail at Muv:+ng Road. N. A curb zut she %,ld be provided at the entry to the 10cs1 trail adjacent to lot 1. o. A 20 -foot cut off should be t .- -vided at the L4orthre :t corner of lot 3 to allow easier turning movements for trucks and trailers. I-) 'L-'G --1, 0701-02 oP.C. AGENDA MAY 22� 1991 2 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14207 & VAR 91 -03 - MWANG May 22, 1991 Page 7 P. The western terminus of the Wilson Avenue community trail should be designed with the intent of continuing a r.itrofitted community trail crossing the north side of Wilson to Carnalian. The design of the termination should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of huilding permits. Comments A, C, D, J, and L through O have been incorporated into the revised plan package. All other comments have been made conditions of approval and included within the attached tract map and design review resolutions. VII. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, On February 27, 1991, a neighborhood meeting was held to allow neighbors within the immediate vicinity of the project an opportunity to review the proposal prior to Planning Commission review. No significant issues were raised that have not already been analyzed by staff and the vari -xiw ADVISORY Committees and addressed in the project design and conditions. VIII. TREE REMOVAL: In conjunction with the Tentative Tract and Variance, the applicant has submitted Vres Removal Permit application 91 -OS requesting the partial removal of the Eucalyptus windrow +long the southern boundary of the project (see Exhibit "0 "). The ar,,plicant is requesting removal of only the trees that will be aftectm-d by the construction of Wilson Avenue and the construction slope easement immediately behind the Wilson Avenue streetscape area. :.��� A -f the 23 trees in the windrow are unaffected by street cones- ,,reaction and will be preserved. Again, since the alignment of Wilea.1 Avenue has been predetermined, staff fesle the removal is warranted as long as replacement windrow planting is provided per Ordinance No. ?7S. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES,;.IENTs Part 1 of the Initial Study had been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part 11 of the Snvironmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with staff's findings, then isaualce of a Negative Declaration would be in order. X. FACTS FOR FINDINGS., The project is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety or cause nuisance or significant adverse environma ,ital impacts. In addition, the project use, subdivision map, and °onc'ptual plans, together with the conditions of approval, are in ecanpliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. XI. CORRESPONDENCE. This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Da 1y Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property cwmers within 300 feet r of the project site. p 7 PLANNING CONSSZ'�SIOH STAFF REPORT TT 14207 & VAR 91 -03 - HWANG May 22, 1991 Page B XII. RECOMMNDATION: Staff recommends that tha Planning Commission issue a Negativo Declaration. and approve the subdivision map and Lasign Review for Tentative Tract 14207 and Variance 91 -03 through adoption of ,khe)atta3Med; Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Brad Buller/-- City Plan er BB:SH: g Attachments-, Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Exhl:c t "B" - Tentative Tract Map`, Exhibit "C" — Site Plan Exhibit "0" - Conceptual Landscape elan Exhibit °k" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit ^F" - Wilson Avenue Streetscape Transition Plan Exhibit "G" - 'Tree Removal Plan Exhibit "H" - Building Elevations Exhibit 11" - Letters from Applicant for Variances Exhibit "J" - Site Plan Enlurgsmenta.`Pf Variances Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 14207 with Conditions Resolution of Approval for 'The Design Review of Tentative Tract 14207 with Conditions Resolution of Approval for Variance 91 -03 bV_ tYg �'-)q-r -R v J � U r v, a l Po, r—, —�o C1 "r:�_ `:; t LVe 1il e! tl 1 r I �i t t a� 1 q 4 f � \G _ i kr � � x U El El 1 � WILSON AVENUE AT EAST LINE OF LOT WEST OF LOT 31 SCALE: f - 10' om - WSON_ /EnSIINC e• fF! Q?� i0.00' r�l�g �E2 AVENJE 0. ER. 7.SrVAR1IMAY e � �' �v. win •;/- �� KsS>Q --- A 0 r R�1,400 � In n � EXISTING RESIDENCE L — ORIGINAL LOT 31 41! Y, C OF TC` UCAMONGA iTEM;� 1h+�u7 va.1,.,„ 91,0,3 Trrr.E PLAN II r- i7 'VISION Wtls�.1 e4y4L. 5+, .. FS `G4 N ,f.,. ....... ... EXHIER';�iF" SCALE: . 0 fs fl.cm ob -L) 61 IZ z at -/.L-NW aza I fll -06.0c r4 O c qL -b R A , 5 7 ► I 1 �O V e wE Wo��o U W 7 s c 3 b v�,-- ) S CCti ^V v_ r v 5 y 3 � 7 y�y Fr O U� °xA Z U U f Z e y tie p g� O� \ \ 1 V r V 1 �I z t uu%i <e 3 b %t -1S �11\ V :mot M ,v U z o U� 0 C3 U� z 0 a u q Fti U 0 3 x E := V j OjG Y u a- .��h 4 � a S J � U n ;n C C O � rn �A O� a E r � u? h s moo: 4 i i .Wo m �W =w� UuYi <u 3 D a'E - :� l V �i O O 0O U Op x O G4 O U v Q Cry. WWI o ° r L_ 6 3 r O i 7 V Yxl< W a' a � U a 4 cri z V LJ 1 ��e W a a D U m O O n Y 3 - C - 2 5 O x y O W 0 �N - -� .c � rn s� Q U� Lzz���.����� ' W\ ko . ' Rk D m2_29 q � � ® � \ . � !� e %. - % � k / 7 Ell-�-I- 22 Q� uA Q� 9k P�2 b � R D vv----:�b U Z. ZS o s � r1 L z U� 0A z O a U U E ci ��s q I lk t � i �t�"�fa�ats•:h. ILL a i ¢oi i3 o� o �W 3c�i u"i Z K2 0 "1�- -:p7 3 Qo= 4 3 \3 6 J V U o y s E+ t�7 z O aCl) z W U �k\ ¥tea. � � � Z4 0k):-' - &2 3.7 \ + & M § � u - 73 / El � 3 22 Qn Q2 � g� � 7 b 9 E 0 E a li r; `i i 1 J 1� I oimn U W <4 ON Qa►5 ---�9, 3 � 44 V U GrJ z �® r7 V � Q U oq^ 1� � � G\ � k�\ 1�•� � ; / k T)» 'E�- -3 "A7- | A. � \ . § @ \ % � � q Ll « I O : 2 � O � 2q Qn �q q� 0 : 9 � � U §� RICHARD DAHL RANCHOCUCA IONGA,CA (ORNlAJl701 ummmm-aMm ENTERPRISES (714) 987 -8762 TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: aICHARD DAHL, CONSULTANT REF: REQUES'' FOR A VARIANCE ON TWO LOTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14207. BY MEANS OF THIS LETTER I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT A VARIANCE BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: FIRST, THE MAIN REASWT FOR THE REQUEST IS CAUSED BY THE CREATION OF A CUL -D -SAC, WHICH MUST FLARE OUT AT THE LOCATION OF THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION. BECAUSE OF THE NECESSARY FLARE FOR THE CUL -D -SAC EACH LOT LOSES APPROX. FOUR (4) FEET IN DEBTH ON ONE SIDE ONLY CREATING A LOT DEBTH OF LESS THAN 150 FEET. SECOND,THE LOT SIZES AND MINIMUM SET BACK REQUITED WITHIN THE ZONE ARE MET WITH THE FOUR FOOT VARIANCE. SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR MYSELF PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME AT ANY TIME. THANK YOU SINCERELY, 2, c x.- � — �1. 4`�"( RICHARD DAHL, CONSULTANT REPRESENTING JCL PARTNERSHIP. ` Ti OF (W UCAMONGA PLAN E07SION Trn.E: l. -i,,, 1.4 E?CF rr. 3 ! " SCALE: / 0'�Lr_-->,) N RICHARD DAHL RANC11O 5444 CARNELIAN AVENUE CUCAti ONGA. CALIFORNIA D1701 ENTERPRISES (7141987 -8762 April 17, 1991 MR. STEVE HAYES, PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEAR STEVE: RZFERENCE PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 PLEASE AD TO OUR SUBMITTED VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED LOT 28. THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS DUE TO THE CITY REQUIRED STREET ALIGNMENT FOR THE PROPOSED WILSON AVE. WHICH CREATES A SUB- STANDARD AND ODD SHAPED LOT. PROPOSED LOT SIZE WILL BE 14,502 SQ. FT. WITH THE FOLLOWING DEMENSIONS: 90.19 FEET ON EAST PROPERTY LINE WITH APPROX. 60 FEET ON WEST: 150 FEET ALONG SOUTHERN BORDER AND 173,24 FEET ALONG NORTHERN BORDER. HISTORY: CITY DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A LETTERED LOT OR TO BE USED FOR REST STOP OR EQUISTRIAN AREA. IT WAS FELT DURING DRC MEETING THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER SHOWN AS A N°I!BERED CUSTOM -LOT. STAFF WILL MARE SURE, WHEN THE LOT IS TO BE DEVELOPED, THAT THE SET BACKS, ETC. ARE ADHERED TO. THE AREA DESIOWATED LOT B WILL BE CONSOLIDATED BY WAY OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH (SAME OWNERSHIP). THA'N'K %YOU, RICHARD DAHL, PROJECT CONSL"LTANT c OF UCAMONGA P BMSI ©N rr1EM,Z1y- 107,. ---„L4 9t-a EXH1BPP$-a`' SCAM � M ?4 E7 0 r -'S =RVAT E:_WWAV SAS:UEV- 1 .1 . - E P 1 296. �+? - - =,j - ,� �.- PARKWAY :'RAV I T y O - P- 1}�RCUdi :Efl ^. :M: E 4 L� L 3 PLAN 2 _ Lj Fl. 00 I Qy 147.1 r� — \ .P% o� �14 c uni Q co Pr. . "s 3I.6 1 ' 1 ra PLAN 2 t 11 N w, p C.9. 1 / ♦•Y P.V.C. M.3� LOTS YII+ ••• `73' PCt Af:, 11 ,Pd �s.a 39. L- -� 77.63 J gag. 134.23 K3m 24' ,r er R rirr � �-----V ALT. 2e R. 2 P. 1' C P N 550'LOS �� —SIV- TtiRWOM PER STD, - -� PLAN NiNG- Di`7ISIor? 1'm.E: Vo_, a , F l st-S t (d l i� � Al ExHiBTf: `J-I SCALE: r N89' lyj S-41 , -,kr-. DRAINAGE -LASELIE4T t -IT P.C.C. SWAL• -1 ,)$I 19 "E +A'7 =IRE HYDRAN7 rrEm I�LA � 7 4- 9/-o3 UY OF UCAMONGA TM.E: p ION Exmrr:":j -,;"scAu-. II QK LU > c) D it. m PESOLUTION NO. Adftk A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOY OF 19 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14207, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 19.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 :iWELLINSv UNPTS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON WILSON AVENUE' WEST OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF tJ�RITAGE PARK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1062 - 051 -01. A. Recitals (i) Mr. Jung Hwang has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract No. 14207 as deezribed 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 22nd of May 1991, the Planning Commission of tho City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. eU0 All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planting Commission of he 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 thin Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presexiled to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on Hay 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, 449 Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park with a street frontage of 664.34 feet and lot depth of 1,296.47 feet and is presently unimproved; and (b) The property to th4 north of the subject site ba Heritage Park, the property to the south of that site consists of an existing single family residential subdivision, the property to the east is single family residential and va_.nt, and the property to the west is single family residential; and (e) The project is within the City's Equestrian Overlay District and has been 499igned to meet the intent and requirements of . -.ie equestrian area; and PLANNING. COAL:ISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14207 - HWANG May 22, 1991 Page 2 11 (d) The project contemplates the development of 93 single family m--tached dwellings, 27 of which will be constructed with approva). of the subdivision. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission :ring the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific find£ngo of xacts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and Levelopment Code; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code; and (c) The s!te is phyeically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not Ukely 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; 3r_9 (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement aequira.d by the public at largo, now of record, for ,nccess through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has bean reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every ,ondltion net fortk below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1) Parruant to provisions of California Public Resouzees code Section 21089(b), tdis application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (HOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Su arvisoss of the County of San Sornardine; and (2) any and all required filing Ah awn MW P't"1E _36 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECZ`.J]TION NO. TT 14207 HW.ANG May 22, 1951 Page 3 fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Gams Code Sectian 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San 9ernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a stamped end conformed copy of Ehe Notice of Dbtermination together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. D - 37 In the -vent tais application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charg* for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null a:.a void, 2) Textured trail crossings shall be provided across Beryl Street north and Bout., of the intersection with Wilson Avenue an? across Wilson Avenue at the went side of Beryl Street. 3) The house on Lot 27 shall be flipped and the garage shall be made front entry. Equostrit ac�;nns to the rear of the lot shall be provided adjacent to the new garage location. 4) A curb cut shall be prowidel at the local trail on Buckthorn Avenue at Lot 26. 5) Horne crooning signs shall be provided at the Wilson Avenue /Beryl Street intersections. 6) The chain link fence on the south boundary of Heritage Park shall remain with local trail fencing per City standards required on the south side of the local trail along the northern perimeter of the tract. 7) The design of the teminun of Arabian Drive, indicating a vshicle gate step- throsgh and completion of a cul -de -sac per City Standard Drawing No. 206, shall be =eivewed and approved by the Trails Advisory Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. 8) An equestrian envelops map shall be submt1ted tm the Planning Division for review and approval prxoe td the issuance of building permits. Al stable fth locations should be a minimum of 70 feet from Ar adjacent residences. D - 37 PLANNING COMXX8SSON RESOLUTION NO. TT 14207 - 11WANG May 22, 1991 Page 4 9) TLe western terminus of the Wilson Avenue trail should be designed with the intent of continuing a retrofitted community trail across the north side of Wilson Avenue to Carnelian Street. The desigv, of the termination should be raviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 10) Tree Removal Permit 91 -05 is hereby approved with the following a,nditiona in accordance with the Tres Praservar'ion Ordinance: a) The Eucalyptus windrow located along the south tract boundary may be removed as required to construct Wilson Avenue. The applicant shall attempt to preserve the four saaternmost tress whore feasible. b) All trees propoaed to remain in place shall be protected by fencing around their perimeter drip lima. The fencing shall be inotalled to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit. c) Any wood infested with *longhorn borer beetle shall be chipped, removed and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground for a minimum of six months, sealing the tarp edges with soil, to prevent emerging borer beetles from reinf+astng other trees or wood. d) The Eucalyptus windrow shall be reestablished along the southerly tract boundary (i.e., i.)t "A ", and Lots 25 -25), outside the drainage Lmd equestrian easements, with replacement planting of Eucalyptus malculata (Spotted um) in 1S- gallon site spaced at 8 feet on center minimum and properly staked and irrigated. e) Approval of this Tree Removal Permit No. 91 -OS shall be valid for a. period of 90 days, subject to extension. The 90 davg shall start from the date of final map recordation or grading permits, whichever comes first. f) The Planning Division (anti if app!icable Engineering Division) shall be contacted within 30 days of the planting of the ~saes to (induct an inspection. LJ C1, G - a g PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14207 BWANG May 22, 1991 Page 5 Enaineerinc Division: 1) Construct the portion of master plan storm drain line 2F in Beryl Street from Wilson Avenue ( including catch basins on the north side) to Sunflower Street, with a temporary outlet to Beryl Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide sufficient catch basin cap' -11ty to protect existing residences along that poY''.= of line 2F from a 3.00 -year storm. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of the facility and the develorer shall be eligible for reimbursement of costs for permanent master plan facilities in excess of fees in accordance with City policy. 2) Construct a local public storm drain along the south tract boundary, from Beryl Street to Buckthorn Avenue, and north within Buckthorn Avenue to Wilson Avenue as justified by the final drainage report approved by the City, Engineer. 3) Provide catch basins on Wilson Avenue on all four sides of the Buckthorn Avenue intersection, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 4) An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposites Side of Beryl Street shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final map. The fee shall be one -half the City's adopted unit amount times the length of then project frontage. 5) Construc.�. Wilson Avenue full width, including street lights, uidewalk, and parkway landscaping fronting the two "Nat -A- Part" parcels on the south side of the street (APN: 1062 - 121 -23 and 24) from Beryl Street to the existing terminus at the west tract boundary: a) The centerline alignment shall be compatible with the approved alignment study between Carnelian and Amethyst Streets done for Tract 13930; and b) The entire fill slope on the suvth side of the .,street, including rataining walls which the Building official may require for building setbacks from elopes, shall be shown on the street improvement plans, or as otherwise approved by the Building official and the City Engineer. kLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14207 - BWANG May 22, 2991 Page 6 0 6) If the easterly leg of the Wilson Avenue /Beryl Street intersection exists ok is under construction upon final map approval, 'the deveioper shall install adequate traffic signalization and /or signage to maae Wilson Avenue they through street to the satisfa�t on of the City Traffic Engineer. 7) Reconstruct the and of Arabian Drive with a reduced radius cul -de -sac, per Standard No. 206, with a drive approach for the local trail along the, north tract boundary. 8) Community trail forcing an the north side of Wilson Avenue shall bs located outside the intersection lines of eight. A 3 -foot planter area shall be provided between the trail and the perimeter, wall, regardless of variations in the trail width. The entire expanded parkway shall be inc`,ded in the ;sight -of -way for Wilson Avenue. 9) Driveways onto Beryl Street shall have hammerheads, so that automobiles will not back across the community trail. Trail fencing within the driveway lines of sig4 shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. i 10) The sideway an the south side of Wilson Avenue in front of the most westerly "Not -A- Part" parcel shall be 5 feet wide and located adjacent to the existing wrought iron fence. A transition to a curb- adjacent sidewalk xhall be provided when the separation between the sidewalk and back of curb drops to 2.5 feet. A transition to a standard parkway with 4 -foot wide property line adjacent sidewalk shall occur on the east side of the existiiq driveway. 11) A lot line adjustment to merg) X.ot "A" with the "Not -A -Part" parcel (APR: lOf;2- 121 -24) south of Lot "A" shall be recorded prior 4o or concdrrent with the final map. 12) A good faith effort shall be made to grant Lot 28 to the owner of APN: 1062- 121 -14 to the south. if successful, a lot line adjustment to merge Lot 28 with APR: 1062- 121 -14 shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final map. In addition, if the merrier occurs, Standard Condition No. 1 shall be revised to read "... west of Lot 28" in -lieu of Buckthorn Avenue. 'C) , G —410 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14207 - kWANG May 22, 1991 Page 7 S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY, OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, 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 introduced, gassed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mestiac of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sri- D 4t-, - -q) 02u4v ®u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5*70 W PROJECT #: SUBJECT: of IL Sri 70 S�yciivlsJOti APPLICANT: itnnc wu a e LOCATION: 19C i 4- rtet.,t. Or- Q., 5+, o, tydjvn/�ye, Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989.1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limtts Cannietion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, 'rf building permits are not issued orapproved use has riot commencedwithin 24 months from tha date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to J J 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. i ya o7 Is granted subject to the approval of Va�Jc.,u 9�-va y/ 4. The devslopershall commence, participate in. a -d consummate orcause to be commenced, _/_J_ participated in, or consummated, a Mello -Roos Cormunity Facilities [f:strict (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specificatigns of the Rancho Cucanwnga Fire Protection District, and sham become the Districrs property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any buUding of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable haws and regulations. The CFO shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent icy, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello -Roos Co, imunity Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary sc."MI faciiilirs. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in fie alternative, consent to the annexation of the Project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, tf the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from Ask the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building perrnits for said Project, this condition shall be deemed ntill and void. D '.Lt SC -2,91 1of12 Comp: !on Nm- This wridition shall be waived K one City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to recordation of the final rnap orprior to issuance of building parmfts when ho map is involved, written certificationfrom the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilik +es are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water distriv- t within 90 days priortofinal mapapproval inthe caseof subdivision orpriorto issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. t3. Site Devobpmsnt 1-% 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appioved plans which include site plans. architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors ndscaping, sign program, arc, grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions �. dained hereli , Development Code regulations, and SpedRic Plan and Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being comma heed thereon, all _/_/ Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence untit such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/---I— State Fire Marshall's regulations have been corroled with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety c Division to show compliance. The building shall ba inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be —J--J- submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. V/ 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street irnprovement plans shall be coordinated for J� consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as gracing, tree removal, encroachment, building , eic.), or prior to final map approval in 11as case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. I/ 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development —Jo! Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Comm "y Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed on -site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planer and Sheriff's Department (989 -6611) prior to the issuance of buiding permits. Such plan she'' indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 1_ 8. If no centralized trash mceptacies are provided, all trash pick -up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. SC - 2/91 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles; shall be subject to City Planner review and approval Prior to issuance of building permits. —J---J- 10. All ground - mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. D a. r- --14 3 2 of 12 ✓ 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be Identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail Widths, maximum slopes. physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shalt be submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation of the FinafTract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developershalfupgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. _ 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shaltnotplohibftthe keeping ofequine animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping cif said animals have been met. Individual lot owners In subdivisions shall have the option of keepn,J said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards o, directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conciitioniz, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and Articles al Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attomey. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Ffnzl Meg or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be proOded to the City Engineer. ✓ 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanerrtlymaintainedbytheproperty owner, homeowners! association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of bulldiny~ permits. ✓ 17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for she puqnse of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easementsmay be contained in a Declaration of Hestrictionsior the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall pm-hittit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-C-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmiark. The site shaii be developed and maintained in arx„trdance wfth the Historic Landrrt * Alteration Pcrmtb Plc. Y . Any further mocifiicatilons to the site including, but not lirrKt° i to, exterior alterations andloi interior alterations which a ffect the exteriarof the buiidirogst tA:actures,rerrvalotl2ndma6 trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buiidirmd or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Pef t subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Building Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic trot wager for all dwelling unit! and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alter. energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capatlly and efficiency. Allswimm,+g pools installed MIN time of initial development shall be su¢pWmentetd with solar heating. Details shall bi included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approve prior to the issuance of building permits. ✓ 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment sv, —. 1 to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of bullking permits. SC - 2/91 aD L r�nrqlu-N Dsw J� ___/_.J _ _/._!— J.J- _J_ — J_ l J_J- -. —J-16 s.'T/Y.2 QMpleum Date^. 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Binding Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. ✓ 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other root mounted equipment and/or _J_l— projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Plannini Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Park'ng and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12 -inch wak adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and text rved pavemlint across `circulation aisles shall be —J-- -- provided throughout the development to coni:ect dwa llings/u nits/b uildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits -hall be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be ovided with garage door openers it driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from bad of sidewalk. 5. TheCovenants, Conditions 2nd Restrictiori shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles --�—� on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation, €isles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priorto issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly malotalned landscape areas, refer to Sactlon N.) 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, inckidtng slope planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of residential development, slal be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of buiI01V permits s or prior final m oval in the case of a custom ap apps .lot subdivision. _1/' 2. Existirginses requiredtobe preserved in place shall be pratectedwithaconstruction barrier _.J__1 in accordance w;ththe Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted onthe grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The appfcant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. 3. Aminimumof treespergMSSacre, cctnlprisedof the following sizes, shall beprovided within theproJect: %- 48- inch box orlarger, %- 36- Inch box orlarger, °Jo - 24- inch box or larger, % -15- gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon. _ — s A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - `4 -inch box or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate M one 15 -gallon tree for every three parking, st,ds, satficient to shade 5W% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. �Xj i SC -2/91 4 or12 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures et a rrtte of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. Y 7. All private slope banks S feet or less In ve.11cal height and of 5:1 orgreaterslope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, Irrigated and landscapedwith appropriate ground ooverior erosion control, Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. S. All private slopes in excess of5 feet, but less rhan8feet invoitical height and of 2:1 or greater slopeshalibeir idscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to coften their appearance as follows: one 1 S- gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope areal -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft, of slope area, and approprlategroundcover. in addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shah also include one 5,allon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall he planted In staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent imgatlon system to be installed by the developer prior :o occupancy. V 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer untileach individual unit is sold and -=pled by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy for those units, aninspection shag be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For mufti- family residential and non - residential development, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped arees on- site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of -way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shat: rr+^3ive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, riser:::, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required perthe Development Code and /or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planning. ^� 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, wails, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be Included in the required landscape pions and shag be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with anyparkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees. mc ander- Ing 5:'lewalks (with horizontal change). and intensified landscaping, is required along 14. Landscaping and Irrigation systo r s required to be installed within the publicc right- of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall ba continuously maintained by the developer. 15. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. if located inpublic maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division, 16. Tree maintenance crh6ria shall be developed and submitted :or City Planner review arc approval prior to issuance of buikfng permits. These criteria shall encourage the natura growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be cosigned to conserve wator through the principles o Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the R —.ho Cucamonga Municipal Code. V'1.- —46 5C - 2 /91 5 of 3 Compleu.m Date: ___/____/____ -_J _/_._J —J_, J WM�—JM JJ� F. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submittea plans are conceptual only andnot apart of this approval, Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program forthis development shall be submitted for City Planner reviewand approval prior to issuance of bui'aing permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shill provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Manner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A final acoustical report shall be subamfttnd for City Planner review. and approval prior to ti•i issuance of building permits. The final ; eport shall discuss w level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construcilun techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agencies V 1. EmeMencysecondary acr essshallbeprovidedinaccordancewiihRanchoCucamongaFire Protection District Standards. 2. Emergtr.,:y access shall be provided, malnten3rice free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. 3. Prior to Issuance of building permits for combustible constnrtion, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire protection Is available, pending oomptetion of required fire protection system. 4. The appiicar ehali contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Mufti-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permho. 5. For projects usitV septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all ,� supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino Coulrty Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. DtL V -)17 SC . 2/91 6 of 12 Pm «t \'� 77 "4.2Y7 CCo„ yletzm Date; — _J —/— —J—/ —/._J_ T 1'0 U7 Comnlena, Darr. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989.1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDi: ,INS: 1. SB'3 Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform lMechani- —�-- -- ca'.'Code. Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes. oldinances, and regulations in affect at the time of issuance of rarative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copios of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for anew residential dwelling unh(s) or major addition —�- _.V to existing unft(s),the applicant shall paydevelopmentfeesat the established ra +e. Such fees 1 may include, but are notlimitedir City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Devehpment Fee, Permit and Plan;' hocking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for my commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, thu applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not lim'ted to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan ".hecking Fees. 4. Street addresses shall be provided bythe Building Official, afteri;acf/parcel map recordation a; .,d prie to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearance;. considering use, area, and fire - resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled andlort,apped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. U.iderground on-sfte utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for �J building permit application. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shalt be in accordance with fhc+ UnIfo►m Building Code, City Grading Standards, Standards, and accepted grading practices. 'tre final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading pleas. 2. A soils report shalt be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to —�--� pedorr► such work. 1 The development is located within the soli erosion control boundadea; a Soil Disturbance _.l._.. — Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County Departmentof Agriculture at (714) 387 -2111 forpemtit application. Documw4ation Of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the Issuance of rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shafi be prepared by a qualified enginser or geologist and submitted at i -- �---1— the time of application for grading plan check. _ - S. Thefinal grading plans shall becompletedannd approvedpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits . a.'iE —y g SL -2/41 7017 12 /-6. Asa custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted aW an agreemerrd ixecuted guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division priorto final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for see disposal of drainage water that are conducteo onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of builo;ng permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flogs a; ;bring, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each panel are to be submttted to the Building and Safety Division for approval priorto issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) e. All slope wanks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native Slrasses orplp> 'sd with grouna cover for erosionxrttrol upon completion of grading or some other aften native method of erosion control shall be completed to thti satisfaction of the Building Official, in addition a permanent irrigation system shai! be provided. This requirement does not release the appiieartUdeveloper Imm compliance with the slope planning requirements of Section 17.08.0401 of the Development Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, ( 714) 986 -1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. DedW ' ^n and Vehicuiar Access V 1. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to I -, : - :. for all interior public strer ts, comrr*inity, trails, public paseos, public ILJscape areas, street trees, and public drainage facilities as stawn on the plans and/or tentative trap. Private easements for non - public facilities (Mss- lot drainage, local feedsr trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 1/ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following fights-of-way on the perimeter street% (measured from street certtertine): W61 ^tall feet on 111/1 Is— ,i¢v4.+uc� s,,* sj4 S� -S8 total feet on f5, VI-17 ►,��.t cl _ ki-1 total feet on Ge-, z I_s ,* total feet on 3. An irrevocable offerof dedication for -toot wide roadway easement shall be made for all private streets or drives. 4. 5. SC - 2/91 access shall be dedicated_ to the City for the Protect o IT 12o7 c mpleuon.%r —;__J_ ' ._ (�iiM _J._/ --/_ Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC &Rs -.j--J- or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. A,f12� 6. Private di% 4 �,VGi.;- Nements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted k.^A tie fin., 4 -tap, , 7. The final mat_, shall clearly delineate a t 0 -foot minimum building restriction area on Via neighboring;ut adjoining the zero lot line wail and contain the following Anguage; 14Ye hereby dedtate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the light to prohibit the construction of Iresidential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated on the map as buidingre,trkikn areas." A maintenance agreement shall also ,e grantad frc r„ each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC &R's. 8. All existing easemarts lying within future +ights- of -v,ay shall be quitclaimed or delineated on / the final map. s! 9. Easements for public sid9walks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of -way shall be dedicated to the C ":ry wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additional street Light -of -way shall be dedicated toong right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet me,isured from the f soa of cu, ::s. If curb an7acent sidewalk is used along the right ..�a lane, a para'lel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. ,1 i:s developer shall make agood taut: effort to acqu!m *J required off -site property interests necessary to construct he required public imnro voments, and 0 he /she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map her approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Governnwnt Cc Je Section 66462 at such time as theC y acquires the property Interests required fortheimprovements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off -site property interests squired in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shalt be in the form of cash deposit to the amour:? .,lven in an appraisal repart obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been apiwoved by the City prior to rommencement of the appraisal. M Street Improvemerim 1. All public it provoments (Interior streets, drainage 1`91,11 ties, t ammunh; trails, paseo_, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans anchor tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, bu' are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, (!rive approaches, sidewaks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum of 26- 11ootwidepavement, within a 40 -Foot wide dedieved right -of -way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, W . ct i rnita d to: STREET NAME CURB t3 c;uT MR I.C. PVMf SIDE WALK ORM APPR. S7REES UORTS MEET TRE ES COMM. TML [+tEDiP ISLAND OTHER ✓ NIS I I J_ _T7 Sc - 2/91 9 of 12 D �L G —00 PmrcctoIi 01 0mvicu a ,m. :_ _f_,J- _J__J_0 _.i_.1— _/ —J —JJ- J —J_ I J_.J_ 0 P 't-� —5 S SC - 2/ °- 10 or 12 Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reco- itrucxion and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) if so marked, side - wam shall be curvilinear per STC. 304. (d) If so marked, an in -lieu of construction fee shall beprovrdedforthishem. ,cc ,. I,vm e _�� '1• � I 4� r Ci'.eed G(e,JLwc7 Completz m Date: 4. Improvem €nt plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans irrluding street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve - ments, priorto final map approval orthe issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed In public right•nf -way, fees shall be Maid and a J —J construction permit shall be obtained from the Ch i Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, Mreat name signing, and Interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of tr R City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any new cons(nsctionorrem Aruction cf major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, sec andary or collector streets fog future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet ouside of BCR, ECR orany otheriocations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise spocitted by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3 -inch galvanized steel with pullrope. e. Wheel chair i imps shall be installed on all four comers of intersections per City ��- Standam's or :.s directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction snail remain open * traffic at all times with - -J--J— adequate detours duringcorpoructlon. Astreet closure permit may be required. Acash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concantrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewaks. Under sidewalk drains shall be ._-J J installed to City Standards, except for single family lots. h. Hand3: -ap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Ens =,ear. I. Street names shall be approved by the City Piannerprlorto submittal forfirst plan check. S. Street improvement Gans per City Standards for all private streets shag be provided for review and approval by the Cffy Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri- vate streets, fees shah Sue pad and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in additiot! o any other nermfts required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 -gallon size or larger, ;.'hall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. —J—J_ , P 't-� —5 S SC - 2/ °- 10 or 12 7. Intersection line of site desh]ns shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by moving the 2 +/- closest stroet trees on each side awayfrom the street and placed in a street tree easement. a. n, �-7 Qmmplcmw Date: _ 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any woifc within the following right-of -way: —J —I 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the --�� issuance o' building permits: N. Public Maintenance Areas A 1. A separate rot of lands, ape and Irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Siandards �- shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, traits, m other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance p.,yI -9f eW44, of tirl5o L„� -.M-4y ..'JI LDistrict: `-) _. (7✓f ��tn. it = J-L �)f L/1„sam CM 1 U,(,.., A,, ( a SJI.�N l,�n SI �tC.��W�— OT ut���iru ✓wE 144 V1 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join ano/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting _ /_J Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priortofiinal mapapprovalor Issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be bome by the developer. /3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective r Beautification Master Plan: 0. Drainage and Hood Contmi 1. The project (or pwlions thereof) is located villhin a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood --�- -� protEction measures shall be provided as certitied by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone /— designation removed from the project area. Tt a developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologW!'ydraul'mo calculations. A Ccriditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be cbtairted from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Latter of Map Revsion (LOMB) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final _J map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 5C - 2/91 12 d2 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within itsright -of -way. S. i rees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide reparate utility services to Bach parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electne power; telephone, and cable 1V (all underground) in acrardance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. {% 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Firs Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required priorto final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requlrements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building pernifs. 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or JAIL issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: 3. Prior to approval ,f the final map a deposlt shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assassmenis under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. 4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to `wilding permit issuance no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right -of -way: 6.A signed consent and waiver form to joist and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final rmap approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. 7. Prior to firalizaton of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be com- pleted beyond thopnase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of tn+ City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the appro,red fantative map. E SC - 2/91 12 of 12 J_J _JeJ _l --- /— RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14207, CONSISTING OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 19.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON WILSON AVENUE WEST OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARR, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT T11EREOF - APN: 1062- 051 -01. A. Recitals (1) Mr. Jung Hwang has filed an application for the Design. Review of Tentative Tract No. 14207 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the suoject Design Review request is referred to as "the application.." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho' Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the fats eat 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 May 22, 1991, 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 P;an; and (b) That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site in located; and (c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed 64sign, together wtth the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to tha public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to proportion or improvements in the vicinity. D ��& -5"q PLANNING COMMISSIO1 RESOLUTION NO. DR 14207 - HWANG May 22, 1991 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings aid conclusions set forth in Pr_ragraphs 1 and 2 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. lanning Division 1) Additional window mullions 'shall be provided on all front, side, and rear elevaione visible from major streets (Wilson and Beryl) tL the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to t, to issuance of building permits. 2) The wood fascia band shall be continued across the exterior of the freestanding chimney on the Plan 1 "Mediterranean" side eievation. 3) The fenestration above the front entrance on the Plan 2 "Ranch" shall be more symmetrically balanced to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division prior to the Issuance of building permits. 4) The forest green accent color on the Plan 2 'Mediterranean" shall- be muted somewhat. Revised color sampl0s depicting this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the Plaanirg Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) All new perimeter walls shall be designed in accordance with the conceptually approved design for the Wilson Avenue strestecaps wall. Details indicating this condition shall be provided on the detailed site and landscape irrigation plans. 'Also, structural details indicating substantial ,34 -inch square or larger..) pilastmrs within the streetscape and other perimeter walls shall be provided for review snd approval of the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) A radius planter large enough to accommodate a mature tree shall be provided at the easternmost transit3:on between the existing wrought iron fence /block wall and the new strevLacape wall along the south s1AA of Wilson Avenue. The detailed landscape /irrigation plans and street improvement plane shall reflect this condition to the satisfaction of the Planning D...vision and Engineering Division. M" L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 14207 - tX9ANG May 22, 1991 Page 3 7) If Lot 28 is not sold to the ad' ,,;cent piaperty owner to the south, then any residence for this lot shall;.:__. be procesMad as a custom lot residence by the City. Also, if the lot is not sold to the adjacent property owner to the south, then the streetecape wall along_ Wilson Avenue shall terminate near the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Buckthorn Avenue to tale oatisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. It this lot is sold to the adjacent property owner, then the will shall wrap around the Wilson /Buckthorn intersection and terminate with a pllr.ater at the existing lot line between. Lot 28 and APH: 062- 121 -14. 81 Textured trail crossings sriall be provided across Beryl Street north and south of the intereection with Wilson Avenue an(t . across Wilson Avenue at the west side of Beryl Street. 9) The house on Lot 27 shall be flipped and the garage shall be made, front entry. Equestrian aclless to the rear of the lot shall be provided adjacent to the new garage location. 10) A curb cut shall be provided at the local trail on Buckthorn Avenue at Lot 2G. 11) Korea crossing signs shall be provided at the Wilson Avenue/Beryl-Street intersections. 12) The chain link fence on the south boundary of Heritage Park shall remain with local trail fencing per City standards required on the south side of the local trail along the northern perimeter of the tract. 13) The design of the terminus of Arabian Drive, indicating a vehicle gate step- through and completion of m cul -de -sac per City Standard Drawing No. 206, shall be reviewed and approved by the Trails Advisory Committee prior to the i:ssuL.ice of building permits. 14) An equestrian envelope map shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the ,issuance of building permits. All stable locations should be a minimum of 70 feet from adjacent residences. PLANNING COMMISoION RESOLUTION NO. DR 14207- HWANG May 22, 1991 Page 4 15) The westet,.,terminus of the Wilson Avenue community trail should be designed with the intent of continuing a retrofitted community trail across the north side of Wilson Avenue to Carnelian Street. The design of the tezmination should be review.;d and approved by the Planning Division prior tt the issuance of building permits. 16) The construction slope easement on the south side of Wilson Avenue shall be designed to minimize the areas of 2 to 1 slope, yet allowing for a potential buildable area for a custom lot residence on Lot 28. Details addressing this condition shall be provided on the final grading plan. 17) Tree Removal Permit 91 -05 is hereby approved with the following conditions in acenrdance with the Tree ?)reservation Ordinance: a) The Eucalyptus windrow located along the south tract boundary may be removed as required tc. construct Wilson Avenue. The applicant shall' attempt to preserve the four easternmost trees where feasible. b) All trams proposed t� remain in place shall be protectcd by fencing around their perimeter drip lines. The fencing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit., c) Any wood infested with lonnhorn borer 1,eetle shall be chipped, removed and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground for a minimum of six months, sealing the tarp edges with soil, to prevent emerging borer beetles from reinfesting other trees or wood. d) The Eucalyptus windrow shall be reestablished along the southerly tract boundary (i.e., Lot "A°, and Lots 25 -28), outside the drainage and equest °ian easements, with replacement planting of Eucalyptus maculata (Spotted Gum) in 15- gallon size spaced at 8 feet on center minimum and properly staked and irrigated. e) Approval of this Tree 7smoval Permit No. 91 -05 shall be valid for a period of 90 days, subject to extension. The 90 days shall start from the date of final map recordation or grading Ank permits, whichever comes first. 1p D�Lt- -67 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, DR 14207 - HWANG May 22, 1991 Page 5 f) The Planning Division (and if applicable, Engineering Division) shall be ckntacted within 30 days of the planting of the tress to conduct an inspection, Engineering Di sign: 1) All applicable conditions from the Resolution for Tentative Tract 14207 shalom apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall aprtify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST:__ Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of tho Planning Commission of the City W! Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by ^he Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting ..f the Planning Comm-Anion held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITIV car DEPARTMENT OF MAtk]OQO* Out"AailaNGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT #: A34', l'ty� i _far uf� T�aer /14zo SUBJECT.: Qe- -`- %'reyw�� t t :c %oj vrsiclw ti5�•iiJsi:,, APPLICANT: J "A LOCATION: _ Sli. GF t�t� T� Pa , -L/' _ OF 6e11 Those items checked are CND " > --z of Approval. X-)PLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE P'_ANNING DIVISION, (714)989 -1081, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits SanaicAm Dolt _ / 1 Approval shall L.. 'oire, unlesr,extended by the Planning Commission, If building permits are -J—✓— not issued orapp, wed use has notcommen edwitNn 24 monthsfromthe date of approval 2. Development/Design Review shall be appraved prior to r i - 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of I 4. The developershallcommence, participate lr, andconsummateorcausetobeoearrsnced, participated in, or consummated. a Mello -F oos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Nancho Cucamonga Fire Protection DIC ict to finance construction andlot maintenance of a fire station to serve the developrnent. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications at the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection DWW, and shall become the District's property upon Completion. The 6quipmers shall be selected by the District in aw..ordanee with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shell comply with all app;icabte taws and regulations. The CFO shall bn forted by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. J—J� ,J—.1— 5. Prior to recordation of the tint mar. or the Issuroce of buNding pamtits, whichever com us firs?. Ine applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos C( .5d.�r;nity Facilities D'kttnCt, for the construction and nWntenarx-- 4 necessary school facilities. Holt -)ver, it any totrool district has prevaoualy establish% suw a Community Facilities Distr4l, the aXIWrrt shag, in the alternative, daonsent to the wmxatlon of the project site into the territoty cq such existing District prior to the recordation cf the final map or the issuance of building gamuts, whichever comes first. Further, g the affected school district has not formed a Mello -Roos Community'•aciifcies District within twelve months from ; the date of approval of tied project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shag be deemed null and void. D, LC- sq SC - 2/91 1 or 12 _/_ I —j--j- 11 This condition shall be waived If the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 6. Priorto recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is involved, w-i aan certificathn tram the aftec.ed water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter rrxlst have been issued by the water district within 30 days pZto final "W approval in the c: Ase of subdivision orpriorto issuance of permits in the case a all other residential projects. B. Site Development 'f 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and Speclffc Plan and _ Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy mBuildingCodeand State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Priorto occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building sha!I be Inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. ti/ 4. Reviaad site plans and building elevations incorporating aU C{3ndttionsof Approval shall be submittcJ for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, inigation, and streetimprovement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prforto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encro?.ohment, building , etc.), or prior to final map approval in the =9 of a custom kit subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Al 6. Approval c this request shall not waive compliance with a!I <m*ns of the Development Code, all c ther applicable City Ordinances, and appZaabK Coamiunity Plana or vaecific Plans in effect at the time of Budding Permit issuar=. 7. A detailed on -site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Sheriff's Department (989.8811) pride to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, Illuminition, loK--tfon, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacera properties. ✓ 8. if no centralized trash receptacles am provida -1, all trash pick -up shall be for individual unit, with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trs.', rs:eptacle(s) are rewired and shall tweet City standards. The final design, locations and t: -Briber of trash receptacles shalt be subject to City Planner review and approve prior to tssualce of building permits. 16. All grout ounfed utility appurtenances sn.w as transformers, AC condensers, etc., sha be 1-ate at of public view and adequately :,craened through the use of a combination c conciet+ masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Ch Plann, 'iC . 2/91 2 or 12 Pm,=s- :i)P1 -7 Com2letion Dun !._J I —J--/— 4--'--' _!---J —/--1 . V 11. Street names shat be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with / the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map _ V 12. All twilling numbers and individual units shall b, dentified in a clear and Concise manner, Including proper illumination. _ 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for Ctty Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation of the FlnatTract Mao and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developershall upgrade and construct all traits, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street Improvements. y 14. The Covenants, Conditions and RestricSons( CCB t?. s) shall notprohloit the keeping ofequine animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keepirg said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the f CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCBRs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association ure subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be reooWsd concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever c=rs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. Allparkways, open areas, and landscaping shall beperma"ty maintained bytheproperty owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceorab►., to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner ?rv-1 City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of buikfing permits. 17. Solar access a. cements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwe»ing unit shah nave the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system, The easements may becontalned in a Deftrationof Restrictions tca the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recort on of the final map o: issuance of permits, whichever oomes first. The easements shall prohlbit the casting of shadowe b; vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar;-';Zeds, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.066 -G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Hislorical Larxinrark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior aMsrations arKVor interior alterations whtchaffectthe exteriorof the buildingsorstnrctures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of but..Ings or structures, orchangas to the site, shall re- '* a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to HL *tonic Presv 4rrCommission review and approval. C. Build: ug 042lutr 1. An alternative ene,,gy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless coher alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency.. Ail swiminingpool$Instafled at the time of initial development shall be suppiemerted with solar heath. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Pfannor rev' -ew and approval / prior to the issuance of building permits. Y 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased de:ineation of surface treatm6lt subject to City Planner revicw _ ^i approval prior to issuance of bxuilding permits. SC 2/91 3 of 12 y,.,o.Vgf x -7 JJ ._J J .—.l_J —J--J-16 ._J---/ 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Hcrrreowners' Association shall be submitted for City Plannerand Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. _ 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditio ners cnd other roof mounted equipment andfor projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buttered fr,m adjacent pro perties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the sAtisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 0. marking and Vehicular Access (Indicate detalts on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minirnum outside d;r,5enslon of 6 feet and shall I contain a 12 -inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be providedthroughout the developmertto connects �,ellingsluNds/buildingswith open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrarx;es, v rd exits shall be stripad per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers it driveways are less than 16 feet in depth from back of sidewalk 5. The Covenants, Conditions and9 estric tions shalt .Istrictfhastorageof recreations; vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on Interior circulation aisles other than indosisnated visitor parting areas. _ 6. Plans for any security gates shall be sri,..:fitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District revbewsnd approvatpriorto Issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) _1. A detailed larxiscape and Irrigation plan, inckKkg slope planting and modal l*-irste Iandscap- Ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by ° '^ -qnsed lay .< . ape architectand submitted for City Plann r mview and approval priori* tTw k=anwe0ltwI'dIng permits or prior final map approval in tN case of a custom tot suUdIvislon. 2. Existing trees required to be presented in place shalt be protected with a ct.:3truction banter in accordancewith the Munldpai Code Section 19.08.110, and so notedontreyradicrllpians. The location cf those tress to be preserved In place and new locations for transplanted trees shall bs shown on the letailedfam c ipeplans. The e( Kplcatrt shall folleer all of 0%artrorisl's recomn>endatkens regan:lft preservation, transolartting and trimming m &:hods. 3. Aminimumof treespargmsswm, conprisedoffleforwl rjgsdzes,shaRbeprovided within the project: %- 48- Inch box orlarger, %- 36. inch box or targar, %- 24- inch box or larger, % -15 -gaW. and %- 5 gakNn. d. A minimum of 16le of trees planted YANnthe prajutt shall be specimen size tros - 24- inch box or larger.. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted ate rate of one 15 -vion true for e�rery three parking stalls, sufficient to shade EOYo of the parking ar^; at solar noon on A-4ist 21. b 'Zlt -b Z Sr' 2/91 4 of i2 comdebon Date, t, J�J J�J 1 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. — �---�— � V Ali private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 51 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscapra<i �`ft11 appropriate ground cover for I erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by IN developer prior to occupancy. ✓ 8. All private slopes in excess of5 feet, but less than 8feet in vertical height andof 2:1 orgreater slope shall be landscaped and Inigated for erosion control and to sc'ten their arpearance as follows: one i5- gallon or larger aize treo per each 150 sq. ft, of dyke area l- gOlof, VT larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope bsnks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:" or greater slopa shall also it Ivae one 5 -gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. 4t. of slope are :, , ;gees and shrubs Shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and teary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall includa a permanent irrigation system to be insulted by the daveYiper prior Ui occupancy. ✓ 9. For single family residential development, all elope planting and irrigation shall a 1 Fontinu- ou* maintained in a healthy and thriving condh,,.n by thedevalotysr until each Individual unit is sold and: ,cupiedbythebuyer. Prlorta releasing occupz 'tryforthoseunits, an Inspection shall be conducted by the Plannlrr ;, Division to determine that They are in satistictory condition. 10. For muili- family residential and non- msdental deg alcpmort, p opsrty owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all lar &,aped area3 on -site, as well as c ontig'.rous pisnted areas within the public right -of -way. All landscaped areas shali be kept true fr ,)m weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and tbriviOp condition, ,9ne shall receive ragular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead; disoased, or decaying plant material shall be o placed within 30 days from the date of da`ma ^s. J 11.. Front yard landscaping shall be, required per the Development Code and /or _ Fr __ _ This requiremart r ilall be in addftion to the required Str { ;vt eeS 3rR+ :.''.ire piarttirrg. V 12.' "ne final design of the parimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidew -Aks ON be ..4luded in the required landscape plans and shalt be su*%A to City Ptanner review and approval andcoordinate,. forconssistencywdhanyparkway Iandsca,pirQplanwhich may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Speaiai landscape feature€: such as mounding, aifuvial rock, specimen size trees, meander - Ing sidewalks (wi►"t horizontal change), and irttensiflod Landscaping, is required along V 14. I-Pi iscaping and irtigatic'-i sWer.required to be ins2alledwithin the pjbk right- of-way on the perimelee of this project ter: v :15e c e- dirmusly maintained by the developer. 15. All walls shall be providedwkhdeoorative treatment. If mated in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Divislun. 16. Tree mintenance criteria shall be developed and subm i ed for Chy Planner review anti approval prior to issuance of building permits. Thece crksda shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree specios. J --J_ --J — J� —J---J- 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be desis,,vd to conserve water through the principles of Xansca_pe as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municiipal Code. DV.t- - (0 3 SC -2191 5of12 F. Sltrra t. The signs int;;catedun the sLbmitted plans are conceptual only andnot&partof thia, approval. Any signs reposed for this development shall comply with th3 Sign Qrdir ^rice and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto installation of any signs. _ 2 'irifform SFgr Program for this development shall be subrTi'fted for City Planner reviexand 4vtoval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Direetcry monument sign(s) shall be provided for -, sartment, condominium, o- townhomes PL ',, to occupancy and shall require separate ap 'nation and approval by the Planning D.Msion prior to issuance of building permits. C. Environmental t. The dev&per shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard foanat at: detemensd by the City Planner, priorto accepting a dash deposit on any p;-,74 3rty. 2. ire developer ahall provide each prospective buyer written notirA of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard fomtat as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provk1a etch prospective buyer written notica of the Foothill Fresivay project in a starviard fornnat as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a rzih deposit on any property. a. A final acousticar report shall be submitted for City Planner review End approval prior to the issuance of Wilding p rmils. The final report shall allmiss Me level of intsrior noise IV attenuation tobelowa5CntEt ., the buildingrWeriah;atrd aanstru li n11X lnigttaspravided, and it appropriate, verity thij adequacy of the mltigatiai*,aaseawres TN. bu0d,'ng plats will be checked for conformance with tha mitigation measures conti ir*iv irs tie final report. K. Other Agencies ✓ t, Emergerry secondary access shallbeprovidedinaccor .ancewithRamloCacamorgaFire Protection District Sr idards. 2. Emerrncy access shalt be provided, maintenance f.w and clea; a minimum of 26 too, wide at 711 times during consiruetion in accordance evfth Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of bulU Xn7*s for cornbLs" constructi in, iva3encp ehali be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distrhtt that temporary wair supply for fire protection Is availetile, pending oomp -etlon of required fire protection systam. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Pustai SerAw to determine the b0propdato t;*e and location of mail boxes. hfuRVamify residential developmerrt , shall provide a solid overheat) stricture for mail boxes with adsquale %Ming. The ikta :-^r,at :A of a mailiwxea and the design of the overhead stricture shaft be subject to Cite la „-s-ef review and ;;poroval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. For pr jects using se-tfc tank factr s, written certification of ac„arp '�' .. al! supportive information, shall W Obtained from the San Bernardino County uei, it of Environmental Health arid subalilled to the Building Oh)ci9� prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of buildiaj perrrt!ts. SC - 2/91 3 cf 12 V IV _4 q C9m➢LS'tm D°te, –/ -1_. J_J J� IJ Pm,cznQ-; DR1 HAu-7 Compleuon Date: APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 999.1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WiTH TAE FALLOWING CONDITIONS: t. Site Development 1. The applIcint shall oomplywith the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanl- cat Code, UKioirn Plumbing Code, National ElactrIL Code, and all other aphpcable codes, ordinances, and regulations in st:eN at the time of issuance of relative p6rmi 1s. Please contact the Building and Safety Division to Collies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and alzolicaNe handouts. V' 2. Prior to issuance of bu'ildisig perrinkm for a now residenfint dwelling ^_r -major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant sha;1rsyclevelopmentfaaa at the established �,ate. Suchfees may include, butrire not limitedto- City Beautification Fee, Pads Fee, Dralnege Fee, Systems Devekip eat Fee. Perm': and Plan Che&Jng Fees, end School Fees. 3. Prior to issuance of b!1iid;ng permits for a now comrmerrai or ltv.Wstdai devol-)pmart or addition to an existing development, the apt iicant shall pay development fees at the establish.ad rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Pennit and Plan Checking Fees. V 4. Street addresses sh •3be provided by the Building 7- ol,attertract/pan I1mapmeorriafiorr and prior to 6ssuance tit building permits. .1. Existing Stsuctums I. r-ovide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property finb cl,arances considering use, arae. and fire - resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made :o comply wKh cones building tend acning regulations for the intended use or the building Shall bs d9rW%w °,d. 3. Existing sewage disposal !acidities shall be removed, fined arxPor capped to conoy with the Uniform P! s,mbing Code and Uniform BuitdIN Co,'o. 4. UMerground on -site ufii'dias rre to be wmcd and stK*m nn bLIidirtp pans submitted lot building permit eppiication. K. Grt:dir,g _ 1. Grading of the subject prWrty shall ;e in ar,�nco with the Uniform Building Code, City Girading Standards, and opted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in s�ubstanlllal confomiarxx with the epproved grading plan. 2. A soils report shalt be prepared 4 a qualified engineer ficensed by the State of Califoma to per;om suLh work. 3. The devebprme,.f Is boated within the soil erosion c ordrol boundaries-, a Soil Disturbance Per ;mitis required. Please contactSanBet vilnoCounty DoparurtentofAgriastiur 4.at(714) 387 -2111 forpormit application. Docume:ttatlonof such pem:it shall be submitted :a the CA, prior to the issuance of rough grading pem*. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualifled ,,ngineer c geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. �5. The finalgrad 4 plansshdl tbc= mpietedandapprovedpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. SC - 2/91 701`12 --J--J- -J --- J— _J --- /_ _/— —J—J_ __-/_—J— proiea ]o.: 0;?lN'.20 Cm,pleoon Dam, o. As a custom -lot yLibdivision, the following requirements shall be met: Ow a. Surery shall to posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on -site drar,tage facilities neces:idry for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safw.y Division priortofir, .' mapapprovalandpriortotheissuanceofgradingpermits. b. Appropriate easaments for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, ara to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the BuildirrF .id Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c.On -t ralriage improvements, necessary for do ,vrering and Notecting the subdivided proponies, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel •alative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each pamet are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval pr5orto issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an incremernai or :composite basis.) e. All slope banks in excess of 5 fe@t in vertical height shall be seeded, th native grasses orplantedwf:nground ^averfor ,msion cc-drol upon completion of gn.ling or some t,ther a'lemative meihod of a;:csion oontmi QSali be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent Irrigation system shall tie provided. This aquirement does not release the applicant/devebper from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 t of the Development Code. AaPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (714)9W1M2, FOR COMPLIANCE IASL N+II a THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Accm 1. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all irrd-dW public streets, oomnxmity trails, public R, neo^, public iands� areas, street trees, are' public drainage facilities as shown an tt°. plans and/or tentative map. Private easemr:43 to non- public facilities {cross -ht drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) "I be reserved ay stsow*n on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be moue of ". following rights -of -way on the ped,teter streets (measured'rom street centeriins): total feet on total feet on total feet on --total feet on An irrevnoahie offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made for all private streets or drives. 4. Non - vehicular across shall be dedicated to tf:e City for the following streets: 5. Reciprocal access easerrems shall be provided ensvring access to all parcels by CC &Rt or by deeds and shall ba recorded concurrently wish the T.ap or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no :nap is involved. D 4 t - � b SC - 2/91 e or 12 __./ —J- -J —J— J__l_ ._/ —J— J_J— J .t- J_-J_— 6. Private drainage easements forcross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 10 -tout minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero tot line wall &W contain the following language: !/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structure:,) within these areas designated on the map as auilding restriction arias.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lotto the adjacent lot through the CC&P "s. —8. All existing easements tying withn future rigfa.: -of -way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. 9. Easements for puWIc sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right -of -way shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additional street right-of-vety, ahatl be dedicated along right turn lanes, to prcmide a mist —,!m of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. if curb adjacent sidewalk Is used alone the right turn Carte, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 11.Thedsvelopersha:l make a goodfaith 31tortto acquirethe required oil -site property interests necessary to construct the required public improverrsrds, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to cor„plete the Improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquiresthe property Interests required fortheimpovnments. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developerof all costs incurred 4y the City to acquire the off -site property interests required to connectionwith the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in Me amount given in an appraisal report obtainad by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approvad by the City p 'sr to commerx:emera of till appraisal. M. Strect Improvtrrtsfrts SG 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drdtnage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, ate.) shown on the plans ancliortentativa map shall be constructed to City SI&ndards. interior street Impxovements shall ktctude, but are riot limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum of 26- foot wide pavement, wRt►in a 40 doc' wide dedicated right- of-way shel.' be constructed for all half- section streets. 3. Construct ilia following perkr,ater street improvements Inckrding, but not limited to. comyledo„ Daw _/_!— -_/ —/ ___/_J:_ —J--/— 2 E W Notes: (a) Milian island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will t:e determined during plan check. (c) It so marked. side- walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 30 <. (d) if so marked, an in -lieu of construction tee shall be provided for this item. w 4. Improvement plans and Construction: SC - 2/91 a. Street improvement plans including street tries and street lights, prepaved by a regis- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be postad and an agreement executed to the satistrr.tbn of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public andler private street iz prove - rr* - .prior to final map approval or the issua we of btildirj permits, whichever occurs fir b. Prior to any work beirg performed in public r'.ght -of -way, t"s shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Off Ice fr, addition to any other perrnKs rivin. c. Pavement striping, marking, r aHtc, street :tame s:xn?ng, and interconnect conduit shall be Installed to the satisfaction of the City Enpbtee d. Signal condvA with pull boxes shwl be installed on any new commiction orreoGnstruclion of major, st condary o- collector streets which intersect with other major, s000rsdary or cohecfor streets for future traffic signals. PO boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at3feetouts —le of BCR. ECRoranyotharklcations approved byths City Engineer. f'ott.s. (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduft shall be 3 -inch galvanized steel wKh puHropti. e. Wheel chair ramps shall b3 r- lalled on as four c oners of Mtert actions par City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring constrtu, don shsb rormiln open to traffic at al, times with adequate detours during oarstruction. AWa tcloe spermitntaybe required. Acash deposit shall be provided to cover the cog & grading and paving. which shell be refunded upon conpi6tion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows sff?t:�+tax�„�sidaweiFs. Under sidewalk drains shall be instailzt'f to C4 Slane&., except for ,4VIe famr y lots. h, Handicap access tamp design shag be as specified by the City Engineer. i. Street names shall be approved by the City Platuter prior to sutxn ttal tottirst tW check. S. Street Improvement plans per City Standards for alit private streets shall be provided to review and approval by the City Itrgineer. Prior to any -odc being perfarmed on the pr vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction psmtits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Otflce in addition to airy other permits; required.. P.,.t Vo.D'PlgA'5 J__j __J_J, I 6. Street tress, a minimum of 18-gallon size or larger, stall be installed per City Standards in ± _1___J_ a=rdance with the City's street tree program. �) 10 of 12 -7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including drk*waye. Malls, signs, atK1 siapes shalt be locatad outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. Local i,;sidential street intersections shall have their raticeability improved, usually by moving the R +f• closost street trees on each side away f mm the street and plac9d in street tree easmgnt. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right -of -way: 9. All rwblie improyemerds on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the lac Dance of buAing pemmte: N Public ilfsiniananc- -, �raae 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Worms Standards shall be submitted :* the City Engineer for review and approval p;lor to final i dp approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to i.* annexed ittto the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and waiverfomt to join and/orform the approoriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filedwith the City Engi nee* prWrto final map approval oris ruanceofbuilding permits whichever o=rs first. Fairmation zosts shall be bome by the developer. 3. Ail required public iar niscaping and I"afionsystems ntiallbe continuously maintained bythe developer until accepted by the City. .0,C4,.e.a�Ilya, —J -1� J�— —J--J- 4. Parkway landscaping on `he following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: 0. t)ralmge and Flood Control f. The pro;ect (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hatanl Zone; therefore, flood protection treasures shall be pr vieM as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. it shall be the developers responsibility to have the *anent FIRM Zone dasserlion remeved from the poject area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports. plans, and ti�*otogWhydrautic cakwlaOom A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be oMalned Iron; FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of buildiw permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revit ion (LOMB) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improverttent as eplar=, whichowor occurs first. —J--J- -J I 3. A final drainage study shall be sub,nitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior ;o final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be insta4d as required by the Cite =ngineer. OL� —fn sC -2 11 or 12 4. A permit from the Cnunty Flood Control District is required for work within itsright -of -way. _ S. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shalt be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utllitibs 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including ,,:diary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all undergrot Ind) In aocordance with the Utility Standards, Easements stall be provided as required, 2.The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3-Water and sewer plans shalt be designed and constricted to most the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Enviro lmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the COWD is required prior to final mats approval or.lssuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requirements and,Apprsvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to isbaar —A 6f building permits. 2. An easament for a joirn use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whiicheveroecurs first, for: 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the . estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment DisWct among the newly meated parcels. d. Efiwanda7San Sevalne Area Regional Mainline, Secorr.3ry Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shali be paid prior to f anal map approval or prior to building permit issuance fi no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be obtained from the follovAngr agencies for worst wfihkl their right -of -way: P�oiect �:o.>�i�2V Canoleaon Date: _I I I �J _. / --l_J- I--J-/- -j_I 6.A signed conssnt and wahror form to joint andror tort the Law Enferoement Cornm Tiny Facilities District shall be filsd with tiler City Engineer pmrto final map approval or the issuance of building pemsiss, wrietwver occurs first. Formation costs shah be bom by the Developer. 7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sutt`toberd improvement plans shall be corn- _.J—/ plated beyond the phase boundaries to , ss csure secondary aecs and drainago protection to the satisfaction of the ^.fty Engineer. Phase .'toundl& vs shall corresrsond to lot lines sW..vn on the approved tentative map. SC - 2/91 12 of 12 j RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPR)VI2'G VARIANCE NO. 91 -03 TO REDUCE TEL MINIMUM CORNER LOT WIDTH FROM 100 FEET TO 90 'rEET AND THS MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 20,000 SQUARE FEET TO 14,502 SQUARE FEET ON LOT 28; TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FROM 150 FEET TO 146.19L TSET AND 145.75 :VXT ON LOTS 11 AND 14, RESPECTIVELY; A%.N TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM AVEFLAGE LOT SIZE FROM 22, 500 SQUA,ZE FEET TO 22,228 SQUARE FEET WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACT 14207, CONSISTING OF 28 SINGLE FILMILY LOTS ON 19.8 ACRES OF LAND SN THE VERY haR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACR.)., LOCATED ON WILSON AVENUE WEST OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062- 0:1-01. A. Recitals. (i) Mr. Sung H4ang has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 91 -13 an described in the title of this Resolution. hereinafter in this Resolut cia, tine suBject Variance request in referred to as "the application." lii) On the 222nd of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City m. Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application :rid concluded said hearing on thac date. (J_ ^'i All leagal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occue red. 3. Fesolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the bity of Rancho Cucamonga an follows; 1. This Commission hereby tt;.aoiZiaally finds that all of the facts set forte, in the Recitals, Part A, of chis Resolution axe true and correct. • Based upon suhetant:a evidence presented to this Commission during theabove- referGncad p+eblic nearing an May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds so follows: (ay The application applies to property located or. Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street, south. of Hezitage Park, with a street frontage of 664.34 feet and Sot depth of 1,296.47 feet and is presently i— improveZ; and Dk"E °`71 PLANNING COMMISSIO& RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91 -03 - HWANG May 22, 1991 Page 2 E (b) The property to the north of the subject site is Heritage Park, the property to the mouth of that site consists of an existing single family residential subdivision, the property to the east is single family residential and vacant, and the property to the west is single f+imily residential; and (c) Varia:ices for �9:e minimum lot area and minimum corner lot width for Lot 28 era neoasd due Lo the pre- datermirad alignment of Wilson Avenue and the recommendations of Advisory Committees for making this area a numbered lot, -v_sue a lettered lot, for maintenance reasons; and (d) The reduced lot. widths for Lots 11 and 14 are created by the need fur the cul- de -sas bulb for Yustang Road and, in the case ..f Lot 14, the alignment of Wilson Avenue; and (e) The Variance for miri&um net average lot area from 22,500 to 22,228 square feet stems from the recommendations of the Advisory Committees to make the 14,502 squ�se foot Lot 28 a numbered lot, thereby reducing the average lot area below the required minimum a%erace. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the spc_;ific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, thin Commission hereby finds and conslt_r. ;los as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical harduhip inconsistent with the objectives of the Develcvment CaIo. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circuivIta at;vs or conditions applicable to thrt property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the eaeme district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the mama district. (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 tone. (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare cr materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. 9s $6--1 upon the findings and conclusions set forth to paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Cncmnission hereby approves the application. S. The Secretary to this Commiscion shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Dnic- -7--L E ►�J EA PLANNING COPURISSION RESOLUTF40 NO. VAR 91 -03 - IrtMgG May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND A.. %OPTED THIS 22ND DAY OP MAY 1991. ILANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT11 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. HCNiel, Chairman AT2BST:- - Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commiss Wn of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby ce,-tify that the foregoing Zmsolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning #.omission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning pcmmission hold on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -snit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 05007 `91 To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 - Cn ?.a:ytJ Ranchti Cucamonga, CA 91729 .IF r_!CA %1ONG< From: Nicholas D. Crow 9080 Cottonwood Way MAY l 5 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91701 Ali Q'} 9JWi9PU1U 1i2►8►4AF RE: Variance 91-03 - fwang & i Tentative Tract 14207 - Hwang I strong.y object to any variance which reduces the designated lot size for residences . in this area. I have been a continuous resident of this area since 1968, before the inLorporation of Rancho Cucamonga, and I hasten to point out that one major reason for zoning anti planning is to protect residents fres developers who would otherwise overdevelop the land in the interest of profit, and reduce the quality of the c5Amunit_4 as a consequence, I think that you, the planning commission, should be prepared to answer the question "If this developer is allowed to reduce lot size by 27 + %, then why not reduce aex-; tiaE by 35 %, and then by 50 %, etc. ?" A MINIMUM lot size means just that. Nothing smaller. I certainly understand why a developer would want to squeeze one or two extra lots out of any tract, and I equally understand that it is your responsibility to protect us from overzealous developers kho would perpetrate such actions. I expect ycu `.o do so. My hope, and its value, mill be directly ant' adversely affected by this plen, I believe that it is incumbent upon you to uphold the long range planning and zoning of this area, Failure to do so is a failure to perform your primary responsibility, and warrants some explanation as to why there is need or benefit in suspending the existing requirements in this speci'ic case. I certainly would like to be apprised of any special circumstances which wa Rant any zoning variances in this development. In the absence of any such circumstances, I strongly urge you to uphold the existing zoning standardb. In the absence of upholding the existing zoning standards, I would like to be advised of the ratirnale and ,justification for issuing the variance. I further would like to object to the negative impact upon my residence which will result from a peculiar aspect of the development. Lots a24 and *25 of the plan have an east -west orientafJon, unlike all of the other lots In the development and unlike my lot, and my neighbors lots. As a result, the planned home north of my house will only be about 25 feet from my property line, which will significantly block my view of the mountains to the north. The same will be true for my neighbors. However, if those two lots were oriented north- south, the resulting homes would be more nearly 100 feet from the property line and would not present such a significant degradation of view, AND would oe more consistent with the other property development in the neighborhood. Furthermore, as planned, one of those homes will block the view of the other. It would seep preferable, even to the new home owners, to have those two lots placed consistent with the remainder of the development. I would also like., to express reservations upon the requested project for tree removal. It is not clear to me which trees are to be removed, but there are many trees in the area which support a wide vsriety of birds which add charm and character to the area. Large crow populations, a well as red- tailed hawks and even owls frequent tte skies in this neighborhood. They roost In the many old trees which can be found, to the Interest of keepIPS the natural aura &nd chars of the area, I urge that you take steps to preserve 0%. natural habitat for these animals. Respectfully, u�Gr" Nicholas D. Crow Ll — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: BaryTe R. Hanson, Senn ~'r Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Ciyll Engineer � OR SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION kir MODIFICATION TO COnDITI61S OF APPROVAL sub-divisio-n--o-f 2.48 acres of an Into parpar— ce s- in the very low residential district, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond SLr`{et - APN:^ 1074- 051 -04 I. BACKGROUND: Tentative Parcel Map 11738 as shown on Exhibit "C" was in.tially approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 1989, for an initial two year period until March 22, 1991. On March 12, 1991, the applicant requested the first of a possible three one-year timt extensions (Exhibit "A"). That request resulted in an automatic 60 -day extension to May 22,. 1991, as provided :or by Subdivision Nap Act. II. ANALYSIS: Staff has noted that the Standard -Condition requiring the submittal of a school "will serve" letter nrior to either the issuance of building permits or recordation chi the Final Parcel Map was not conditioned on approval of the tentative parcel map. Purr.•,ant 'I" Urgency Ordinance No. WS, both the Alta Loma School District a„v Chaffey Joint Union High School District were contacted regarding the school iamaction is aa-. -C- ittert notification from the Chaffey district indicated that there is an impaction problem and that a Condition of Approve; should be added requiring the applicant to participate in w Community Fr:ilities District. Therefore, the map was found to be inconsist,-nt with Urr ney Ordinance ND. 395 pertaining to the evaluation of adequa school facilitiaz for prupc_ A residential developments. CnnC. cion 3 of the reF,ol ution will bring the project into conformance wi_a the ordinance. Staff also noted that the Communit,! Trail through thi: parcel map hisects the lots, as it did within Tract 12902 to the sauth, c,,.ting off access to the west side. Therefore, a condition (number 4 -.If the resolution) .-squiring gates on both sides of the trail fr each `ot s has been added. ITEM F Pi.ANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 11738 PEPMOSA /ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 2 III. COPPIESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valle Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted; aanT no- were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project, IV. REC;;�NOATION: It is recommended that the Planning Cmamission adopt the attached resolution adding conditions and granting a one-year time extension for Parcel Map 11738. The new expiration date -.vill be ?larch 22, 1992. Respectfully subm;tted, Aye 8arrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer GRH:SAM:jh Attachments: Exhibit "q" - Letter from Applicant dated March 12, 1991 Exhibit W - Letter from Applicant dated April 11, 1991 Exhibit "C" - Vicinity trap 1 Exhibit "D" - Tentative Map Fxhibit "E" - Resolution No. 89-40 (( Iginal for the project) Propose(! Resolution and Conditions of Approw�l i T-" -� 0701-02 oP.C. AGENDA MAY 22� 1991 0 3 of 7 FZRMOSA /ALMOND PARTNERSa, LTD. -500 Quail Street Suite 520 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474 -4460 — ,� s 'r',' '- • _ (714) 474 - -4348 /Flux March 12, 1991 MAR 14 1991 ;i ' City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Planning Department Re: PM 11738 Gentlemen: MAR 1 1 1991 By this letter we would like tai "ie�"LJaO �1�'AVAnsion of the subject approved Tentative Map. The M'r'�FiY'1`' '°:`;-;� on March 2:s, 1991. We have not received the amounts for bonrii�:y Purposes from your offices. We appreciate your prompt handling of thitt matter and your favorable reply to our request. Very truly yours, HERMOSA /ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. By: California Heritage Development, Inc., General Partner By: Aavo e J. b 'f �Ct'L� HJK:dIl Ha rri J(,! Keto, President RCI.LTR cc: Jerr•r Wilson Capy sent via facsimile, original by regular U.S.. mail. ClaY OF IT s PARS NAP 11'1.SB RANCHO CUCAi ONGA Trrm�fINiE 1�i'E��t�fd REta?u�.ST Eve nUMUNC DIM ON 3 Exmrr.. � HERMOSA /ALMOND PARTNERS, 1500 Quail Street Suite 510 Newport Beach, Cal'fornia ('714) 474 -4460 (714) 474- 4348/Fax April 11, 1991 Betty A. Miller Associate Engineer City of Rancbo Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Tentative Parcel. Map 11738 Dear Ms. Miller LTD. 92660 APR 7 ; 7ggl Or fq Pursuant to your March 29, 1991 letter, I previously sent you the $62.00 filing fee so that you could obtain the necessary letter from the School District. Item 2 of your letter suggests a modification to the community trail fencing ragardinct' providing zf gates on both sides of the trail to provide access to the rear portion of the lot. That condition is acceptable. I have asked Chicago Title to provide three sets of mailing labels within a 300' radius of the site. Those will be forwarded to Jerry Wilson, our Er_g reer, so he can submit them with any other documentation that is needed at this time. It is my understanding that Phil verberra is currently doing a c.;)st estimate for bonding purposes. Phil should contact Jerry Wilson. A substantial portion of the previous improvements suggested have already been completed or are in the process of being completed as part of Tract 12902. The largest monetzx -y item which will need to be changed is the undergrounding of the utility lines on the north side of Almond. We have already sent a check to Southern California Edison for the undergrounding cost estimate. Per our discussions with Rick Gomez, we can underground the lines in lieu of paying the undergrounding fee. • F' i Betty A. Miller Page Two April 11, 1991 If you save any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, HERMOSA /ALMOND PARTNrRS, LTD. By: California Heritage Development, Inc., General Partner HJK:dll Harri J. Ketd, President HiLLER.LTR cc: Jerry Wilson c I i.� TENTATIVE PARCP71 _ No . 1 1738 IN THE C ?TT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SEING A SLWIVISION a THE REFlAINDER PARCEL V TRACT 12102 AS PER PLAT RECUDED IN BOOR 207. PAGES 32 TNRDLCM 3. OF !IA► RECCRDi Cr SAN nERNARDINO COWTT, STATE OF CALI►MNIA.. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGUMEMG DIMON r-_ rML. PA MAP 117.36 1' na- `i' NTAiill F- MAP It it mxmrr.. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -40 Aft A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 11738, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND ALMUI'tD STREET, AND MAKING FINDT7GS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 1074- 051 -01 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel. Map Number 11738, submitted by Nordic Woods II, applicant, for the ;purpose of subdividing into 3 parcels the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San 8ernardins, State of California, identified as APR 1074- 051 -01, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street end WHEREAS, on March 22, 1989, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS, SECTION 1: That the followirg findings have been made: i 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvemnt of the proposed Subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is ptW sicailiy suitable for the proposed development, subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the ctynditions of approval. 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 rev ewe a considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Nrga:i c Declaration. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Flap No. 11738 is hereby approved subject attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposite side of Almond Street shall )e paid to the City prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. The fee shall be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Hermosa Avenue to the vest project boundary (353 +). f— (o e1 F—" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 85 -4u TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11738 NORDIC MARCH 22, 1989 PAGE 2 fe 2. :provide an easement for Cosmmnity Trail purposes east of the drainage course. Proposed improvements shall be consistent with those for Tentative Tract 12902 to the south, as approved by the Trails Committee and the City Engineer. Provide a reasonable connection, with less than 20 percent grade, to the Community Trail along Almond Street. 3. Mann north /south natural drainage channel; aI Minimal grading is allowed within the channel as necessary for flood protection for future residences as approved by the City Engineer. b? All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 50' from the edge of the 0,104 water surface level, unless evosion preventing measures such as rip rap are provided in selected locations:, A defined building set back line to this effect shall be placed on the Final Parcel Map. c) An offer of dedication to the City for drainage purposes for the total area within the building set back lines shall be made on the final Parcel Map. 4. The Almond Street crossing of the natural channel and the storm drain system within Almond Street shall be constructed per the approved plans. S. C.C.&R.S shall be prepared for the project to preserve existing trees, maintenance of trails, and minimize grading, further, C.C.&R.S shal`i prohibit solid (view obstructing) walls or fences. The C.C.&R.s shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to approval of the Final Parcel Pbap. b. All trails, fences, drainage provisions and site clean -up shall be accomplished in conjunction with street improvement installations. 7. All reimbursement agreements in favor of adjacent developers shall be honored. o;:5) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -4U TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11738 - NORDIC MARCH 22, 1989 PAGE 3 fir APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MARCH 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ir BY: ATT 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of ,Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution vas 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 22nd day of March 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: C"ISSIONERS., NONE C ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -16 F 3 6 a Is 3= q go P y ee O N °- Y Y 221 v i u r�0 o14 ~ 38 .2� g 3"i gg* j° k, et Yids g i• s�.� �0�6 .N e' rt v rs• S .is. stl. i+ SCE ; h.f� r�S c�� C 8 Sa t � N O r s r u �= of •� � w �g� gs HIS �� w5 s a2 _ I WE Y �� �� � ` • �.Y �•�� g�w �� v�Z Yeb YI. • ~ Y L ~ gyp pg R ay Y � _ ' 6 will I I it • �� �� YM <i SY OYi� .S� bV t Y.•i0 iV y Y! ~ � • M ~ r I � N "I 1 oa :j j! e � as C y— Is Y'^ 3� ffiw rs — ISO w� �D a s� al a 4 == Vz b p • e W—¢ Zia HE 'e — i �I WI I N I A all p�� :sill; • +c M-- 'x" �r M M M Y ...mss a I� dg �� t .w�•" �• c�5 4 V• p Y a• N yy� \wq1� u� I I g� fi �W w Y _y s _ c i O � I I ^s sss AL V AL a oil ,I A i 3 :j j! e � as d S h Is Y'^ 3� ffiw rs — ISO w� �D a s� al a 4 == Vz b p • e W—¢ Zia HE 'e — i �I WI I N I A N I �u w RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLRNNING COMMISSION OF TOR CITY �F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION AND ADDITION OF CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11738, LOCATED AT IRS SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND ALMOND STREET, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074- OSi -04 A. Recitals (£) Hermosa /Almond Partners, Ltd. has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Parcel Hap 11738 as described in the title of this Resol <Iion. Hereinafter in this Revolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." (ii) on March 22, 1989, this C-- mission adopted its Resolution No. 89 -40 thereby approving, subject to speciiie conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 11738 and issued ,a Negative Declaration. (iii) on Marcy, 12, 1991, the applicant filed a request for a 12 -month Time Extension. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of thia Resolution have occurred. a. a olu 'o NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined„ An4 resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as fatcds 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the ReaLtals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon subs tantial evidence presented to this Commission, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Coden, and Policies; and (b) The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes, and Policies; and (c) The extension o' the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and (d) _,,e extension is within the time limits Frescribed by statw law and loc— _sinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 11738 - BERMOSA /ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. May 22, 1991 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusiory set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a 'Time Extension subject to each and every condition set forth belowx (1) All Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -40 shall apply. (2) Approval shall expire on March 22, 1992, unless extended by the Planning Commission. (3) Prior to the recordation of the final parcel map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or 7articipate in, the establishment of a -Mello Rooe Community Facilities District pertaining to the project site to provide, in conjunction with the applicable school districts, for the construction and mainten-nce of necessary school facilities. Hov4wwr, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternativeo consent to the annexation of the project site into the torritory of such existing district prior to the recordation of the final parcel map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed A Mello -Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months of the date of approval of the Time Extension and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map or issuance of building permits for said project, thin condition shall be deemed null and void. (4) Gates (two p;,7 lot) shall be provided for each lot which will provide access across the Community Trail, from the front portion of each lot to the rear portion. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to thte adoption of this Resolution. r-- ),i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PH 11738 - HERMOSAJALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. M4y,22, 1991 Page .. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 221M DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. MCNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad B-iller, 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 raTilarly 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 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vota -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOSS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS% F1 1- -t5_ E L;rrY OF RANCHO (:IJGAMUNGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner 4UBJECT: ENVIRONMEN'T'AL ; 3SSM%T AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -25 - DARLENE WEBER, WISE OAK SCHOOL - A proposal to build an approximately 1,080 square foot multi- purpose room addition and to operate a private elemeni:ary school on 1 acre within the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per Acre)e located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 201- 341 -04. Related File: Variance 90 -12 and Tree Removal Permit 91 -14 to transplant a single palm tree to a new location oh site. Staff recce amends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VARIANCE 90 -12 - DARLENE WEBER, WISE OAX SCHOOL - A request to reduce the reclnired side yard setback for a school use from 20 foet to 9 feet and the required side yard landscape setback from 10 feet to 3 feet at a private elementary school an 1 acre in the Low Residential District (2 -4 3wellinr units per acre), located on the nortP side of 19th Street, vast of Hellman Avenue - APN: 201 - 341 -04. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, grading plan, landscape plan, and Conditional Use Permit and Issuance of a Negative Declaration for the private school expansion. B. Surrotndina Land U3e and Zonina: Borth .. Residential; Low Residential units per acre) South - Residential; Ltv Residential unite per acre) East - Residential; Low Residential units per acre) West - Residential; Low Residential units po-- acre) District (2 -4 dwelling District (2 -4 dwelling District (2 -4 dwelling District (2 -4 dwelling ITEM G S H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 90 -25 E VAR 90 -•1P - WISE OAK SCHOOL May 22, 1991 Page 2 C. General Plan Designations Project site - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Resiiaential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling hits per acre) East - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The .45 acre site slopes slightly from north to south and is improved with a single story home which has been conve--ted to a p_it.,te elementary school. The site is currently accessed by a single drive approach from 19th Street. An enclosed outdoor play area is located north of the main building. The property including the building, monument sign, and landscaping reflect substantial deferred maintenance, F. Parking calculations:_ Type of Use Elementary School II. ANALYSIS: Number of hu,&er of Parking Spaces Spaces Ratio Required Provided 2 per 8 10 classroom A. Background: The Wise Oak School was originally established in 1978 under County Site Approval No. 92 -66 (equivalent to a Conditional Use lermit). A series of building perm:4 -ts were issued between August 13, 1984, and November F, 19e4; including perm.-.to for a patio slab, reroofing, and eventually for a patio enclosure. A review of the site plan submitted with these permits reveals no indication of the pr-'iposed school use on the site. In April 1986, the Planning Department notified the Building Department to cease all inspection on the reroofing and patio enclosure p6 -mits until the applicant modified their Conditional Use Permit. Sometime be°ueen 1984 and 1986 the reroofing work war, completed and the enclosed patio became a full room addition. The current application, if approved, will allow the applicant to obtain building permits for the work which has already been completed and continue to operate a private elementary school. Additionally, the site will be upgraded to have improved circulation, parking, and full street improvements on 19th Stlaet. r Y 14 - 11 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAY: REPORT CUP 90-,25 & VAR '0 -12 •- WISE OAK SCHOOL May 22, 1991 Pags 3 Wise Oak School is a private elementary school (grades x-8)• The present elrollment at the school is approximately 70 students. The total faculty number is 5 full time employees and 4 part time employees. The school operates from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; academic hours are 8:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. Day care is proxlsed for full time students both before and after the academic'.a1. The majority of students are dropped off and picked up by parents. B. Required Variances: Two Variances are required fer this project. The first is to reduce the side yard builditg setback from 20 feet to 9 feet; and the second is to redtice the side yard landscape a- ti:acic item i0 feet to 3 feet. This would represent a continuet'ion of the setbacks approved when the residence was originally converted to a school under ti:, County in 1978. The effect of the room addition on the adjacent property as a result of the reducei setback has been minimal. The west elevation of the room addition was designed with no window or door openings to increase privacy and limit noise transmission. By maintaining the same setbacks as the main structures the room addition has been intregated with the original architecture so as to appear to be part of the original home. The existing parking and driveway for the sire has an approximate 7 -ftot setback from the east side property line, and the app - - it is proposing to maintain a similar setback for their i ive aisle. A granter setback is not possible due to the i of thz structure. To screen and protect the adjacent 1.,, Cty a 6 -foot high block wall is proposed. This wall will replace an existing chain link fence a::ong the east property line. C. Design Review- Committee: The Design Review Committee (Tolstoy, M.-. .Niel, Coleman) reviewed the project on April 18, 1991, and recommended approval subject to the following conditions;: 1. A 2 x 6 inch window :rim should be installed around all windows. 2. The three northernmost parking spaces should be turned to line up with tha spaces to the south. 3. A walkway connection from the sidewalk to the school on the west side of the driveway should be provided. �3 G'Ji -- 3 PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 90 -25 6 VAR 90 -12 - WISE OAR SCHOOL May .22, 1991 Page 4 0 4. The existing chain fink fence north of the building mafi .emain and shr,.ld `je extended to fence off the eight northerly paL:ing spaces from the future play area. 5. The retaining wall between the two driveways should be eliminated. 6. $' walls on the site should be slumpstone with a Mick 7.. A pilaster at the end of the east property line wall should be provided. D. 'i'ree Removal- Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit No. 91 -14, which calls for the transplantation of one palm tree from the front of thi site to a new location north of the structure. The removal of the tree is necessary to grade and install the circular driveway. Staff suggests the relocation be done under the supervision of a licensed arborist or registered landscape architect. E. Environmental_ Assessment: Part 1 of the Initial Study han been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant impacts on the envi.rcament as a result of this project. h2. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: A. Variance: In order to approve a Variance request, :he Development Code requires that the Planning Commission make certain findings. The findings include the following: 1. That a strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in p.'actical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances os: conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intender use of the property, that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 3. That strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 4. That granting a Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsisstent with the lim rations of other properties classified in this same district. G" - A4 E L: J PLANNIV3 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 90 -25 & VAR 90 -12 - WISE OAK SCHOOL May 22, 1991 Page 5 5. That the granting of a Variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. B. Conditional Use Permit: in order to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Commission would need to make the following findings: 1. That the proposed ust is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the proposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties o,' improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use comsalies with each of tita applicable provisions of the Development CodL. IV. C'RR-F�,ONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in tha Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and were notices sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RFCO101ENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a. Negative Declaration and approve the Conditional Use PermiCy and rated Variance through the adoption of the attached Re,p'oluticns; of 1;bprnval. r Brad Buller city Plaainer BB:JG:mlg Attachments: Letters from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Exhibit "B" - Site Plans Exhibit "C" - Grading Plans Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plans Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - rloor -Plans Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 90 -25 Resolution of Approval for Variance No. 90 -12 WISE OA SCHOOL 9244 19TH STREET, ALTA LOV (A 91701 (714) 987.9918 ,zt v � 3a p c M M mmmmmm- Ev� moo 3 'a dN_ c a yE mv= oAOODO� J .0 ` :: 9 d 7 O �. C= E G 7 m O M N N .� m •p E m > o L M.^: v c' m ai = m a E ami o E m p B ,o. t ` E rn "v= N mN N m O C y 3 -0 a3 `3a 3 d c �N3C o N O C m o 0 d C E a m 7CL E0 J m LL m m Qd am C d °) ". C m O= :`� Y r0 .p- p CmJ .00 Z _ =m m E D U d N N C E � a °' Nd3 y.lr E.N m O = ma 7 N Cd N E MD C a, 0m4 a �07Cd m O m0 O• ^�N 7. s 3 m m c m L 8 mL ns °.r -t c Z t= ac E assn Q ai nOa DOU y0� or-, Lmn ..m G.tmU ' m aN DL NO.ONN m 00 0 0 N om v ° o-�E mam' ='Lc m Mai c3 7cdMai 0 00.. ) 0 R 3 =m me_L"'f p aa'Emomm mda = =E= Nm omm>'cE Fpm m ccm om @coQ�a•'i REO:�'Ea3 �E raEE �0mwEo�EE } x? 3��oomm'a �mDEmm m7t %c33 `- °mmooLC3.3 < mo _�p ) m w mL F-WU Ewm-o O O4 4.- 0 ��. ..h mf(!f -•i V} N Eno p.22N Q.N N G Ot m mME -0LdU ••s •o DZ ON• • •e `•• ••••• J mMCom O.: (NCO O 77��� Qi c0 a 0 N c .OD .a.Q : � �'.. m m` w.� yy'ci2z 2Z o CS x 3 E E E mt OCD .L,. N Om N CC Q` >U ID tdm7 a7 m LpNmm m0 mm mmj maEm nEa, api3noa °m. o���z a of o o m - n `v 0 m N 3 m N 3 M a o mE�O a of mr.m me r E mm m at 2 v my Cm 0.N tm"m 0m.0 c o CD r, , = Ala �_.OD, g U U� m7>o mom. 0 L == m EaiEQ =`oM 0 ao0i E Nm Nocc m a CD E, i 4, �' �'mm 2 im -6 m mE" s m-Lmom comO aci `m m pmO w tam° NEcm` m�3 E°oo ayi h3UOdE yZfnE Dac°r�gm �m C] UmocvY --oN '�N�� 3N D Y C C m m 0' cp ` m T C O.� 'O m •- t>DyA ')E7.�o.� omo !- .m..MM- °.c°•m.m0 2-: c9 a M.T DC m E C D m.. C- ` C D C a7 O O.'L'- in 7- U L 7 m 0 m 3> 3D Lm smo 9ro-E m -m Q oBs- cm0c0.0 L,Um 'o cE Afilk momLL c�my�. ma -D a m` 01D Od om -.' >>, D'36mimE (DW= LL NLmLOa30M om °N0O 'Ot y � nm�com°3aD= _omcm c �n ••n°'`- ,�L°o3D c`mZ=ac -o my .T= Nvaa)E — a °DV,D Z- w. o7a mML c __.am __._ mH o yUMm.`... rm N mmL;Q` 73E c`c 6.m`m J jE0'MN 12== 3myCAa M2d ND m C.D -O MC 00000m C'm-Nm . r mL R L.N..rdC d..°. and Nm V yON.N. c VD C m 0 NAmmC w- 8 rL'oo REm 007 ®mL 37c0°.E -rri =c coE>,.mC. aiy0 U v..� ai m33mao`oac.2 ¢ cm >oc9Em03 w r --3 =oMouwoEwO ;Pmc6nU °a 0M w Ncwvs._.��.ap7c CC M, CL Gm °._ Z vOd_ZsomL7m:.+ o • • Q. w =001) H.ymD� -m O zo N7L mLm w o C.a `p mQ U. Ors m¢omF.pm` S O 7- O°_��E :0 vi me m. Z== m 7o pov NN E fn. -2mN "i i a wo E au cao- -p ocm E o c`R mQc Mamo 3mn -° 003 m m p rn Q T E . d .p 03 i - E N m N O m Q m 3 c a Cf0 r mm - :m UMmy =° 200 -D C C .m.D N 0 0 C a� 'tea -O' -m m`yt O.W p 3c0m a3DZ- 0 crnaa__ 0- m C '60, GOM i a � ;m � C -D E MM o, C Oa Q . .- a O T O E= 7 V Cu m Y N q0 E m D cG p m M m=o Mon m,.os Itlmm 04E vcE O0-Nc8 _m M 00 m cCL = taQ`�SgEcnfrnn E cn p o -'O'-,= L .0- U m' cd 9 of a-Ni a me =o3 °3 N'CNDCma =Na 0?: mL N0 B. N= m a. - M n mc0 p mow.-- EEEE°0 ` mo� -ccmm CNE mQE-0i o c U 33ea° °,mm doccwRa° CtH _7 m m o o Q c aim 3Lm� o, o�mm d 0 6 c- c 0 C C N C y p c pm da pm m vi m a� V> •O� amEom cLi- 0mrn ooy- m m= a m m- C U 7.r Q w= - O C L.-1 m =* L m; 0 a_ 0 �70 Q73 o0y t f6 m O m :q L.. y N � �m a-' o o R c � C m'^ m �' M > l0 c. i 5.2 o L C U m a O U> x N= y C. y'•' 0 % nLa.0 �'N m mL 7 % c m m O m C C O L 3 d R- D c 0 momma -F'Emm F- c. c7_ o a7c > -> E m Nm DDS -�mMC m-0`- Q�Amos c° m m g-° c c o D E m m O Mr O- m N 0 -' L ?� O m> o o D C, m E >_- U- m v c O >N m -a �c > -� - =`a °= EmLm - �cn� 1 W5E OAK SCHOOL _ 9244 19TH STT,EET AL-.A LoMA, CA91701 (714) 987 -9918 July 8, 1988 The City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Attention: Planning Dept. As to our recent 'communication of July 7, 1988, you requested information concerning size and a:comidations. Wise Oak School, has a limitation of 100 students. 10 tcachers per 10 students plus 2 teacher's aids. At Wise Oak we feel that the children should have personal attention and receive every opportunity to excel we thank you in assisting us to become Rancho Cucamonga's AMk Pride and Joy. 21 im C di , Mic e e M eill Paralegal G- 'C" -9 11 L.Li xwuv ling — ci 0 s 0 I - e i � m v � _ • a .� �} 2 iR 14 is + 1t r r AN 9 A J, a € + r 1 Y * � 1 6 < a a 1� I< 11� t - U O y a m e W b z <p 2 o W O p m J 'J`+ V c "� °" T p 7 U q1 x o O W 2 ai ii �? y }2; 3y �� 3a • °$c 3 `j' --:r �.. , 1 S I s 0 I - e i � m v � _ • a .� �} 2 iR 14 is + 1t r r AN 9 A J, a € + r 1 Y * � 1 6 < a a 1� I< 11� t — �` 1°r_ d U-16 E „� `fit c„ °•' �j t+ "� °" ai ii �? y }2; 3y �� 3a • °$c 3 `j' --:r �.. , 1 I — �` 1°r_ d U-16 E 11 �71 E Sri CC) Ej 11.2: -0-- KQ 3 , -3t! i! PIE q!21, -1 it n? 'it; it Jqp -.1 1 C,,% � -Lit ul, IT Ti p3 ii '77 ,! ��- � ( {� � � , ■ �: ! � $, ! \ '77 jtr� )( klT!,t7r- - !, � ! | � � ©¥- � ƒ�� �v jj �� � } m $� | \ �^ < � { � � \ \ , / ' ! ( ! �l El El ,! ��- ! � ! \ 2 f |� • § ! £ ! jtr� )( klT!,t7r- - !, � ! | � � ©¥- � ƒ�� �v jj �� � } m $� | \ �^ < � { � � \ \ , / ' ! ( ! �l El El A A I C R W O U_ � u Rio � v r 1 i I t d Lti x , L y 45 X14 9 1 �. 4 W p � i U . .9H 11 �_J Ll E I I 1 i 1 1 1 I f i t 1 r I i i I :S ii y� t L� O O r = � t t i �XlalT3t i - �� 1 1 I t 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 t y 0 ILL v C.14 � 7 w RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CjHHISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90 -25 FOR AN EXPANSION OF WISE OAX SCHOOL, LOCATED IN THE LOW RESIDENTLAL DISTRICT (2 -4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201- 341 -04. A. Recitals. (i) Darlene Weber has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 90 -25 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 22nd of May 1991, 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 prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. Resolution. Now THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Ccmmis - =ci hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, lost A, of tLi■ Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evilence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony# this Comm�.esion hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 9244 19th Street with a street frontage of 110 Rest and lot depth of 319 feet and is presently improved with a one -story home which has been used as a school sincr '478 (County Site Approvsl No. 92 -66); and (b) The rcoperty to th) north, south, Bart, and west of t *.e subject sit% is residential; and (c) The school has operated since 1978 and has not generated any -ode Enforcement.- implaints from the adjacent property owners; and (d) The project fulfills the need of working parents for extended child care; and (e) The pr Jett proposes to substantially upgrade the site &+,d provide full street improvements along 19th Street; and (�-'-IA -16 PLANNING CODP' -SSION RESOLUTION NCB. CUP 90 -25 WISE OAK SCHOOL May 22, 1491 Page 2 (ff) Parcvng .for the site is adequate to mas- code requirements. ` 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of acts sat forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and aacludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the 'General Plan, fihe objectives of the Development Code, and the purpokes of the district in -hiri the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, ogether 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. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisicne of the Development Code. 4. This commission hereby finds and testifies that the project has Seen reviewed and considered in compliance with the Californid Environmental quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission; hereby issues a Negative IDaclaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs to 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the atached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.. Planning _Division: 1) A 2 x 6 inch window trim shall be installed around all windows. 2) The three northernmost parking spaces shall be turned to line up with the spaces to the south. 3) A walkway connection from the sidewalk to the school snail be rrovided on the west side of the driveway. 4) The existing chain link fence north of the building may remain and shall be extended to fence off the eight northerly parking spaces from the future play area. 5) The retaining wall between the two driveways shall be eliminated. 6) New walls on the site shall be slumpstone with a brick cap. CY -- �\ -1'7 PLANNING COMMISSION R?SOLCSION NO. CUP 90 -25 - WISE OAR SCtvaL May 22, 1991 Page 3 7) A pilaat,�_ the termination of the east property line wall shall be provided. 8) The transplantation of the existing palm tree shall be zepervised by a licensed arborist or registered. Landscape AeChitert. The transplantation shall take pace prior to the commencement of any on -site grading. 9) No church services or separate day care operations shall ac allowef, on -site without prior approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit. 10) The circular drive shall be 20 feet wide as required by the Fire Department. . 11) Pursuant to provisions of California Bub)ie Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of ,Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the Ask County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees asseeead,pursuant to California qW Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, togm_her wich any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the CouW^y of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt sbowing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt `ram such filing fees pursuant to the previsions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Corti €icata of Fee Exemption, this condition stall be deemed null and void. Enoinserinc Division: 1) An in -lieu fee as contrioution to the future undergrouuding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the project side of 19th Street shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be the full City adopted unit: amount timer ', length of the project Frontage. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one -half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street,: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 90 -25 - RISE OAR SCHOOL May 22, 1991 rage 4 E3 2) Pavement transitions shall begin at the property liaoi and shall be constructed vo the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) The public sidewalk shall be 5 feet wide if the retaining wall is immediately adjccent to iz. It can be 4 feet wide if the wall !is moved north, away from the sidewalk, and a landscaped area is provided between the sidewalk and the wall. 4) The parkccaf /etraetecape landscaping shall conform to tho 19th Streaa: beautification.master plan. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APFROVEA AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DRY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COYA14IS31ON Or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: _ Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Bra%'+ ,alter, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commissior of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. FI G0A -Ig 00TV ®R !' +< ;t1. j. i/ PROJECT #: U e see K– :14111 SUBJECT: (1_�LJ. C– �Y� tL SC_L. f21"Q APPLICANT: - LOCATION: Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DWISION , (714) 9$9- 1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits t/ t . Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 monthsfromthe date of approval. 11 2. Development/Design Review snail be approved prior to 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of Z4. The developer shall commence, participate in. and co rsummateorcausetobecommenced participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities district (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction andlor maintenance of a fire station to serve the developmr 1. The station shall be located, designed, and (wilt to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the Districts property upon completion. The equiipmsnt shall be selected by the District in accordance with Ys needs. In any building of a ctation, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFO shalt be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of tha final map occurs. 5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distrito for the constnxsion and maintenance of necessary school tr cilities. However, it any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory or such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, it the affected school district has not formed a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District within twelve month.°, from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of !wilding permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. SC -2191 G"-A "`�Zo 1or12 Complyion Date _/_J! _J —I . JJ _J_J^ _I—I- This condition shall be waived If the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all schoo! impacts as a result of this project.. 6. Priorto recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is involved, writte: i certification from the affected water district that adequate sewevand water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposod project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have b°.3n issued by the water district within 90 days priorto final map approval in the case of subdivision orpriorto issuance of perrnits in the case of all other residential projects. i B. site Development V/ 1 Th e it shall be develoed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which s e include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the onditions corit: inert heroin, Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan and _ Planned Community. :LAP yv -2s C eurn i`ate� —J--/— Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all --J_J Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the fadlity shall not commence until suchtimeas all Uniform Bel '' :gCodeand _f_1 State Fire Marshall's regulations have been compiled with. Prior to omvpan,yy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protec-5on District and W i Buitding and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. d. Revised site plans and building elevationu incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permit.,. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street Improvement plans shall ba coordinated for — �—J- consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building , etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or / approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. E / 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, acid applicable Community Plans or Specific / Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit Issuance. _ V 7. A detaileck on -site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and —1 Sheriff's Npartment (989.6611) prior to the issuance of building pe %fts. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shieidir►,j so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. it no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall beior individual ±nits _,f_f with all receptacles shielded from public view. Vl-*"9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, — �—�-- and the number of trash receptacles shall be sut> d to City Ptafiner review and approval s prior to issuance of building permits. V 10. All ground - mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shalt —J--J be located out of public view acid adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry wails, berming, and/or landscapin4 to the satisfaction of the City Planner. sC -2/91 lyd � — �,2of12 U _ 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final rnap. 12. All building (numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manoer, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, ,physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Plannerreview andapprovalp6arto approval and reoordatior, of theFinalTract Map and prior tr: approval of street impmvament and gradingplans .De,- eiopershallupgrade and construct ah trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in coiijunctlon with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirementsforthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC &Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association, are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City A!; .)mey. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, rhlehever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. Aliparkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained bythe property owner, horeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Plaw"r and City Engineer review and approval error to issuance of building permits. 17 Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dweliing unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solarenergy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded corxxnrenty with the recordation of the linal map or Issuance of pemlits, whichever corms first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires arc similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.0$.1; SO -G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed -0d maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/o interior alterations which aftecttt a exterforof the buildings or structures, removal of tardmarl trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Pemtft subject to Histori Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Building Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling unit and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems at demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. Ailsavimming pools installed atth time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall b included in the building clans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approve prior to the issuance of building permits. —/--J- -J--J- -J--J- -/-- J—.. _.1_J J_j_ J�J —JJ_ 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. —=-Z SC - 2191 3 of 12 SC - 2/91 4 of 12 Vii' 9r�-a n),e t yu- Qilmnletign Date, 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official re,riew and approval prior to issuance of building permits. ✓+ 4. All roof appurtenances, Including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or ,J projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate J4talls on building plans) 1 _ All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feat and shall _J--J- contain a 12 -inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings /unitstbuikiings with open spacesi plazas/recreational uses. / +� 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, --J--J- entrances, and exits shalt be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are Ieus than 18 feet in -- J --J— dapth from back of sidewalk. S. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles --J--J- on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on inter for circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and J_--/ Affik Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Districtreview andapprovalpriorto lcsuanceof building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) ✓1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including sk4m planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape arohiteMand submitted for City Planner review-d approval pricrto the Issuance of building permits or prior final mal, approval in the case of a cvstorn lot subdivision. ✓ 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier _J�! in accordance with the Municipal Code Set,tlon 19. 08.110, and so noted onthe grading plans. The location oi those treestobe preserved inpiace and new locations fortransplantedtrees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all ofthearborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. 3. Aminimurnof troes pergross acre. comprised of the following sizes, shallbeprovided within the project: %- 48- inchboxorlarger, _%- 363 -inch box or larger, __— % - 24- inch box or larger,, % - 15- gallon, and % - 5 gallon. 4. A rriti i7srmr of j129LL2­0/6 of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. y 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15 -gallon tree for every three Parking stalls, sufficient to shade 501/16 of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. I SC - 2/91 4 of 12 LI-1,6. Trees shall be planted in areas c! ,aubllc view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of buildirg. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgreater slope, but 13SS than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground r*verfor erosion control. Slope piantiny required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated forerosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15 -gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope areal -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2 :1 orgreater slope shall also include one 5 -gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by tt developer prior to occupancy. 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously maintained in a healthyand thriving condition bythe developeruntil each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy for those units, anInspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to datermine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For mufti- family residential and non - residential development, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right -of -way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material Oall be re,, laced within 30 days from th6 date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and /or street trees and slope planting. This requirement shall be in addition to the required 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be Included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated forccns''rsterwy with any parkway landscaping planwhioh may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specirm size trees, meander- ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along 14. Landscaping and Irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right -of -way the perimeter of this project area shall be oDntirsuously maintained by the developer. r� 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. if located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. , 6. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through. me principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.. sc • 2 191 5 of 12 i'_22uu 'y o:: place, Dme- - __/_I_ —/_I_ _/--J— . J_/— / -/ J_1 GAP 9a �' F. Signe S pICsM us i. The signs Indicated on the submitted plans are co%-eptual only and not apart of thisapproval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall Ask require separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner reviewand approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, curdominium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of buildii.Q permits. G. Environrnental 1. The developer shall providr. aach prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Roc J- Cnisher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted —f—� Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyar written notice of the Foothill Freeway J_J project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval price to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the Wilding materials and construction techniques provided, and U appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agencies t. Emergency secondary access shalibe provided inaccordancewith Rancho Cucamonga Fire —�—J- Proteotun District Standards. �2. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, aminimumof26leatwide —1—J— at all times during construction in accordance with Rancor. Cucamonga Fite Protection District requirements. �3. Prior to Issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be _I_/_ submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 4. The applicant shall ccnt&J the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi -family resident ►al developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final locatk, —4 mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall ire subject to City Planner ms _A and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. y ' 5. For pro ;pets using septic tank fac►lities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to trr� issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building penfwts. -Z;5, SC • 2191 8of12 APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989- 1663, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development 1. The appl icantshallcomplywiththelatestadoptedUniformBuildingCode ,UniformMechani - cat Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Priorto issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit($) or major addition to existing unft(s), the applicantshall pay developmentlees atft established rate. Suchfees may include, butane not liimitedto: City Seauttlication Fee, ParkFee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checklr,V Fees, and Sthoof Fers. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or lndustrtal development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development toes at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee, / Drainage Fee, School Fges, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. L/ 4. Street addressesst .. be provided by the Building Official, aftertracMrcet map recordation and prior to issuar :e of building permits. . Comn�aort Ds,r�. .J_J __.l__._! J.__J J. Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Unform Building Czrde for the property line clearances AMk considering use, area, and fire—resistiveness of existing buildings. IF1 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for --� --� the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, fisted and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading 1, Grading of the bubject property shall be in accordance with the Unform SulMing Code, City - -�-- -J Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shalt be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.. 2. A soils report shalt be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ----1 perform such Work. 3. The develooment is located within the soil erosion control boundaries: a Soil Disturbance Permit isrgquired.Please =tact San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture at (714) 387 -2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted tothe City prior to the issuance of rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified er4neerorgeoiogist and submitted at -- �---�- the UNNR of application for grading plan check. ..__ins. Thefinatgradingplansshaitbecomptetedandapprovedpriortoissuanceofbuitdir ,)permits. se.2 /et 7 out _ 6. As a custom -lot suir Msion, the following requirements shall be met :. a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of allon -she drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division priorto final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal -,f drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjappnt parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to tho satisfactio%: of the Building and ;afety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewateriny and protectiruj the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcO relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for eaci3 parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division torapprovai priorto issuance of txwildfng and grading permits.. (This may be on an incremental at composite basis.) e. All slope i-inks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground caverforerosioncontrol upon completion of grading orsome other alternative method of erosion contmi shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official, in addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 'This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.0401 of the Development Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (714) US•1862, FOR COMPLY: KcE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L Dedication and Vehicular Aceass _ T t. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non- public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feedertraiis, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. t/ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of -way on the perimeter streets (meal, ared from street centerline): _ total feet an `I.5J rni total feet on _ total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable otter of dedicaton for for all private streets or drives. Comybuon Dur, i J_-_.-/ J_J! J__i_ J__J_ I / -foot wide roadway easement shad be made ; _J_ _J_ a. Non - vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City far the totlowing streets: Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CCBRs / _ J^ or by deeds and shall bd recorded conauvrerniy with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where t map is involved. 5C - 2/91 C'l C -;z -7 a if 12 11 6. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 10 -foot minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language: VWe hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucar wnga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildirns (or other structures) within those areas designated on the map as building restricthrin areas.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CCBR's. ✓ 8. All existing easements lying within future rights -of -way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. s. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right -ot -way shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Addifionaf street right -it -way shall be dedicated along righttum lanes, to provide a minimum c 17 feet measured irom the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right tom lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement small be provided. 11. The developershall make a good faith effoi cto acquirethe required off -site property interests necessary to construct the required public Improvements, and it he/she should fail to do so, the developer shalt, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required forthe improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all.dsts incurred by the City to acquire the off -she property interests required in connection witin �, a subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit In rite amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at duveloper's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraiser. M. Street Improvements 1. All publi, improvements (Interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed tic City f4andards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb arx gutter, Ak; pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement, within a 40 -toot wide dedicated right-of -way shall bI constructed for all half - section streets. ✓ 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements inc ucling, but not Omited to: SC -2/91 9of12�`, —�� 6ue�a� ComFJeuon Date. ', _l__ / I J-._J_ — /____/ _/__J_ _l__( MEE MOMMIN SC -2/91 9of12�`, —�� 6ue�a� ComFJeuon Date. ', _l__ / I J-._J_ — /____/ _/__J_ _l__( Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation oil meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be detprmined during plan check. (c) 11 so marked, side- walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 30t.. (d) If so marked, an in -lieu of construction tee shall be provided for this item.__ �4. Improvement plans and constru4ion: a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public andlor private street Improve- ments, priorto final map appraval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed In f votia right -of -way, fees shall be oaid and a construction permit shall be obtained irum the City Eagineerts Office in addition to any other permits required. �. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, oral Ir.:, =nnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction ct the .aty Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall beinstaliedon any new, constn :<:tionorreconstructior of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary of collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed an both sides of the street at West outside of BCR, ECR orally otherlocations approved by the City Engineer Notes: (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.. (2) Canduit shall be 3 -inch galvanized steel with pulimpe. e. Wheelchair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of i.N,rrsections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall retrain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Astreetc7osure permit maybe required. Acasl deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not txasssidewalks. Undrrsidewakdrains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family lots. h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. t. Street names shall bo approved by the City Plannerprior to submittal for first plan cheer 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided fc review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being perfomted on the pr vale streets, fees shall be paid and co.-- tniction penis shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards it accordance with the City's street tree program. &'L" —�,. SC - 2/41 10or l2 �o � —J Pm,m 7. intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for t \u. CCvmpleuun Dam. conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, line-, of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Wails, signs, a, iv slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. Local residential street Intersections shall have their noticeabilfty, improved, usually by moving the 2 +l- closeststreettrees on each si 1bawayfrom the street aid placed inastreet tree easement. / r✓ 8. A perrjil.shall be obtained from CALTRANS for awy work within the following right-oi-way: !!``i —1—/_ �icroT 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the J� issuance of building permits: N. Public Maintenance Arena _ 1. A s,.oarate set of fasdscape and Irrigation plans per Engineering Public WoeKs Standards — ---� sh< be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map apprT4al or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs fire . The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and waiver form to pin and/or form Vin appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts sha!I be filed with the City Engineer priorto final i -cip appro-1 or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be bome by it 1- eloper. 3. All required public landscaping and Irrigation system+; -bill b€s continuouslymaintairr b the developer until accepted by the City _1_/" t/ 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: 0. Drainage and Flood Control _ 1. The project (or po ins thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood -- -�--r- protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the prajW area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydmiogiGhydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter 1 of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map appmval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letterof Map Revision (LOMB) shall be issued oy FEMA prior to ooupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pric . final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. sC -z /s1 G-q.}� —3C t : J 12 4. A par 6C`4 ` the County Flood Control District is required for work within dsright -ot -way. 5. Trees s :, :,° ,fed within 5 feel of the outside diametar of any public storm drain pipe measured from tie outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public stone drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows m the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. eR,a.tu_ ggmplrum El3w -/- P. UUiitles � 1. Provide separate utility services t(- each parcel ' „hiding sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable Tlr r;Il underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall bs provide,. as required. 2.The developer shall be responsible lot°the rekxation of existing utilities as necessary. _ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and coo6tructed to meet the req- threments of the Cucamonga County Wvt,tr'District (CCWD), Rancho Ci,camcaga Fire Protection District, and the Environments' ieaiih Department of the County of Sari Semardirto. A letter of compliance frnm the (:GWD is required prior'o final map appiovai or Issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. G*wT! Reyutrements aid Approvals 1.The separate parcels contained within the pmject boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to Issuance of building permits. 2. An easement for a pint use driveway shaft be provided prior to final n-ap approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for. 3. Prior approval of the final Pim a deposit shall be 14sted with the City cowling the estiMtea cost of apportioning tha assessments under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. 4. EtiwandsfSan Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondar,'Regic. al, and Master P';,,i Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right -of -way: 6.A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the I,aw Enlommemttnt Community Facilities DWtrk:t shall be filed with the Cly Engineer prior to fir-i map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation coats shall be home by the D4veloper. 7. Prior to finalization of any Development phase, suft1eient improvement plans shall be com- pleted beyond the phase boundaries to assure seco -Vary access and drali',4e nrotectlon to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to b} ones shown on the appiuved tentative map. G­�L � -3 f SC -2;91 12 of 12 _J_/ �J _/ —/ E RESOLUTION NO. P> RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI-Y OF RMCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 90 -12 TO DEDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SCHOOL USE FROM 20 FEET TO 9 FEET AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD TANDSCAPS SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 3 FEET AT A PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 9244 19TH STREET IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2 -4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201 - 1!11 -04. A. Recitals. (i) Darlene Weber has filed in application for the issuance of a Variance No. 90 -12 as described in the title of this Resolution, Hereinafter in this Resoiution, the qubjsct Variance request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 22nd of May 1991, the Planning Commissi m of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing ai the application and Concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Reso ution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Coama.usion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hecESy specifically finds that all of the factr not forth in the Recitala, 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, thin Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 9244 19th Street with a street frontage of 110 feet a-'d lot depth of 319 feet and is presently improved with a one -story home which has been used an a school since 1976 (County Site Approval No. 92 -66)1 and (b) The property to the north, south, east, and west cf the subject site it residen.`.ial1 and (c) '?ire proposed setback represents a continuation of the existing setback of the residence. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. =TAR 90 -12 - WISE OAF SCKMr. May 22, 1991 Page 2 (d) The addition was designed with no window or door openings on the west elevation to increase privacy and limit noise transmission. (e) Maintaining the same setbacks as the main structure allows the room addition to be integrated with the original architecture. (f) The driveway location is limited due to the location of the existing structure. (g) A new 6 -foot high block wail will provide greater privacy to the adjazent site, than the existing chain link fence on the east property line. 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 g^.rsgrsphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission Lereby finds and. concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would resixlt in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with th,,,objectives of the Development Code. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same 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. (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. (e) That the granting of the Variance will not b` detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, tIiis Commission hereby approves the application. S. The Secretary to this Pommission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. W_]I CY��A - 55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 90 -12 - WISE OAR SCRWL May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. MCNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of tae Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoh }ion was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -witz AYES: COMMISSIONERSr NOES: COMMISSIONERS* ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS, Crag _3y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,AAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 ° TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -02B - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative designations - APN: 1100 - 161 -04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A14D FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative designations - APN: 1100- 161 -04. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested. Approval of a General Plan Specific Plan Amendment and issuance Declaration. B. Amendment and a of a Negative Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, Medium Residential "M" (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Foothill Boulevard and existing single family dwellings, Low Residential "L" (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan East Vacant, Medium Residential "M" (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan West - Existing non- conforming market, Medium Residential "M" (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Foothill Ben evard Specific Plan ITEMS I, J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 90 -028 & FBSPA 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP May 22, 1991 Page 2 `:A C. General Plan Designations:_ Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) South - Special Boulevard and Low Residential (2 -2 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (6 -14 dwelling units per acre) West - Medium Residential (8 =14 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The site ,,s vacant with no significant vegetation with a natural avera;e slope of less than five. percent. II. LAND USE 7NALY.SIS: A. Background: The project mite was included in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area until the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was adopted in 1987. The Specific Plan was the result of many months of effort involving local residents, the business community, City officials, and community leaders. In determining land use designations for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the City had the benefit of the "Baseline Economic Analysis - Foothill Boulevard Corridor, July 1986" study from which to determine the appropriate is levels of commercial development within the community. From the Baseline Economic Analysis, it was determined that while the City did not have enough commercial development to meet the needs of the community; the City had a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard and the City as a whole. An application requesting the same change in land use designation was submitted to the Planning Division by Planning Network (GPA 91 -01A) f,ir the property consisting of 2 acres of land on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. B. Proposed Community Commercial "CC" Land Use Designation: 1. Economic Analysis: In order to evaluate the neN and viability of additional commercially zoned land on the subject properties, staff requested an economic Analysis and market study. The applicant agreed to the requirements. The study was conducted jointly with the application submitted by Planning Network and examined the feasibility of commercial land designations for each of the individual properties and for both properties and the adjoining parcels (see Exhibit "C "). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 90 -C3B & FBSPA 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP May 22, 1991 Page 3 The study includes a land supply analysis which examines the present adequacy of commercial lar.3 supply and its future adequacy under varSous growth scenarios and also examines commercial land use data from nearby cities ata compares the information to allocations for Rancho Cucamonga. The study also contains a focused market analysis which reviews planned land uses in the area and evaluates the uses, _against population growth scenarios and basic commercial demand forecasts. The study 'indicates that there is a need for approximately 9.6 acres of land designated for ne- ghborhood retail services and that the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue is an appropriate site for that designation. The study also indicated that the area could support additional land designated for office and additional commercial uses although no acreage amount was determined. 2. Traffic Analysis: A traffic study was prepared by a consultant as requested by staff. The traffic study indicated that no significant traffic imFacts would occur if the land use is changed from Medium Residential to commercial use. 3. General Plan and Specific Plan Conformance: Staff reviewed the proposed land use to determine if any of the proposed land use designations would conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard,Sl, cifie Plan. Staffs has determined that no conflicts would occur. 4. Land Use Relationships: The subject property fronts along a major arterial, Foothill Boulevard, which is typically appropriate for commercial uses. The tract of single family ,homes to the south of the subject property is currently bordered on the crest by Regional Related Commercial designations, to thi south by an existing apartment complex, and to the east by a utility corridor. C. Consideration of Alternative Designations: To provide the Commission with alternatives the existing and proposed designations, staff has included an analysis of categories similar in character to those under discussion. in addition, because of the City's initiated General Plan Amendments to reduce Vie number of multiple family housing units, staff has included the option of Low Medium Residential. Staff examined the following land use categories: .-1 VT" 3 PLANNING COMtaISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 90 -02B & FBSPA 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP May 22, 1991 Page 4 1. Specialty dsmercial "SC ": Specialty Commercial Land Use Districts are designed to accommodate uses which promote a special landmark quality or create an ambience which is unique to the subarea (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.1.1). These uses are much more aimited than those that are allowed under a Community Commercial designation and are typically less intense. 2. Commercial Office "CO ": Commercial office land uses consist of activities which cater to business support and personal services. Uses typically Include medical and health care clinics, travel agencies, insurance agencies, copy centers, and other like land uses (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan section 6.3.3.2). Again, these u» a are much more limited than those that are allowed tima, - a Community Commercial designation and are typically la s intense. 3. Low Medium Residential "LM "% Low Medium Residential land uses are typically characterized by residential product types which include patio homes and duplex, tri- plea;,, and four -p1R.x units with a density of 4-8 dwelling unit&t per acre (.foothill Boulevard Specific Plan section 6.3.'1 '2). Low Mediu- Residential could be considered for the subject property if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend Low Medium Residential fc7* the properties in the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the north of the subject property. The Low Medium Residential land use would be less intense than the existing Medium Residential and also less intense than the commercial designations; therefore, staff does not anticipate any significant traffic impacts. Any adverse impacts that the Foothill Boulevard arterial would have on future residences could be mitigated by buffering and noise attenuation walls. Da CONCLUSIONS: 1. The existing Medium Residential designation has no inherent problems in staff's opinion and would be an appropriate land use. The City's desire to increase the ratio of single family dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units, however, would not make this the most appropriate designation. 2. The Low Medium Residential designation would continue the single family residential C melopment if the parcels to the north in the Etiwanda Specific Plan are also redesignated to Low Medium Residential. In addition, Low Medium would also promote the City's goal of tucreasing the ratio of single family dwelling units to multiple 'amily dwelling units at the City's build out date. .Z`'.T- + Ell] W] PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. &PA 90 -02B & FBSPA 90-03 GROT'`..'66 PARTNERSHIP May 22, 1991 Page 5 3. The Community Commercial designatio:, could provide continuity with the eastward expansion-- of commercial development from the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway `n the City's gateway entrance from Fontana'; This developn+3nt would occur in an area already planned for commercial expansion as part of the Victoria Gardens Regional Mall and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. A. While Commercial Office uses may be a viable alternative, staff believes this site might be too large, at nearly 11 acres, for an entire office development in this area. Office uses as a part of a retail center might be more appropriate. _. 5. The Specialty Commercial designation is intended to promote special landmark qualities of a property, but there are none on the subject site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Specialty Commercial, is not the most appropriate land use designation. 6. upon review of possible land use desi�Z-jations, staff has determined two possible courses of actin% for the Planning Commission with which to proceed: a. Community Commerciale If the Commission believes that Community Commercial uses are most appropriate, then a recommendation should be made to the City Council to change the land use designation for the subject property from Medium Residential to Community Commercial. it is staff'' opinion that the following facts for findings can .nade: 1) The .subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Footh311 a.ulevard Specific Plan land use designations and is compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the west and a portion of the south be commercial land use designations. 2) The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I & II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 90 -02B & FBSLd 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP May 22, 1991 Page 6 1 W] 3) The proposed amendment does not ex1,xb1t any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and -the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. b: Low Medium Residential: if the commission believes that Low Medium. Residential uses are most appropriate. tii >'-.a recommendation should be made to the City Coancii to change the land use deoigration for the subject property from Medium ResidenclAl to Low Medium ResLdentf&l. It is staff's opinion that the following facts for findings can be made% 1) The subject property is su4table for the uses peroitted in the proposed Gener,-t Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific plan "land nse designation and is compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north by residential designations. ?) The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surruunding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I a II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application I and of General Plan Amendmet., 91 -02B. _ t) The proposed amendment does not exhlbit any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEPTT: Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed Part II and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts that will occur as a result of a change of land use for Medium Residential to Community Commercial, Speciality Commercial, Commercial Office, or Low Medium Residential. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as a public hearing in t..a Inland valley Dailp Bulletin newspapee, the property has beer. ?osted with a large notification sign, end notices werei sent to all property owners W `hin 300 feet of the project sitA. A 2-,,7—co PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 9C -02B & FBSPA 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP .,k-,y 22, 1991 Page 7 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission rec(mmend thick: the e%.sting Medium Residential land use designation (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) be changed to either Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) or Community Commercial through -:the adoption, of the appropriate attached Resolutions. Respectfully submitted, Brad ��_Zil. _v City Planner BB:VB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Location Map Exhibit "B" - "licant's Justification Letter Exhibit "C" - Study Area Alternatives Resolution for GPA 90 -02B to Commercial Resolution for FSPA 90 -03 to- Ccmmunity Commercial Resolution for GPA 90 -02B to Low Medium Residential Resolution for FSPA 90 -03 to Low Medium Residential 11 N "� FOR\J\ Ci!c.AA1GNGA -: NN'Nv•LES•ih• 4F J\ April - 'S ® 0 April 29, 1991 AM APR '3 pj; City of Rancho Cucamonga 7��igi�llllu1112d�ii515 Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rr, Amendment to the General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan-- GPA 90 -02B, 91 -OIA and SPA 90 -03, 91 -01 We request that you consider the described ten (10) acre parcel on Foothill Boulevard for a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. The parcel is currently designated for residential uses. We believe uses suci as commercial, professiona'. or en0crtainment would be mu-,l more appropriate in this location. This statement of justification add -essts those aspects of the amendments outlined in your lett- .,t dated August 15, 1990, specifically: 1) Tangible benefits to the City 2) Tlie need for additional Commercial 3) The viability of Medium. Residential 4) Land use conflicts with present zoning The justification for the amendments pertaining to each of these elements are as follows. 1.0 Benefits to the City 1.1 The economic .report states "In the short run the ticeds of thf basic retail goods go unserved in the eastern trade arcs" A commercial center on the parcel in question would serve these needs, both in t1-1 = itei im and long term. 1,2 The use of the propetty for commercial type, usc, will t rove; c more positive economic consequences to the City. According to the repot, "Currently existing retail service businesses fail I ,- art of that (current supportable commercial acreage) causing continue,- net outflows of consumer dollars in select categories" A commercial retail project would assist in recapturing otherwise lost revenues. The center could also capture revenue.. from those computing between Interstate 15 and communities to the east. 1.3 The !proposed zoning would enhance the commercial character of Foothill Boulevard. The site is currently designated within the Specific flan is part of the "Activity ( enter" at the inteesection of Etiwanda rnd Foothill. The concept seems to s.esireland uses which "create a character which portrays a regional commercial oriented image" The subject parcel is in a strategic location, with large frontage on Foothill Boulevard.. This orientation could significantly contribute to th* delivery of this area as an activity center. 2-0, 17-! GPA 90 -O:B Exhibit -B- 10790 Civic Center Onve- Suite 100- Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 - (714) 939.2232- FAX a ms: caa �'aUN;TV(�1.ANNING•1AN6LCAOE ARCtBTC:'URE•AECPE' .NDE5�6 xN0 SPECa: EF�T•C *a'•:iRBAN GESIGN•�.+IYiRONMENTAt l,6Al:AuE1 +ENT. G�VEANMtNT r.�v .- ,... .'. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department April 29, 1991 Page 2 IA A commercal project would - dd to the-opportunities to improve the area as an attractive upgrade for the City. ;Residential wars will need a barrier to the road thus interrupting the commercial character and activity along Foothill 1.5 The parcel is in the midst of other �aceeional" and "Community" commercial zones. A change to this parcel will bring it int(r .ine with adjacent uses and unify the area 1.6 The project would provide additional acreage for commercial uses related to the regional mall. i;.,e economic, report indicates that land for such related uses is currently Insuffi1 nt. 1.7 A ziezone, of the property to cammcrcial would respend to the City's current issue of reducing the amount of land allocated for medium residential. Commercial u.es would prt vide a logical and workable alternative. 2.0 Demonstrates: Need for AddWonal Commercial 2.1 The econo., is study indicates "Commercial uses acc -unt for a smaller percentage of Rancho Cucamonga's overall Ir nd us 1 than all but one surround;ng community." The report states, "All six of the area's I ,reference cities have designated higher proportions -if tLeir land ».se for commercial functions than has the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Local differences are further heightened when one crasiders tit -: meanirg of those, acreage and proportionate figures at the cities' anticipated build -.It levels. Rancho Cucamonga's commercial land act -aside would imply 6.25 acres per thousand residents at build -out, assuming a maximum city population of 153,000. 'that is less than would be found in any nearby jurisdiction, including those with a lower forecast population and smaller empinyment base ;namely Rialto and Upland). In fact Rancho's commercial allocation could be 33 percent below :;tat of Fontana and 59 percent lower than Ontario 3t build -o••t" This alone does not justify additional acreage, however, the figures imply tiat there may be a discrepancy between allotted commercial acreage and that required. 12 The econo.a.,: study points out that 'the City count support a slightly higher commercial land use base by the time the City :.ttains its maximum population! • Current commercial build -out allocation is 1,244 ccrea: A market- sensitive allocatioa would be a minimum of 1,250 acres. z �� Adft City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Rea: 1129, 1991 Page 3 MEMA 2.2 Currently there is a need wi:, 'tin the project area fas basic convenience retail goods which the econo-, is steely states goes unnerved. 2.4 The -eport states the amount of land set aside for supporl commercial for the regional mall (i.e., restauranw, entertainment) may be Iow by ten (10) to twenty (20) acres. 2.5 The report assu=z that all commercially zoned property will be dcveloped as such. Traditionally, there are properties desig"ted as ::.mmercial which may not be rtalistLully suitable for development due to location, land configuration or other restrictions, resulting in a lc ar amount of actual commercial development. T ^.erefore the City should provide ample land zoned for commercial to account for other possible scenarios. 2.6 The City should take into account the greater than expected r,:sidcntial strength which the City has experienced. The report states "Due to the strength cf the housing sector population serving the Foothill Corridor trade :+rea has increased beyond projections (city) prepared five (5) years ago." If there is not sufficient commercial land, the City could experience a shortl'aIl and thus lose additional revenue to gdjacent communities. 17 The traffic study demonstrated that ax' cyrret.tly proposed improvements on adjacent streets and inter3ections are adequate for traffic goneratrd by commercial uses on the sit --. 3.0 Medirm Residential Viability 3.1 P !ccntly the City has initiated action which waLld elim1unte medium residential zoning wi•hin the Btiwanda Specific Plan area. The G`1 y itself has determined that this land use is not compatible with its Cie objectives. Therefore discuisiona regatiing the viability of z_ zoning are less releve than .hose involving the propos . " ziternate I&nd uses. Ti.- generally u,fpiied residential lawl use aiterr ?ti, a coule b.a low density residential, however this land use Tmuld in no way be :ompatible with the environment and intsnt of the Foothill Boulevard Specific PNi i. 3.2 Due to the proposed City zone change, much of the adjam,,at pope .ty to the north may be developed with lms ^r densities than currently allowed. A sensitively planted commercial - nt%;r will provide an aporopriate. buffer between these low density acignborhoods anti Foothill Blvd. Cit3 of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department April 29, 1991 Page 4 3.3 The City has indicated that ,:ommercial uses will be considered as alternatives fo> 0- )se p; operties located immcd ately. rtjacent to Foothill Blvd. For the t- sons previoe3ly stated in 41;pport of commercial and the obvious Liappropriateness of low eensity resid_y -e! an foothill Blvd., the only viable alterjw v- to the existing Medium Residential is to provido cron_memial uses on the subject property. 4.0 mound Use Conflicts with Present Zoning 4.1 Foothill Blvd. is going to bt a heavily tra+rcled thoroughfare and this parcel will be subject to many impacts not eonducve to residential uses. The continuation of Cornwall Street with Fonthiil Blvd. will result in the project being bordered on two''sides by streets; one a major arterial and the t ier connectiug several Eat- -A homes to Fuathilt,Blvd. The resetting noise, pollution ane'traftic would adversely p °iect residsnts' health an ' safety. 4.2 Present residential zoning is not in unity with the commercial character of the vicinity. The site will be located on "a cornet iniluenced by commercial activity of ;he regional mall, freeway off -ramp and retail facilities near!),- Commercial uses will be in character wKI the thoroughfare c .,ientation and c;rrulation. For these reasons an(i more, our request seems rcas-mabie and appropriate. The rnelosed applicator. summarizes the grope -il. We are prepared to respond as you require additional information. We look for..ard to workiatg with you an this:,pportunity. for the Group 66 Partnership, George Theodorou FORMA Agent GPT :end (482/02) d 41 LA 10, Study Area I -3 Study Area 3 Study Arecs 4 FcWhW SIV& ftom Blvd. I ,1 41 L2 FcoM Slid. E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIL.G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -02B AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIA: (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCIAL WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 10.89 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ET =WANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 161 -04. . A. Recitals. (i) FORMA, on behalf of Group 66 Partnership, has filed {tn application for General Plan Amendment No. 90 -02B, requesting a Commerciml , and use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Yereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) on May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution- NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.as follows: I. This Can '„aeion hereby sped::; Lcally finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recite 9, Part A, of tnis Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon: substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public teat,imony, this Commission hereby specifically finds ao follows: (a) The application agplie© to apprcximately 10.F9 acres of land located on the north side of Footicill Boulevard approximately 500 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 815 feet and a lot depth of 526.74 feet and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per serer= snd (b) The properties to thv north and east of the subject site are designated Piedium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and are undeveloped. The property to tk,o south is designated Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acrd) and 19 developed with single family homes. The property to the weer in designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unite per acre) and is developed with an existing„ non- conforming market. 21 �V -14 PLANNING COMMISSION5TAFF REPORT, GPA 90 -023, COMMERCIAL FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 2 E (b) This amea: went does not conflict with the Land Uaa policies of the c,eneral Plan and will provide for development, witrin t'te district, in a minner consistent with the General Plan and with related development., and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would no,': be •materially injz:rions or detrimental to the adjacent properties 2nd would not have a significant impact on the exvironment nor on the surrounding propercies and that the issuance of a Nag; . Declaration is recommended. 3. Based upon the substantial evide=o presented to this Commission_ during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs rand 2 above, this Commisnion hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) Ziat the Subject Vroper,:y is suitable for the proposed land uss designation of CommacI�iLl as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to properties on tihe Tweet, east, and ec ith with Commercial land t_ae � designations; and (b) That the proposed; amenCinent would nor have significant impz.ts on the environment nor on thG surrounding pso_;vrties as evidenced by the c- ncl• „�_ons and findings listed in Part Y and II of the Initial Studies of the Envircnmental Assessmentc of this applications and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, Development (.ode, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has ):son reviewed and considered in compliance wit% the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings 4n3 conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hetsby resolves that on this; 22nd day of May, 1991, the Piannina Commission of the , ^ity of RLncno Cucamonga hereby recomanend- approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90 -02B, amending the Genazol Plan Land use Map from Uodium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acrel to Cotraiercial with a Mastor Plan recyuiremsnt designation for 10.89 acres o4! land locaLid on the north side of Voothill Boulevard east of Et wanda Avenue, as uhown on Exhibit "A.” 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to Chc adoption of this Resolution. 3 L PLANNING COMMIS!'1ON STAFF REPORT GPA 90 -02B, COMMERCIAL - FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOi2ED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING CCIR41SSION OF THE CITY 01' RANCHO CDCAMONW. BY: Larry T, McNicl, Chairman RETEST: Srad '.:ii3:er, Secretary S, Hrsd 80 er, Secretary of the Planting commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, `do herety certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and r-agulasly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning QxrA ssion of the City of Rancho CL!pmonga, at a regular meeting of the Planni-, Commisaion held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the frAlowing cote -to -wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOBS, COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i _11�l Off. F"n •° 1' ��.x 91-81A (FSPA , Request designation from Medium Residential to Commercial] i \\ i ,j Li ~ VL i. i t L LM LRR LM ■ �.'rr�ra ! N HIM part•. Lm w ETIWANDA AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS ® PROPERTUS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED IIED:1M RESIDENTIAL fi! -14 DIE-= UNITS PER ACRE UNKII CONSIDERATION FOR REDE519X 71 TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACAW 3PA 90.028 (FSPA 90.03) i Request to change the land ure designation from Mridiuni Re6dential to Commercifi j 1 I ' # Cam. Comm. LM ti"�5� ��PA"WG�31 ITEM:.. CPA A {,t)1- atECP6 CITY OF RANC.'�' 0 C;T.JCAMON �4. G•nerat P.ao a Spae'fic F PLANNING I WISSION TITLE: Ans„d rents Locution Mt Z� 4- _/7 EN- BIT: 'Ar SCALE N y r ,; RESOLUTION N!7 -. A RESOLUTION O." THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF '2BE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDIttG APPROVAL OF FOOTHITd. BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLP.N L9ND USE MAP FROM, MEL,1UX RESIDENTIAL 18 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRD) TO COMMUNITY COKtERCIXL WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 10,89 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETIWANDA AVSIME, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 1ai ^04 A. Recitals. (i) FORMA, on behalf of Group b6 Partnership, has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 90 -03, requesting a Community _imv rcial land use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. HRreinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plats Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of ita+Icho Cucamonga conducted a 3uly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council that the -associated Geaeral Plan Amendment No. 91J -02B be approved. (iii) All lsgal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolul n have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Plam:: :7 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recital;:, Part A, of thim Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upor. .substantial evidence presented to th?, Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with ;*blic testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds at follows: (a The applicaticn applies to approximately 10.89 acres of land located on the north side or Foothill Boulevard approximately S00 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue with a st=reet frontages of 315 feet and ,a lot depth of 526. 74 feat and is presently undeveloped. 8nid property is currently designated as Medium Residential 98 -14 dwelling units per acre)f and (b) The properties to the north and east of the subject site are designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units :er acre) and are undeveloped. ",he property to the south is designated Low Resider.tial (2.4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single* i:-mily homes. The property to the west is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units Far acre) and is developed with an existing, non - conforming market. j V _ Al PLANNING COHMISSIC,? STAFF REPORT FSPA 90 -03, COMHEi.CIAL - FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 2 (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan or the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provid9 for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and With related development; and (d) This amendment, promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and f.e) This 'amendment would nct be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent prorerties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the i {urraunding properties and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearin, and upon the specific 'f£ndingc of facto set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed specific plan designation of Community Commercial as evidenced by the site's being in close prorimity to properties on the west, say., and south with Commercial land use designations; and (b) That the proposed amendment ;:ould not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by thu conclusions and findings listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance - vg :;,S the General Plan, Development Code. and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has beer, reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that on this 22n4 dry of Hay 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90 -03, amending the Foothill. Eoalevard Specific Plan Land Use Map From Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial with a Master Plan requirement designation for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Fotthiil Foulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue, as shown in Exhibit 'A 6. The Secretary to thin Comoiissiork shall certify to she adoption of this Reaalution. .(,� Y _0( PLANNING CCMHIfsSIOV STAFF RBPORT FSPA 90 -03, COMMERCIAL - FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPRO14ED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nD DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION 00 THE CITY OF RANCF?O CUCAMONGA BY: l arry T. McNiel, ChairmpZ ATTEaT• _ i Brad Buller, so-- retary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly end regularly introduced, passed* and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho CucamongL- at a regilar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22rd day of May 1991, by the following vota- 'co- wit::.: AYES: COM11ISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Z,, --o fl RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAIT AMEVOMENT 90 -028, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENT M. (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN F.IJUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 10.89 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETIWANDA 1=11US, := MAKING BINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APm 1130- 161 -04. A. Recitalo. (i) FORMA, ca behalf of Group 66 Partnership, has filed an application for Genc-�•31 Plan Amendment No. 90 -028, requesting a tx,. arciai land use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter 3n this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendsuont is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1951, the Planning Commission of the Cite, of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (Lilt All legal prorsquisites prior to the adoption of this Resoluti= have occurred. B. R- solution., NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determi Ad, and resolvod 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 Reeitels, Part A, of this Resolution are truce and correct. 2. Based upon subRtantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- r*fOrenced public hearing on May 22, 1391, including written and oral staff reports, together with public t9stimony, this Coc14aion :by specifically finds as follows% (a) The application applies to approximately 10.89 acres of land located an the -oath side of loothiil Boulevard: approximately So4I feet east of Etiwanda Avenue with a str•'st frontage of 825 feet and a l't depth of 526.74 feet and is presently us.developed. ;aid property is currently cesignated ..s Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling 'aita per acre)# atd (b) The properties to the north and east of the xubjcct site rxe designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per Fore) and are undeveloped. The property to the soutk is designated Low ?.ssidential ;2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single .farAily he •: - The property to the wart is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with an existing, non - conforming market. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 90 -02B, SaW MEDIUM - FORMA May 22, IS.1 Page 2 (c) That Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre is a mors appropriate al,- ernative than the existing or the applicant's requested land use designations based on gtaff'■ recent analysis of the City's goal to increase the ratio of si>>ge family dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units and to secure residential land use continuity with properties to the nos -n of the subject property. (d) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within t'ie district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (e) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (f) This amendment would not be matrially injuriouc or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not hiva a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ut3 that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commiesion during the above, - referenced public hearing and upon the spucific findings of facts out forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Comission her -by finds and _ concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed land use and specific pitn designation of Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) as evidenced by the site's being adjacent to properties to the north which have Residential land use designatio."I and (b) That. the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on th,4 environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclvvions and findings listed in Part I and II of +:ha Initial Studlis of the Environmer:tal Assessments of thin applicaFto acid of Genaral Plan Amendment 91 -02&; an'- (c) That the proposed emendmant is in conformance with th6 General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Spe.ific Plan Ous to the site's cepacity to promote thr goals and objectives for residential development in Etiwanda by promotin,7 c .tinuity to the existing Residential dHSignated land to the north of th* *,s•* opt property. 4. This Commiosion hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in �',,- »lia:.ze with the California 8nvirttnmental QUAY. ^y Act of 1970 and, further, 1 -Ais Commission hereby recommends issuance of a .7egative neclwration. S. Based upon the findings and can ^_fusion■ Lxt forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission 'Rreby resolves that on this 22nd day of May, 1991; the Planning Commission of the City of ;ranch:. Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of'Genoral Plan Amendment No. 90 -02B, amending the General Plan Land Use e p from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwall!ng units per acre) t•? .Low Medium Resis.antial (4 -8 dwealinq units per acre) with A Master Plan i_%` L9 -------------------- 0701-02 0 P.C. AGENDA MAY 22, 1991 0 4 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF F.EPORT GPA 90 -02B, LOW MEDIUM - FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 3 requirement designation for 10.89 acres Gf land located on the north c =:de of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Duller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of thff EClty of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing ResolutioA wan duly and Aftk regularly introauced, paLsed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the qW City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planni.' %i Comission hold on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI30RNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03 AMENDING THE FZ.)OTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM XSIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACME) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 10.89 ACRES' OF LAND LOCATFJ ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BO's :'VERD EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IS SUPPORT THEREOF - AP.4 1100- 161 -04 A. Recitals. (i) FORMA, on behalf of Group 66 Partnership, has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 90 -03, requesting a community Commercial land use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the appli.cati.m." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commissf­ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on a application and also Issued Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council that the AOL associated General Plan Amendment No. 90 -02B be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and corract. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, togarther with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically fads as follows_ (a) The application applies to approximately 10.89 acres of land located on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet Oast of Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 815 feet and a lot depth of 526.74 feet and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential; and (b) The properties to the north and east of the subject site are designates, Medium. Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and are undeveloped. The property to the south is designated Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family bomes. The Z-q- -2�5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FSPA 90 -03, LOW MEDIUM - FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 2 property to the west is designated Ms:Uum Residential (8 -14 dwelling unite per aere) and is dev3ljped with an existing, non - conforming market. (c) That Law Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per ac =e) In a more appropriate alternative than the existing or the applicant's requested land use desig;,,-,tiona based on staff's recent analysis of the City's goal to increase the ratio of single family duelling units to multiple family dwelling units and to secure residential land use continuity with properties to the north of she subject property. (d) This amendment 'does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan or thw Foothill Boulevard specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (6) This amendment promotes th- goals and objectives of the Land Use Elemeit; and (f) Thin amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent pr, j.erties and would not have a siyclficant idpact on the envirorment nor on the surrounding properties and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommender.;. 3. Based upon tho s,nostantial evidence presented to :his Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specilie findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed land use and specific plan designation of Low Medium Residential as evidenced by the site's close proximtty to residentially designated land in the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and (o) That the proposed amendment would not have significant � %Iapacte on ttie environment nor oG the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings listed in Part I and Part II of the Init' -al Studies of the Environmental Assessments of this applicr:tion; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Flan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan due to the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for residential development in Ltiwanda by promoting continuity to the existing residential designated land to the north of the subject prop +t7 ;y. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. A- .7 4"- Z7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FSPN 90 -03, LOW MEDIUM FORMA May 22, 1991 Page 3 r L J S. Basel upon the findings and conclusions set forth in garagrapaa 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on this 22nd day of MAy 1991, of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90 -03, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan requirement designation for 10.89 acres of land located on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard east of Etihanda Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. AnPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST:_ Brad Stiller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretaryy of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pasted, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS`: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: a] r El 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA S'T'AFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01A - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alterrnativ_ designations - APN: 1100- 161 -02 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND Fi'PTBILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific P1,1n Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast ccrner of Foothill Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative designations - APN: 1100- 161 -01 I. PRr7ECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing single family residence, Medium Residential "M" (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan South - Foothill Boulevard and vacant parcel, Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East - Existing, non - conforming market, Medium Residential "M" (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan West - Vacant restaurant and motel, Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan ITEMS K, L J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -01A & FSP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 2 C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) South - Special Boulevard and Community Commercial East - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) Vest - Community Commercial 11 D. Site Characteristics: The site is developed with a vacant service station with an average slope of less than S percent. II. LAND USE ANALYSIS: A. Background: 1. Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: The project site was included in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area until the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was adopted in 1987. The Specific Plan was the result of many months of effort involving local residents, the business community, City officials, and community leaders. 2. Economic Analysis: In determining land use designations for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the City 'had the benefit of the "Baseline Economic Analysis - Foothill Boulevard Corridor, July 1986" study from which to determine the appropriate levels of commercial development within the community. From the Baseline Economic Analysis, it was determined that while the City did not have enough commercial development to meet the needs of the community, the City had a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill &aulevard and the City as a whole, 3. Existing Structure: There is a vacant service station on the subject property which is designated a potential local landmark and staff has conducted a survey to determine the historic significance of the structure. A determination was made that any potential alteration to the structure and mitigation measures that may be necessary would be addresae +l when a formal proposal for development is submitted to the City. This decision was made because the request for a land use change from residential uses to commercial uses would not reduce the opportunity to preserve the structure or reduce the possibilities for mitigation measures due to the nature of the structure and its potential for adaptive reuse in a commercial setting. Related Applications: General Plan Amendment 90 -02B and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90 -03, requesting the same change in land use designation, were � 5 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -01A & FSP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 3 submitted to the Planning Division by Group 66 Partnership for the property insisting of 10.89 acres of land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and approximately 500 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue. In addition, the City has initiated General Plan. Amendment 91 -02B, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -02, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 which proposes to change the land use designation from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential for properties in the Etiwanda and Foothill :Boulevard Specific Plan areas. The subject property for this application is also included in the City - initiated General Plan kmendment. B. Proposed Community Commercial "CC" Land Use Designation: Economic Analysis: In order, to evaluate the need and viability of additional commercially zoned land the subject properties, staff requested an economic at, sis and market study. The applicant acceed to the requirement. The study wac conducted joirl'.y with the application submitted by Group 66 Partnership and this application and examined the feas "_ility of commercial land designations for each of the indivi &ual properties and for both properties and the adjoining parcels (see exhibit "C "). The study includes a land supply analysis which examines the present adequacy of commercial land supply and its future adequacy under various gscs.th scenarios and also examines commercial land use dat` from nes-hy cities and compares the information to allocations for Rancho Cucamosrga. The study also contains a focused market analysis which reviews planned land uses xn the area and evaluates the uses against population v_ -owth scenarios and basic commercial demand forevasts. The study indicates that there is a need for approximately 9.6 acres of land designated for neighborhood retail services and that the northeast (irner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue is an appropriate site for that designation. The study also indicated that the area could support additional and designated for office and commercial uses in the future, although no acreage amount was determined. 2. Traffic Analysis: A traffic study was rdrepared by a consultant as requested by staff. The traffic study indicated that no significant traffic impacts would occur if the land use is changed from Medium Residential to commercial use. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -01A & FSF 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 12, 1991 Pawn 4 3. General Plan and Specific Plan Conformance: Staff reviewed the proposed land use to determine if any of the proposed land use designations would conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Speci,4:ic Plan. Staff has determined that no conflicts woUis 4. Land Use Relationships. The subject _xoperty is on the corner of a major intersection which is typically appropriate for commercial uses. Because of the size of the site, however, it would be difficult to develop a traditional neighborhood shopping center without combining the subject property with adjoining pa °cels. C. Consideration of Altsrnative Designations: To provide the Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has included an analysis of ; ategories similar in character to those under discussion. In vlditicl,`; because of the City's initiated General Plan Amendm \t;s to reduce the number of multiple family housing units, staff has included the option of Low Medium Residential. Sta,'f examined the folloging land use categories: 1. Specialty Commercial "SC ": Specialty Commercial Land Use AMh Districts are designed to accommodate uses which promote a special landmark quality or create an ambience which is unique to the subarea (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.1.1). These uses are much more limited than those that are allowed under a Community Commercial designation and are typically less intense. 2. Commercial Offi %e "CO ". Commercial Office land uses consist of act?vities which cater to business support and personal services. Uses typically include medical and health care clinics, travel agencies, insurance agencies, copy centers, and other like land uses (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan section 6.3.3.2). Again, these uses are much more limited than those that are allowed under a Community Commercial designation and are typically less intense. 3`, Low Mndium Residential "LM': Low Medium Residential land uses are typically characterized by residential product types which include patio homes and duplex, tri -plex, and four -plex units with a density of 4 -8 dwelling units per acre (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan section 6.3.2.2). ':ow Medium Residential could be considered for the subject property if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend Low Medium Residential for the properties in the Etiwands Specific Plan to the north of the su }; ::t property. k,/. -11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -01A & FSP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 5 The Low Medium Residential land uue would be less intense than the existing Medium Residential and also less intense than the commercial designations; therefore, staff does not anticipate any significant traffic impacts. Any adverse impacts that the Foothill Boulevard arterial would have on future residences could be mitigated by buffering and noise at ;enuation walls. D. CONCLU5IONSs 1. The existing hedium Residential designation has no inherent problems in staff's opinion and would be an appropriate land w, ;e ' Combined with the adjacent properties to the na;th and east, the subject property could retain the Medium Residential designation and allow for a viable residential d--ve?opment. The City's desire to increase the ratio of single family dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units, however, would not make this the most appropriate designiztion. Additionally, the potential historic landmark building would have less adaptive rehabilitation potential under a residential designation. 2. The Low Medium Residential designation would continue the single family residential development if the parcels to the north in the Etiwanda Specific Plan are also redesignatnA to Low Medium Residential. In. addition, Low Medium would promote the City's goal ,:screasing the ratio of single family dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units at the City's build out date. 3. The Community Commercial designation would be appropriate in regards to the location of the subject parcels on the corner of a m-jor intersection. The economic and market analysis also concluded that, combined with the adjacent property to the north and east, there would be a need for additional commercial at this location. 4. The Commercial Office designation would also be economically viable a..cor3ing to the economic and market analysis and, combined with the adjacent properties to the north and east, would be an appropriate location. 5. The Specialty Commercial designation is intended to promote special landmark qualities of a property and there is an existing structure on the subject property which has the potential for a local landmark designation. It is staff's opinion, that the existing service station site could be combined with the adjacent properties to the north and to the east to create a viable shopping center. It would be most desirable to combine these properties under a Master Plan designation. PLANNING COMMISSION STIFF REPORT GPA 91 -OIA & ESP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Pace 6 LJ 6. Upon review of possible land use designations, staff has determined two possible courses of actic.i for the Planning Commission with which to proceed: a. Specialty Commercial: If the Commission believes that Specialty Commercial uses are most appropriate, then a recommendation should be made to the City Council to change the land use designate R for the subject property from Medium Residential to Specialty Commercial. It is staff *s opinion that the following facts for findings can be made: 1) The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Foothill Boulevard, Specific Plan land use designation and is':.ompatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the west, east, and a portion of the south be comma icial land use designations. 2) The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusionP listed in Parts I & Ii of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application. 3) The proposed amendment does not exhibit any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. b. Low Medium Residential: If the commission believes that Low Medium Residential uses are most appropriate, then a recommendation should be made to the City Council to change the land use designation for the subject property from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential. It is staff's opinion that the following facts for findings can be made: 1) The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land rise designation and is compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north by residential designations. krL ® 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -OIA & FSP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWv,.k May 22, 1991 Page 7 2)` The proposed amendment will not: have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmertal Studies of this application and of General Plan Amendment 91 -02B. 3) The proposed amendment does not exhibit any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and the Foothill Bou -evard Specific Plana III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed Part I of the initial Study and completed Part II and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts that will occur as a result of the proposed General Plrn Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment as a result of m change of land use from Medium Residential to Community Commercial, Specialty Commercial, Commercial Office, or Low Medium Residential. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have bean advartised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted with a large notification sign, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the existing Medium Residential land use designation (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) be changed to either Low Medium Reside -ntial (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) or Specialty Commercial through the adoption of the appropriate attached Resolutions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller �f City Planner BB:VB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Location Map Exhibit "B" - Applicant's Justification Statement Exhibit "C" - Study Area Alternatives Resolution for GPA 91 -01A to Commercial Resolution f,,r FSPA 91 -03 to Specialty Commercial Resolution for GPA 91 -OIA to Low Medium Residential Resolution for FSPA 91 -03 to Low Medium Residential Ak GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION Justification: We believe that the proposed Genera! Plan and corresponding Development District Amendment are justified because they are consistent with the following goals and objectives of tha Foothill Bot.levord Specific Pian: .Maximize the economic position of the Foothill Corridor commercial activities capturing neighborhood and subregional demand. Changing the designation of the 2 acre site from residential to commercial will permit development of a neighborhood shoppiny center to serve the Elfwanda area of iha City, capturing a portion of the neighborhood and subregion! market. Ensure the gradual upgrading of under - utilized land us3s functioning at less than their market pote,, "V. The proposed General Plan and Development District Amendments will also resat in Vie removal of the former gas station on the southern parcel, upgrading an under,...:ed land use functioning at less than Us movxet potential. In cdddlon, the adjacent pay tiels are also under- - utilized, a single- family residence on the northern parcel and a single- family dwelling and market on the lot to the east. Master planning a large area will permit these parcels to be upgraded to land uses which realize the market potential of their lots. [Provide for] Clear organization of streets. identifiable districts, and landmarks which gives people a sense of direction anC ^lentatlon. The extent of confusion 4 . traffic circulation and the amount of congestlon increasingly figures In paople'-s perceptions of cities. When the Effwanda Area-- especlally that portion south of the proposed 30 Freeway -is built -out, the intersection of Foothill &!d and Ettwanda will become an important Ica! point. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan recognizes the significance of this intersection W designating Ran activity center. Activity centers are generally composed of urban oriented specialty commercial uses. In the four other activity centers designated by the Specific Plan, adjacent land uses are all commercial, and at the FoothlIVEthvanda intersection, threw of the four corners have commercial designati nis. These commercial designations can be used to emphasize the Importance on an intersection, for white residential projects are generally directed internally, commercial uses can be oriented toward the corner to teintorce i:s significance providing landmarks and giving reopte a sense of orientation and direction. Used to visually unity the cor0dor, activity centers provide a series of highly idE ntiflable places which are linked togethor by consistent parkway design. The Foothill/Etlwancla Intersection is a m.-ditication of the standard design. it is Intended to have a less pedestrian orlentation. with less hardscape materials, fewer plazas and street furniture to W replaced by turf, landscaping and berms. On a small .site, such as the one presently, being considered, Implementatt— of the activity center concept could be more easily accommodoled in a commercial project man in c residential one. November 15, 1990 GPA 911,�)1A I � Exhibit -B- le, L. " General Plan Amendment Justification In addition, a number of other factors should 5e evaluated when considering this proposal. 7. Although a 2 acre commercial site can be developed, accommodating residential uses on the some size .porcel would. obably ;,ot be economically viable. Espeslolly when the protect would be required to absorb the costs amoclated with the activity center amenities and the even more substantial cost of removing cnd decontominatinj the old gas tanks curren8v located on the site. 2. Redesignaling the 2 acre area commercial will not preclude developing adjacent properties as : as ®s:t °. ti,:vnerclai uses ore constructed an the corner parcels, the remaining sties could stti', be developed as multiple family housing. Or the corner site oculd fie into a larger area In the east, !h arfm could be master planned as commercial. The City rnaywlsr`; to con-older Ima four study areas illustrated on the attached figure. 3. Finally, the owner is -ommla 3d to commercial development on the site. He is a business owner with a spectfic site on which he Intends to locate his business. tits approach to oevelopment is not as a speculative venture, but as an end user wishing to establIsh a quality commercial project. Novemiser 15, i990 Ii E° 3 May 1, 1991 Mr. Vince Bcrtoni City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning I artmcnt 10300 Ci _. rater Drive Rancho —: scamonga, CA 91730 Dear 'Ynce: CITY OF 6l,N HL CUCAIAONGA MAY 08 19 FU AN i As agent for the Group 66 Partnersl sp, I recently attended a neighborhood meeting regarding the City initiated rezone bf medium residential property within the Etiwanda Specific Plana As ycu know, Group 66 is currently involved in obtaining a rezone which will allow commercial uses on their property. In previous correspondence with the City, we have outlined numerou . reasons why residential uses of any kind are inappropriate for the subject property. These reasons, while pertinent to medium residential zoning, are more pronounced when costsidering the possibility of a low density residential neighborhocd adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. Low density residential zoning would be an unsatisfactory use of the property related to orientation, circulation, health and safety, and overall benefit to the City. We strongly request that the City refrain from including this property within the low density residential area. We understand commercial uses are to be considered as an j alternative for the property. This would best respond to ±h► project conditions aid City's effort to reduce the amount of medium residential zoning.: We request that you give this your careful consideration. I look forward to providing you any additionat information you mt:y re,uire. sincerety, FORMA George Theodorou Agent for Group 66 Partnership GT:kb 10790 Civic Center pave • Suite 100 • Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730-(7141989-2232- FAX m419414244 , „ ! zANNV,G- .ANDSCAPEAPCMSC AE- aECREATgNDESniN AND. SPECIAL EF:£ C' S- UPEANDEB IGN• ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT • GOVERNMENT SE !( t 1 •� ,•� Vu � i � i i Foolhin BHd. Study Area 2 f f Foam VVCL Stud- Area S J tip Fe9shw Bail. -• Study Area ,gym a t 11 OWN NEW NEW' NNW __ Foam WCL F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01A AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL f9 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCIAL WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND IMING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 161 -02. A. Recitals. (i) Planning Network, on behalf of Charles V. Cummins, has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -01A, requesting a Commercial land use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission if the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal nra <equisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 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 ,gresented to this Commission during the above- referenced public bearing cn ;day 22, 1991, in'^luding written ar,d ocal staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows (a) The application applies to approximately 2.0 acres of land located on tFt northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwenda Avenue with a street frontage of 630 feet and is presently developed aith a vacant service station designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is denigrated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is underdeveloped with a single family home. The property to the south is designated Commercial and is undeveloped. The property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with an existing, non - conforming market. The property to the west is designated Commercial and is developed with a vacant market and motel. A; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -01A, COMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 2 (c) This 6zendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Pla;i and F::il% provide► for development, within the district, in a manner consi.aten's with th:r General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and obj,' tives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This :a&msndment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence rresented to this Commission during the above- referenced public h&aring and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as fellows: (a) That the subjdct property is suitable for the proposed land use designation of Commercial as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to properties on the west and south with Commercial land use designations; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings listed in Part I aad II of the Initial Studies of the Environmental. Assessments of this application and of General Plan Amendment 90 -028; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the Genial Plan; the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. This Commission hereby f'_ _As that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that on this 22nd day of May, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby raccarmends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -01A, amending the General Plate Land Use Map from Medium Reeidential (8 -14 dwelling unite per acre) co Commercial with a Faster Plan re4uirement designation for 2.0 acros of land located on the noL�heast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, as shown on Exhijit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 11 /,(, a .<- /4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -0IA, COMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 3 Aft APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF.MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNisl, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Huller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do Y_areby certify that the foregoing Resoluticn was duly and regularly introduc,:.3, passed, and adopted by the *Manning Commission of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AC c °15 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANt"MC-A. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC AMENDMENT 91 -03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 161 -02. A. Recitals. (i) Planning Network, on bE'-,xk!f of Charles V. Cummins, has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard. Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, requesting a Community Commercial land use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and axAo issued Resolution No. , recommending to the city Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -01A be approved. Amk (iii) All legal prerequi,d,ltes prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the ing 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public `testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to approximately 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue with a atrest frontage of 630 feet and is presently devela and with a vacant service station. Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is underdeveloped with a single family home. The property to the south is designated Community I Commercial and is undeveloped. The property to the east is designated Medium PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 91 -03, SPECIALTY CnMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 2 Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with an existing, non - conforming market. The property to the west is designated Community Commercial and is developed with a vrcant market and motel. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan or the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and wit', _- slated development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; rand (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the +adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nrir on the surrounding properties and that the issuances of a Negative Declaration is recommended. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- r&&Nrenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby .finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed specific plan designation of Specialty Commercial as evidenced jf the site's being in close proximity to properties on the west and south which have Community Commercial land use designations; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have sign „ficant impacts on the environment nor on tt,e surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings listed ice. Part I and II of the Initial Studies of the Environmental Assessments of this application and of General Plan Amendment 90 -02B; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Davelopment Code, and the Foothill Boulevar4 Specific Plan. 4. This Commission her -,may finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends app:ooval on this 22nd day of May, 1991, of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Specialty Commercial with a Master Plan requirement designation for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, as shown on Exhibit A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 91 -03, SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWORK Hay 22, 1991 Page 3 E 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1391. PLANNING COMMISSION OF Tkv, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. MBNirl, Gt:airman ATTEST: Brad Buller,,Secretary I, Brad Bulltar, Secretary of the Planning pammiss on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herchv certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introducaA, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held -on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CIP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01 -01A AMENDING THE GENERAL PLI'N LZM USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 161 -02. A. Recitals. (i) Planning Network, on behalf of Charles V. Cummins, has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -01A, requesting a Commercial land use designation for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hareinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pu�:'_lc hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this - reselation have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commise =on 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Th application applies to approximately 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 630 feet and is presently developed with a vacant service station. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre)? and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unit) per acre) and is underrsvelcped with a single family home. The property to the mouth is designate) Commercial and is undevelop&i. The property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with an existing, non - conforming market. The proport;y to the west is designat A Commercial and is developed with a vacant market and metal. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CPA 91 -01h, LOW /MED. RES. - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 2 a (c) That Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) is a more appropriate alternative the , existing or the applicant's requested land use designations based on staff's recent analysis of the city's goal to increase the ratio of singe family dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units And to secure residential land use continuity with properties to the north of the subject property. (d) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with -he General Plan and with related development; and ('e) This amendment promotes the goale and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (f) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration i3 recommended. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission 4.r -ing the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of iacta set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed land use and specific plan designation of Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to propertiss to the north which have residential land nee designations; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings listed in Part I and II of the Initial Studies of the Environmental Asonssments of this application and of General Plan Amendment 91 -02B; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plea. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and ;onsider,d in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Fot of 1970 and, furrier, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative neclarati'on. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusionu set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that on this 22nd day of May, 1991, the Planniag Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -01A, amending the General Plan Land Use Hap from Medium Re&idNntlal (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4,-8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan requirement assignation for 2.0 scree of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda PvEaue, as shown on Exhibit "A." if I{{ f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OPA 91 -01A, Li?W /MED. RES. - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 3 Ask 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAI4CHO CUCAMONGA BY: _ Larry T. McNial, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller., Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do rtereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Coq¢pission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991; by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TEE r, iNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA.LIFGANIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL POULEVArM SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAT, (8 -14 DWELLING UNIT'S PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -6 7WELLIUG UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQ'7IREMENT DESIGNATION FOR 2.0 ACRES OF LEND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 181 -02. A. Recitals. (i) Planning Network, on behalf of Charles V. Cummins, has tiled an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, requesting a Commercial land use designateo., for the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this RAsolut' -0n, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Comm-ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -01A, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption ` thic Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOM, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Ca-mission 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically f:rds as follows: (a) The application applies to approximately 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 630 feet and is presently developed with a vacant service station. Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is underaeveloy d c.lth a single family home. The property to the south is designated Community Commercial and is undeveloped. The property to the east is designated Medium K! L— ZZ.; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 2 Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with an existing, non- con£o:cming market. The property to the west is designated Community Commercial and is developed with a vacant market anti motel. (c) That Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling unite per acre) is a more appropriate alternative than the existing or the applicant's requested land use designations based on staff's recent analysis nE the City's goal to increase the ratio of single family dwelling unite to multiple family dwelling units and to secure residantial land ties continuity with properties to the north of the subject property. (d) Thin amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan or the Foot % -,.l Boulevard Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (e) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Lana Use Element:; and (f) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environmont nor on the surrounding properties and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. 3. sasee upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- rafareneed public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphe 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed land use and specific plan designation of Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to properties :o the north which have Residential land use designations; and ;b) That the propoaad amendment would not have significant impacts an the environaent nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusicna and findings listed in Part rand IS of the Initial Studies of the Environmentcl Asaassmants of this application and of General Plan Amendment 91 -02BI and (c) That the proposed amendment io in Conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. J /, 2—ip PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSP 91 -03 - PLANNING NETWORK May 22, 1991 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on this 22nd day of May, 1991, of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan requirement designation for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission ,.:nil certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON1,1A BY: LarzY T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, 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 introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission hold on the 22nd day of May 1991, by tb4 following vote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMldISSIOfrERS: Z] K, L - Z.- 0 0 . . AM _ CITY rr r .,.; 0 C11, +P'ONGA DEVE OPMEN COAPORATION May 22,1991 MAYad IN Jim F'4 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Re: General Plan Aamendment 91 -02B Dear Planning Commissioners: A recent loss of a close member of my family prevents me from attending the Planning Commission meeting tonight. However, I would like you to consider my thoughts on the subject, I have an extreme interest in local issues because I not only conduct business, but also live in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As you may know I have spent a great deal of time studying the proposed downzoning in Etiwanda for my personal reasons and those of past my client, Fu Mai. I have attendad the workshops and have met with Planners to discuss my views on the subject. I have enclosed a letter of mine dated April 25, 1991 to the Planning Department that summarizes these views. I should also mention that I will no longer be representing Fu Mai as they will be in attendance representing themselves from now on. I look forward to continued involvement in important City issues. I feel that the proportion of multi - family h,.using and affordable housing are two of the most important issues that face our City today. My ideas about Etiwanda would allow for the down zoning from multifamily to single family detached, but in a way that would promote the development of a more affordable house than the existing proposal recomerled by staff. T feel strongly that these issues should be considered before your commission appoves the current proposal. I appreciate the channels of communication, that are open and I feel that the public and private sectors can work together to provide solutions to these questions that are best for our City. I look forward to our next contact. Sincerely, ffrey S. Burum JSB :dl cc: Vince Bertoni, Planning Dept. t,u5 ' Ur!ia A%e. • Ran(ho (ucanmurtga. (A 91'01 • Tel. ('1-1) 941 -1466 e FAX(,-I,, /MJ A .0 ,/ /® JF Wa Am- M MD. DUVME OPMEN CORPORA ipril 25. 1991 Mr. 4-4-ce Berton--* PlannIng Di-,Ision City of Rancho C-ucamcnga 10500 Civic Center Drive ?.0. Box 307 Rancho Cuca=onga, C� 91729 RE: General Plan Amendment 91-02B Dear Mr. Berton is The housing issues which -face our City are nu=erous, and 1 believe i*-_ is the responsibili= -Y of =everyone in the private sector as t-,,911 the public sect_r to strive for our City's betterment. The current problem we lave with the proportion of mu'ti-fRmily housing as co -pared to detachad single fa='Iy nous a concern most in the community share. our community has __gun a herizage of h--gh quailz7 standards that is t*he codal for w*.-.J_ch the surrounding =_S;;! r=_- W6 all hope that this Standar-_; w--!'- -live or for many genaretions to =Ome- There are =an,,;' housing issues which are a concern ':o o,_r i t. - r commun , the -afore if one issi-B relates to another, than bo_h should be considered together if a zommcn link car. be found. _11, is a fact that if we do not address the proportion of =ult--'- family housing, now, then at build out there will be too -any multi-family units. However, multi - family housing is synony=oU5 with affordable housing in our community. Thus, if we are going to lessen the amount of multi- family units we will be increasing the gap between those employed ir. our city who can not afford to reside here and those that do live within our city and commute to their place of emp1cyment. If tha changes in the g°neral plan in Etiwanda are adopted and the %ew zone becomes four to eight units an acre then under existinT development standards either one builds an average ttn thousand square foot subdivided lot, or a planned- unit development with a minimum of fifty percent of the s '_ t'= landscaped open space. under existing market prices for land. build a homy on a ten thousand square foot lot would dem.an ­,e � % a * FAXI-�- Page ? o- house r,rice of at least two hundred fifty thousand dollars. If we Uere to build under the optional development standards and create a planned unit_ deve_opt°_nt the product and prices would be s`_tilar to rhos: in t.a nearby rasterplans, which start around two hundred thousand ^, .__ears. -= t e standards were a= ended to al!aw for a sRa_ -_- Ict to be subdivided wit :cut the required 'fty percent ope- __ ace than a builder's .,=_st_ -ould drpo dran.atically. The cost z si_bdivide a loll :w l ^it- the_ typical standards of curb, gutters, street landscaping etc., as compared to the additional _mprovements required to create - planned community with pools, play grounds and landscaped green alts, is =uch less. when you take into consideration the extra lots you obtain, and thus the s=vings per unit in the land cost, the smaller lot scenario creates a drastically lass expensive home for the consumer. Our calculations of land cost and improvement costs without the opera space would permit a normal builder to produce a single family detached home starting in the one hundred fifty thousand dollar range. These calculations are using current building costs, land values and typical buil der - argins. To he able to lesser density and at the same time create an avenue in which the production of an almost extinct commodity in our city, the single f rily detached home at an affordable price, sees to be quite a windfall. There are many factors that we feel can be imple:nent -_d with this development standard axendment that can not only insure quality, but quality at an affordable price. One of which is is relate the size of the lot to the size of the home. Without a direct subsidy the only way the private sector can keep de°m .rices is by lowering costs. Allowing a developer to subdivide his property into the higher end of the four to eight units an acre spreads the land cost over more units, thus lowers his development costs. The smaller the home he constructs the less his construe. on costs are, which again translates to a more affordably home to prospective buyers. Thus, if a requirement is imposed on the development of the smaller lots restricting the size of the house contructed then the builder is prevented from maximizing profit on the smaller lots. A formula could be adopted with a ratio of house size to lot size, the smaller the lot the smaller the house must he in order for the project to be approved. Page 3 of 3 I believe that with the quality architects we have in orr community and the well trained staff members that the City employs a subdivision of smaller lots can be created that gill represent the overall quality that our City strives to maintain. Limiting the size of the homes and implementing the existing spirit of the rest of cur City's design standards will insure a well wlanr_ed product which is affordable to a'much greater number of z.~ ae enployed within our City. I hope that we in the private sector and those within the public sector can agree on important issues such as these and, work together to obtain sound housing policies. We believe our proposal has merit and would like to discuss it with the appropriate City officials before any further action occurs on the Etiwanda General Plan Amendment. We feel these issues are too closely related to be dealt with independent of one another. I look forward to hearing from you and sitting down to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, Jeffre,- S. 3urum JSE:dl G I. (� V w PR� E% INC. CITY OF i NO C! ",0NGA May 21, 1991 li A te MAY 2 1 In rq City of Rancho Cucamonga s 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 92730 Attn: Planning Commissio RE: Plennin Commission Agenda— May 22, 1991 General Plan Amendment Subarea 6 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment Subarea k Gentlemen: Please be advised, that we will be out of the State on business the date of the Planning Commission hearing. �1e have asked; Jeffrey Sceranka to represent us he this meeting, - In regards to your Land use Analysis, and in your Staff Report, we would appreciate your deep consideration for Neighborhood Commercial alternate C.I. We are working some Traffic Analysis in regards to this type of use. One of tut major reasons we would like this Zoning, at the present time, is that due to the Flood Control problems in thie area. We are working with the staff on trying to put in a Golf Driving Range as an "interim use". This would also serve as a beautiful retention basin, as American Golf is doing in El Tbrc, Orange County. Due to this Flood Control Problem, these properties will not be able to be utilized for us Developers for years, and this would 811.w for an excellent use of this site. 10' W ESTVUFF D& NEWPORT BEACK CA 92660.9503 (7146) 722.7663 1AX (716) T22."2s e__.— t14JYPINC: CEIRQR D1vQiGfMLM• AlMf:11QN1 fgttSE DEVtSDPMEM '•A{�(y.AGEMWL6liAYlNL •CO W1t90CUt INYl1TMCMTS. MAY 21 '91 11 59 I.S.PR9PERTIES INC. May 21, 1991 Planning Commission. City of Rancho Cucamonga 'Page 2 If and when the Neighborhood Commercial was Developed, ry` would agree to put the type of Commercial the City woua' be proud of. This of course would., also cut your per centage of multiple dwellings in t_iie City and allow for an increase in the revenues from increased property and sales taxes. Cordially, Bernie P. Svalstad I.S. Properties, Inc. BPS, jlt, P.2 1 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Memvers of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: FNVTRONMBNTAL .RNERAt PLAN AMENDMENT Q1- CITY of P No (_DMOxCA - A proposal to amend tta Ger, Plan Land Use Element Map from Medium Residential dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential dwellinv units per acre) for the following subareas w: the EtiwA:nda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Ipproximately 14.20 acres bordered on the nort Foothill Boulevard, oa the east by the eastern limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Reside: designated land, and on the west by a utility cor3 - APN: 229 - 041 -1). 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north bi Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, whit approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevart the east by a utility corridor; on the Bout, Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avi The City, will consider Commerrlal and Offic, alternative land use designations ` +ar this entire - APN: 1100 - 161 -01 through 04 and a portion of 1 201 -01. 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the moxthwe: the Ontario (]: -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which i!j approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100 - 131 -Ol and 02, 1100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100 -151- 01 and 02, 1100- 181 -01 and 02, and 1100- 191 -01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. ABN: 1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, 1100- 051-03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100 - 071 -01 and 02. M, N, & 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, a ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF 'ANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 rage 2 RNVTRO NTAT. ASS .s SME= AND £TT NTA SPF!r!TP= PLAN AMF.NL1MEN 91 -01 CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by' commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will coi:sid&z Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - AM 227- 211 -02, 04, 05. 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered ors the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire a;;ea - APN: 1100 -051- 01 and 02 and 1100 - 061 -01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway_ on the south by existing Office designated land, and an the west by existing row Medium designated land and divided ,,n a north -south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acrel as -n alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -05 and 227- 141 -14 and 66. ELMRONMENTAL ACSF.SSMF.NT AND FOOTHILL BonL.mmw SPECTFSC PLAN AMEND :N3: 91-02 - CTTV OF ANCHO CtiCA_M Szn -. A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Mand Use Map arom MeeAum Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low nedium Residential (4 -8 duelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City lim.ts, on the P= rh by existing Law Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229 - 041 -10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Scundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the vast by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APR: 1100 -161- 01 through 04 and a portion of 17 ^0- 201 -01. RNVTRO NTAT. ASS .s SME= AND £TT NTA SPF!r!TP= PLAN AMF.NL1MEN 91 -01 CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by' commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will coi:sid&z Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - AM 227- 211 -02, 04, 05. 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -023, FSPA 91 -02, & E3PA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 3 NW 1. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific £tan boundary, which is .,proximately 530 feet north of foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100 -131- 01 and 02, 1100 - 141 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02; 1100- 181 -01 and 02 and 1100- 191 -01. 3. Approximately 30.72 ac -es bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Nvenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units yer acre) as an a.ternative land use designation for this entire area - APR: 1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, 1100 - 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portion, of 1100- 071 -01 sad 02. 4. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered.on the north I tease Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (3 -15j Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100- 051 -01 and 02 and 1100- 061 -01. 5. Apprcximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Offi -:e designated land, and on the sou ^h by Base Line Road. The City will consider office Pi sessional as an alternative land use designation for this en '-. trea - AUN: 227- 131 -34, through 36, 52 through 54, "d 31. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacif;- rsilwav, on the east. by the Ontario (I -15) Free, n the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land and divided in :: north- south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwell,mg units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -05 and 227- 141 -14 and 66. RACKGROOND & DISCUSSION. The City Council held public workshops on August 9, 1990, and January 31, 1991, regarding wltiple faml y horsing development in the City. These workshops arose from the cit :ens' concerns regarding the increasing development of multiple family dwelling units and the decreasing number of single family dwelling unit developments whicr are gradually changing the community's residential character. Prior to these workshops, City staff reviewed the current status or multiple family housing. Using various scenarios, staff idAnrtfied the effects on City revenues and services if multiple lazily undeveloped land was rezoned to single family or other non - residential designations. During these work3hop3, citizens and City Council members voiced concern over increased traffic volumes, increased demands on City services, and overcrowding in local schools, which were all perceived to be linked to the increasing number of "Ziple family dwelling unit developments. As a result of thee; orkshops, the City Council directed the Planning Commis3.on to develop RA, 0 PTANNING C0194ISSION STAFF REPORT 91-029, FSPA 91 -02, r, ESPA S1 -03 - CITY OF RANCKO CUCAMONGA 1991 . °3ge recommendations to reduce the comraunit•7's amount and density of vacant multiple family land through t,ie City's formal land use amendment process to a build -out ratio of 32 -35 percent for =ltiple gamily units. An amendment process has been established to review land use changes for Etiwaada, Victoria, and the western general City area. Because of the large a>r ,junt of vacant multiple family land which does not have develr.mvnt applications submitted, the Eti:Gaui,aa area is the first portion of the City that the Planning Commission will review. There. are 50 properties under consideration totalling approximately 220.31 acrert of land designated Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units per acre) . The study area has been divided into eight subareas (see attached map) . The Planning Commission and City Coancil may act on the entire study area as a whole, they may a ^t on the arbrceas separately, or they may act on properties individually. The Planning Commission and Citz Ccsncil will also consider alternative land uses as indicated in this report. In order m;o make the proposed changes, three separate City documents ,must be amended. The General. Plan Amendment is necessary to modify the General Plan Land Ure Map that provides generalized land uses for the City. The Etiwanda and FoothUl Boulevard Specific Plan Amenftents will modify time sand use zoning maps in those documents to be in conformance with the new General Plan designations. On April 23, 1991 staff conduct4d a neighborLood meeting with the affected property owners and those within 300 feet of the study area of the City - initiated General Plan Amendment. The intent of the meeting was to give inte_ested property o)mers the r,,?portunity to ask staff questions regarding the amendment&. The main concern expressed at the meeting -.;,a that the required stinimura lot size was too large i,i the Loan Medium Pesidential district for sir Ile family detached products in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. An adjustment to the lot size requirements would require separate action by the Planning Commission or City Council to initiate an application in This regard. II, LH r.AL=: Because of the large number of properties involvede the analysis will be divided into the following two segments: A. A review of issues ..which generally apply to all the subareas within the application area and including cumulative effects of tra land use amendment in total. B. A review of the subarea - jcommexldations, alternatives, and land specific issues relating to each proposed amendeert. A. is al as r s• During the workshop reviews, staff's analysis of the unit de>ssity reduction revolved around the premise that most of the changes should stay within the residential land use categories. It was a3irmed that the Itast amount of land use conflicts would result from this apprGach. Therefore, staff's initial land uar consideration for all the properties is to the next lower density range, Low Medium 'residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre). /YJ All () - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02H, FSPA 91 -02, 8 ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OV RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 5 This approach has some added validity due to the original Geaeral Plan density rar;es which included an expanded Medium Residential range of 4 -14 dwelling units per acre. Staff believes this previous range clearly indicated that within the Medium Residential designation, Low Medium Residential developmv;r; could be allowed and perhaps be preferable in certain situations. The General Plan Medium Residential designation was amended to 8 -14 dwelling units per acre to conform with the Development District Low Medium. Residential designation range on November 5, 1986 (GPA 86 -03 Text). 2. Housing: The General Plan and respective specific plan amendmen^ proposals are, as previously stated, the result of C;:ty Council direotion to ensure a nultiple family unit percentage of between 32 to 35 percent at the City's build -out. Therefore, the anticipated future housing unit, counts will be significantly lowered if approval is given to these land use proposals and futurs3 anticipated density reductions in nortliorn Victoria and the City's west side. The cumulative effects of the derJity reductions (city wide) on the anticipated number `t new units yet to be developed is as follows: a. The total reduction in multiple gamily units represents a 5 to 8 percent loss in the multiple family unit percentage at ?guild out than what is presently anticippated with the existing land use designations. b. The total unit reduction at build -out will be between 1,400 - 1,500, assuming 62.5 percent density range development. The decrease in multiple family units will be just over 4,000 and the increase in single family units will .near 2,600. C. In regards to the General Plan Housing Element, the unit redactions should not conflict with any specific policies, goals, or objectives. The Housing Element provisions provide programs which aid in the development and improvement of the City's housing stock. Generally, p=ograms which list specific numbers of units to be built or aided fall within the anticipated number of units expected under the emended build -out totals. Reductions in total build -out units will result in greater portions of low and very low income units, program -aided units, etc., within the lower total of units yet to be developed, Also, the unit reducticns will bring the anticipated total of build -out units within approximately 94 percent of the total SLAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment M NA) unit numbers for 1994; and about 76 percent of the very low, low, and moderate units for the same pes..,.3. AP ®-S PLANNING C0MMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSP!`,91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CIT, OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 6 Of the range of units the Housing Element proposes for development up to 1994 (Program 3.A.1), the revised build -oula total of just above 10,000 units falls within this anticipated range. B. Subareas Analysis - Refer to the following sections which are divided by each study area: E- III 0 /, All �J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-02B, FSPA 91 -02, 8 ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 8 GBNlRAL PLAN MMNDMZNT sun"za 1 rooT8iLL Bo'JLBVARD SPSCIFxc PLAN RKLNDNYNT SUBAREA 1 1. Project and Sit a D e iRLJ=: a. G * e +n i= Land lisp and Zoning: North Foothill Boulevard vacant land, Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan South - Vacant, how Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan East Flood Control Channel in the County of San Bernardino West Utility Corridor, Open Space in the Etiwarda Specific Plan b. General Plan Dasj=a bona- Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Special. Boulevard and Commercial South - Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control (County of San Bernardino) West - Flood Control /Utility Corridor C. Site Characteristing: The site is generally flat, with a natural slope of leafs than 5 percent with no significant vegetation and has no structures. 2. Fnv3 re man al A4yPVVmPn : Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Foothil Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment. 3. Land. Use nalvvdv: a. j�pj r�oD s^tPnea. of ow Ma a t m Men 'en { l 11m as 4n the A The property south of the subarea is currently designated Low Medium Residential and this designation for the subarea would continue`?.he single family residential character of the area as initially established in the southern portion of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. b. QnfoxmAnra wi rh h .Pneral plan And Foothill l 7 Be +l v xd Zecific. plan: The changing from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential at this location raises no inharent conflicts with General Plan or Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan provisions. C. C623ideration of Ali, Prna 4 iicna-t+onn: Staff has not included An alternative land use designation for this subarea for the following reasons: 1) Commercial 14ould not be approp::iate because there is no evidence that indicates there is support for commercial uses at this location. rl- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, 8 ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO cucAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 9 2) Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) may not be viable at this location because there is no evidence that indicates that there is current rapport (in terms of need and land use c?mpatibility) for lower residential,;densities south of Foothill Boulevard. 4. Recommended Land list-: Staff recommends the existing Medium Residential (8 -14 dwellimj; units per acre) land use designation be changed to Low Medium Residential (4 - -8 dwelling units per ac.e) for the property located in Subarea 1 of this application. Staff believes the following fachs. for findings can be made with this recommendation: a. The property located ir',Subarea 1 is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposc3 General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land use?3esignati;ons and is compatible with existing and surrounding land use,designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on t_ke south by the same land use designation.,, b. The proposed ameidment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Etudy and the fact that the proposal would reduce the intilnsity of residential development on the subject property. C. The proposed amendment does not exhibit any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and t;he Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and it helps promote ile retention of the Etiwanda Specific Plen's rural atmosphere through reduced residential unit densities. General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Resolutions of Approval are attached for the Coanission's consideration. 9,Le Af,,U, 0 _ 40 —4-7 E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page it "ZNBRAL PLAN AMBNDMMM SUPARZA 2 FOOTHILL WULSVARD SPiCIFIC PLAN AMENDNSNT SUBAREA 2 1. Project and Site D do iptien: a. Burr +n i nq .and ,14e and 7onina: North - Vacant, Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Foothill Boulevard and vacant land, Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East - Utility Corridor in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan West - Etiwanda Avenue and undeawveloped land, Regional Related Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan b. C_n l Plan D signa ions: Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling un3tL oer acre) North - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per a -9) South - Special Boulevard, Commercial, and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling r..its per acre) East - Flood Control /Utility Corridor West - Soecial Boulevard and Commercial C. Sita Charantp-rizti=: The site is generally flat; with a natural average slope of less than 5 percent. There is a vacant service stati..s on the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, and to the east of the service station is an existing, ` 'in- conforming market. There is a silgle family dwelling on the property north of the service station and the property between the market and utility corridor to the east is <acant. 2. Znyjro =n al A4+ 2amen : Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study, and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts would -occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment. 3. Land Ilse nalys4g: a. Related_Applications: Applications to change the land use designation from Medium Residential t3 Community Commercial have been submitted for two properties within this subarea (GPA 90 -02B a GPA 91 -01A). The application submitted by Group 66 Partnership is for the property consisting of 10.89 acres of land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and the application submitted by Planning Network is for the 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. In order to evaluate the need and viability of additional commercially zoned land on the subject properties, staff requested an economic analysis and market study. The applicants agreed to the requirement. The study was conducted jointly by the two applicants and it examined the feasibility of commercial land designations for both properties and the adjrining parcels. R, kj 0 " /J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -03 - -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 12 The study indicates that there is a need for approximately 96 acres of land designated for neighbonccnO retail service and that the northeast corner o£ Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avanue is an appropriate site for that designation. The study also indicated that the area could support additio"8,,land designated for office and additional commercial uses, altho,'gh no acreage amount was determined. b. Upon review of possible land use designations staff has determined two possible courses of action for the Planning Commission to take. 1) Low Medii&M Renide_nta _41: a) rand Usp IN-Clues: The ;area in question i3- adjacent to existing single family'-hams designated Low Residential in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Low• Medium Residential . a:,ty be compatible with these uses. The appropriateness of Low Medium Residential in the area is affected by the following, i) Medium Residential designated land borders the site to the north, which staff is recommending be changed to Low Medi= residential in Subarea 4. This arrangement enhances the appropriateness of Low Medium Residential for this site. ii) Foothill Bouleva�I is a major arterial along which a significat,; amount of land is designated for commercial uses in the immediate area. Therefore, the appropriateness of Low Medium Residential for this site is in question. b) Confg=nnne with the gjnP al Plan and thp Foe }it's.1 Boulevard sec +f{ - plan: The change in land use designation from Medium Residentia', to Low Medium Residential at this location raises no conflicts with General Plan or Foothill Boulevard Specific P,an provisions. C) Far -s For Fin sags;, If the Planning Commissi�jn believes that Low Medium Residential is the moo: appropriate land use, then ztaff believes the following facts 4cr findings can be made: i) The properties located in Subarea 2 are suitable for the uses permitted is the proposed General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific ?lan land use designations and are Compatible with existing and surrouadint land use designations az, evidenced by the yitelx being bordered on the north by residential land use designations. ii) The proposed amendment will not have signifi ^ant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced b:r the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and 11 of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application. 1,Alj0 f� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT .SPA 91 -02B FSPA 91 -02, s ESPA el -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCRMONC.A May 22, 1591 Page 13 iii) The proposed amendnent does not exhibit any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Sceci£ic Plan. 2) Corm ernial Deaianations: a) Lan d Tae Tvaupa: To provide the Commission with an alternative to residential uses, staff has included the following analysis of Community Commercial, Commercial Officd,�'.and Specialty Commercial land use designations: i` Co ni y Commercial: Community Commerci -al land use �.istricts include a wide ^.zriety of uses which typically include drug stores, supermarkets, apparel shops, variety stores, and commercial recreation uses_. -;In general, Community Commercial Districts' ` lunctt3.on to promote the establishment of neighborhood /district leve`.__coizmrcial goods and services. Typically,'large " tommunity, commercial complexe9 are designed to accommodate the needs of more than one neighborhood or subarea and include one or more major tenants accompanied by a variety of multi- tenant uses (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.1.2). The Community Commercial designation could provide continuity with the eastward expansion of commercial to e devl n from the Ontario (I -lS) Freeway City's gateway entrance from Fontana. This development would occur in an area already planned Ear commercial expansion as part of the Victoria Gardens Regional Mall and the L': Foothill Boulevard Speci,'Plan. ii) Commercial Office. Commercial Office land uses consist of activities which cater to business support and personal service. Uses typically include medical and health care clinics, travel agencies, insurance agenciee, copy centers, and other similar land. uses ;Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.3,2), These uses are much more limited than those that are allowed under a Community Commercial designation and are typically less intense, The Commercial Office designation could be a r�npatible use with 'the proposed Community Commercial designation for the General Plan Amendment 90 -02B for the two acr.is of land to the east of the application. iii) ; ecinlly Cemn,±m4,01: Speal6lty Commercial Land Use Diatsiets a_ d< =3gned to accommodate uses which FMromote a special landmark quality or create 4n ambience which is unique to the subarea (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.1.1). These uses are much more limited than # thrise that are allowed u.1der a Community PI ANA7NG COMMIS-ION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, E FSPA 91 -0a - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 14 Commercial designation and are typically less intense. to this case, the two acre site on the corner contains a potentially historic structure (vacant service station). It is staff's opinion that the existing service station site could be combined with the adjacent properties to the no-,0, and east to create a shopping center. b) C2nforms ±48ewith the -.gin a' EJAM.i1nd thfi FzoYh, l l Boulevard -np ifs. Plan: "1e change In land use designation from Medium Residential to Specialty Commercial, Commumity Commercial, or Commercial Office at this location raises no conflicts witi- Zeneral Plan or Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan pra?iaions. c) Farts For Findings; If the Planning Commission believes that the above described commercial designations are the most appropriate land uses, then staff beiieves the following facts for findings can be made: i) The properties located in Subarea 2 are suitable for the use- permitted in the proposed Gener-11 Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land use 4.zri4nation3 and are compatible with existing and surrounding lane: use designetiorns as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the west ana a portion of the south by commercial land use designations. ii) The proposed amendment will not have significant is impacts er, the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and ii of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application and of General Plan Amendments 90-02B and 91 -01A. iii) The proposed amendment does not exhibit any cc:,flicts with the 1 >rovisions of the General Plan and the rootbill Boulevard Specific Plan. .. Reanmmended Land s,e; Staff recommends that the existing k* -d.um Residential land use designation (8 -14 dwelling unit:i per acre) be nged to either Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) or a combination of Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial for the properties located in Subarea 2 of this application. For clarification purposes; if the Planning Commission approves the above described Commercial designations or the Low Medium nesidertial designation for associated General Plan Amendments 90 -02B (FSPA 90 -03) and 91 -OIA (FSPA 91 -03), then it would he appropriate to approve only those parcels not included in those applications in your action on Subarea 2. Therefore, the attac`:.,d Resolutions of Approval will not include t--he Community Commercial designation which is included in the Resolution of Approval for General Plaiz _unendment 90 -023 (FSPA 90 -03) . - eneral Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Resolutions of Approval for ' alternatives are attacheF for the ommSssion's consideration. ANk 14 X11 ° <` NIWX\\\ M r ...., :af ,��? PIr1NNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GKI1 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, 4 ESPA 91 -03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 191 PacTt 16 GsNPRAL PLAN ANENDNKNT SOBARU. 3 3TINANDA SP=CIYIC PLAN ANIMMMMT SUBAPX& 1 1. Proj_c- and Si d DBS.i ion; a. S+ noun ing Land Use and .oninv; North - Ontario (1 -15) Freeway South - Church and comme:n�i&l business, Regional Related Commercial and Cmamini.ty Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East - Etiwanda Avenue and TZderdeveloped land, Low Mediunq Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) West - Oatar.�% (I -15) Freeway b. Cpnpal Plan Designatinn+; Project Site - Medium Rerider'ial (3 -14 dwelling units Fmr acre) North - Freeway South - Commercial East Special Boulevard, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwell -t.ng units per acre), and Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) West Freeway C. ate ha a 4zt.�Q&; The site is generally slat with a natural avr.'age slope of less than 5 percent, sloping to the sisuth. The Ontagio (I -15) Freeway embankment borders the entire length of t)e north and west boundary. A single family residence occupies ti,: northeastern portion of the area. The plant ma "Prial consis?s primarily of Eecalyptus tree windows and wild grassee. 2. Fnvirnn m>ntal A,sASSm.n Staff has revitl',r >art I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental C1.4cklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no siq- "' +o.ant acs' < -.sd environmental impacts would occur as a result or the 1rop,4ed General Plan Amendment and Etivanda Specific Plan AmendmeWi 3. Land tlsn nal=ii: d. Rperorriatennss of LnX Mf' 4JU Uas a th F, = The area in question surrounds a sizeable Lov Medium area to the east, midway- between Foothill Boulevard and Millet: Ave- Ia. A field inspection noted that the freewsy traffi.; dial not greatly affect one's pen,caption of the rural atmosphere. This was due to the high elevation of the roadway along the entire northwest border. Tyhereforc, staff believes thrt the area in question exhibits very similar charr.ctaristics ::o the existing Liw Medium Residential land to the east. The Low Medium Pas:.dential land is primarily undeveloped with a few single fam '.y residences fronting on Etiwanda Avenue. b. ronfrxmance with tha, .anaral P, Fyn a1+d F nr7da S =Af4e Plan, The chancting from Medium Rasidential to Low Medium Residential at this location naiaea no conflicts with General Plan or Etiwanoa Specific Plan pravi3ira3. The chance would Arke p -16 E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91-02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 17 better help promote the retention of rurel characteristics promoted by the Etiwanda Specific Plan by reducing future residential density. C. Cnnaida AI*4nn of Alternative rj=Jt atigna: To provide the Commission with alternativoa to the existing and proposed designations, staff has includer` an analyais of Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). Consideration of this site for Low Residential development ahould,r,ot present any significant land use conflicts. However, It would not seen appropriate to place less d:rizaity on the site which is 1ordered on the east by the exis?,.inq Low Medium su�sideatial land. Currently, there is no Low residential land 19tween Foothill Boulevard and the freeway. If the Planning Commission believes this alternative designation is more appropriate, a final dete= inatiou eould be made at this time'.,ecause the err1ron_mental analysis and conclusions would, not d:U hex significantly for Low Residential -s compared to Low ., drum Residential., 4, ee_=ended Xrind Mgg: Staff recommends the nx: sting Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) .land use designation be changed to Low Mediurx Residential (4 -8 dwe -..Lng units per acre) for the properties located in Su,area 3 of this application. Staff believe- the following fae-s for findings can be mad3 with #.his recommendation: a. The properties located in Sul )area 3 are suitably for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Flan land uue designation3 find are compatible with existing an,l surrounding land use di3simations as ev denced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use rI.<-,ignation. b. The proposed amendment will not have significant i-gcacts on the e;ivironment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclus.Lona listed In Parts I and it of the Initial Environmental Study and the fact that the 1,coposal woulu reduce the intercity of residential development on the subject properties- c. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of the community's raral atmosphere through reduced residential unit densities. General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Re olutiona of Apprnval are attached for the Ctzmaes on's consideration. P, a10 -69­70 70 /f, /V, i7 PLANNING COMMISSI9N STAFF REPORT (,PA 91 -025, FSPA 91 -02, 6 ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CCTCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 19 GENYRAL PTM AH'END1QM SUERREA 4 ETINANDA SPECIrIC PLkN MAOMINRNT SUBAREA 2 1. Proiect and S +:tA DQyc ions a. ,�} ;�ydlnc^,Lard�,ge and Zon ±nq; North - Mi].?ar ' ue, single family homes, v- 4-1- -a Residential (4-8 die—ing units ;,er a(=e) i.i the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Single fam.V:t home and vacant properties, ms,&um Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Fo -thill Boulevard Specific Plan East - East Avenue and single gamily homes, Low Medium, . Residential 0 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and utility corridor West - Etiwanda Avenue an . single family homes, Low MediLim Residential (4 -8 dwelling unit, per acre) and Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan b. SAP- 3g"ie- asignatimas. Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units par acre) North - Secondary Arterial and _.icdium- Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per ace:) South - Low Medium Residential ±4 -8 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control and Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Medium Residential (4 -0 dwelling units per acre) and Medium F,asidential (6 -14 dweliinq units per acre) C. Sit— rho a-t i.. ca; The s.ts is generally flat, with a natural slope of leas than S percent. 2, Stafi Yea riviewec Part I of the Initial Study and completed the E&Wironmental Checkl at, Part II of tho Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environce:ntal i-wacts would occur as a result of the propom-d General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. 3. T+3I1Qy is nal ORi e; a. ,BFiLLO rR i�.rPnRZis o�7.Q,Y_��,,���R�,4idelt;al i ��a in rh - a ca; Portions of the property to the nczth and west are currently designated Low Medium Residential. In addition, the subarea is a large, undeveloped site with few existing features which would not conflict with. the proposed designation change. Therefore, there is no inherent proble..:z with the Law Medium Residential designation. b. LQafQXMa= E'+ •rich they neral Plan and thp Etistanda J %Cifie plain; A change in land use from Medium Residential to Ir-n Medium Residential at thls location raises no caiflicts with General Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plan provisions. The change, would better help promote the retention of rural characteristics promrted by the -wtiw —ida Spt.:ific Plan by reducing future residenti,.l density. C. S.Qn.i d ra ion Af alt Tpati oe dp-, i - To provide the Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has included an ana3:-3is of Loin Residential (2 -4 Af, A) 0 -/Jr PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B; FSPA 91 -02, a ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Pagn, 20 General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Resolutions of 4•'proval are attached for the Commission's eonsid ration. Sze V r HI A) j p - 7 Z-- 7q •I dvelli.ng units ptir acre) . Consideration of this site for Low Residential develtpment should not present any significant land use conflicts. However, it would rot sRem appropriate to place less density �n the site becau3e it is bordered on the east by existing Low N,edium Residential land. Currently, there is no Low Residential _ la -i between Foothill Boulevard and the freeway. 4. Racnr,-A, Wed Land -V= Staff recommends the existing Medium Residential (8-1 •selling units per acre) land iso designation be changed to Low Xodi-a Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties located ir, Subarea 4 of this application. Staff believes the following fa. :ts for'findingsr can be made with this recommendation: a. The properties located in Subarea 4 are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Etinanda Specific Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and surr:.-.,ding land use designation's as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the northeast by the sane land use designation. b. The proposed amend-sat will not have signif. -giant impacts on the en_•i ::onmEnt �cr on the'.,surrounding propertie? ' as evidenced by the findings and conclutiaus listed in Parts I and 12 of the Initial Environmental Study and a,s evidenced by the fact th.t the proposal would reduce the intensity of residential development on the subject properties. a. The proposed amendment dohs not exhibit any conflicts with the p=-visions of the Gene= -I. Plan and the EtiNanda Spoc!.Eic Plan and it helps promote the ratention of the Etiwardaa Specific Plan's Ural atmosphere thre,:gh reduced residential densities. In addition to the Dr,;;, Medium Residential designation, ataff believes a Master Plan requirement should, be included Within the foothill Boulevard Specific Plan properties to the aoutb, whiebh staff „'. recommending be designated either Low Medium Residential or a cambia. Ion of Specialty Commercial, Commug'.ty Commercial, and Commercial Offi,-j. This provision is recommended s ceder to assure the necesaa y coordination of circulation and drainage issues. - General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Resolutions of 4•'proval are attached for the Commission's eonsid ration. Sze V r HI A) j p - 7 Z-- 7q •I PLANNING COMMISSION STAiF REPORT 4PA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF M14CHO CUGAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 22 A t GILVERAL PLAN JMNDbXM SIISAREA 5 IZTINA3iM SPZCISIC PLAN AHrjm =T SUBARaA i. 1. 3AjP - and Site n mQX ; one; a. 3urreu �dinc L nd ry _ nd 7.nn +; North - Ontario (I -15) Freeway Soath -- puller Avenue and underd.veloped land, Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), and Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling vnits pvr acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plae East - East Avenue and undere7ojred land, Office in the City of Fontana (West End Specific Plan) West - Ontario (I -15) Freeway b. rue aP� 1a��®na ;ona; Project Site Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Freeway "oath - Seccday Arterial, Medium Residential (8 -14 dwell;Lng units per acra), an -1 Low Medium Residential (4-E dwelling units }per acre) Eist -' Secondary Arterial and Office (City of Fontana) West - Freeway - C. Site a:ara _ i at - =: "Le site is generally flat with a slope of less than 5 percent, slcging to the south. The Ontario (I -15) Freeway embankment borders the entire length of the north and west boundary. Three single family residences occupy the southwestern most portion of the area. The plant material consists priXarily of Eucalyptus tree windrows and riid grasser.. 2. Fnvirr_ =,+.=ntal aahAV en - Staff has reviewed Part I of the initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has fo.ena no significant adverse environvental impacts would occur as a resu,it OR the proponed General Plan Amendment and Etiwandr Specific Plan Amendment. 3. Land U--RrAUpJ4 Jj: a. ap2roariatemass of Low M i M `tw ;n he Area; The area in question surrounds a oiTeablts area to the southeast which is dosignatcsd Low Meditim Residential at the corner of East and Miller Avenues. A field inspection noted that the freeway traffic did not greatly affect the percept;_ou'of a rural atmosphere immediately adjacent to the roadway. This was due to the high elavation of the roadway along the entire nortf.1west border. The freeway traffic was Vau =-2. noticeable further east into the existing bow Medium Residential land. Therefore, staff believes that t4:e area in question erhicits very similar characteristics to the existing Low Medium land to the eaot. The Low Medium land is orima:ily undeveloped with a few single family residences fronting on Millar Avenue. O 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO cucAMONGA May 22, 1:991 Page 23 b. Conforman e with the General plan and rh cared- ecifin Elan: The changing from Medium Residential to Loon Medium Residential at this location raises no conflicts with General Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plan nrovillons. The change would better help promote the retention of rural character.tstics aromoted by the Etiwanda Specific Plan by reducing future residential density. C. Con,idQrvt+nn o Alt-PrnAtj ra Upsign- ions; To provide the Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has ,rcluded an analysis of Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). Consideration or this site for Low Residential development should not present .Ay significant land use conflicts. However, it would n-7t seem appropriate to place less density on this site because is bordered on the south by existing Low Medium land. cturrently, there, is no Low Residential land between Foothill Boulevard and the freeway. If the Planning Commission believes this alternatuve desnation is mire appropriate, then a final ietermtnation may be made at this time because the environmental analysis and conclusions would not differ significantly for the Low Residential altexnative compared to Low.Jisedium Residential. 4. Staff recommends the existing Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units pet acre) land use designation be changed to Low Medium Residential 14 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties located In Subarea 5 of this application. Staff believes the following fr..ts for ilndin;e can be made with this recommendation; a. The properties located in Subarea 5 are 3ultabla for the uses permitted in the proposed Gen *.sal Plan and Etiwaada Specific Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and su- rounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the southeast by the same land use designation. b. The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the enviror ent nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and 11 of the Initial Environmental Study aid the fact that the proposal would reduce the intensity of. residential development on the subject properties.. C. The proposed amendment -is in conformance with the Caneral Plan and Etiwan&, Specific Plan by promoting the retention of the cormun ty's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Resolutions of pprnvcl are attached for the Commissioa's consideration.,,, //4,/JO- FO-97 /�� ®" Z3 PLANNING Z;OM?gISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 25 GENPRIL PLAN M WMW -114 -T SUBAP= 6 RTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN 1114MMM SUSARrA 4 1. 2=ject and Site Dr r _rip : on: a. S + o +n i na 7 end R.se and ton ;tea: North - Baseline Road, underdeveloped land, and commercial plant nursery (existing, non- conformi:a' Medius Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per ac.`e) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Ontario (I -15) Freeway East - Ontario (2-15) Freeway Wes*_ - Under developed with single family structures, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan b. ronerat Plan Day Iona � lonn: Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) and office on .ne north side of Base Line Road South - Freeway East - Freeway West - low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) C. .Rte tharn ;e i n: The site is undeveloped with a natural slope of less thar. 5 percent in a southerly direction. The primary vegetation is wild grasses with perimeter Eucalyptus windrows along the vast boundary. A major topographic feature, the Ontario (1.515) Freeway roadway, is elevated above the natural ground level and forms a significant visual barrier to the east and south. 2. ^yn.ixnn+ra al_AnR, -wit: Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments . 3. T nd lame k a Isis: a. &RP:QRr A= +Hess of '.nw M di +!m :?midi -ntiai T7- a .gin th�yP A-a�a: This site's location botween two substantial roadways (Interstate. 15 and Base Line Road) creates significant traffic activity which 3oes not occur at any of the other sites under consideratisn. The freeway orientation sloping towards the site, tLe adjacent 7n -ramp (with vehicles accelerating), and Pase Line Road traffic all provide increased vehicular ak:tivity which makes the levelopment of Low Residential dejelopnent at this location inappropriate. Stafi7 believes th-3 vehicle :activity will only increase in the future when commercial p;_operty immediately adjacent to the freeway develops. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low radium Residential is not the most appropriate land vse desigaation. A, A/, 05 r( PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO cucAMONGA May 22, 1931 Page 26 AAL b, POn£OrMAnQQ wi th the General Plan and h 4wanda cAq& fJi E]3g2 The change in land use from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential at this location raises no conflicts with General Plan or Etiwanda Specific P7;an provisions. c. ona ;dPra ann a Al+-. -sa iv D 4�gna - .'one; To provide the Commis3ion with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has included the following analysis of Office (Office Profess, anal in the Etiwanda Specific Plan) and Neickiborh;-�d Commercial (Convenience Commercial in tte Etiwanda Specific: Plan) land use designations: 1) Naiohborhoag•,Dnmmerniai: in general, this subarea would be appropriate for neighborhood commercial uses because of itw1ocation adjacent to major roadways :and the vas+:aility the `roadways p --ovide. However, the Etiwanda Specific Plan ?oes not promote the development of additional commercial activity beyond what is already planned. More ,pacifically, the Commv cial Services Objectives (Section 3.52.200) states: "Prevent fuauxe commercial areas and associated traffic from adversely impacting.. the established =ore, including Etiwanda and Victoria Avenues." Sta.Rf must assume, without a detailed trs!fic study, that commercially relate3 activities, at this site would not only increase the traffic ,'n the immediate area, but also increase the traffic in the community's established core, due to the sites close proximity to Etiwanda Avenue. qW Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Neighborhood Commercial would not be the most appropriate land use,` 2) QXXI S: An office designation would have the s&U impacts as a- neighborhood comercial designation, as discussed above. Therefore, it-is staff's opinion that Office would not be the most appropriate land use. If the Planning Commission believes either of these alternative designations is more appropriate, then a final determination should be withheld until staff can provide an environmental analysis for ths- preferred alternative. 9. R commnadPCi T.As a use: Staff recommends that the existing Medimi Residential land use designation not be changed for those properties located in Subarea 6 of this application. Resolutions of Denial are attached for the Commipsion's consideration. '5eP f1 d lyy,U�o_ g$ rjf ".ANNINS COMMIS4ION STAFF REPORT U-A 91 -02B, P`?4 91 -02, a ESPA 91 -03 - CITY ve RANCHO CcCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 28 G=NSRRL PLAN ANSN MUM SULAR1! T 3TSNANDA. SPaCElZC PLAN ANWWHRNT SUBAFXA 5 1. Prejp .t and q4tt, Do„nt-3ipt{er; a. ZUrgQ=dJW Land Use and AQnin„a; klttth - Undordeveloped, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan Sough - Base Line Road "d undeveloped land, Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan East Undeveloped land, Office Professional in the Et,? gar.-ka= Specific Plan West - Under developed with one single family residence, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the. Etiwanda Specific Plan b. C -neral Plan n alma !, o .1 Project Site - Medium Resioential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - 'Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) South - SpeciU Boulevard and Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) East - Office West - Low Medium. Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Qba a 4a +.a; The site is occupied by a commercial plant nursery (legal, non - conforming status) with a sizeable storage building an..roui:ded by open plant storage areas. 2. Snv ;re men W Assessmon Staff has reviewed ?art I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a rasult of the propoeed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments. 3. Land 1. t, &naly i`; a. AR2rrQ2r[Aten . Of L.ev Me i= Residantlal Uses in the A a; The subject site is bordered on the north and west by largely undeveloped Low Medium Residential land. Changing this site to Low Medium Residential would continue the single family Land use pattern. T3is site differs from Subarea 6 because ?t is not isolated from adjacent properties by the freeway and Hass Lana Road. The effect of the area's traffic activity s.ould be significantly less than the traffic in Subarea r and thereby siould make the site more appropriate for 33 „gle family residential development. The proposed off?c;e uses to the east are compatible with Low Medium ?�sidential uses just as they are compatible with multiple family residential development. /cif /1) 0 - 2.8 VU- PLAMaNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 01-02B, FSPA 91 -42 6 ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 29 b. Plm n, Tho change in land use designation from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential at this location raises no inherent conflicts with General Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plan provisions. C. Consideratign of Altgrn& _lye pasicyna en.: To provide the Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has Included the followinq, analysis of the Offica (Office Prr, Essional in the ^tiwanla Specifi;: Plan) designation: The site is bordered on the east by existing undeveloped Office land, therefore the Office designation would appear to provide compatibility to the area by continuing the exiz�ing office 't•`nd use westerly. As stated above, office activities are get-trally considered compatible with most residential development. Again, an expansion of Office uses in the Ftiwanda Specific Plan does not promote the general underlining theme of retaining as much rural atmosphere as possible. in addition, as with Subarea 6, staff believes Office uses would increase the traffic in the area an6 potentially increase traffic volumes in the core area. If the Planning Commission believes that this alternative designation is more appropriat6r then a final- determination should be withheld until staff can provide an environmental analysis for the preferred alternative. 4. Staff recommends the existing Medium -lidential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) land.lse designation 'be changed to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties located in Subarea 7 of this application. Staff believes the following facts for, findings can be made rth this recommendstion: a. The properties located in Subarea 7 are suitable for the uses perms *ted in the proposed Geraza1 Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's :being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation. b. The proposed amen( -sent will not bave significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the finding-- and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial E;vironmental Study and the fact that the proposal would reduce the int 31ty of residential development on the subject properties. c. The proposed amendment is in .onfo ance with the Galsera- Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promotirq the retention of the community's =--Al atmosphere throu?h reduced residential densities. Genera: Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plen Resolutions of A} royal axe attached for the Commission's consideration. d a¢ e 1,0,0 -% - IV- PE-19 0701-02 o P. C, AGENDA MAY 22, 5 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA may 22, 1991 Page 31 GENERAL PLAN AUMMMMO SO6ARZA 8 STIWANDA $PACIFIC PLAN Aid NDMSNT '=ARXL 6 1. Drojent an8 ci n v rip ion: a. $nrroi_•nding .and TJse and Zoning; Korth - Railroad Line and underdeveloped land, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Ontario (I -15) Freeway East - Ontario (I -15) Freeway West - underdeveloped land, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan b. re_n an npva gnations; Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Railway and Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) South - Freeway East - Freeway West - Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling ur fr. ;per acre) C. Site Characceriaticcs: The site is largely undevelopod with perimeter Eucalyptus windrows and wild gxe•sas asa the predominant plant material. The properties ha.-, a natural slope of less than 5 percent and slope to the "uth with East Avenue bisecting the site rou2bly in half along a north -south axis. There are ',:wo single family residences, ane on each side of East Avenue, in the southerly portion of the site. 2. Staff has -reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and found no significant adverse environmental Impacts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. 3. P.and Ung Analmai : a. Appropria en vw of Low Medium Residential Uses in the Area: An analysis of a map of this site could lead to the assumption that the portion east of East Avenue might be subject to significant impact from bordering transportation systems (Interstate 15 and the Southern Pacific Railway). 4owever, a field inspection of this area reveals that much of she freeway and the Base Line Road activity is screened by the elevated freeway off -ramp along the southern boundary. In addition, research shows that the railway :long the northern boundary is a branch line used only by a short local train, consisting of a locomotive and a few freight cars which make two or three sound trips a nsek. In general, the site does not seem any lesm appropriate, by its location, far single family development than the adjoining Low Medium Residential properties to the north. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91- 025',, FSPA 91 -02, S ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1.991 Page 32 b. C9 0. ante wittt_tby, _-_n al Pian and the Etiwanda Spe„sifia P].an; Tha change in land use designation frokt Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential at this location raises no conflicts with General Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plait provisions. C. =-rfd_ f-rAt3nn of Al a ova To provide the Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has included the following analysis of Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). Consideration of this site for Low Res:dential :; hould not present any significant land use conflicts. However, it is starf's opinion that it would not be appropriate to place a less intense land use cf Low Residential adjacent to. Low Medium Residential land which borders this site on the north and west in addition the the freeway and railroad line, Staff did not consider commercial designations as appropriate due to the problem of inti;ducing more intense land uses adjacent to the existing single family properties. In addi *ion, the eastern portion of this site is effectively separated from Base Line Road and its properties and future business activities by the freeway off -ramp. This separation should limit its viability for commercial uses. If the Planning Commission believes this alternative designation is more appropriate, then a final determination should be withheld until staff can provide an environmental analysis for the prafexredl alterative. 4. 8eeommended Lar. s.e; Staff recommends the existing Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) land use designation be changed to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties located in Subarea 8 of this applicTtion. Staff believes the following facts for find'hgs can be mdde with this recommendation; a. The properties located in Subarea 8 are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation. b. The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the ILitial Environmental Study and the fact that the proposal would reduce the intensity of reziden4ial development on the subject properties. C. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of the community's rural atmospheres through reduced residential densities. General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan R solutions of Approval are attached for the Commission's consideration. R AJ,O —/03 (1 C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 33 I .TI. CUMULATIVE ENVIROMZHIAT, ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the initial Study, and has found no significant adverse enviromiental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed General :Ian, Etiwanda Specific Plan, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendments. The issue for consideration is a reduction of proposed land use intensity; therefore, staff believes the i"i act of ' development should not be more significant than originally doscribed in the environmental zevi.* of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Further, the reduction in potential future housing units does not affect the City's ability to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. IV. CORRMSEGMENCE: These items have been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland valley Daily, Bulletin newspaper, the properties have been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project sites. V. BECnMO NDATION: If the Planning Commission con.urs with staff's analysis, and believes the proposed Low Medium Residential and Ca:mrcial designations are acceptable alternatives to the existing Medium Residential designations, it is recommene -d that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General P1 Amendment 91 -02B, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03, and foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -02, by the adoption of attached Subarea Resolutions. A Resolution of T)enial is included fox Subarea 6. CR.espppeectfull submitted: Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW:VB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit ^A ^- ;General Plan Amend. Location Map Exhibit *B °- Specific Plan Amend. Location Map Exhibit ^C° - Letter from James Banks Exhibit ^D° - Letter from U.S. Homes GPA 91 -028, Subarea 1 Resolution of Approval FSPA 91 -02, Subarea 1 Resolution of Approval GPi 91 -01B, Subarea 2 -Low Medium Resolution of Approval FSPA 91 -0', Subarea 2 -Low Medium Resolution of Approval GPA 91 -02B, Subarea 2- Commercial Resolution of Approval FSPA 91 -02, Subarea 2- Commercial Resolution of Approval GPA 91 -02B, Subarea 3, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 1, Resolution of Approval GPA 91 -02B, Subarea 4, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 2, Fesolutien of Approval GPA 91 -02B, Subarea 5, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 3, Resolution of Approval GPA 91 -02B, Subarea 6, Resolution of Denial ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 4, Resolution of Denial GPA 91 -02B, S +abarea 7, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 5, Resolution of Approval GPA 91 -02B, Subarea 8, Fesolution of Approval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 6, Resolution of Approval i+1ie "33 Ban1SB 0. Ritchie AN ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS SUITE 120 CIVIC CENTER LAW OFFICES JAMES BANKLr. JR. 10788 CIVIC CENTER 4RIVE THOMAS S. RITCHIE R"NCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 ROBERT E. KNUDSEN - : (pl4),98� 16jJ 23 April 1991 I ft r , 0 1 74.-17NGA Larry J. Henderson 'RICP Principal Planner APR 23 Planning Division Am V Community Development Department City of Ranoho Cucamonga Cucamonga, California 91730 A RE: Neighborhood Meeting for General Flan Amendment 91 -02B Dear Mr. Henderson: I am a resident of Etiwanda, residing at 13181 Victoria. I am writing in response to your letter to me dated April 17, 1991, regarding a decrease in density in various parts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. I will not be able to attend the meeting due to a "back to school night" at Summit Elementary School, I wanted to be sure my views were expressed so I have included them in this letter. Although a longer explanation follows. my conclusion is that I am strongly in support of the <`ity gen ©rated proposal to "downzone ". I hope you are ready for the storm of controversy the land ownexs are about to bestow upon you. I In my opinion the densities developed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the areas shaded,gray on the map enclosed with your letter were .—conq from the start„ I have a long winded explanation of why I think they were wrong which I will attach as a supplement to this letter. For the purpose of expressing my opinion as a citizen for the 23 -April -1991 hearing, I simply say that if you are successful, you will be correcting some old mistakes and improving the future of Etiwanda tremendously. I am delighted to see that this question has come up again. I hope that it can be reviewed anew, as faraway as possible from the factors which distorted the results of the first consideratlon. I wish you the very best of luck in this effort. C inc James s, r. IL JBJ /dn encl• Supplement A A •- 6 Exhibit -C• l 1 SUPP AMENT TO LETTER TO LARRY HENDERSON POLARIZATION: I was a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Unfortunately there was a polarization of thought at the time of the committees hearings. Many responses to the Committee's ideas were based on an allegiance to the Etiwanda Landowners' Association (headed up by Mr. Dave Flocker) which supported higher densities or by allegiance to a looser knit group of homeowners who generally supported lower densities. CAUSES: The polarization was due, in part, to jerlthe timing of the hearings. Although measured in years, the ESP hearings followed the hearings on the General Plan and followed the later hearings on the Victoria Planned Community. These previous sets of hearings had already positioned many landowners and residents on the density issues. To a lesser degree the polarization was also due, in part, to some mistaken we committee members made in _ approaching the density question whic'- alarme` the landowners. POLITICS: In my opinion the generally high level of controversy about development left over from incorporation, general plan activities and Victoria hearings left certain developers and development interests with considerable political influence at the time. Pressure was brought upon the Committee (not by the staff) and, I suspect, on the staff to resolve certain issues in suggested ways. AFFORDABLE HOUSIOG /FREEWAY RIGHTS OF WAY: Right or wrong, among the issues which fall into this category are affordable housing and freeway rights of way. Much of the land which is now subject to change was affected by one or both of these factors. The.economc climate of the time focused heavy emphasis on affordable housing. in addition, we were frequently told that we needed to allow developers along the freeway right of ways extra density so that they could compensate for freeway proximity. This was partly correct, of course, but I still believe much of the impetus for high density in these areas was generated by Route _40 right of way protectionism, be that good or bad. -1- RN 0 -37 GENERAL PLAN RANG;S: If I recall correctly, there was another problem related to the present question. The General Plan, at that time, contained a very wide range of allowable density in the middle planning spectrum. It was something like 5 - 14. This was a factor which affected the application of density ranges in the middle levels of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This was probably a relatively minor factor. CONCLUSSON: The polarization and pressure slid not stop at the Citizens' Advisory Committee. Both factors were present during the Planning Commission hearings and later the City Council hearing. In my view these factors skewed the Etiwanda Specific Plan in certain respects, one of the principle respects being the very question you are now addressing. It is a minor miracle and really a great credit to Otto Kroutil's understanding and patience that the Committee was able to produce any�hing worthwhile. -2- Ajlijo- 30 21 13 U.S. HOME CORPORATION WESTERN LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 1400 E. Southern + Suite 700 • Tempe. Arwona 85282 • (802) 838.4178 May 10, 1991 Planning Commis -ion City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioner: As the representative for Etiwanda Development: Corroratic, we wish to express our concerns we have in regards to the he ng on May 22, 1991; on the General Plan Amendment. As you k. ;w, U.S. Home is in and has been in the process of d,,signing a Preliminary Tract Map # 14211 in the affected area. Our Tract Map consists of part of areas # 2, # 4 and # 5. Aow Our main concern is that if this area is rezoned from mediini residential to low medium residential, it will change our lot size requirements. In our lengthy process we have worked with staff, with their support, to design single family deta�.hed lots at an average of 8,000 square feet. We are requesting the commission to take into consideration our request that this zone change will not require U.S. Home to redesign their map and allow us to proceed as started. For further information, our tentative Man # 14211 was granted an extension for submittal by this commission on April 24, 1991. If you need any further information, please feel yree to contact me. Very truly yours, U.S. HOME CORPORATION WESMERN LAND DEVP9P14ENT DIVISION Dallas D. Paulsen Executive Vice President - Project Manager ADP /rc JP cc: John B. Hyman, U.S. Home, Western Land Division Sherman Haggerty, U.S. Home, So. California Divis?-.-: Vince Bertoni, City Assistant Planner ,01� /)j 0 3 F Exhibit ^D" '.SOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -029, SUBAREA 1, AMENDING THE GEIMRAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACr-' FOR APPROXIMATELY 14.20 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON TP,NORI.:' BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST BY THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOUTH FY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THER9 - APN: 229- 041 -10. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for G� .oral Plan Amendment No. 91 -028 as described in the title of this R-- ,Dsoluti.on. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General - vtan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted -a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolutio:: 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 Iecitals, 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 1 of the application applies to approximately 14.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern Cite limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Neighborhood Con.aercial and is vacant. The property to the west is designated Flood Control/itility Corridor. The property to the east is designated utility corrllor in the County of San Dernardino. Th,� property to the south is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. ,IUD - 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA91 -028, SUBAREA 1 - CIT% OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 , (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with tho General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial, evidence pr3sented to this Commission during zhe above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows% (a) That the property cocated in Subarea 1 of the application is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and is compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered an the south by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential devel,opmont on the subject property; and (c) That tbo proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Btiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Gover!iment Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 1, amending the General Plan land use map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling Units per acre) to Low Medium (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 14.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, en the east by the eastern city limits, on the south by existing bow Medium residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor, as shown on Exhibit .A.. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA91 -028, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTER THIS 22ND DAY O MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA BY: _ Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: _ Brad Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do here2r,< certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced; passed, and adopted b2_ the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Pla.a►ing Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COHHISSIONERS: NOES: COI MISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Av k/ 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOM212NDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02, SUBd1REA 1, AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SrZCIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 14.20 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL :BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST BY THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY A UTILITY cDJtIDOR, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN. 229- 041 -10. A. Recitalo. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Footh311 Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is refavred tows "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also ise�ued Resolution No. - recommending to the City Council that the rssociated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 1, he approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby fcand, 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 fsolution are true and correct.. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 1 of the application applies to approximately 14.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Law Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and /%i All o —+T PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSP 91 -02, SUBAnEA 1 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 (b} The property to the north of the subject sit." is designated Community Commercial and is vacant. The property to the west is designated Open Space. The property to the east is a designated utility corridor in the County of San Bernardino. The property to the south is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will lrovide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not hive a significant impact on the environment riv the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this omm!ssion during the above- -aferencecc -public hearing and upon the apt -_ric findings of facts set forth in paragrap;.a 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the property located in Subarea 1 of the application Ask Is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and is compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the south by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject property; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Comission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California. Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions Rat fos'th in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Governr',nt Code, :;hat cn the 22nd day of i.ty 1991, the Planning Commission of th. City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Foothill Laulevard 3pscific Plan Amendatint No. 91 -02, PLAWING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. $SP fil -02, '- UBAREX 1 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 ANIL Subarea 1, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land use map from .Medium Residential (8 -16 dk:alling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units par acre) for approximately 14.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern city limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor, as shown on Exhibit "Al." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall ce tify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2;.,'M D= C? :`d, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAHC%) CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairmar. ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of tiCw City of Rancho CucamongR, do hereby c-lrtiffy that the foregoing Reaolution: was duly and regularly introduced, paaged, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the pity of Rancho Cucamonga ` a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May ' by *he following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMI5SIONE14e, TIOES: COMMISSION3RS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF rME PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATIC14 FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND 430 FEET NOF.rH AND 200 FEET EAST OF THE NGRTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (APN: 1100- 161 -01 AND 03), AND FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON THE SOUTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APN: 1100- 201 -01), AMD MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - AFR: 1100 - 161 -01 AND 0 AND A PORTION OF 1100 - 201 -01. A. Recital3. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an cpplication for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B as described in the title of this Resolut3..:,4; Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendmerc is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly, noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on property owner initiated General Plan Amendment applications 90 -0kR and 91 -OIA for properties which are a part of thus application and also issue.9 Resolution Nos. — and q, recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendments 90 -b2B and 91 -OIA be approved. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. E2A21Ut101. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby.�und, 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 not 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 May 22, 1991, including wxltten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -028, SUBAREA 2, LOW MEDIUM - OIey OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 EI (a) The remaining portions of Subarea 2 applies to approximately 4.25 acres, 430 feet north and 200 feet east of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, bordered on the north and east by existing Medium Residential designated land, and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in th3 northern portion; and approximate',i 1.5 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designated la.ei, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unites per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject sites are designated Medium Residential and are vacant; the rroperties to the east are designated Medium Residential and Utility Corridor, and are vacant; the properties south of Foothill Boulevard are designated Commercial and Low Residential with the commercial portion vacant and the residential portion developed with a single family residential tract; and the property on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue is designated Commercial and is developed with a vacant commercial structure. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the G=eral Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proportion located in Subarea 2 of the application are nuitabLe for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and proposed residential land use designations along the north boundary of the site; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evtdeaced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application! and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General mean. 4. This Cwmission hereby fir. gat the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with tLe. California Environmental Yvality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION W. GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 2, LOW MEDIUM - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 Adllb S. Based upon th. IindLngs and conclusions set forth ;,n paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abase, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the Californi'. Govejcnment Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning CommiSViCA of the City of Rancho Cucamor`% hereby recommends approval for those po"ions listed in the title of this resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 2, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Madium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwalling units per acre) with a Master Plan requirement designation for approximately 4.25 acres of land, 430 feet north and 200 feat east of the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (APS, 1100- 161 -01 and 03), and for approximately 1.5 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Fnothill.Boulevard (western portion of APN: 1100- 201 -01), as shown on Exhibit "A.^ 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANN7.NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lary T. Meffiel, Chairman ATTEST:— Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary oil the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of Lha City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: /7, V/ 0 5 0 [ 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISF ::jN OF T;iiE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFC2NIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN Lmm USE MAP FRCM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) SO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.2S ACRES OF LAND 430 FEET NORTH AND 200 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIKIINDA AVENUE (APN: 1100- 161 -01 AND 03), AND FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON THE SOUTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APN: 1100- 201 -01), AND MAKING FINDrJGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161 -01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100- 201 -01. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho uucamvnga has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -02 as described in the title 9f this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued! Resolution No. _ recommending to the City Council that the assocLated C- eneral Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 2, be approved. (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on property owner initiated Paothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment applications 90 -03 and 91 -03 for properties which are a part of this application and also issued Resolution Nos. _ and _, recommending to the City Council that Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendments 90 -03 and 91 -03 be approved. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Revolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga an 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION .NO, ?SPA 91-02, SUBAREA 2, LOW MEDIUM - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 E (a) The gemaining portions of Subarea 2 applies to approximately 4.25 acres, 4J0 feet north and 200 feet east of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, bordered on the north and east by existing Medium Residential designated land, and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northern portion; and approximately 1.5 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 .dwelling units per acres); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject sites are designated Medium Residential and are vacant; the properties to the east are designated :tedium Residential and Utility Corridor, and are vacant; the properties south of Foothill Boulevard are designated Commercial and Low Residential with the commercial portion vacant and the residential portion developed with a Single family residential tract; and the property on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue is designated Commercial and is developed with a vacant commercial structure. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Polici of the General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provid& for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment d' >es promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not b,i '.aaterially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows% (a) That the properties located %n Subarea 2 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and proposed -asidential land use designations along the north boundary of the site; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant i.apacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I one. II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 7 Af E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 91 -02, SUBAREA 2, LOW MEDIUM - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 a_ tNe California Government Code, that on the 22n4 day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval tar those portions listed in the title of this resolution of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -02, Subarea 2, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling,- ;nits per acre) to Low Medium Ree ttential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) with`d Master Plan requirement desigTz,.r.'cion for approximately 4.25 acres of land, 430 feet nosth and 200 feet eas'. of the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 1100- 161 -01 and 03), and for approximately 1.5 acres bordered on the north phd.west by existing Medium Rssidae."al designated land, on the east by a utillcy corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard (western portion of APVi 1100-201 -01), as shown o. Exhibit "Al." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. qW PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad puller, 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 introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Qtcamonga, at a regular westing of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd any of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 Af, �, o RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING M194ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALT;- RNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT a"l -02B, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCIAL WITH A SASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND 430 FEET NORTH AND 200 FELT EAST OF THE NORT7RAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (APN: 1100- 161 -01 AND 03), AND TO OFFICE WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON THE SOUTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APN: 1100- 201 -01), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 161 -01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100- 201 -01. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga bas filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -028 as described in the titre of this Resolution, Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) on May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on property owner initiated General Plan Amendment applications 90 -028 and 91 -OIA for property;az which are a part of this application and issued Resolution Nos. _ and _, recommending to tts City Council that General Plan Amendments 90 -028 and 91 -DIA be approver. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, T.''sREFORE, it is hereby found, determin9d, and resolved by the Planning C-- mission 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 ami correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and --al staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLkNNING COMMISSU,'_t RESOLUTION NO. CPA 91 -028, SUBAREA 2, COMMERCIAL - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 (a) The remaining portions of Subirsa 2 applies to approximately 4.2S acres, 430 feet north and 200 feet east of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, bordered on the north and east by existing Hodium Residential designated land, and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northern portion; and approximately 1.S acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designated land, on the etat by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard. Said properties are currently designated as Podium Residential (a -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject sites are designated Medium Residential and are vacant;. the properties to the east are designated Medium Residential and Utility Corridor, and are vacant; the properties south of Foothill Boulevard are designated Commercial and Low Residential with the commercial portion vacant and the residential portion developed with a single family residential tract; and the property on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue is designated Commercial and is developed with a vacant commercial struz-+:ure. (c) This amendment does z%Q- conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amend ant dCas promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the &,-.;scent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts sat forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted is the proposed district and are compatibles with existing and proposed commercial land use designations along this portion of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the City; and (b) That the proposed x.Aendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the In".__; Environmental Studies of this application and of General Plan Amendments 90 -029 and 91 -OIAI and General Plan. 'c) That the proposed amendment in in conformance with the 11 L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 2, COMMERCIAL - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 r 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewod and considered in compliance with the Califo environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findingo and concivaions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Ssation 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval for thoa^ portions listed in the ti81e of this resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 2, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (2 -14 dwelling -inits per acrs) to Commercial with a Master Plan ragdirument designation U,,,r approximately C 2F acres of land, 430 feet north and 200 feet east of the northeast cornet 'of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 1100- 161 -01 and 03), and to Office with a Master Plan requirement designation for approximately 1.5 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard (western portion of APN:, 11OU- 201 -01), ao shown on Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission %hall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPT2D THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, 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 regula -ly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cu-samonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd may of May 1991, by tho following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS HOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E ,A% -W 11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIi}: OF THE PLANNING CCMHISSIO14 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOV -it, 'CALIFORNIA, RECOMHENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL aOUTZVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02, SUBAREA 2; AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (9 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACt'':) TO SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL WITTY A Mn3TER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND' 430 FEET NORTH AND 200 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (APN: 1100 - 161 -01 AND 03), AND TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE WITH A MASTER PLkN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON '.'HE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON T10 EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON THE EDUTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APN: 1100- 201 -01), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 161 -01 AND 03 M A PORTION OF 1100- 201 -01, A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Reoolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On Msy 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also `,aeued Resolution Mo. _ recommending to the City Council that the Associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 2, be approved. (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on property owner initiated Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment applications 90 -03 and 91 -03 for properties which aro a part of this application and issued Resolution Nos. and _, recommending to the City Council that Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendments 90-0 91 -03 be approved. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolt& ion. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hareby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. f, �s PLANNING COMMISSION RUSOLUTION NO. FSPA 91 -02, SUBAREA 2, #_,i&MRCIAL - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 2. Based upon tial evidence presented to this commission during the above - referenced public hearinq on May 22, 1991, Including written ..id oral staff reports, togethe+; with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows< (a) The remaining portions of Subarea 2 applies to approximately 4.25 acres, 430 feet north and 200 feet east of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, bordered on the north and east by existing Medium Residential designated land, and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northern portion; and approximately 1.5 acres bordered on the nort.d nd west by existing Medium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by foothill Boulevard. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject sites are designated Medium Residential and are vacant; the properties to the east are designated Medium Residential and Utility corridor, and are vacant; the properties mouth of Foothill Boulevard are designated Commercial and Low Residential with the commercial portion vacant and the residential portion developed with a single family residertial tract; and the property on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue in designated Commercial and is developed with a vacant commercial structure. (c) .'his amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan -nd will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or de0".mental to the L'jacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to thin Commission during the above - referenced public hearing end upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as !allows; (a) That the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and proposed commercial land use designations along this portion of Foothill Boulevard an the east side of the City; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding Fropsrties as iced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of tho Initial Environmental Studios of this application and of General Plan Ame.,dments 90-02B and 91 -01A; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 91 -02, SUBAREA 2, COMMERCIAL - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth is paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of May 1991, for those portions. listed in 'the title of this resolution of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. t1 -02, Subarea 2, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific Flan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Specialty Commercial with a Master Plan requirement designation for approximately 4.25 acres of land, 430 feet north and 200 feet east of the northeast corner 3f Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 1100 - 161 -01 and 03), and to Commercial Office with a Master Plan requirement designation for approximately 1.S acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designat`�d land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard (western portion of APN: 1100 - 201 -01), as shown on Exhibit "Al." 6. T'e Secretary to th +.s Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON. - :A 81: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST., Brad kuller, 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 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 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JPNOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: C01411ISSIOIIERS: l'l j A) 6 m 62, ri RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCFJ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROC*AL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE GEI^.ERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RVIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIM, RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORrH%EST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS. IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227211 -02, 04, OB, 09, 10, 1S, 20, AND 29.-, A. Recitals. (1) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B as described in the title of this Resolution. Her:-qinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application. (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commisa'_on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoptlon of this Resolution have occurred. B. Reso ton. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commissior, hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth is the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon subatantial evidence preriated to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 22, :1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:. (a) Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 27.89 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered an the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existinq Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercial designatral land bordering Foothill 'Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northeastern portion. Said properties are currently designated as Medium. Residential (L -14 dwelling units per acre); and 1710- 1 0 - PLANNING COIWISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -02S, SUBAREA 3.- CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 E (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site is designa':ec freeway and is the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway. The properties to the east are designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with singles family residences and on the opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue it is designated Medium Residential. The properties to the 4outh are designated Commercia.k and are partially developed with mixed businesl', activities. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plain and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development.; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on,tho environment nor on the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts not forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes au follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Pasts T and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would :educe the intensity of future residential development on the subject propertiea; and (c) That the proposed amerdmant is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission heret;y finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 any?, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission cif the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends apgroval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 3, amending the General Plan land use map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 27.89 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Eli PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CPA 61 -02B, SUBAREA 3 - CITY OF R.G. May 22, 1991 Page 3 Residential designated land, and on the South by existing Commercial designatod land bordering Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of thin Resolution. P.PPROVED AND ADOPTED TH'S 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLAWKING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution waa duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City if Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 32nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wits AYES., COMMISSIONERS: NOES* COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 1, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING Ub7ITC PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE OIC7pARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDI'3M RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILZ - OULEVAIW, AND MIXING FINDINGS IN SL -SORT THEREOF - APR: 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. A. Recitala. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolu =ion., the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." _ (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of lki!.nuho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Resolution No. _ recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 3, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolut'�on. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and nesolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as Zollows: 1. This Commission hereby specificall•,t, finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recita ?s, Part A, of this Resal�- .'.ion are t=ae and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 1 of the application applies to approximately 27.89 acres of land, basically a triangular configuratioL '-- rdered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwan— venue and existing Lox Medium Residential designated laad, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FSP) Regional Related Commercial and Community Commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "Al," and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northeastern portion. Said properties are currently deaignated as Medium Residential (6-14 dwelling units per acre); and v 6! f '10-68 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESP 91 -03, SUBAREA 1 -- CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 A (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site is designated freeway and is the Ontario (I -15) Freeway. The properties to the east are designated Low Medium Residential and are underdeveloped with single family residences and on the apposite aide of Etiwanda Avenue it is designated odium Residential. The properties to the south are dasignated FSP Regional *`.elated Commercial and Community Commercial ar_d are partially developed with mixed business activities. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and of the 11tisianda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, to a manrnar consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to t'a adjacent properties and would not have a sigt.ificant impact on the environm it nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commiasion . during the above- refervanced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in para,.,,zaphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 1 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have aigrOticant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced oy the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Ent Tonmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (V) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retortion of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 7 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65bS0 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommendo appraval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 1, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unites per acre) to Low Medi,,m Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per Ig AJ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOe ESP 91 -03, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 acre) for approximately 27.89 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, or, the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated "and, and nn the mouth by existing Commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard, as onown on Exhibit "Al." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the cit. of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adcpta., -by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of "sy 191% by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RE='T- -.iON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 4, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WI2H A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED GN THE NORTH BY MILLER AVENUE] ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 530 !'EE' NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; AND ON THE WEST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN; :.300- 131 -01 AND 02, 1100- 041 -01 AND 02, 1100 - 151 -01 AND 02, 1100 - 181 -01 AND 02, AND 1100- 191 -01. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -028 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Generml Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the ;Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisit^ prior to the adoption of thin Nosolntion have occurred. B. $grQlutien. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 4 of the application applies to approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the went by 8tiwanda Avenue and is presently undeveloled. Said property in currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units 13 per acre); and , '�6- �- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLt:'bN NO. GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 4 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 (b) The proF.:zties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium Residential and are vacant. The properties to the west are designated Medium R -asidential and Low Medium Residential and are developed with single family homes. rhe properties to the ea "e. are designated Low Medium Residential, Flood Control /Utility Corridor, and Office (City of Fontana) and are underdevoloped with single family homes. The properties to the mouth are designated Medium Residential and are developed with a vacant service station; an existing, non - conforming market, and a aingle family ham (c) This amendment =mss not conflict with the Land Uss Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objactiSes of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injur, :a or delt•imental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on -che environment nor the :surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented. to this Commission during the above- referenced public nearing and upon the specific findings of .facts set forth in paragrept.s 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties le"ated in Subarea 4 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in thO —posed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use destgnat_ons as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the Rama land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the stirrounditsg properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Partr I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the propos -2d designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with -,he General Plan k promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced reaideL Aal densiti.a. 4. This Commistion hereby finds that the project hp-2 beer reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Comnicetun � aiy recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions sat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government rode, that on the 22nd day of may 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho :among& hereby recommends approval of Ganeral Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, n ataea 4, aaendinq o 0— 7 py ANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 4 - CITY OF R.C. Page the General Plan land use map from Medium Residsn1ti�1 (0-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan requirement designation for approximately 57.52 acres of land borfered on the north by Biller Avenue; on tha east by East Avenue and a utility ctrridos; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 :feet north of F- )thill Boulevard; and on the wart by Etiwanda Avenue, as shown :-a Exhiioit, ^A ". 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED P'e`a, ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9Y: Larry T. MCNiel, Chairman xTTEST." _._,_ Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the P -aning Commission of the City of Rancho Cueamo:.-,a, do hereby csrtffy that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pasLsd and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on -tns 22nd day of May 1991, by the it'ollowing vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS* ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: U A), 0 -14 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 0_* THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN ?1MENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACPE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATInN FOR APPROXIMATETX 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY MILIIcR AVENUE; ON THE EAST BY CAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 530 FEET NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND ON THE WEST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND tMKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT 1'HER30F - APN: 1100 -131- 01 AND 02, 1100 - 141 -01 AND 02, 1100 - 151-01 AND 02, 1100- 1:31-01 AND 02, 1100 - 191 -01. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda: Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing cn the application and also issued Resolution No. _ recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 4, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby fornd, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as followas 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. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission Suring the i_' cve- refsrsnced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff raports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and /' ° /j ,j 76 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESP 91 -03, SUBAREA 2: - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 A (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium and Low Medium Residential and are vacant. The properties to the west are designated Medium and Lo- Medium Residential and are developed with single family homes. The properties to the east are designated Low Medi•-m Residential, Flood Control /Utility Corridor, and Office (City of FontanaN and are under developed with single family homes. The properties to the sLith are designated Medium Residential and are developed with a vacant service station, an existing, non - conforming market, and a single family home. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use ?olici ©s of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan - and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are suitab,e for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and vest by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding -2roperties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the prrtosed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject proportion; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda•s rural atmosphere through reduced residential unit densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby zecommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions net forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and s above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65853 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby � Al /0-77 r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. -" ESP 91 -03, SUBAREA 2 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1992 Page 3 recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 2, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan requirement designation for approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corri.dory on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specifi^ P ?;an Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "Al ". 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 221M DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman - ATTEST: Brad Buller, 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 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 22nd day of May 1991, by the ;following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONEFS: NOES: COMM.ISSION$R5. ASSENT: COMMISSXCNMz 1,/�, 0 °7 RESOLUTION 90. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN A10NDMENT 91 -02B, SUBA,EA 5, MNDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST ';Y THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DES.-GNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH 1-)Y MILLER AVENUE, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 031•18, 1100- 041 -04 THROUGH 10, 1100- 051 -03, AND 1100- 061 -02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100- 071 -01 AND 02. A. Reci� .1s. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has piled an apr,:Ucation for General Plan Amendment No. `41 -02B an described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General elan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commissiot. of the City of ;rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution . have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFOR$, �.t is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Thin Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Ba ed .upon, substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- roferenced public hearing an May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows. (a) subarea 5 of the rpplication applies to a.;proximately 30.72 acres of land, basically a linear corliguration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Bast Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and an the south by Miller Avenuo as shown an Exhinit "A," and is presently underdeveloped with three single family residences in thu mouthwestern most portica. Said properties are C-urrently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and womm PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -02S, SUBAREA S - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site #;4 designated freeway and is the Ontario (I -15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with single family residences facing Miller Avenue and on the opposite side of East Avenue it is designated Office (OFC) in the City of Fontana's West End Specific Plan. The property to the south on the opposite side of Miller Avenue is designated Medium Residential and is vacant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and eb ^tives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not br materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the enviroament nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to tl,\ie Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific, findings of facts set forth in :: aragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission herei`y finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 5 of the application are suitable for the 7ses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the southeast by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the ourroun;ling properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the object properties; and (a,% That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the seneral Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General. Plan Aiaetidment No. 91 -028, SuLurea 5, amending A��U,a- 6/ W1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 5 - CIP"r OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 the General. Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residentail (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwell_ng units per acre) for approximately 30.72 acres of land bordered on the ",northwest by the Ontario (I -15) freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existiriy;iow Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, as shik -+t in Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the ads ,ption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY Ca MhYCi1991. PLANNING COMMISSICN OF THE CITY OF RANCHOi:CUCAMONGA BY:— Larry T. McN..tel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Baad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planninq Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held .on the 22nd day o May 1991, by the following vote-to-wit- AYES, COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABS,INT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF T'IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWA:MA SPECIFIC PLAN A%ENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 r4ELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4- 8- RLLING UNITS PER '.`ARE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERi- ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY KILLER AVENUE, Ar,D MAKING FINDINGS IN' SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 031 -L#, 1100- 041 -04 THROUG1 10, 1100- 051 -03, 1100- 061 -02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100 - 071 -01 AND 02. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 as describad in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this RCaviution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is raferred to as "the application." (ii) on May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applicatio,a and �tlao issued Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that trio associated General Plan Amendment No. 91-32B, Subarea 5, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution Pave occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ftund, determined, and resolved by the Pi .v ling Commission of the City of Ranebo :ucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically findn t.nL 111 of the : is not forth in the Recitals, Part L, of this Resolution a`a true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the abovo- referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows. (a) Subarea 3 o= the application applies to approximately 30.72 acres of land, basically a lines configuration, borderad on the northwest by tha Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the eas;: by 8r-kst Avenue and existing Low Medium nidential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, as shown on "Al," and is prese-,Uy underdevaopoid with three single family ream fences in the southwest 'n portion. Said properties are currently dr nated as Medium Resident l (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and Xf.�I or PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA 3 - Y _SY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 I] (b) Thn propert to the northwest of the subject site is designated freeway arc) is the Ontario (I -15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with single family residences facing biller Avenue and on the opposite siCe of East Avenue it is designated Office (orc) in the City of Fontana''s Went End Specific Plan. The property to the south on the opposite side of Miller Avenue ig designated. Medium Residential and iu vacant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide fSr. development, ,ithin the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impaht on the environment nor the surroundi:.'7 properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public he -:;ins and upon the specific findings of facts set 2orth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations to evidenced by the sitele being bordered on the southeast br the same land une designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not s_isvze significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties, and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the G- )ral Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of .waada•s rural atmosphere through reduced ,residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby find- t;:at the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 sznd, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 11 or- /�P,0_0=p PLANNING COMMI SION °ESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -03, Sr'W.XA 3 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 S. Based upon the findings and ,onclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 3, amending the Eriwand& Specific Plan Lard Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 c.+elling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approrimately 30.72 Acres of land, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Mc,dium Residential dwsignated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "Al." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shell certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1.91. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH!8 CITY NF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, C",irman ATTEST: Brad Huller, Secretary I, Brad Bul'er, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreS.'-iD Resol ;.on was duly and regularly introduced, pained, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning C• mnissicn held on the 22nd day of Uay 1991, by the following vot. `.o -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSI IERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F] 1 f'V 0 -_ Ice LPA 0 RE ('TTY vL J L I L I.... ... LM PEI Etiwands Specific Plan Amendments 91 -03 Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan Amendments 91 -02 W LM LM - District Das;anation ® PRCPERTIES CARE KTLT DE516NAT YEDIUii RFSIDEKT'AL (6-14 D ELLINC UNITS PER ACRE R T0NLOdDI U Y� UNDE FSID HTIALN.iTIO (4 -b DYELLIK: UNITS PER fiCA v - ESPA Subarea Kos. y - FSPA Subacoc Nos, a t K W • w0 ML i� fit[ a tB ®4i �? 1 _t 17EM :IESPA 91 -03, FSPA 91 -02 OF ' 0.,CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION TI'I'LE:sp.clPic PIaR Amend. Locario -_CSap Xf"V'0-'81 EXHIBIT: 'A1' SCALE: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TF,3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMEND!MNT 91 -02LA, SUBAREA 6, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL• (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM KTSIDENTIAL (4 -S DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPRORIMAM,Y 11.09 ACRES CV IJM BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THEE SGUTHFAST BY THE ONTA11I0 (I -15) FREEWAY, AND ON TH? WEST BY EXISTING• LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND MARIN'v FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THBREOF - APH: 1100- 051 -01 AND 02 r`M 1100 - 061 -01. A. Recitlhls. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 9:. -02B as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinz ker In this Resolution, the subject Genesel Plait Amendment is refermbd to as the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Cotiminuion of the City of Rancho - G.acamonga conLacted . duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequiviteo prior to the adoption of this Reeotu }ion have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW, THEPXFURE, it is hereby found, dctesmined, and revolved by tho Planning Cummirsion of the City df Rancho Cucamonga as fellows: 1. Tt_a Commiscion heraby specificaz?ly finds that all of the facts set forth in V'is Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are txua and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this '°•tmmission during the above- raferenced public hedzing on May 22, 1991, inc a -aivig written and cra`. staff rrportr togc"har with public testimony, thi: Commission hareby specifically finds as flows: (ai Subarea 6 of the application applies t,. approximately 11.09 &area of land, basically n triangular configuration, tordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the soLrf:aaat by the Ontario (7 -1b) Fsesway, 4nd on the west by existing Low Medium ReSidential designated land as shows: ar. Exhibit "A," as.d is presently vacant Said prcr.._s'ss w,p current!.1, designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units V-,e acze)► and (b) The prowrties to the h 1 -J"t site on the opposite aids of Page 4oad are designate i6ntial and are deve)oped w-th a commerc- 1 plant nursery. The, southeast 13 66 PLANVING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -02B, SUBARSA 6 - PITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 designated freeway and is developed with the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, The property to the west is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdevale%ped with a single family residence. (c) This amendment mky conflict with the Land Use Policies of e.hi General Plan and may nr' prsvacAa for development, wi5hln Via district, in A a.annor, consistent wit? . a General clan and wit_A related development; and (d) This am3ne.aRnt may not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (r) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and t-.nuld not have a significant Impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties, but land use incompar.lb£lities may result. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hp:, ,erg and upon he s_ecific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commiaak,n hereby finds a:,d concludes as follows, (a) That the properties located in Subarea 6 of the application ari not suitable fov the Lees permitted in the piop,)sed district and are incompatible with existing and surrounding land use designations an evidenced by the site's being bord9rsd on the r:outhwect by a freeway on-ramp and on the north by a major arterial road and freewt,y off -ramp intersection; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not Dave aAgnificant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding pvcpartiee as evidenced by the finc!<ngs and conclusions lietee in ;artw I and IS of the Initial Enaironmental Study but that land use iicommpsUbilities may result; and (c) That the pioponad amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to the potential of -tabl3ahing incompatible :land use relationships with single .family uvc, Ind iiar ".cant, vehicle traffic activ..t +2e. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project :as been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Xnvironmental Quality Arc of 1.970 and, further, this Commission dogs not recommend isaucice of a Negative vaclaration becausN tht land use change may not promote tha goals and objectives of the General Plan. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions sat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, nrd 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government V5de, that on tY 22nd iay of May p 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucavonga hereby C recommends denial of General Plan Amendment No. Si -02B, Subarea 6, 6. The Secrftary to this Commission shall certify to the adopt.on t of this Resolution. w MANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION'NO. GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 6 - CITY OF R.C, May 22, 1991 Page 3 Ain APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNIt'r COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY, Lsrry T. McNiel, Chairman c e'-ffl ATTEST: BY:_t! Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller, SecretW ',:.f th9 Planning Commiss In of the City of Rancho Cucrmonga, do hers-)y certify,,, that the 'foragoing. „,Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pawed, and adopted kr, the Planninq Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission Feld on the 22nd day of Nay 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: lvi£5: C70MMISSIOMRS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMZSSIGHIRS. ,� �- 70 RESOLUTION NO. i RESOLUTION OF THE ' ]LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIRL O:' ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, ,SUBAREA 4, A REQUEST TO A14END THE ETIWANDA .SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWETZING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 hCRES Or LAND BORDERED ON TF.E NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE ONTARIO (? -15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND MAK7:4G FINDINGS IN 7PORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 051 -01 AND 02 AND _ A JO- 061 -01. A. Recitals. (i) The clity a)f Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for 2tiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -D.1 as dsocribed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Eti.wanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred t� as "th3 application. (ii) On May 22.. 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuvam6n,'A con.:-cted a duly noticed public hearing on _ire application and also iseued� Resolution No. _, recowme ::ding to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 97-u02B, Subarea W, 'fie defied. (iiip All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of thin 1-41solution haven occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, detaarmined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby epacifitaily finds that all of tha facts est forth in the Recitals, Part A, of thiz Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evioenca presented to this Commission during the above- reYeranced public hearing on K-ly 22, 1941, including written and oral at-, 'f retorts, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically find /, as follows: (a) Subarea 4 of the application applios to approximately 11.09 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the north by Ease Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land as shown on Exhibit "Al," and is presently vacant. Said propazwaes are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre),- and (b) The properties to the north of the sr,�bject site on the opposite side of Base Line Road are Medium Residential and are developed with a ccmmercial plant nursery. The property to the southeast : designated es I PLANNING COMMIS',ION RESOLUTION ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA 4 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 E freeway and is the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway. she property to the west is designated Low Medium Residential and is undordeveloped with a single family residence. (c) This amendment may conflict with the Land Use P:�licies of the General P.an and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment may not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and ;e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental tc .ho adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties, but land use incompatibilities may result. 3. Ba�id upon the substantial evidence psecented `s this Commission during the above - referenced public hsaring and upon the- specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Co.unission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties loca`..,rd in Subarea 4 of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are incompatible with existing and wurrounding lan(: use designation-i an evidenced by the site's being bordered on the ';outhwuiet by a freawaky on -ramp and on the north by & major arterial _gad an! freeway off -ramp intsrasction; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor an the surrounding properties as evidenced by tho findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and 2I of the Initial Environmental Study., but that land use incompatibilities may result; anc. (c) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to -'*no potential of establishing incompatible land use relationships with single family uses and significant vehicle traffic activities. 4. Thia Commission hereby finds that the project hae besn reviewed and considered in compliance with tho California Environmental Quality Act oi` 1970 and, further, this Commission does not recoi=end issuance of a Vagative Declaration because the land use change may not prow- ce the goals and objectives of the General P?nn. S. Eased upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abovo, this Wmaission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65650 to 65855 of the California Government Wde, that or the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planx.ing Commission of the City of Rwcho Cucamonga haroby recommends denial of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. !-,1 -03, Subarea 4. qW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ESPA 91 ^03, SUBAREA 4 CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 Ask 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Ab'�ROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY 07-MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION O`' TIM CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do harehy certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cue& -onga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following voto- to -wi;.: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS$ ABSENT: COWISSiONERS. Al J1 0- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 7, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MELIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE UORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW NEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DEL, GNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OI'FICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY BASE L.L..: ROAD, AN.) MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227 - 131 -34 TFIItOUGH 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND 61. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamr -aya has filed an ap,'ication for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is refzrred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the ap „?lication. (iii) All Legal prerequisites prior to toe adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby for-id, determined, and resole,. 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, Paxt A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- rwfarenced public nearing on May 22, 1991, including wrLcten avid oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 7 of the application applies to approximately 10.09 acres of land, basically a =octangular configuration, bordered on the north and r-rest by Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the Routh by Base Line Road as shown on Exhibit "A,” and is presently vacant. Said pnoperties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and ;b1 The property to the north o!: the subject %itq is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the west io designated Low Medium Residential and is underd9veloped with a single family residence. The property to the east is designated Office and is vacant. The property to the south of Base Line Road I- designated Medium Residential and in vacant. 1, 'Jul PLANNING COMMXISIPN RESOLP(PION NO. GPA 91 -02B7 - CI`PS OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 E (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan rr.d will provid?? for development, within the dietrica, in a manner consistfnt with the General Plan and with related levelopmem:j and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use r1ament; and (e) This amendment would not be matarially injuriois or detrimental to the adjacnut properties and would not harz a significant impact on the environment nor ,%I the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial er- idsnce presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and uron the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thig Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in subarea I of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as levidenC,41d by the sit3's being bordered on the north and west by the vame land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have sianificant impacts on the envirorment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Farts 1 rnd II of the initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation wa;ald reduce its intensity of future residential development on the sub)ect properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in COILff.r Ante with the General Plan by promoting the re£ention of Etiwanda's rural r' asphsre throng" reduced resid. —tial densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the projact has been reviec.ad and Considered in compliance with tl.v California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings ar:? concluslora sot forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission 1* reby resoleas that pursuant ?o Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Cove, AMent Ctda , that on than 22nd d;q r.f Mry 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment Wo. 98 -02B, Subarea 7, amending the General Plan Land Uae Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units par acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 10.09 acres of land bordered on the north and west ty existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Officer designated land, and on the aouth by Base Line RoaO. an ,:n in Exhibit ^A.' 6. The Secretary tc this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GI 91 -0287 - CV^X OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MP.° 1991. PLA`+NING CO101ISSION 9F THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY.- Larry To McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad P- tiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of tho City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify tilt `;`he foregoing Resolution was duly and regularz,,f introduced, passed, and adolted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wits AYES. COMMISSIONERS. ANk NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FBSENTe COMMISSIONERS: R,IJ,io - ?7 RESOLUTION NO.. A RES.)LUTION OF 71r PLAIsNING COMMISSION of T&E CITY OF M;CHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPE'IFIC PLAN AMENDB:t:t?T 91 -03, SUBAREAS, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP VROM MEDXUH RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEaLUN RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APP7: -X .- TELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED 0.1 T&E NORTH 'gib WESS BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OFFICF/PROFESSIONPL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH r` BASE LIVE ROAD, P.ND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227- 131 -34 TeROUGH 36, 52 THROUGF, 54, AhD 61. Recitals. (i) Th'N City of Rancho Cucamonga has £ilea an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 az describat it the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the cubjee. Etiwanda Specific Plat, Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May, 23, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issuad Resolution No. _, recommending to the City Councll that the associated general Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 7, be approved. (iii) All legs1 arerequisitas prier to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolutiura NOW, 2"IEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning CQ=a1aaion cZ the City of Rancho Cucamonga as fo- "o'.rs: 1. This Cot;:.., ,sion hereby specifically ..sods that all of the facts net forth in the RBCit" J, fart A, of this Resolution aru true and correct. 2. Based upon wbetantial evidence presented to this Commission dur.ng the atzve- refsrenc l public hearing on May 22, 1991, inclgding w=ritten and oral staff rspo,�ts, tt other with public testimony, this commission hereby specs#icaliy finds as i- *' "vws: (a) Subarea 5 .of the application applisa to ar.praximate)v 10.09 acres of land, basivol > %y a rectangular configuration, herderad on t).N north and west by Low Med.4 -2 Residential designated land, on the east by amisting Office/Profession-Al dekcigr_ated lmnd, an the mouth by Bas;; Line Road an shown ort Exhibit "Al," and is presently vacant. Said propertles ars currently dsi,ic,,aatwd as Medium Residential (S -14 d-v --iiag units per 4x,-re) 1 and (b) The propazty to the north of the subject szte is designated Low Medium Resid -ntial and xs vacant„ The Vs-4perty to the want 3e designated Low Medium Reside tial and is underdeveloped with a single family residence. . a 10 -- 0701-02 0 P.C. AGENDA MAY 22� 1991 6 of 7 MONSOON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA 5 - rITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 El The property to the east is designated Office /Professicnal and is vacant. The property to the south of Pa3e Line Road is designate) Medium Residential and is vacant. (c) This amendment doss not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land U3e Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact an the environment nor on the surrounding properties. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 5 of t:ri application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distract and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's bei.Ag bordered on the north and west by the .dame sand use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not h9va & ignificant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Sr..ed upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 35850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on tho 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 5, emending the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Hap from Helium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per AVk acre) for approximately 10.09 acres of land bordered on the north and west by J PLANNING COMMISSION RESnLUTION IJO. ESPA 91 -03, S;`0AR-A S CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 3 existing Low Medium Residential designated lar1l, on the east LY existing office /Profeesional designated land, znd on the 'south by Barre Line Road, as shown in Exhibit "Al." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF HAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McN3el, Chairman ATTEST: S.'pd Huller, 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 introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular maeting of.the Planning Commission hold on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vot%)-to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING !AMHISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCP:HONGA, CAWFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GEUEP.AL PLAN AH"nHENT 91-0253, SUBAREA 8, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LXiD USE MAP FROM M]LDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO IOW b, ZIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PE% ACRE) FOP APPLOXIMATELY 20.34 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY WE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, OF THE SOW" BY EXISTING OrFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDI".9 RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND MATING FINDINGS IN SUPFDRT THEREOF - APN: 227- 131 -05 AND 27-141 -14 AND 66. A. Re lt.A.1 -. (i) Thy. City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application or General Plan Amendmont No. 9 ?. -02S as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in 4his Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendrient is referred to as "the - ,pplication." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the C;ty of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pubsic hearing on the applicat...an. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of th.s Resolution have occurrad. B. a o`ution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission _iereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the :recitals, Part A, of this Resolutiou are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds an follows: (a) Subarea 8 of the application applies to approximately 29.34 acres of land bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway;. on the south by existing office designated land and the Ontario (1 -15) Freewx•, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land and divided in a north - south direction by East Avenue as ahowm on Exhibit "A," and is presently underdeveloped with t3o single family residences. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units pea acre); and / �,,,) j 0 - /03 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -OCB, SUBAREA 8 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 Page 2 E (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the west is designated freeway and is developed with the Ontario (I -15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Office and is vacant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General 21an and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrmental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on t.ie environment nor on the surrounding properties,. 3. Based upon the substantial evidenc-? p':esented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the speciiic finding© of facts set forth is paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 8 of time application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations so evidenced by the sita's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, thLs Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Snood upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02E, Subarea 8, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 20.34 acres of land bordered on the north by the Southern L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NC., GPA 95 -028, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. Huy 22, 1992 Page 3 Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freaway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, as shown on Exhibit °A." 6. The secretary, to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST, Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the PlanaLng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly i»troduced, passed, and ad,6pted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the ;following vote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ij RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 6, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE HAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 20.34 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY !.RS SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY THE ONTARIO (I -151 FREEWAY, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND FAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APH: 227- 131 -05 AND 227- 141 -14 AND 6G. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamcnga has filed an application for Etiwanda specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho _ Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also ipsued Resolution No. _, recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -028, Subarea 8, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, TFtEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, a-id resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamorem 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- roforenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea o of the application applies to approximately 20.34 acres of land bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing office /Professional designated land, and on the west by existing Low Wsdium Residential designated land as shown on Exhibit "A1," and is presently underdeveloped with two single family residences. Said properties ate currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre)F and ,RlN0 - /07 PLANNING COMMISSION r3SOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA 6 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1991 ?age 2 11 (b) The property to the north of the subject cite is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the west is designated freeway and is developed with the Ontari (1 -15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the south a designated Office /Professional and is vacant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Pol+cies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; ar.4 (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding propertied. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commies in during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific ftndinas of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this -lommission hereb, finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 6 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted iu the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment wouLt not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties aP evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designatior• would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda'v rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. Thic Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 22.1d day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 6, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (3 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling - ^.its per acre) for approximately 20.34 acres of land bordered on the nc ^.:h by the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -�03, SUBAREA 6 - CITY OF R.C. May 22, 1931 Page 3 Am Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, as shown on Exhibit "Al." S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY :_ Larry T. 2IcNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary oZ the Planning Commission )f the City of Rancho' Cucamonga, do hereby csrtify 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 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: .AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT -- DATE_ May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Cor= tsion FROM:. Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman; Principal Planner SUBjr' I': TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I. BACKGROUNDS On August 22, `.'990, the Planning Commission completed Its review of the Draft Trails Implementation Plan (see attached staff reports and minutes). The Commission also requested an opportunity t�:. review and comment upon the Preliminary Construction Rutimates and Financing ':',an which are critical to the successful implementation of the trail system. These documei.ts are included in the Appendix of the Trails Implementation Plan which is being transmitted under separate cover. II. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES: The cost estimates to construct the trail system envisioned by the City's General Plan, as expanded upon in the Draft Trails Implementation Plan, were prepared by S.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. The report gives a. trail -by -trail breakdown of land acquisition, construction ( "hard costs ") and related management service ( "soft costs "). Separate tables are provided for Class I, class II, and Class III bicycle trails, as well as tables for Regional and Community trails. No analysitr was prepared for local feeder trails because they are constructed by private developers as a condition of development and maintained by property owners. X ,ummary of these costs is provided in Exhibit ^A." The summary ,medicates that the bikeway system will cost $37,992,196 to construct, and the hiking and riding trail system will cost $37,218,456 to build. The total cost of building the entire 184 mile trail system, over the course of buildout of the community, would be $75,210,652 (in 1991 dollars). Construction of undercrossings where flood channels cross major streets accounts for $30,000,000 of the total development costs. III. .FINANCENG PLAN: The Financing Plan presents specific recommended' actions that the City may undertake to implement trail. improvements, and the maintenance thereof, over a long tzrm planning period. The Plan identifies potential fr-nding sous es (see summary in Table 2) and analyzes their viability for trail ITEM 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TRAILS Ir1PLEMENTATION PLAN May 22, 1991 Page 2 I" implementation purposes _(see summary in Table 4). Although there •se many funding sources, they are limited and unreliable. Therefore, the strategy put forth in the Financing Plan calls for optimizing the greatest amount of trail implementation from the limited available financing sources. High cost capital items, such as the ttneet undercrossings should be given lowest funding priority. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution of Approval recommending to the City Council approval of the Trails Implementation Plan. Respectfully submitted, orgo Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Summary of Cost Estimates Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 1990 Staff Report of August 22, 1990 Staff Report of July 25, 1990 Draft Trails Implementation Plan (under separate cover to Commissioners) Resolution Recommending Approval LIN F- a Much 19,1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Summary of Trails Construction Costs I. 13110EWAYS A. Class I B. Class H C. Class III Total = II. HIKING AND RIDING TRAILS A. Regional Multi - Purpose B. Community 0 Total GRA'r?D TOTAL yb NBSC:aj5 W.O.#9012050 $37,642,507 267,017 82.672 $37,992,196 $13,733,983 23.479.473 $37,218,456 $75,210,652 oj�j f', r or X Chairman McNiel stated that public improvements seem to al,,ays be the las' hings that get done, and they should be constructed simultaneously with e Ask N' ilings. Mr. 0 on stated that CalTrans has indicated the permit should a issued before t end of the year. He *d the rough grading on 612 tra' system and the main d in are in place and complete. Commissioner cher asked the status on the plans. Mr. Oleson replie that plan check has been consolid ed. He said they had just reviewed the p n check comments and felt they hould have app-oximateiy a one -week turnaroun He said they hoped to ve the plans in for final signature by August 2.9. I Commissioner Chitiea felt a per..,int rele a figure was still appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Melcher stated he wo prefer to list the actual number of units. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, econded by Melcher, :o adopt the Resolution approving Modification to ract 13273 wi provision * provide for the release of 72 units upon ompl eti on of the r gh grading and storm drain at Milliken Park and the joining trail connecti ,s; release of 32 additional units upon completion f the hardscape, rough irr' ation including mainlines, and all ancillary structures; and release of a final 24 units upon completion of a development improvements and a eptance by the City Council. Motio carried by the following vote: AYES: 4,SSIONERS: CHI 7A, MCNIEL, MELCHEP,, TOLST 4EINBERGER NOES: f COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONER,: NONE - carried OLD BUSINESS I. REGIONAL TRAILS Dan Coleman, Prir.%ipal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher stated he recollected that the Commission had decided a single system should be implemented throughout the City and then at a later time a second set of underpasses could be installed north of Banyan. Chairman McNiel recalled that he had been the proponent of dual underpasses throughout and when he saw the cost figures he decided it did not make sense. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 22, 1990 F— q Commissioner Melcher felt staff's point was well taken and he was prepared to modify the direction as staff requested. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposal needs to be more cost realistic and he therefore agreed with staff's suggestion. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that there are too many other high- priorit; items. It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioc that the Regional Mult'- Purpose Trails should follow one side of the channel outside of the Equestrian /Rural Area. J. CKIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90 -03 - SPENCEk Ah, BONES - Tti development of a building contractor's office and wareho ee totaling 15,638 quare feet on 2.18 acres of land is the Gen I Industrial District, Subarea 13 of the Industrial Specific Plan located at the southeast c ner of 6th Street and Xems 229 - 263 -04. Vince Bertoni, Assis nt Flanner, preseport. He stated that all concerns raised at he July 19, 199Committee Meeting had been met on revised blue ines. He sad also be rerlewed in plan check. Chairman McNiel invit ed public rIbment. Max Williams, Will" — Architects 76 North Second Avenue, Upland, stated that George Spence s ownerres7lioned s a ilable to answer i stions. He stated that staff had don A jo ai:al ing the project thanked Planning staff for coordinati ,. a t requirement continuing street improvements beyond t;ief property line the cornef 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue. H stated the existi house at e corner would be within 6 to 10 feet of tie ,i�rb if the street re constted full width, so he proposed an alter to mid -block transition. Wils objected to the requirement to co ruct the 6th Street landscape me in its entirety from Rochester urt to Charles Smith Avenue beta a felt the project should only ha to pay 25 percent of the cost based size. He stated that event gh a reimbursement agreement would be ava le, having to nay for full c struction costs at this time would place toch of a financial burden one,.he project. He said that because currently f the median is improve there is no water provided to the median and th'xo d have to tear up t mediate to provide water service. Mr. Willials objected to Engi eering Condition 6 requiring reconstruction of the 6Street edian nose on he east side of Rochester Court because the conditioas not a ed until r Gently and he felt the City should reconstruct the nif it was ama, J ecause of normal wear and tear. He felt that if the nosad been dama d by Planning Commission Minutes -11- August -, :990 1nG nJJGJJi9G1,1 nnu -va1 ivnnG VJc r6nru1 7y -37 - Linmiiu CPIrMt 70 - The request to establish a judo school in a leased space of 1,752 sq re feet within ar ex-•stinn multi - tenant industrial complex-w9.15 acres f land in Sul.rea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, sated at 10970 A ow Route - APV: 209- 352 -41. Anna -Lisa Hernan , Assistant Planner, presented the sta report. Chairman McNial opene he public hearing. Joe Carpent X573 Brissac lace, Rancho C c��ga, complimented staff for a good job. .,e stated he is tr to es ish a competitive judo program in Rancho ,.kcamonga. Hearing no further testimony, C rman el dosed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolst , seconded by '.iein er, to adopt the Resolution approving Enviro-Zanta ssersment and Conditions Use Permit 90 -1P. Motion carried by the foil ng vote: AYES: CO SSIONEPS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOES WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE AB yT: COMMISSIONERS: - carried \ D. DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A comprehensive policy and implementation plan for hiking, riding, and biking trails within the d community. Dan Coleman, Principal °tanner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel felt there should be separate horse trails south of Banyan as well as north because of the conflict between horses and bicyclists. Mr. Coleman responded that with the exception of one tract at the southwest corner of Banyan and Sapphire, there are no equestri4n housing tracts south of Banyan. He said that to provi0e separate trails, o.ddigional underpasses would have to be provided on hn-ch sides of the channel at an estimated cost of $17 million. Cornmissionor Chitiea stated that bemuse of the lower level of equestrian use south of Banyan a'ad the enormous cost of the underpasses, the Trails Committee felt that the amount of tvavel through the area would not warrant the expenditure. El Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 25, 1990 Ah IF P -119 Chairman McNiel felt that perhaps t would be possible to look at the trails Aft with a greater,_ emphasis for bicycling south of Banyan and a greater emphasis for equestrian uses north of Banyan. Mr. Coleman stated that the Trails Committee had discussed the issue and that typically south of Banyan there is a greater width of right -of -way. He felt it may be possible to physically separate the horse trail from the bike trail "I most of the area and that PVC xail fencing could be used as a physical barrier where the trails would be adjacent to each other. Chairman McNiel asked if the surrounding communities had increased their bicycling trails. t Mr. Coleman responded that no increased activity had been noticed. He said that upon City Council adoption of the plan, the City would contact surrounding cities to encourage them to modify their trails plans. He said that currently there is a Classy bike route coming from the city of Upland along Base Line and Ontario has a regional trail along CucamDnga Creek. He felt there is definitely a need for trail linkages. Chairmac, McNiel sugpastnO a copy of the plan be sent to all adjacent communities so that could soe where they could connect to our traits. He asked if the Commission would be able to see the cost and financing plan before the pin is forwarded to City Council. Mr. Lu'!eman stated he would provide it as soon as it is available. cCommissioner Chitiea complimented Dan for his hard w rk. Commissioner Tolsto; felt the Commission should review the financing plan before forwarding the Trails Implementation Plan to City Council. Mr. Coleman suggested that the item could be readvertised if necessary when the full packet was ready to be returns{ for Planning Commission review. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, he closed it. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been told the horse population has not grown significantly in recent years. He felt that the additional four underpasses north of Banyan should be deferred until all other elements of the system are in place, as he was not sure the expense to separate the equestrian and bicycling uses is justified. Chairman McNiel agreed that the underpasses would be lower priority. Commissioner Chitiea stated that priorities will be listed in the plan, and perhaps as more bicyclists begin using the trails, the additional underpasses may become more critical in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 25, 1990 P- Commi!: loner Melcher felt that when the bicycle users hamper equestrian users, then perhaps that woull be the time to add those four underpasses. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the financing plan would be reviewed when available. NE BUSINESS P. _AiENOMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR MILLER'S OUTPOST PLAZA - PIZZA HUT An ppeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment, located t the ortheast corner of Foothill and Archibald - APN: 1077 - 641 -71. Bruce Buck gham, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner _inbergar asked if the sign will face Archibald. Mr. Buckingham sponded that Pizza Hut has two sign locati s, one facing Archibald and one acing into the center. He pointed out th amendment.would allow all major ten is to change their sign color. Chairman McNiel opene the public hearing; but hearing comiaents, he closed tine hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if mhe applicant had indic ed he would not be at the meeting. Mr. Buckingham responded that had mailed a applicant the staff report and agenda, but had not heard from h Mr. Kroutil suggested the Planning o. ssion continue the item to allow the applicant a chance to state his case. Commissioner Melcher felt the appl ant d been given sufficient notice. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, s tided by We berg�:r, to continue Amendment to Uniform Sign Program for Mi erns Outpost aid to August 8, 1990. Motion carries: by the following v e: AY1:S: COMMISSIONE : CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOL OY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMgfISSI ,OERS: MELCHER ABSENT: CO"SIONERS: - �qrried G. RE SIGN TO TREE. REMOVAL PERMIT 88 -11 - BCER ARCHITECTS N revision to an X413186 tree removal permit which was associated with ntative Tract 3884 and Conditional Use Permit 88 -01, located at the north t corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 227 - 522 -01, 02, 03, nd 04. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 25, 1990 qr rim. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. STAFF REPORT - i 16 DATE: August 2, 1990 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: REGIONAL TRAILS I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that ttie Planning .dmmission reconsider their previous direction concerning location of Regi,nal Trails. II. BACKGROUND: At the July 25 meeting, the Commission reviewed the issue of whether Regional Hiking & Riding Trails should be located on only one side of flood control channels, except within the Equestrian /Rural Area (see July 25 staff report attached). Staff and the Trails Advisory Committee had recommended that they should not be located on both sides because it was not necessary for the functionality of the Regional Trail system and was cost prohibitive. Within the Equestrian /Rural Area (above Banyan), the Regional Hiking and Riding Trails should be provided on both sides of the channel to promote maximum access to adjoining development and allow equestrians to travel separated from bicyclists. To the contrary, the Commission determined that the Regional Hiking and Riding Trails should occur on both sides of the channels below Banyan, with priority given to first funding Regional Bicycle Trails along channels below Banyan. This decision has significant ramifications on the total cost of installing the Regional Trail system because of the number of street undercrossings involved. At the time ;5e issue was discussed, staff indicated that the prelim nary estimate for the cost of each street underpass for the Regional Trail system was approximately $312,000. The consultant has worked with City Engineering Division and completed their cost estimates which indicates that the cost is $1,200,000 each. Obvi -. ly, providing Regional Trails on both sides of the channels requires dual underpasses at each major street; hence, the overall cost o,° the Regional Trail system would double in the millions of dollars. V7— 1 PLANNING C011MISSION STAFF K-PORT REGIONAL TRAILS August 22, 1990 Page 2 'lain, staff and the Trails Committec feel that the Regional Multi - k,rpose Trails should folow one side cf the channel outside of the Equestrian /Rural Area in accordance with the standards adopted by City Council in 1981. loysu edr BB:CC:ds Attachments: Exhibit "A" - July 25 Adden6m -Staff Report F -10 11 0 IA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 25, 1990 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (Addendum Report) I. RECOMMENDATIIN: Staff and the Trails Advisory Committee recommend Nil Regional Hiking & Riding Trails be located on only one side of the flood control channels, except witi.in the Equestrian /Rural Area where they should occur on both sides. Staff is seeking your direction on this issue. II. BACKGROUND: Since 1981, he City's General Plan Master Plan of Trails has designated mrilti- purpose Regional Trails along the many flood control channels. The City Counc=il adopted their Resolution No. 81 -93 which established a design standard for Regional Trails showing hiking, riding, and bicycling trails coexisting side -by- side along one side of the channels. This issue was discussed by the Trails Advisory Committee on July 18, 1990. The consensus of the Committee was that Regional Hiking and Riding Trails should be located on both sides of the channel, as opposed to one side only, within the Equestrian/ Rural Area.. Their deliberations focused on the potential safety concern created by bicycles distrubing horses if the trails were both located on the same side of the channel. The Committee cited the example of how well the Demens Channel Regional Trail has worked because the bike trail on the south side is separated from the hiking /riding trail on the north side by the channel. To maintain the Regional Hiking and Riding Trails along bW, sides of the channel, and provide a safe, functional, interconnected system, underpasses must be constructed where the trails cross major streets. These underpasses would be similar to those along the Cucamonga Creek Trail at 19th Street and Base Line hoad. A total of 21 locations are planned for underpasses (see Figure 6). Accommodating hikers and equestrians on both sides of the channel within the Equestrian /Rural Area, instead of combined on the same side with bicyclists, would require that 4 additional underpasses be constructed at an estimated cost of $1,248,000. I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN July 25} 1990 Page 2 Respec subm 'ed, Brad u er City P annex BB:DC /ifs Attachments; Figure b � I I L:J IWAI all r� F- 1a m to cm a. d c as cis m m 4!i Z O Q �! N _3 a d1 CM W z LLM= P O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 25, 1990 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner k 3.. SUBJECT: DRAFT TWILS IMPLEMENTATION :PLAT! - A comprehensive policy and implementation p an or`Tiilcing, riding, and biking trails withil.the community. I. ABSTRACT: This report presents an overview for your consideration W —TFe Draft/ Trails Implementation Plan. The Commission's comments are desired regarding the content of the document, and ultimately, a recommendation of approval to be forwarded to the City Council. II. ORGANIZATION: This document is organized into four major areas as escr e e ow: Trails Concept (Chapters 3 A 4) — Concepts for hiking, riding and bicycle trail systems are detailed within these two chapters. Design Standards (Chapter 5) - A set of detailed standards for the construction of hiking, riding and bicycling trails, and their appurtenances, is discussed herein. Administration (Chapter 7) - This chapter lists responsibilities of City departments for various aspects of trail implementation, including, but not limited to, trail alignments, acgc-4tion of trail rights -of -way, design and construction, and maintenance. Implementation (Chapter 8) - This chapter outlines the basic regulatory procedures, funding mechanisms and methods a acquiring trails and lists future trail improvement pr,3ects. In addition, the Appendix will contain two critical components: the Preliminary Construction Estimates and the Financing Plan. Both documents are being prepared under separate contract for the Council's consideration. The Appendix also contains recommended ordinances relating to trails and a Job description for a potential Trails Coordinator position. III. GENERAL WRVIE11: Historically, the City's only long range trail PT— ping guide as been the Trails Element of the General Plan. The General Plan's Master Plan of Trails established a broad -14 E 11 E 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN JULY 25, 1990 Page 2 policy and basic concept for a regional, community, and local feeder trail system. The Trails Implementaticn Plan supplements the 1981 General Plan with more precise trail alignments, design standards, and funding mechanisms necessary to make the trail system a reality. The Trails Implementation Plan is intended to provide specific implementation strategies from initial planning through construction and maintenance. The Plan identifies eight benefits of a trail system to the entire community, including alternative meens of transportation, recreation, and contribution to a higher quality of life. The Trails Implementation Plan will provide the user with most of the information needed to determine what City policies, standards, and regulations will guide the development of trails within Rancho Cuca,.tonga. IV. HIKING AND RIDING TRAILS CONCEPT: The existing General Plan master an of ra s established a regional trail system utilizing the many flood control channels and utility corridors, a community trail system which connects the trails' user with the regional trail system, and a local feeder trail system which enables the user access from their lot to the community and regional trail system. The proposed Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan (Figure 2) indicates trail routes which were selected as the most advantageous for hikers and,equestr!ans in satisfying the General Plan objectives of safety, function, aesthetics, economics, and feasibility of acquisition. Trail routes are more precisely defined as to which side of a flood channel or street they follow. The Trails Implementation Plan introduces the concept of a Primary Loop Trail system (Figure 3). The Primary Loop trails form a figure "3" consisting of a combination of Regional and Community TrailF„ with Heritage Park located at its midsection. In this way, yeritage Park can be used as both a destination and a trait head. The Primary Loop, with a total length of about 14 miles, is crossed at regular intervals by Community Trails anri affords a limitless variety of trail experiences for both the hiker and the equestrian. The Plan includes a discussion of the need for trail head racilities at key locations. These would function as trail staging points for hikers, horse riders, and even bicyclists. Trail heads would ideally be equipped with facilities such as restrooms, drinking fountains, parking for cars. and horse trailers, bike racks, and watering troughs. In addition, the Plan discusses the need for an additional equestrian facility, like 10 Heritage Park, somewhere near the Etiwanda Community. ?_ I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN JULY 25, 1990 Page S Y. BICYCLE TRAILS CONCEPT: The proposed General Bikeways Plan ocuses upon a ap ing the existing and proposed street system and flood control /utility corridor system to bicycle travel. Equal emphasis is placed upon destination (purpose) and non - destination (for -the- fun- of -it) oriented trips. Adopting the General Bikeways Plan is a requirement to be eligible to apply for bike trail grant funds. Although the proposed trail alignments build upon the City's General Plan and manly specific and conaunity plans, there are some changes that will necessitate future amendments for consistency. There are three types of bike trails commonly defined in California. A Class I Bike Path is an off -street trail, fully separated from automobile traffic, which allows for two -way bicycle travel, Class II Bike Lanes are striped lanes for exclusive use by bicyclists. A Class III Bike Route is a bike trail simply identified with signs - the cyclist shares the road with care Class II said Class III bike trails are proposed for one -way bicycle travel; hence, the trail would exist on both shoulders of the road. Generally, pike Paths are proposed along flood channels to utillize the existing paved service road. Bike Lanes are proposed mainly along major the;aughfires. Bike Routes are used along lessor streets with lower traffic volumes. However in some cases, the determination as to which type of bike trail is proposed is based upon the available street section width. For example, Milliken Avenue. 's proposed Ts a Bike Route, even though it meets all of the criteria for a Bike Lane, because of insufficient width to ar- ommodate a striped lane. The Plan addresses the constraints which impede bicyclists or discourage bi-::ycle commuting. Figure 6 identifies recommended underpass locations where flood channels cross major streets. These underpasses are critical to the success of the Regional Trail system and would service the hiker, equestrian, and bicyclist. The City's General Plan emphasizes development of bicycle trails as an alternative transportation mode (e.g., bicycle comwting). A successful bike trail system for cammuters must address their unique needs for not only safe and convenient routes but adequate storage and showering /changing facilities. The Appendix contains proposed ordinances which would esitabli='- more precise bicycle storage requirements for new developmenm, i" well as incentives for employers to encourage bicycle commuting by providing showering and changing facilities for their employees. VI. DESIGN STANDARDS: This chapter includes detailed standards for hiking, riai ng, and biking trails. T ie hiking and riding trail standards reflect the City's current standards. The bicycle trail standards are based upon the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. P, I(, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN JULY 25, 1990 Page 4 VII. ADMINISTRATION: This chapter def the responsibility of each Cify edepparfine—nt as it pertains to the trail issues of determining alignment, acquisition, construction design and plan check, construction and inspection, maintenance, enforcement, and abandonment. These responsibilities are summarized in a matrix presented in Figure 15. Because of the complexity and scope of implementing the City's ambitious Master Flan of Trails, it is Suggested that the City consider creating' -a Trails Coordinator position. This person would be responsible for coordinating trail it,ues among various City departments and outside agencies and saa* grant funds fo" trail projects. The Trails Coordinator would',0 so serve as staff to the Trails Advisory Committee. A suggested job description is included in the Appendix. VIII. IMPLEMENTATION: The 'Implementation chapter is a summary of the regulatory too s used to implement the trail system. The chapter includes a brief discussion of the various funding sources and methods of acquiring trails rights -of -way. The chapter includes a priority listing of hiking and riding trail improvement projects aad bicycle trail improvement projects. ® The Appendix will include a complete report on the Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for the trail system. This information can then be used as the basis for future budgeting purooses. The Financing Plan to be included in the Appendix explores the feauibility of various funding techniques and provides recommendations for specific funding strategies for hiking, riding and biking trails. IX. RECOMMENDATION: Tonight, staff is providing an overview of the Draft fr- 'ills Implementation Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission continue the hearing to your next meeting for discussion regarding the Plan. Resp u submij Brad City anner BB:DC:mlg Attachments Draft Trails Implementation Plan (distributed 4ith July 11, 1399 agenda. packet) IV Resolution f 17 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ^:)MMISSION- F THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOhZMENDI -3 TO THE CIT" COUNC: L APPROVAL OF THE TRAILS INP13MENTATION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan established a Master Plan of Trails for a network of hiking, biking, and horse riding trails as a recreational element; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan policies call for programs to improve existing trails to make the trails safer, more functional, and accessible and to facilitate development of Regional Multi- Purpose Trail and Community Trails systems; and WHEREAS, the Trails Implementation Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan regarding trails; and WHEREAS, the Trails Advisory Committee has reviewed and recommended approval of the Trails Implementation Plan; and WHM -AKAS, duly advertised public hearings were hold relative to the Planning Commission review of the Trails Implementation Plan. ZQW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Counril approval of the Trails Implementation Plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST:_ _ Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the P anning Commission of the C ?.ty 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 t�° ^amonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day if May 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIOtzRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ?_19 GARY A KOVACIC )OHN E. MwCKEL TELEPHONE (213) 624 -SS44 ERN,-,ST E. SANCOF2 ARTHUR A SMALL It RO. CR. M. SULLIVAN' KERRY K. WORKMAN May 21,. 1991 CO. ...1— FEDERAL EXPRESS Ir. Brad Buller C ty Planner City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE 00K 17909 L05. ANGELES, CA 90017 -O9O9 TELECOPIER 12131 627 -7126 PLEASE REFER TO OUR 'ILE NO. 240254.0001 Re: John Dalrymple /Development Review 89 -18 -Booth Dear Mr. Buller: I represent John Dalrymple, who is the owner of the subject real property and applicant for your matter number Development - Review 89 -18. I have reviewed your letter to Mr. Booth dated April 10, 1991 as well as the Staff Report which you prepared dated May 22, 1991. Condition No. 1 of your letter of April 10, 1i'91 requires that Mr. Dalrymple pay and "in -lieu fee" to landscape Caltrans' property along the 1 -15 Freeway right -of -way. The in. -lieu fee for Mr. Dalrymple based on the quoted charge of $.91 per square foot Mould be approximately $30,000. It is my understanding that the City seeks to impose this fee in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87- 185. The Planning Commission states that it "finds *.t desirable to landscape the I -15 (Devore) Freeway, right -of -way because of its significance as a regional transportation corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga." While this is a laudable goal, the imposition of this requirement as a condition to the granting of a building permit of the subject property is an impermissible attempt to shift the burden of providing the cost of a public benefit where there is no substantial relationship between the public burden posed by the proposed construccion and the imposition of this condition. The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 (1987) has recently been interpreted by the California Court of Appeal as requiring a substantial relationship between the public burden posed by the proposed construction and the conditions imposed by the _��lln A LAW O F F I C E S JAMES F. BLACKSTOCK' S SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE CHARLES F. CALLANAN A A. PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PP'J.CSSIONAL CORPORATIONS JOHN J. DEE T TWELFTH. FLOOR JOSEPH S. 071DA AULC EPSTEIN 1 130:7 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET SUSAN M KAHN L LC', O,JGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2521 KERRY K. WORKMAN May 21,. 1991 CO. ...1— FEDERAL EXPRESS Ir. Brad Buller C ty Planner City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE 00K 17909 L05. ANGELES, CA 90017 -O9O9 TELECOPIER 12131 627 -7126 PLEASE REFER TO OUR 'ILE NO. 240254.0001 Re: John Dalrymple /Development Review 89 -18 -Booth Dear Mr. Buller: I represent John Dalrymple, who is the owner of the subject real property and applicant for your matter number Development - Review 89 -18. I have reviewed your letter to Mr. Booth dated April 10, 1991 as well as the Staff Report which you prepared dated May 22, 1991. Condition No. 1 of your letter of April 10, 1i'91 requires that Mr. Dalrymple pay and "in -lieu fee" to landscape Caltrans' property along the 1 -15 Freeway right -of -way. The in. -lieu fee for Mr. Dalrymple based on the quoted charge of $.91 per square foot Mould be approximately $30,000. It is my understanding that the City seeks to impose this fee in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87- 185. The Planning Commission states that it "finds *.t desirable to landscape the I -15 (Devore) Freeway, right -of -way because of its significance as a regional transportation corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga." While this is a laudable goal, the imposition of this requirement as a condition to the granting of a building permit of the subject property is an impermissible attempt to shift the burden of providing the cost of a public benefit where there is no substantial relationship between the public burden posed by the proposed construccion and the imposition of this condition. The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 (1987) has recently been interpreted by the California Court of Appeal as requiring a substantial relationship between the public burden posed by the proposed construction and the conditions imposed by the _��lln A Mr. Brad Buller City Planner May 21, 1991 Page TWO government to permit that construction. (Surfside Cc,lonv. Ltd. v. California Coastal Commission (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1260.) The California Court of Appeal has also held it Liberty v. California Coastal Commission (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 491, 493 -494 that: "Where the conditions imposed, are not related to the use being made of the property but are imposer: because the [public) entity conceives a means of shifting the burden of providing the cost of a public benefit to another not responsible for or only remotely or speculatively benefiting from it, there is unreasonable exercise of the police power" and thus impermissible. For the reascna set forth above, I am respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga delete Condition No. i relating to the in -lieu fee for the landscaping of Caltransl property.,. Very truly yours, Charles D, Cummings SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE CDC /ba cc: Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Aalcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette John Dalrymple (By TeleceAy) V LA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89 -18 - BOOTH - An appeal of :certain conditions of approval for the development of a building contractor's office and storage yard totaling approximately 6,500 square feet on 1.35 acres of land :ln the Genezal Tnductrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9037 Charles Smith Avenue, east of Rochester, north of 6th Street - APN: 229 - X271 -41. I. PRO;,ECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Background: This project, was approved by the City Planner on April 10, 1991, after receiving a Negative DOclaration from the !?Tanning Commission on March 27, 1991. Planning Division Condic -*n. No. 1 requires an in -lieu fee for future landscaping and irrigation of 301 feet of frontage along the I -15 freeway right -;mil -way. Planning Division Condition No. 2 states that "No outdoor storage of vehicles, machinery or materials shall be permitted without prior City elanner approval." Also, Engineering Condition No. 3 requires a flood protection mitigation measure to protect the site from potential flood flows from the north. The developer ie appealing all three of these conditions. II. ANALYSU- A. .wF av kindecaaincm On April 16, 1991, the City Planner recefved a request to delete Planning Condition No. 1, the in- lieu fee for freeway landscaping (see attached letter from the applicant). The applicant stated opposition to the condition for cost coaasiderations and said that the coats should be born by the City as a whole or Cal - Trans. The City Planner based this condition on adoptwl Commission policy And past development review actions. The Planning Commission determined that the I -15 Freeway right -of-way is an important regional transportation corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Ir. this sense, then, any property which adjoins the freeway should be landscaped in ITEM Q PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 89 -18 — BOOTH May 22, 1991 Page 2 El the same way that all development is req,tred to landscape their "frontage" along public rights -of -way. Cal - Trans did not have plane to landscape this corridor, but indicated that they wou]:d allow others to landscape it subject to their review and standards. The policy roquiring landscaping or payment of fees in lieu of construction was established b.• the Planning Commission in October 1987 (Resolution 87 -185, Exhibit "D "). All new development projects along the I -15 freeway corridor have since been conditioned accordingly. It should also be noted chat said lane - ,;aping will contribute to screening the outdoor vehicle '..orage proposed by the applicant. The policy requires "all new development adjacent to the I -•15 Freeway to landscape and irrigate the freeway right -of -Way which adjoins their property. The subject property has a freeway frontage of 301 feet. Engineering has estimated the in -lieu fee to be 91 cents per squat6 foot. B. Outdoor vehicle Storaoe: During the Designtftview process, the applicant_ stated that all on -site storage would take place -4thin the buildings and the project was conditioned accordingly. However, the applicant is now expressing a need to park ZShicles (i.e -, pick -up trucks, flat bed trucks, or stake bed trucks) outdoors. The andustrial Specific Plan allows outside storage of such vehicles subject to acceptable screening as described below. Vehicles in this cane shall not include large, bulky construction machinery such ass bulldozers, tractors, trailers, compressors, or similar such devices. 1. The majority of the parking is located west of the warehouse building which will screen this area of the site from view of the I -15 freeway. 2. The applicant has been conditioned to pay an in -lieu fee for landscaping of the freeway right -of -way which will further screen thu site from view, 3. A solid masonry wall will screen the parking areas from public view from Charles Smith Avenue., Based on this City Planner determination, no Commission action is necessary on this portion of the appeal. C. Flood Protection: The Developer is appealing the Engineering Division condition to obtain an easement for the construction of an angled hard faced or structural wall north of the Metropolitan Suter District easement on the adjacent property to the north, Because the adjacent property owner to t!La north of Is not willing to grant an easement. The Developer is willing 0- --� PIP.c.wSNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT bR 89 -18 - BOOTH May 22, 1991 Page 3 to construct the wall along the north property line of this prnject in such a fashion that it will withstand and protect the site from potential flood flows from the north. This condition to a mitigation mereure that was necessary to grant a Negative Declaration (i.e., not require an Environmxntai " Tmpact Report). Currently, the Bite is subject to potential flooding from the unimproved segment of Day Creek Channel between Arrow Route and Bass Line Road. The segment is scheduled to be completed by March 1992. If the project proceeds before completion of the Day Creek Channel improvements, it will be necessary to provide flood protection for t1;g site. This can be accomplished by (1) allowing tte flown to pass through the site while protecting the buildings (2) constructing an angled berm /wall north of the., property or (3) constructing a structural wall along the north project boundary. Staff feels that options (1) and (2) provide the more positive methodw of flood protection. However, becaur the developer has beea unable to obtain an easement from th.-_ property owner to the north, staff has taken a closer l -ok at option (3) and feels that it is a possibility, subject -'to verification by a final drainage study. Therefore, staff is willing to modify the condition as contained in the attached Resolution. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff r ©commends that the Planning .lommission approve Development P9 -18 subject to the conditions contained in thn attached Resolution, which requires the in -lieu payment for freeway landscaping, allows outdoor storage, and modifies the anginas ittg . onditions to allow construction of a structural wall ^ on t* north project boundary for the purpose& of flood r, Brad 815/1 or City F?Ianner BB:JG:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Rxhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Citp Planner Approval Letter Exhibit "D" - Resolution No:. 87-185 Resolution of Approval -3 April 16, 1991 John Dalrymple P. O. Box 1071. Ontario, CA, 91762 Brad Buller Planring Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91729 SU-R i": DEVELOPMENT' iti -MBI 89 -18 Dear Mr. Buller; �a h 3.�,iiC.7 CI'(Y OF ;c rryAl�cnu Cu:'nA10t•.�� APR D I Pave read your letter of the findings and conditions dated the 10th of April, and I find it necessary to appeal to the following conditions; Plarvsing Division condition 41 1 i--5Zl the cost of this landscaping should be barn 1V mrrre than just one property owner, if not by Cal-trans or the city. Plwmirg Division condition r2 I have no Intention to store mad finery or materials out ci docirs, but I do ncf-ld to park rm'rling operable vehicles out of doors, Lnd hereby make a staterant of such. I have no Intention of doing mechanical repair work-out of doors. Engineering Division Condition #3 My neighbor to the north has giver written permission to construct a temporary berm on his property as per request of Ping Kho 'of the engineering department, : Xr. Kho stated that this would not be required once that the Day Creep Flood Control Channell was completed. My Neighbor, Mr. Du Bois is not willing to sell or give an easement of a permanent nature on his property, under any conditions. I am willing to Design my North wail in such a fashion as to protect my project from a hypothetical 100 year flood, and to build it prior to starting the remainder of my project. THIS LET7IR.iS INTENDED TO BE AN OFFICIAL, APPEAL OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. Enclosed please find the required $62.00 appeal fee. if you should like to discuss these matters please call me at 714 - 595 -7924. Sic+.o�.•�ly. John Dalrymple Q -q LI VWA" mw lit .......... �-!' om --------- JAL_ uNKLES'5=H AvG, ------------ Admk SITE PLAN w Pm)bd DaU L Imn. MEM: Ck OF i TC X- .CUCAMONGA TrrL.E: 3j> PLANNINd-,gfOiSION EXHMIT: SCALE: Q A N L n 0 C 1991 April 10, Richard Booth 120 E. Avenue Cornello den Clemente, CA 92670 !1! SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89 -18 Dear Fir. Booth: The Development Review process for the above - described proj,`t has been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the ,.;ollowing Zindings and ,conditions. Thank you for your partieik�ation and cooperation during this review process. We sincerely hope that this process has been a positive experience for all Involved. --dings A. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. B. That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Development Cede and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. C. That the proposed proje", together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemanta in the vicinity. D. That the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable I provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Planning Division i Conditions This project is approved sabject to the following conditions and the attached Staadard Conditions 1. An in -lieu fee shall be paid for landscaping and irrigatich the f 301 feet of frontage along the I -15 Freeway right -of -way. 2. No outdoor storage of vehicles, machinery or material* shall be permitted without prior City Planner approval. JO Richard Booth DR 89 -18 April 10, 1991 Page 2 3. No permits for accessory improvement, (i.e., paving, perimeter walls, lighting, etc.), shall be issued until all site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans are coordinated for consistenty. Engineering Division 1. The existing overhead utilities (electrical) on the project side of Charles Smith Avenue sh:zil be undergrounded from the first pole off -site north of the project north boundary to ?-he first pole off -site <cuth of the project south boundary, prior I= public improvement -.s:ceptancs or occupancy, -ihichaver ocd., -- ,first. The developer may request a reimbursaa;`.at agreement to recover one -htif the difference between the undergrounding cost of the utilities (electrical) on the project side of the street minus those (telecommunications) on the opposite side of the utrset from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. 2. street trees along Charles Smith Avenue shall be provided per Engineering standards. An easement for street trees may be required. 3. An angled Yard faced berm or structural call north of the Metropolitan Water District easement on the adjacent property to the north shall be constructed to protect the sate from potential flood flows from the north. An easement for the berm (wall) shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Please note -chat conditions may apscify completion of certain plans or work prior to issuance of building permits. This decision shall be final following a ten -day appeal period htginning with the date of this latter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. If you should have any questions, plasma feel free to ccnti.ct Jerry Guarracino at (714) 989- 1861. Sinc y, /Bra le ity lannar BB :JG:mlq Attachment: Standard Conditions cc- John Dalrymple RM qW Q— 7 w -3. 9 �1 ►s. L >.Yi nuv uw ��.� M_Yyuui G� q1L��� ubi °� vLLOCd L9 �4 y�.CN HL 4jOUy tee ny >Y '. �L �CYON O r Y Y O. w C g G $ q M Y1. �L v Y p = ' O =��^ MPcogo��C ; r .GAY` n�o +r O Y! C y' V O _� C Y_�■�S tb �ttS`YC q aCp � • w CSM O_ L =pY > ►CY +yH uSO� C Gp+ c. Its F Fat- O C= ^YYLpw y +.y^ 4�.AY n °j. °�C•y�L YGw i, ^L�w SS O`� ►.�_�`LYLYws O6�Yp Y 1w O YY� S y�CO ip•M�H �ab0 >. ■pp. S ►G CG €a.: {{{ ■ ■ ■��� ��£Y HGr.�V� ° °' ► H G C O Y M CY u N C O n L O y 0 O Y 8Y ■Y A Y q a `w.! _as= =Yt.po $V� C q=�+I� Yv4 M��$ YG Y$w0 nna.'eY4 . �gazi i.5 ia.�.65f a W z u u ° z .n L O 11 i ► ° Y v aiJgj «A Y H.s N'u ge'�o p C172 ► y M C ° Ow y 4 u onv —p L Hv �wt Ye .° IN Syp' Yw Yd ° o re . cY ,;;o_ •r i CY— D > % s Y $ F y Fw CY �Y. H.yS.Y $ �fi j C YNN p � i C y O A=MY e. 4n w pG Le R-4 po L ��_r Y y 5i _ yw yG. Y Y 4 d -`ir •yam 2 citto��o.yCeY O'6^ eYY O\YG �L4�c�•°au ao. °e o�"a �_Lw C Y q lY RL k � g 4 f d''-' 4 � n M wa'i Nw y�1 Y O� L 2 +i w_i^ `D _ Y •� i C cr NTri . gY Oq -*O a � � 2iVN Ca M.N �O1 a� `JpC +CCt PT.- •C L� • ON_•L! Op tG aLsy L �wCN Vwy C ao csw2 ae�p 1.M y�y��-GL =CCr4 aw w i� �rLodE L '•. a gStt 8y' •2y�� LOy ±.6 ^P.�R �DVLa C � S. -Oyw OA O� tk= C NC rwv -� -w Nay��N�N C rt Lna�pM . VLVaa a CLL ,rC N VC'J V ••S a� �isg ��yn1a ]1 �..a� y =._ n Y e .SN �- 3Y1O:4.4S���=s u xp$ _ge °C g E. :.-o :s > six =C-. ra r - „way zzz_Qr ���.. N` N VO •,'pa =�$ <rs po JS gw a- S�L'■� `eFr+L0, 3” rte. -9 vo nqc .VG C4� 4 6 ■ey-Yy `Y G;y o..YC °�44L`LYO U9 43 6 N 4 C H F 8`w� CCY - Cq �yC1��� A{_��V ( nit Y w L N •�. M Z §. w b Y }v�CpL�F� N •[ `°. N N V i O C V M N O CC •ri u C Fr-. Rs ��C �. r.N - °= S! .tea \1�= w 4C4N 4� lO O -�.e Ni a_s.�s.• °rS.. o. �Ti Y�'yM tL"w� Y Y7�w ` ° ��°. -i era Oq� .�.§ � •- C_�~ � o'^,e i..N S iq X= ■ 'ee�V -4 It g YY pp Y4e VyO�L wy ~Y+ CLM'Jr'C -y 1.QC p ^'4�' C� N a U3 y'>�,fV J aqG O� -N PPI X.5 �^� C C U. Oaf �Y f � G r C -�' 4 c V.y Oa a b'_ ' `t �4 ilm �w $a8 22 '4.t%3z k.5 �� u�o vLV ro as rim 4 LN- a\i- C a- 'Z+••Z Baer• q:LV p N�n ■ aC - \ Y y Gt L ILI a -z ■ YLV � ` M tyC . a 0 C 7 h c a =w C_ w' o� V y C Y V a� n O\ u C •Sgn N �o °ca s �Y� v04� ��p�eo c�o` -"o •- ■ C a 4 y G vrb ov °ypYyy 2-2 N C 4 y VIE +a6"'« av La �iwc� •,�° L L ' :0 C caxo.p Y 0 r.N= —Za c -.�,a �n :: n p y <u �s..zi''3 -: $.k�$ 3`�yNC� r^ ' JJ E c° c e_ So �YY ati a�oNS *1 10 u+� �••,yOyO'.�. «r a�Q� c o.. Eau — 4 Z. Y w 01 `` g L G Y O~ O ^.•r0. t 4 Y �w L C Y V t p g G N �; X ✓ L �e L.N y 41�M YO fnp ^o`O'J `4 —L ICC~ V9C C wIV p. M N: N iMS�"Yyo1°�w «yyCCY It RV V^ ' N L O C ' Y V� 1 0 a• Y Y Y.r V Y y �CC 4 V^ � Y r Y �^ M V G L y v OI 7 L O >� Y e M M M V Y «a �• C w� a C NL1, Mfq e/ �• Ye �4LOOH pQN o Ne�=[ �ip.� gVLV �n� My OYL �V� s' IL�C'g`S Ct`"YM Z u p M L O �L �tI4:Np G CJ 9 0 4 eM{C�� Ly O M V' L Y 414 0 0 q. O^ .'f Y• �t y p `� O X 4 Y Y N L G *- r 0n► O y V t41.. p w ^+L'iY r yG can w�� .N M °uwo ocu if'y�>4C Y,.Oq C .L C {iV� tGMq Y� NO L. ryY�YL C �O N JC1i MGSY V�V y�y {{�� w CL ` CCY O I L MitO <A4OP wY LL0 6N .Y4 oa Y3 YL 6< C —YG Y q d gw� r O L ' C yyC L � nro YbO a � w -QC„1 H vyr! ��y e ae r� V M q — O N wC�c 1� nN q CL > a V O Liar CC ww QO 0166C Li 01 %I cN� 4.Y c YcG c� - C au „n — cr " • °o moo=C °Y �xpp mdw ate ZZ �e b, ILIS ^ �O NNyy wY �C`:i Y GaS O w Oy �� N° w� t t u q iY• O Y N OLe• r � G• N � ^H. 4r _V Y` Y( O G SI a0� V MO Cw0 CO M— �. L ` GwY wC t4Y'r3 —w1C � � O� vi wO1 Y•GO L` � 91 Y1`�O L 1C u`v■ O _Y Sa�} a4. grog ow ceFnn: w= aagbi, g« °Y:Nw c��1�1aa <NG 3 •1 0 e t N Cu�' Pt ee n` Y iL G' Y O OPM oS�Ld wi y L L yaw•�q qtr �nG C e e n•?wyp V1— O C N— r 00 W66u vt.0,.� 2 C u Ll E 4 ^L MAY C� M � a x� r L i N w �a w V €o +V N e v 4 P f _ A Y + y 4 6 > 4 �t94 a uiICV 9 =vlp � 4y �O >y j r C G t ec 60� � Y Qom_ =a wyc c y N W =_dor �`y YQ ^j�aL L u o■mooy� $ .all M C=uv g°ys 6 Y Y °= —s ✓� :3"Y� Y Y ^ NG�'' GF rJ4� Y Y L M 9 Y N ° C V -r. yyLy Yysy pOw iiGG�� o�Uu• =�wy�ys 6Y< t +yy O.OL LN 1CC -pp�yY- Qr +CS jL Y<0M �rmli IL 0 t Z a v yi w SIR ' ^ a� l M w ` O .s� N 1 r +�a Y.- w w p a • 4 A� y G V. a ., y 01% got • p�6 oY0 �4M li yVO s Y ca jC{V} V V Y o Yj`M yN�� YY Y L C t 4.i P V T� j O x w 7 a OV Oy w4�wY tl %{� �. OC '0. M CP LXt N V � O4N �qq�uw ` +yMY Y �r 8��w sBwY=�Sg� ty4YyR����4g�Y�E yYy� L ��wjjll ■ r � V �vK r E,�W� �iGOWN J+..•��O N GYO V N S _ t V, 4 G r O i -t�� :Nr> w r YY V yo 4 ^y O� � O a NO O CPM Pp 4w� +f Ns� < �o 50 os� 4 w a Y 0 C o. $Z ti■� ` L GEC �y ^e G Y OCc =A- �aa I .c r;2 141 O^ C L w N v a.� •�Yic r D mow+ 00 3.a = ld y4 4u G Y 1 q O y 7rC V 4 Q y = Y a �2 9 Cv C O=1 a Nzr v' O1L G1 a _� 4 w: Y C i.5 O N ° YS Y Nye w M y 4 ` � L Y o+4.t G e�p ♦♦ P w r i o 3 Y 1 x��t o c a e N roc s�oc «i V`v �pyG S M4��'Ip �.4.�L ci`o4P 1 « s c m°�v«na �— t,'ye „ y L w r Ga O w t u« M' ,a ^ 4 N M N jfjt —G Y ' U N V' Y NON xa OC y 60P ■ppp RO "4,2q. C d e N`_ C cf a °uNa ev o^o 4s q 4 4 L p N � max. O V w L o Y .r1 O reC `a sLL C C O� L p 3 r. C"§ Y ..<u � � O «q �� L u N� M EEY 4 �'� gel Yy4 T.0 O 1N � d L ♦ N e aL A C � G 4 L.0 C >Ne o Y� o yyw G 91vL A Y O a�Q� C O Y��NC vUO w w• V N � �� o1mo ^.� M u r N rS� S b N c z0-1 q u y i V w t 0 0c W v O A F aLe A 4 a o � N �4•�� .0 O Y N a o f �E YI �{ ? MC G C N 9 I � > vL% 4 E V V i L n v f b L L e pr1 N is d 1aG ` c M`tm c c I1 L V N v Iii. ya wa t Y ^ O L N C �cits. p `E M a ' G y}`■ --..9 yrc OO o N« .4N y4 -�rur• a c5 $44 p 61 w G C� w r O reC °O L •YNp1� L`O� O� L p 3 r. C"§ Y ..<u � � O «q �� L u �'� V u NL� O ■ �« 4 L.0 V U N Y� 91vL A Y O a�Q� C O Y��NC vUO w �O E6X.S N''L �Y w Vy-. e .5500 aLe A 4 a {L{,S�O O« �4•�� .0 O Y � C .�iNr � Y u M� A q r ? MC YC��� ■` �� O.n4�/� S L� C �� w; � O L e TEr 4 L'O 4V. B � € r4�g e'cN „ooy qu.51h s ?sal 'ge4r a �'■G r4a vE t 7. •lu �� N �y -,'�i +`N of i i r G., yL v �{ O I t y ^ ttY Y 'iNir �pOEU1 —y ka = NN s`Ygtl N 4� j'2 70 4 L 0OrC NNDCY O C �� uq IL. G w ' V 6o V w' A {{..`` qp ` w « e u.� y■ r C O•.q C NCC� tNU ! LN O^ wO'� Y,O,yOtl '-Sa4= d a�C v Oj G OmV4 OJ 4 � >.dc 0 1 Oi. ■ a wO.iCY A4' '^�.V w La s NOa c�Fri �Y aN - 6C�.Li d��- r.0 vK Y �4i_ 40 .Vau .CMY..�e4 _C urYC wo W u NC ' �G w-.xt qp.• US. tr as NU SYNU r. R. q u � � n 11 Ki a] 4N a� ✓ 4 4 1T et u +sw v ; 59 v ea O Y \_5i u °Y cYaa 9u A •� t6 R L z XV4 4 Y w 1 � O (G� S 4 of °o E vEl Y y g g8 u = 9 C YlfNi y ySpy` �p >p � b M ■ S iQ L Gs D= p • Y 1p � w0. «u • �_� NN 4 _`1 yy4 51 Y _G C z a S u +$ cT u w� v AO .� L a J a NNE YAw� wa 4 L $L, '` 4 O C �w Y1 +yi G LpzC�M 7 ='A A q l D Gp NL Z I Lao N� _C4 L«01 ° Ng'� M Or G •Zi1 wLa �y c0 j w'O a Op_p OLD .{•O CL YLy � 4h� � Cq�L q 11w ■��E�WY y *� g i w A ' V _- q 11 O yO O i� H LYJ d✓ M _ Oi• nil CK H > C •�"9 j�y Z C ^ ` -nom jNm ®�.¢ M M C1. •^w''Y aL 9 K 15 � _ L L` y 0 �. �p+ ^r. pp L pp o t L H 0 9 C r _ �9 L Y N y 7 G CFL� °3 CC 1y� yELC yCkCy CO..v M sVyyYG� 4 0 ' LV LL yG + ~ b� Y a�4 M"Y .2:10 `C ' n MN .G qO0 y N/J ` CaA �M8 y w� aCp" 8L °Z °1Z aR� 6 gat -t a ^° W � 'L GY r' A. 6 ✓6N� 'o V. ^'.. w s �C '� �O r_Y. z� � ♦ 'b 8`fY L w0.9 kV +.� q�0• �LY �.L ` �lT y_.� ^ Uk. nWY � L.i L V. NW.^i Y1-r Y�'W >.VL + CC G a O 4l Y Ps Q Y` L Q L A L 4 4 L yyW -r - H� LOL 4 4 .. i >4 C = d wYLi Y-y DyM fi tlyy VF C` n q C It $1 i t' O V O Npr��1 01Yr� Zy P+ WM AL LU LL CCY 1�9N VW BAN a] 4N a� ✓ 4 4 1T et u +sw v ; 59 v ea O Y \_5i u °Y cYaa 9u A •� t6 R L z XV4 4 Y w 1 � O (G� S 4 of °o E vEl Y y g g8 u = 9 C YlfNi y ySpy` �p >p � b M ■ S iQ L Gs D= p • Y 1p � w0. «u • �_� NN 4 _`1 yy4 51 Y _G C z a S u +$ cT u w� v .� L a J a NNE YAw� wa 4 L $L, '` 4 O C �w Y1 +yi G 7 ='A A q l D Gp G U` M tl Lao N� _C4 L«01 ° Ng'� M Or G •Zi1 wLa �y c0 G�4 nY w'O CL YLy � 4h� Y _u aNU .a •o.0 i� is a'fi ZA ttz C � 04 2 t O y — L (y. a c r N v Y Pr L QO :I�y c � ► °73 r.Y ^ �o i� CY+O =E,W CAC Y— M ✓ N �F O 4 N L N'N YTa CY L 7y p <R O 'SO+t3 O GAOi �Cy 'C �fy z Ns N %c la 8- 6 u i� .t7.oN a G q 9 d o 0 4 Y vw rsE'« All $ Y p w k-5 — OLD u � v'a u tp! V Q q A �e V�V �« ■ V w Er Y O L O O L.m j — n- ayYY `N.it 21 R. YY�y0 tlM v ° ✓ L C ..�L� a NY NM ,.mss s° Q3a1 �i n.xv A Y M O ✓� os O ✓NC NAc - 26 4 N •Y ✓� Y yys �w N C ✓ 4 Ipp t V � ✓ O.✓ D rl �fy z Ns N %c la 8- > 6CI 0 y0 f °emu i Y `o ` g s- $ Y p w k-5 — OLD u � V � � y A �e V�V �« ■ V w Er Y O L O O L.m j — n- ayYY `N.it 21 R. YY�y0 tlM �a4 ° ✓ 4 Y M O ✓� — �Ywab. ✓NC NAc - yy+^ �4 6�0pp b C q 4 = 4 CyyE � V V C G A Q v p✓ V Ld Cy- a~ EE��7 Y OV VM Al S N K ry D rl �fy z Yo +7 -Z c i %c la 8- .69 a.- L N SN ✓ f °emu i Y `o ` g s- $ Y p w k-5 — L yo- Cn— cry �« ■ V C Q ✓ V Y' Y O L O O C uT ar erg °L �T i Uj F t V CV ° ✓ 4 °4 .V O ✓� L4� 4JL.1F ✓NC NAc - D rl i 0 RESOLUTION NO. 87 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A POLICY REQUIRING LANDSCAPING OF FREEWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds it desirable to landscape the I -15 (Devore) Freeway right- of -way because of its significLnce as a regional transportation corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds this resolution necessary to give property owners and developers notice of this policy. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission or the City or Rancho Cucamonga does hereby declare their policy to be: 1. That all new development adjacent to the I -15 (Devore) Freeway shall be required to landscape and irrigate the freeway right -of -way adjoining their development site. 2. That the :zmdscaping and irrigation shall be in conformance Huth Caltrans Master Planting Plan through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. That the new development and the landscaped portion of the I -15 Freeway shall be annexed to an existing Landscape Maintenance District or a new Landscape Maintenance District- shall be formed affecting the came properties. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14thDAY OF October 1987. PLANNING CG,WISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: '77�,)'e 'e —'J J-),GL., !_% ATTEST: 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, passd, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamongc, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of OCTOBER , 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: ^_OMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: C"ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Imo'` \ 1 ti - RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW hw,_ 89 -18, LOCATED AT 9037 CHARLES SMITH AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 13) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS I'4 SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 229- 271 -41. A. Recitals. (i) John Dalrymple has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 89 -18 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 27th day of March 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga granted a mitigated Negative Declaration for the application. (iii) On the 10th day of April 1991, the City Planner granted conditional approval of the application. (iv) The decision of the City Planner was timely appealed to this Commission an April !9, 1991. (v) On the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (vi) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 11 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 thu above- referenced meeting on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 9037 Charles Smitn Avenue with a street frontage of 300 .feet and lot depth of approximately 200 feet and is presently vacant; and (b) The property has a frontage of 301 feet along the I -15 freeway to the east; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 89 -18 - BOOTH May 22, 1991 Page 2 0 (c) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant fields, the property to the south of the site consists of vacant fields, the property to the east is I -15 freeway, and the property to the west is vacant. (d) The property is located in a Flood Hazard Zone A due to potential overflow from the unimproved segment of Day Creek Channel bet,;een Arrow Route and Base Line *toad. That segment is scheduled to be completed by March 1992. 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 a9 follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the `site is located; and (c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the pi+blic health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This Commission has previously, on March 27, 1991, roviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission did issue a mitigated Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, thts 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. Planning Division: 1) An in -lieu fee shall be paid for landscaping and irrigation the 301 feet of frontage along the I- 15 Freeway right -of -way„ 2) No outdo-)r storage of machinery or materials shall be permitted without prior City Planner approval. outdoor storage o' vehicles is permitted subject to adequate screening an required by the Industrial :►rea Specific Plan. '7 --)7+ PLANNING COMMISSIONQ RESOLUTION NO. DR 89 -18 — BOOTH May 22, 1991 Page 3 3) No permits for accessory improvements (i.e., Paving, petimeter walls, lighting, etc), shall be issued un4il all site plane, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans are ctiordinated for consistency. Engineering Division: 1) The existing overhtmd utilities (electrical) on the project side c• Charles Smith Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole off -site north of the project's northerly boundary to the first pole off-site ')f the project's southerly boundary prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover ona -half the difference between the unv_xgrounding cost of the utilities (electrical) on the project side of the street minus those (telecommunications) on the opposite aide of the street from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. 2) Street trees along Charles Smith Avenue shall be provided per Enginearing standards. An easement for street trees may be required.. 3) If the project is to proceed before the completion of the Day Creek Channel improvements, flood protection measures shall be provided as justified by a final drainage report including all necessary hydraulic and structural calculations. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adol ?Uon of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLAPNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman. 4 *.. ATTEST: I _. Brad Buller, Secretary Q -�I8 PLANNING CO.14HISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 89 -18 - BOOTH Mi.y 22, 1991 Page 4 Z, 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 adoptet -;`by the-'Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning r*f�mmission held on the 22nd day of .Hay 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: , ABSENT: COEMISS?,:)NERS: 0 C11 Q—)-1 nl. y GO°Y._yL; YVN� O.L ICi ���� NYY =L OL b q •r N M Y nn F t\ C V - jl �° ° y L y Y Z1CtN CS'9Y ^LU C O•�a OYYO�« • +4�va Y�MO��� O '�iL• �� M �. ��y:; � V C.° ° '�u YY 4q CC, CV Y {LIC u V� OtD CC ;0�. A° YO i Y� NM Ya loO Cv_Y r�ll ;" ■On °AU .,p VYy�C i ^; vb`OW` rC QOM��C O�_Y C4p�'O ��i_YY�EY,uO Owt:.O�' p�■Y C;� CyOyN Ste. �psLill- ��OYy•C y N OL -w Iy °4 .9Y OM i°ill G M n0_YY ^B O•NY Y_L_ n +N ilC „O O L °�NV G u�=pp ° Ot ,�'�i�illa.°o• 'Mi. i �'�� Y aN O '� °�gr MyyIlAY. r M rc�r ny�yo��a`4` y"y�q� ±� �� ^�O� Y _ Y�`dy D °... C nr. _`O COY• +9✓LnC�OA VYS as N_C MN� 3Y�rwC�Ya� iYlpl. it �YY� C�ii �l 3 Y_ Y r^ Yyyp ' YS•'C ^ O ii�l Nw Cw. Y�9 C C p P• i1 O. 1y L °� �' Y-L m f � �Y Y ° iiva +c •Yiloo O ■ Y O Opp._ � W ■■ Y YY� � aO O+Ys H O1M C0p r N aM °9rw -Y"1 P 4 r Z O: Ai M ^y O'; 6 .5 o y� ' _p ? i4t c..■O Ez ? yeC i`E ' Y e e SM Yom` yj o y ew O �'• _8 '$N'rip.2 .3 Y yQy � °i C. Y C Y C Q -90 r..1 F .1, +.� C : y iC aS L � O O.^ Y~ W gg V L 4 ♦a P♦+`! � °=.y 9 ttl ��n04 O >N °MQii+ a_ w ���� O� d ai$; ci��y/ O � L h e yy■■yy yS y y I a A "_ +♦' �jyRYL ' Ctl O��C �YL^ d';,R �yC +� +� y �GY �.. . +cc' C O.. NY.■... �z Vt:l' yy..� ryY 0.C4 �"O 0 : 6 +�■� o �..; O1 �D�4�G tl� +Oe pP p• LD LC° ° L♦^-u M'y�M YN E°j�L L+ _ :�S ttli6LY�d n +9�w c 0 ■CyyO C6�t'p� .rV�w ^°sNCV a,y gYe8 p+ fir. 4 y •^Y °Yp aY4�i =0 01CY wM ew, O'Y °ON ^ C1L LC ° pw �tlwi{Yp� .0 � Ytl ^oD e C v t� ♦ O C -.a rd °ctl c 8 N a #- .1 �eN 01. O�� ■yC °yyVrr+eeM O.4avtl ��0 ■O yN. yO °yyP }V... p�p�= �Q� O -H -. 6O °OUC V Y YVU''69 C eLO Y pi4LfiY�Vbi 4L4IL;S O�oYY ^N YLC`Y CCtl t�.NN L�. NYiOi G10rNOe o" y� q C ^ m ++ !! .i > Y N V ♦... e C .� I C ! L y N G IL N ^ OO u L f.0 C 3,8 O- a4^ wq + �l MY +O tl YCYN Y AO! ali�.i. -L c`Yy ms's �CYIO� _o,C ` +■ v$ _ _ham. ° .L_ �.`C _{■� 6._y. �L` ��l °v '1'tl; 94 MY _C M•��.�■��tlCL- ►�' NLM yCt, Aw ^ 'Oo.O +'tl♦p NV �_S {y'R p$Y 4N 4 Yw0 6W S ^� ♦r'JYY +L +y MENZO uN �U G N u M y■ ° Z ♦O'� �3 C` y tly C 4 y w J "tl�� ` Y O v " N W Y O y4 ...$OOp■ i�rcc c�LL yy .+ .a ��u � L `w.. ' M+ -Z .Ci p«� T O.LNN L; Y M ^ >'c V� +� +`Y °p p0 M ".i3 N�CQ�I n N � omw �« co FCC o � ° ,e eL a•s v° C C s ° Aa♦ Lp Tpv a■ L a+ -.5 c^ w u n V <s °gc ^� O.a �.yc YC T4600 4Y °�4O y y�L cY` -Nn -cNO m a V E LCeO _CO � ^.yY O�Y OpO �yc� a �4.iYY >I -o an o {O�Or�NC44'� L CI '� " b . V_G° a�s1II 34C i �`Z1p L± a4t O wV. � ■CAL VO ry'/�1 •rL LSO/ P E- O 4N 1 V A N Q 00 ♦ L �"� n O'O L` ^pCOYC�t ^O t r O p �. P'- N 41 >>4L ■,yYYU C C ^ » D �Y 0 L 4 Y O fi CM N. V O4ppp 0 N- w�. >�I q4w C✓ Cs x. « 1 C :`. O V '..b re-so- ^ Ov 4« I. 4 % NC 8 .. ti w =iu �u. ^'wr.,.,Nxy �Np/.`�'Nn �✓le�N P.� ^.L.�a �N .°.•O L ba �NpL� YGN L G^ :Nq Q . COMyY� V- GiO-- MO�ff�Ya^ '� VtpiV� S M °�C:L bi�DC L Vy `NYV Yr wY.LYNY q9w a.�Mn/�IYM ^fV �Y� Cw O. nw �O QG Ip ^ +�C / rGa -• OI. 1 Yxp i Y e a li MGO a C a4r y ^4t�'iNp pLOb V.O ` G G o O O i L G`« LYi OY�-.y M C G V b'°L pii O. LNx. jb O1lM, Q 11l N^ gf '�o Nve «.r aN+�o • « °'- doe 1..2. x NLa N>t i,v VC 4 3^ ivY^ Vry Y ^� ^- ywLVYY Y_4T 6.>Y. )�S.x NNr +LL PF ► u < ewO d 1 i V+ °'S xLO�L M�oNa L'•r"�.� CC 6'Fj �'� °� .'���ij a�.I� wa n MJ „ S .'a y T 4 W q 41 YON C~ C ... / /K. =Y4 M } V fi b2N C LOy M L Y 4^ O x ^CO, O1 L.9Og M F Z Cyy �6 +Y V K. 2. s1.0 �"NC VVy CN Ya aT >Pi ^'GO CAM 00. x f. CbGO 1LO70N Z C d4E o b q C V` o. Zu c CBI CC p — 4 U T � 6 �Y >I -o an o p as w,- vN v a4t O wV. � V p 06 w ova o Li Fi2m p„ << -- a 4v L a 4 - 4bG C a G_ CBI CC =.S >I =air° p as L = p j Z 06 w �o a�nYCC �..GN. o,4c� 4.i.YCo L 4 Y O fi N- w�. vL C Q� NM - j R G w4 E Y 4 Q OtrjY � � Vy Ns vY off•..° ti "T$� 3V ivYNV ^_yNN 4i gp 6�` ND MTf C_ L. Ori i 9EY« G LE Vey Q^'C YVi G V E1 l N>t r V O VC 4 3^ Yy - 4 tll <wyA q r. ^- 4 4. r C =-E l e 4 r a L ► u < os C + O C ��. $ .W.4g<5Y YO YG mSC ' QW `+GYG .4 C_. ��° cur _ ` ` ■y^y' _ _ V il� I OOiW Cn��� uyWO >y4 + �v Mgupp �*�° °cry «c °`u gay.: C > C i V C Y Z— 4 `. L Y G G W Ala C „ +u N .'00O J SYN H MnnVY +�y� OV.W �. L L yO�� Y N L M 0 tlJJ S Y{y G W: V i: y ..5— eYC d G Csj -Z gCY'p �_yYY^t Vn Y «GG �_ ..,0 •Oh D. 7V OY G+vi T=; :YN Ga+c� 4;ZZ y0. aQpp`w_« Z■"�H E s- r G y Y M « p� W Zt _ n ^e y-4 -G. W «4 L M yu N6 +.. . �M� NgV � 4 OM�� W_qg \. �� ■�_, YI_�V'e p.« gyp Id RE b L G y aWa u )1 O V N S ` �+ J G M^ G> 4 ° cc �� L u A + l Y N O Y< y yy V O• _N r L Y w V A r •11 4~ O O M' w N V M p� L 4n >4 CCT ^pp4 O'L 2xI` O d•�Y.`V [\CT+�YLY CG4L Lz IE � Zr1V Yl`q� nV.D I 3 i _ °^ oa +N..Y O ` p e er Nop �44 8L ry >+ irca ��c c G ' 40 q D S � Pa +LQ yTY y 4 Y C a u Y u 0 i C Y N • OqG 9YoC `—N V V 'b V e wy _ U Y y Y a rd p o ° � 4 r + +y+ N 4 L C Ta e Y U \ a01 f L T-6 ° i Y yo 3 D 0 a N 's + r t NE2Z. «_E « Y Y O D4 a Y _L A N rQ �a +G�ce Q � V O« v t aT 4r 4 �O p V > M nY aN S + Y N •- a.f D° G^ fit �pyW` M ++C O s i °c Vu y+y V 4 L C Y O p• <zm f .r e 6R +Z L N N � C I +o vc °xu 0 _ a ^ 6 o n wE tj IL 4C� G q o G O 4 9 +`0 a_ ■pgga Y V v M.N. � A nN o D L T u C GC w Y O v °c Ol 7_ O `-V e. a' v S( Y >YZ N + L Y n p q V += l 4� c LL y 0 « ^ C S QIL O�� t Y_ l V ° C „ Y VT C G L Y r> N�+ M Y 4 O o � P O.'on � r O � M Y Z r -5 .9 L L 14 K 11 I] 11 4 �• C C P1O L O O = �/(�J a .M�p � y � ,'�' ■ fir Lµev O1Ny� b Y O L iro >� € =I V'w. N� L y•'� ` v L OM O N A ^ ■ _ N NCO L 3 a: oat �ZaYdc &ZZ; n � qw�w e1 � � ' • y + V I S {E�.. 1LmAY <O yUOC1; e � Q^ C. ^ ..0 4 Ccvi LF Y M��V • rO CN VO � .LrS _M ML� {C{A1N O +GU �C • � ee yiCJ gNY AO 4Y 0. 4 D L � y OyyY� O• T L � O Y L NC � 4M.�. -Z $r3' �• � �� ` Mvn0 ^'� � �4 =! Vii O� �AIO+ ��4;Cw _ Ly yYY 1'C ntd w. LL § OM4 L pLN �� C ^y °'�� pp �l♦♦ aYL 4y � LY YC= O Y =CQ.O pO V 4 0 p iv = V V Vp oN = tlC'yT� !o V L 4e OUZZ V y y a y� V' �� P �' GAL' E'+e► i► �°. '�' O�_ Y. .4. g10 .b`$ r y Nw `• of `I� •°+ i L NC `rq4 Y. p.N.CLV oY �i ` °Q L ' y y a 4 °• „ y 4 N' y w Y o O4 1tiVY yy 4CtY ^rte 4r�. 014 -.� C> 4w ««Z °Y2 C`YLC u0M M. P YOS C�+� OL V Lc i� .+' Y4C 0 i .0. .�O O .2.5 C .yy Ypp R fff CYNOu 4V Z.„ Pw. cv aD yt Y1 oecy� `. �1. w Ea .`� 4 °v e •LP•e vw 0 70 • W Y w 4 N N`a `�wa gel�d�i Wv W yU Q^ C. ^ ..0 4 Ccvi LF Y M��V • rO CN VO � .LrS _M ML� {C{A1N O +GU �C • � ee yiCJ gNY AO 4Y 0. 4 D $r3' �• � �� ` Mvn0 ^'� � �4 =! Vii O� �AIO+ ��4;Cw _ Ly yYY 1'C ntd w. LL § OM4 L pLN �� C ^y °'�� pp �l♦♦ y Y YC= .-.E O�1 V 4 0 p iv = V V Vp +.y� Cr a4 V' �� P �' GAL' E'+e► i► �°. '�' O�_ Y. .4. g10 .b`$ r y Nw `• of `I� •°+ i L NC `rq4 Y. p.N.CLV oY �i ` °Q L ' y y a 4 °• „ y 4 N' y w Y o O4 Op == 6■ Cy O� 4CtY ^rte LV iNC� L w o qua �� C c- 0 4 MO'yam 4..2 tL °Y2 ' ayC 01LC M. P c�� Z ° N Y .+' Y4C 0 i .0. .�O O .2.5 C .yy Ypp R 2.90 O Y Z CYNOu 4V Z.„ 4AL "c cv aD yt Y1 oecy� `. �1. w Ea .`� 4 °v e •LP•e vw 0 70 • Z O w 4 N N`a `�wa gel�d�i Wv W yU OIL -A Kw _ �pO •.0 <au. r� .< • F V OCt'O .N OCOyy 0Y `p Y C `-CO�i °L i g8 g OC yMT 0 Gti »W O.L 'O 4 Vyyy++N.N� .� y .• Y rtyy It N�yyyyyp � a ` N� Y O `\ t$v W7 u °a.�i <i Lei ^4NC LL Ow ^ yy ` IAi4 4e+ti -Cc a.. �S v� g t O S r ta rr x,s ►s ar i ao� t -,p ere ��AL{���� •p .r V� �� 4�W �C iyli� YMdy ��. NC �� �` C� 3i O.�er3 NV 6Y. 2L— Y Y_. .'ri iU Y� WMMI -j.0 S::Y L�19 �v t C: FO rO.r m O\ C4 I °L i g8 g 0 4 y Y rtyy N�yyyyyp � ON Y ` N� Y O `\ t$v W7 u °a.�i <i Lei -\ 4 � L 11JJ d� V.rl N '8S Y� cee A A _ Y s.�i ♦N Oy. y p0 ^ 6C r .'rte r iy Y +y y i0 y Y � ► T`tY ♦�.Y � C S' r. Myy �L y t44 Y s4�Q OiY q ° Y �NVW N;6M N z OL O .e Oi VlJ1« x. r 4 i P, YwN � Cs�PS L�^ r Cyf� O N O W n'u o� L A a° +n Y V � iY N � q .n ry O� swQ f C >y L Z, 4 V A 0 E °n � L N LY 4 L +« C OfC ^yO G� W 4 q \ w L yyi Y. O y yO Niw - _ lR V C q y w Y < G Zvi SDI �•� O li Or dCs N y U Myy. M Ll ^ - qq` ■ o � sow v ' -a Y «M vGU y� L - a -•' � W� 'Z .� 6w1 v •. oL's uvY Y 1 t O M y 7iCC S C�^ =s L O L L� .°_ r QCO�p n �.L�CC y Y y h 4 C ;^ Lr q yHa N V�iyp tlw � pV N ■L Cb OM )O AMC z ` d b y G W d C V O r O O M O L y r V� p � •i N vtr � u. �•N..Q - NY ILE V1 �' �MI u T M N > N U W V o Xu w y� e`erg g+ a Y Cl [i Y «M vGU y� t �c oN° wl G'o yry G- oL's uvY pv $o O M y 7iCC S C�^ =s •sa o L� CC9r O Y y h 4 C ;^ Lr q yHa N V�iyp tlw � pV N ■L Cb OM )O AMC O R ^ d b y � a w r � c N N rp- u T M N > a5 Xu �Y $ yy pyQ aY vGU y� t �c oN° wl G'o yry �y uu Yua •'S O M y 7iCC S C�^ N CC9r O =i4 Y gas ;^ A c• t O y`P •. AMC 6JY0 �� StlY. vl 4�. i M� I. MSTRACT: This report deals with recreational vehicle storage i:; xrc?t Lard .rear: of single facily homes. The repert outlines r6commendaticna made by the Public Safety Zomminsion an; provides additional information as requested by the Planning Commission. The report concludee with four basic policy options, or choices, to ae considered by the Planning Commission following a public hearing. II. BACKGROUND: This review of the City'a Recrcat&onal Vehicle ordinance was initi --ted by the City Council. The Council requested that two City commisaions, the Public Safety Commission and t:e Planning Commission, review the existing ordinance and come back to the City Council wl.th their recomrnmndationa. III. PUBL C SAFETY r_OMMISSION V HC?_ TnVr Zubl.e Safety Commission was charged with a review of the currfrlt ordinance from the psrsyective of public safety. The Vublic Safety Ccmmissic.; has concluded Its review OE the Recre "ional Venicle Ordinance. The Public Safety Commisuion is reco.- manding to the City Council that no chszt5k%n be made to the present ordinance. ROwe_ver, the Public Safety Comminc'.Nn has slso recommended that if for some reason the City Council that modificatlons to the currant crdinance are appropriat;a. the following fa ;toss shot _ i be onsidereft "If the regulations affecting the storage of certain recreational vehiciao in fr:nt ya -d areas are to be relaxed, the following criteria should be used: a. only self- propelled, self- co•ttained, and fully secured vehicles such as motor homes, house Lu: a, =A canpers mounted on pickups may be stored in the requir.rd groat y:Ard +aryau. b. Such vehiclec mty not extend . ;- JQwalk or right -of- way Une, 1vay they be stored from the back of sidewalk or _x nt -of -way line. ` ITEM R CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ISTAFFREPORT W,TE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission jo FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil, Depa:y City Planner SUW'ECT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE - Review of current City regulations affecting Storage and parking of Recreational Vehicles on private renidantial properties. I. MSTRACT: This report deals with recreational vehicle storage i:; xrc?t Lard .rear: of single facily homes. The repert outlines r6commendaticna made by the Public Safety Zomminsion an; provides additional information as requested by the Planning Commission. The report concludee with four basic policy options, or choices, to ae considered by the Planning Commission following a public hearing. II. BACKGROUND: This review of the City'a Recrcat&onal Vehicle ordinance was initi --ted by the City Council. The Council requested that two City commisaions, the Public Safety Commission and t:e Planning Commission, review the existing ordinance and come back to the City Council wl.th their recomrnmndationa. III. PUBL C SAFETY r_OMMISSION V HC?_ TnVr Zubl.e Safety Commission was charged with a review of the currfrlt ordinance from the psrsyective of public safety. The Vublic Safety Ccmmissic.; has concluded Its review OE the Recre "ional Venicle Ordinance. The Public Safety Commisuion is reco.- manding to the City Council that no chszt5k%n be made to the present ordinance. ROwe_ver, the Public Safety Comminc'.Nn has slso recommended that if for some reason the City Council that modificatlons to the currant crdinance are appropriat;a. the following fa ;toss shot _ i be onsidereft "If the regulations affecting the storage of certain recreational vehiciao in fr:nt ya -d areas are to be relaxed, the following criteria should be used: a. only self- propelled, self- co•ttained, and fully secured vehicles such as motor homes, house Lu: a, =A canpers mounted on pickups may be stored in the requir.rd groat y:Ard +aryau. b. Such vehiclec mty not extend . ;- JQwalk or right -of- way Une, 1vay they be stored from the back of sidewalk or _x nt -of -way line. ` ITEM R PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FV STORAGE CITY OF RANCHO `OCAYONGA May 22, 1992 Page 2 c. Vehicles stored 3,n the front yard may not be located within 5 feet of the residence, garage, or other structure. d. No vehicles may lie stored on slopes exce.►ding 10 percent." The Public Scfnty e, ission racommand -tions are included here for your infora.., a only. They will he torwardend to the City Council along with the recommendation of the ZIPoninc C=-- ission. IV. PLANNING. COMMISSION RZVIEW The Planning Commisaion hake already discussr.3 this issue on several occasions. In these discussions, also invelving the representatives of the recreational vehicle group, the issue was narrowe4 down to private residential properties only; pisblic street parking is nit ai issue at this 'time. Staff was requested to look into specific items, to see if there is s way to relax the exiatinq restrictions while maintaining a reasonable degree of contrl and at +`; same time casurrt that tte ordinance can be ap;?�lied equitably. The item.4 staff wnw recveatod to mxazinr included maintenance tasuse, timing restrictions, grandfathering, anal consideration of developing different standards for different type& of vehicles. it was also notad that the Public Safety Commission's recommendation should be considered before the Planning Commission finalizAd its recommendation to the City Council. V. MAINTENANCfi ISSUES: The lortg term general maintenance of all City neighborhoods is clearly a question of public health, xafety, and welfare. This incluc,es ♦dequal.e maintenanco of structures, yards, parkways, and items stored in public view, including recreational vehicles. The pre -1988 ordinance dearlina with RV1* relied on vehicls mr':zt&nance proviaions to prom.oto pt. , heal'ah, - diety, and welfare goala. Unfortunately, the ardina, ._ -.was inr,s_`ticLive, in L_hat it was -Inly able to deal with the most flagrant violations. The Code L., ,rcement office received many calls from resident® objecting to the parking of r4creational vehicles in their neighborhood. however, many of the vehicles reported as being in poor condition did not constitute a clear viclati.on undas the ordinance; there fore, the City could not force their removal. By necessity, a'`.1 maintenance requirsawnts tend to be subjective. Items such an flat "tire& and inoperative, unlican-ed vehicles are easy to identify. However, the great majority of ma' itanan,ie cases are in a marginal condition a,.d subject to interpretation a"d value judgments which do not stand legal scruti:y. The community, iind Code Enforcement staff in the field„ must have a clear and easily explainable set of rules to Work wi.h to be affective. Alm ELM NW q - c� e` Q PLANNING COMMISSION STAR: REPORT RV STORAGE - CITx OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 2«, 1991 Page 3 VI. TIME LIMITS: Existing regulations dealing with ALL vehicles (not just IN's) distisyuish between "storage," which is considered permanent, and "parking," which is considered to be of a temporary, non - continuous nature. Current regulations prohibit all "storage" in residential front yard areas= Na vehicles (or ether items such as equipment, materials, etc.) ray be permanently stored in front yards. Passenger vehicles are considered "stored" after live consecutive flays of continuous parking. Recreational vehicle regulations are currently more restrictive: RV's are considered "stored" after only 24 hours of continuous parking. one of the raaaons for the five -day limit on passenger vehicles is that vehicles which are in continual use are by necessity in operating condition and r_e rear�nably well mainta. ^ed. Also, vehicles that are moved of+.sn cannot �,%ccumulate debris aroU,,nd and under them. By contrast, vehicles which are permanently stored do not necsseitate continual maintenance, dust and debris easily accur:alato, weeds and leaves become more dii7ficult to control, and a conecientious effort by the owner is required to maintain the vehicle and its immediate surroundings in adequate condition. In staff's experience, a large proportion of vehicles currently stored in violation of the five -day limf.c are L..1so a maintenance problem. The time limit provides t. tangiblo ;and enforces` +le tooi to deal toith passenger vehicle maintenance problems. Similar considerations apply to other zhicles, including RV'e. Moweve•. from a maintenance perspective, there is no advantage in keeping the RV regulations more restrict . w -) than regulations for other vehicles. Modifications to the existing ordinance could be made to eliminate the distinction between RV's and ether vehicles, and apply a five -day parking limit to both. The net result would be that recreational vehicles would ne' ba considered. ",+to 3' ' until after five days of continuous parking, and regulations dealing with "storage' would not kick in until that point. This scald give thn RV o%:srs additional flexibility, without impairing the City's .ability to .sustain a high level of maintenance in its neignorhoods. VII. G�iANDFATAERINGz "Grandfathering" is a means to establish a legal right to continue an activity which is no longer permitted by current regulations. Staff was requested to investigate the yossibility of "g- rrdfatbering" pro- existing recreational vehicles. ThIs would allow recreational vehicles which had been storL-d in front yards prior to the adoption of current regulations to continue to be stored in the front yards. C -. 2 PLAH'NING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RV STORAGE - CITY OF M?CHO CUCAMONGA Hay 22, 1991 Page 4 There are several legal and practical problems with this approach: First, the non - conforming (or "grandfathering ") clause is normally used to permit the continuation of activities which have been 1;mgally established in the firat place. As uew laws are adopted, pre - existing but legally established activities are "grandfathered = -in" and aillowed to continua. The pre -1988 ordinance did not permit storage of RV's in the'a. front yards without restrictiane. Rather, the storage of RV's in the '`!,,front yards was permitted in a very limited area (between the drivewiT and the nearest side property line). Thus, many of the RV's which db not most toda•.•e regulations would also violate the pre-- existing ordinance and could not be "grandfathered." Second, there is no practical way to determine whether a vehicle has been stored in a given location since before the date of the ordinance. This means that new storage locations could be established in violation of the new ordinance with no way of enforcement. The only solution to this is to "grandfather" All RV's stored today (in violation of both the pre -1988 ordinance and current regulations). Third:, there is a question of equitable application of City regulations. if existing vehicles are "grandfathered" and permitted to be stored in front yards, but neighiors who complied with current regulations are not permitted to use their property in like manner, problems in rtfcrcemant are ver;(,likely to develop. Given these t tsiderations, staff doe: not consider "grandfatbering" a practical optWn for addressing t%is issue. VIII. STANDARDS BY TX!.JE OF VEHICLE: The Commission asked staff to examine whether storago standards could be developed by the type of vehicle, considering the type of problem which may be associated with each type. The following classifications represent the types of vehicles Commonly found in residential neighborhoods in this coamuaity. HQMBHOMEs van conversion Chassis Mountad Camper Housecar - 18 -40 feet Converted Bus q_V L J PLANNING ZOMMISSIOli STAFF REPORT RV STORAGE ­ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 5 TRAILERS Utilt,ty /Flat Bed Trailer Special Purpose Tratlez Box /Enclosed Trailer Camping /Tent Trailer Horse /Stock Trailer House Trailn. 12 -35 f9et Fifth Wheel Trailer 20 -40 feet RS Row Boat Open Eoct (Trailer) 12 -20 foet, Sail Boat (Trailer) 10. -35 feet Cabin Cruiser (Trailer) 16 -35 feat Houseboat (Trailer) 20 -35 feet K&PERS tQ�k MPER- SHELLS Unmounted Shell (Por.,able) Unmounted C,%mysr Camper (Mounted on Pick -up) MOTORCYCLES /AL TERRAIK VEHICLES rotorcycle /Dirt Bike !Not Street Logal) All Terrain VeW cle (3- wheel, 4- wheel, •tot Street Legal) Moped /Motorized Bicycle (Street. Legal) Motorcycle (Street Legal) OFF_R_Q" VEHICLES (NOT STREET LEGAL) Dune Buggy - Off-Road Venlcle (Jeep, Truck, VW, -etc.) Off -Road Race Vehicle Road Race Car F.lthough there aru a Lxrge number of recreational vehicle types, potential problems associated with each are simil&r in nature. T'te Public Safety Commission had looked at this option.! from thr, perspective of safety and agreed that there are realky just two groups of recreational vehicles: 1. Self- contained, self - propelled, and fully secured vehicles such as motor homes, house cars, and campers on trucks; and 2. All otharej such ae boats, trailers, off -road vehicles, etc. From the point of vicaw of maintenance and land uwe, a similar distinction can be drawn as wail. Vehicles which can be driven, and are licenead to be operated on public streets require a cubatartial degree of maintenance and are easier to control. R,6— PLI 79ING COMMISSION 'STAFF REPORT RV STORAGE — CITY OF RANCHO CDCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 6 Should the Commission desire to modify the existing ordinance to permit the storage of certain typop of recreational vehicles in the front yards, staff suggests that only self- contained, sslf- propelled, and licensed vehicles be permitted ir. front yard areas. IX. A:AILABLE OP i NS: There are .a number of policy options available for consideration. The basic choices are: 1. KEEP 2XISTING ORDINANCE AS IS. This would continue to prohibit RV parking in front ycrd.s aril dri -treways for more than 24 hours. 2. XEEP EXISTING ORDINANCE, BUT RELP.X TIME LIMIT:. This option would keep existing restrictions on "storage" of RV's, but extend; the period during which 11V1s may be "narked" in front yard areas to five days (or other appropriate limit). 3. REVISE ORDINANCE TO PFHifIT FRONT YARD STORAGE OF SEL€'- CONTAINED WD SELF - PROPELLED VEHICLES ONLY. -Ur would ease the restrictions on motor homes and similar vehicles, but continue the current restrictions for boats, trCilers, and Sthor vehicles; as noted in the report. 4. REVISE ORDINANCE TU PERMIT FRONT 1'aRD STORAGE OF AM T.ECREATIONAL VEHICLES. This option would permit the storage of all AML recreational vehicles in the front yard area subject to maintenance regulations. X. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission again obtain public input on these issues and either: I. Direct staff to prepare appropriate changRe to the text of the ordinance, or 2. Yorvard its policy recommendation to the City Council for considera'ion, along with the recommendation of tha Public Safety Brad City P a Pu aer nner BB:Ojt/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "a" Planning Commission Stsif Report dated June 27, 1990 Exhibit "k3" - Ordinance No. 360 Exhibit "C" - S-mmry of Surrounding Cities' Regulations �,� E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 27, 1990 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Richard L. Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE - Review of current City regulations affecting storage and parking of RVs on private residential properties 1. BACKGROUND: At their May 16, 1990, meeting, the City Council reviewed the current Recreational Vehicle Ordinance, its history, and the enforcement procedures currently in use. As a rasult of this review and public testimony requesting the Ordinance be amended, it was determined that additional information was needed to accurately assess current regulations. The matter was referred to the planning and Public Safety Commir.lons for review, their recor,.nendations to be forwarded back to the City Council. TT. HISTORY: Prior to 19x8 regulations regarding vehicle parking and storage restricted parking on both public and rrivate property. Recreational vehicles were restricted from being parked overnight on City streets. On private residential property, they could by stored ii the side yard, rear yard, or within the front yard area only on an improved surface between the driveway and the nearest side property line. Since the establishment of a Code Enforcement Program, the City received a substantial number of calls requesting the relocation of stored recreational vehicles. Residents objected to the storage of boats, trailers, motor homes, camper shells, and similar vehicles in public view and adjacL,at to their driveways. Concerns werr: raised with large vehicles stored behind the sidewalk, interfering with visibility, and with the effect these vehicles may have on the quality of the neighborhood and property values. In addition, the appearance and maintenance of some of the RVs were of great concern to many residents. fs a result of theca numerous complaints, revised requirements were developed which dealt more specifically witl; recreational vt`icles. Prior to adapting the regulations, public hearings were held by loth the Planning rommission and the City Council. �,"I PLANNING COMMISSIO' 'TAFF REPORT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE JUNE 27, 1990 Page 2 1II. CURRENT REGULATIONS: The revised ~2rdinance, in effect since August of 1988," resulted in tw:* matarial changes. First, recreational vehicles may no longer be stored (parked for mckre than 24 hours) within the front yard area. Second, recreational vehicles stored in side or rear yard areas must be at least partially screeied from public view. The regulations are conta'ned in Subsection 17.08.070 -C of the Development Code (see Exhibit "Alt). No changes have occurred in public street tzgulations - overnight parking of RVs on public streets continues to be restricted.. Storage: Current regulations are intended to discourage the storage of vehicles in front yard areas, and other yard areas within public view. A specific. time period is defined in the Ordinance as coustituting storage of a vehicle. Passenger vehicles (those vehicles not defined as a recre.itional vehicle) are considered to be stored after S days of continuous parking. Recreational vehicles are considered to be stored after 24 hours of continuous parking. Exceptions are provided to allow storage of recreational vehicles during loading and unloading operatio,is. Screening: Current regulations are intended to require screening ,')r all vehicle parking and storage areas located in the side or rear yard of a residence. Screening of the area d .a be acccmplished by a view obscuring fence, wall, gate, with lantscaping of at least 5 feet in height. Tall vehicles such as motorhomes and boats are not required to be completely hidden from view. General Requirement.;: The majority of the narking regi lations in residential areas apply to all vehicles. They do not deal specifically with recreational vehicles, but are applicable. Vehicle narking is limited to improved paved areas, a limited portio;: of the lot arer, and in specific locations such as driveways and enclosed yards. Regulations prohibit the parking or, storage 0, oversize commercial vehicles in residential areas completely. Land Use Requirements- Vehicle are a r,crt of broRTF development all aspects of res ;ential grvoth promote and Protect the physical, residential districts. Special effect of a use on surrounding health, safet,;, welfare, peace, enjoyment of :he praperi,�. C-3 parting and storage requirements and design standards that govern These standards are intended to social and economic stability of consideration is given to the prap3r i- s with regard to public convenience, and the reasonable E 9-71 PLANNING ",`OMMISSIO' -TAFF REPORT RECREATIL';VAL VEHICL� STORAGE JUNE 27,1990 Page 3 The City's 7.urrent regulations r9flect a standard that is applied to all items of storage in residential areas. Building materials, household items, storage containers, etc., have been required to be stored within the garage or an enclosed yard area since the adoption of the Development Code. Storage requiremNnts were established to ensure the proper maintenance of residential areas for aesthetic, health and safety reasons. The requirements for the storage of recreational vehicles was intended to meet this same standard. Recreational Vehicle Definer: As defined in Subsectiot. 17.08.070-C(9), a recreational vehicle is a= of the following: A non - commercial v^hicie: 1. Exceeding a gross weight of one and one half (1 b 1/2) tons, 2. Exceeding a width of eighty (80) inches, 3. Exceeding a height of seven (7) feet, or t. Exceeding a length of twenty -five (`.5) feet. A trailer or semi - trailer (fi 7th wheel trailer). A boat (boat and trailer) Any portable recreational equipment. IV. REGULATION IN OTHER CITIES: Many cities have recreatte� >l vehicle parking and storage regulations. Most commonly, as with, Rancho Cucamonga, these regulations are a part of the general parking requirements applicable to all vehicles. The range of regulations directed specifically at recreational vehicles varies greatly from city to city. Also varying greatly is the degree of enforcement that is directed at these regulations. In all cases, matters of public safety receive t're highest priority. Vehicles blocking sidewalks, creating visibility problems or other hazards are the subject of regulation and enforcement. The types of regulations dealing specifically with recreational vehicles on residential property range from none, to complete restriction from front yarn areas (see Exhibit "E'). Cities such as Fontana have no specific RV requirements, allowing these vehicles to be parked in the same manner as any other vehicle. In contrast, the City of Upland restricts RVs completely from front yard areas, requiring screening to keep the vehicles out of public view. The majority of local cities have some res;.rictions on the storage of RVs in the front yard. Enforcement of these regulations 1 si PLANNING COMMISSIO' -iAFF REFflRT RECRcATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE JUNE 27, 1990 Page 4 in most cities is consistent With other regulations dealing with private., property. Basic narking issues art not a high priority, and often enforcement personnel are not provided for this purpose. Staff is still in the - process of researching otbir cities Nlograms. V_ PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES: The Public Safety Commission at their June 12, 1990 meeting, held a public hear1nr on ��ecreational vehicle storage as it relates to public safety. As a r3sult, t►he Commission has directed staff to research several concerns and to bring back additional inforiation for use in Yorming a recommen- !ation to the City Council. Specific issues included: sight lice visibility, methods of securing tr°a lrrs in driveways, hazards related to the sto-age of unmounted campers or equipment, and specific de-criptions rf the types of vehicles and equipment encompassing the term "recreational vehicle." VI. RECOMMkNgATION: The City reguli�tions are a combination of requirements intended to maintain both the zzsthetic quality of the community and to safeguard the public from;patential threats to public health, safety, or welfare. The :Tanning Commission, through review of the current Rec mationa ehicle Ord !name, should make recommendation the City Council as to the suitability of these regulations for maintaining the development standards in the City's residential d`;stricts. �r Respec y sub i. d, B ra... r City anner BB:RA:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Ordinance No. 360 ExMbit "B" - Matrix of other Cities' Regura4`arrs Appendix Sanq)le RV storage Regulations 11 -�` 16 ORDINANCE NO. 360 AN ORDINANCE OF THS CITr COUNCIL J£ 738 CITY OF RANCHO COCAMMA. CALIFORNIA. AMENDING SUBSECTION 17.08.070 -C AND 17.12.030 -P, AIM "DIM A 17W SUBPECTION 17.10.050 -0 TO THE RANCHO CUCAtDNGA MNICIPAL COLA PERTAINING TO VEHIMg PAMING WITHIN RESIDENTIAL, ODM*MC= /OMM AND IYWSTRSAL DISTRIMS A. Recitals. (32 On May 25, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the following prop ;aed amendmL-r,,t to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga M micipal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Development Code'") regarding regulations for vehicle parking within residential; commercial and induatrial districts of the City. (iii At the conclugisn at! "id May 25. 1988, public hearing. .:be*_ P1r.aning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88 -108 thereby recommending >_hnt this Council adopt the proposed Developsent Code amendnents as get forth in thin ordinance. (iii) On June 25. 1988, the City Council of the Cir° of Rancho O�opmentCodee 32endmenntts an net forth herein and with said bearing �was the concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (iv) all legal prerequisited prior to adopt un of thidordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. FOLLOWS: 7HE CITr COUNCIL O8 7HR CITT OF RANCHO MCAMMA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS SE=ON 1: That all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Part A. of this Ordivane* are true and correct. SELMON 2z Subsection 17.08.070 -C of the Daoalnpment Code of the City of RancG a monga is hereby amended to read. in words and figures, as follower: C. Dehicl+ Parking. The parking of vehicles in all residential dier.xcts shall be subject to the following provisions: ��ti1 Ordinance No. 560 Page 2 1. The design guidelines and regulations for parking areas shall conform tU the provisions of Chapter 17.12 of the Development Code; 2. Vehicle parking shall be within the enclosed garage. carport or other required or authorized off- street: paved parking a - -a; 3. All parking areas ui�kin public vier* from the street. public riRht- of-way or adjacent pryperties shall be paved vit -i a permanent paving material. Such Brea shall be maintained in a useable condition fr" of potholes and broken sections sufficient to prevent and and /or dust. withotre accumulation of loose r aerial ur other deterioration; 4. Vehicles may be p&%ked or stored in the side or rear yard provided that such area is screened from view from the st=e=t. public tight- -of -w, y and adjacent propartiea by a fence. wall. or mquivalent screening material at leant five (5) feet is height: 5. Vehicle parking within wide and rear yard areas shall be limited to five percent (5Z) as the total lot area or five hundred (500) square Feet, whichever is greater, unless constructed puranant to an approved Minor Development Review; 6. Except as provided in Subsection l herein. vehicles parked within public view in =squired nr authorized parking areas within the front yard. corner side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for tempor�:ry periods of time not to exceed five (5) consecutive days; 7. "7ehicles" as used in this aectior. shall include. but not be lia3 ^_ad to. commercial , vehicles. automobiles. truckso zzr.x m =s. motor trucks. rumi trailers. moxorcycler. mopeds. czApera, c=Per shells, boats or other large portable recreational and comatzeial equipment; and B. No commercisl vehicle vhi i exceeds a grow veight of one and one -half (1 and '2) tons, or exceeds a width of eighty (80) inches or exceeds a height rf seven (7) feet or exceeds a 1911gth of tventy - five f25) feet; a o specialized work related vehicle t-,truck. stakebed trucks. etc.) and no specialized vork.rriated portable equipment (e.g. cement mixers, ,railero. etc.); shell be parked on any portion of a residential lot un?eas: (1) it is actively involved in making -� �a Ordinance No. 360 Page 3 pi4a -ups and delivttf :s; (2) in co 'anection with. and in aid to the perforiance *f a servico to. or on. the property wnxre the vsuycic is parked. white actively inv,Ived in such activity; or (3) in conformance with the conditions of approval for a valid Hale Occupation Permit as provided in Section 17.04.060 of the Development Code; 9. No private. non- coamercial vehicle which exceeds a gross weight of one and one- -half U and 1/2) tone. or exceeds a width of eighty (SO) inshev. or exceeds a height of seven (7) feet or exceiris a length of twenty -five (25) foot: and no trailer. semi - trailer, boat or portable reorestional equipcian* shall be parked or stored within the front Yard. corner side yard or side yard aautting M street unlesa: EQ it is not s commercial vehicle and is parkot for a teaporary 1.etiod of tie* not to exceed twenty -four (24) hours; (2) it is involved in loading or unload ng activity; and (3) it is parked in compliance with airy ether applicable City _ ordinance; 1U. Violation of any provision cf this wabsection shall be punishable as an infraction. SECTION 3: Subsaction 17.12.030 -8 8) of tte Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucaaot:;js is bereby amended to read. in words and figures. as follnug; 8. Any secondary ?:wed d7l*eway or exttesicn of the primary driveway uha'.1 not be used for W. Una urleas: (1) it connecta the prima -r driveway occeRn to a second access point with the arrest or public right-of-way (i.e. circular driveway) with r. continuous ps.maent width not exceeding twel— X12)) feet; (2) it is an extrasion of the griwazy driveway toward the neatest dux or rear yard area; or (3) ie constructed pursuant to an approved Hiner Developugnt Rrviax. SECTION 4: Subsection 17.10.050 -0 is hereby added to ta, Development Code of the C4.Xj -f sncho Cucamonga to be vend. in horde and figures. as follows: 0. ?ehi�le Kicking. The parking of vehlclies ft 411 commercial/ °lee bad inductrial districta shat ", be subject x : the followin;; pY ;Nrixionx: 1. The design. guidelineo and regulations fa3 parking facilities shall = ufoix to the provisions of Chapter 17.12 of the lsysloptent CaAe anA any applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan; x T`,R ` " ��13 0701-02 oP,C. AGENDA MAY 225, 1991 7 of 7 Ordinance No. 360 Page 4 2. Vehicle parking shall be within buildings, garages or other required or authwuLved off - street paved lyart,�zg facilities. 3. All parking facilities within public view fro;: the street. public right-of-wk,, or adjacent, property shall be paved with a. permanent paving material. Such area shall be maintained in a useable condition free of potholes and broken sections sufficient to prevent mud and /or dust. without accumulation of Uos2 material or other deterioration; 4. No vehicle shall be parked for the purpose of displaying such vehicle for sale or other commercial activityr including, but not limited to. lease. hire. advertising, etc. unless such vehicle is parked by. or with She written permission off, a business on the property which is permitted. licensed and approved to display vehicles for such purposes; 5. No vehicle shall be parked for the purpose a!� repair or maintenance unless: (1) such work is p:- tstf0rmed on vehicles owned or operated by the on -siZ"a business within an enclosed building or yard area screened from '- v?ew from the street. public right -of -w -. nd {ocent properties and required off - street parka S faa�Iities with public access; or (2) in connection with u current on -site business permitted to perform ra�-air or maintenance o vehicles and only during .aatabliahed business boars; 6. No vehicle vhicu is disabled, unlicensed. unregistered. inoperative or frogs which an eaaential or legally required operating part is removed or missing shall be parked within public vier frog; the street; public right -of -way, adjacent ptoperti -eg or requires off - street parking facilities with public access; 7. No commercial vehicle exceeding a gross weight of one and one-half (1 and 1/2) tons. or exceeding a width of eighty (60) inches. or a trailer or semi trailer shall be parked within a commercial/office district unless: (1) it is screened from public view from the street. public right -of- way and adjacent properties; (2) it is actively involved an making pick-ups and delivecies; or (3) in connection with, and in aid tfj,, the perfcrmance of a service to. or on„ the property where the vehicle is oae'Md- whirr actively involved i:; such activity; 13 Ordinance No. 360 Page 5 8. 'Vehicles10 as used in thi) section shell include. but not be limited to. commLrcial vehicles. aletomobiles. trucks. trailers. motor trucks, semi tr- a?zrs. motorcycles. mopeds. campers. camper shells. boats of other large portable recreational or commercial equipment; 9. Violation cf a:T Pravieier.of this subsection shall be paniehable as an anfractisn. SECTION 5: The City Council declares that. should any provision. section, paragraph. sentence or word of this Ordina -ace be rendered or declared invalid by any fina.. court action in a court of competent jurisdiction. or by reasons of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions. sections. Paragraphs. sentences. and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECS? a 6: The MLyer shall ai ft this Ordinance and the City Mork shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in ZRte Dai19 kprt. a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario. California. and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California., The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and tae City Clerk ®hall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days aftet,ite passage at least once in The ;Jails Re uort. a nexapap�r of general circulation published in the City of Ontario. California. any! circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. PASS13D. APPROVED. and ADOPTED this 6th day of July. 3 ')88. AYES: Brown. Bnquet. Stout. King. Wright NOES: None ABSENT: None nnis L. Stout, !Mayor ATTEST: Beverly Authelet. City Clerk ordinance No. 550 Page 6 I. BEMLY A. AUMBLET. CITY MIRK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California., do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was intro'--.aced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hold on the 25th dap of June. 1988. and was finelly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 5th day of July. 1988. Executed this `th dap of July. 1988 at Rancho Cucamonga. California. Arrehelet. City Clerk }� kH) P, - i�,- 6� VEkICLE PARKING AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE REST )ENTIAL PROPERTY CITY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FvR— GENE^AL REQUIREMENTS FOR RECRE.a 10NAL VEi IC.LES ALL VEHICLES. INCLUDING RV's RANCHO NO STORAGE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD PAVED SURFACE, SCREENING CUCAMONGA /.REA, PARKING LIMITED *Lt 24 REOUIIRED IF SIDE AND REAR CONSECUTIVE HOURS. YARD AREAS, SIZE LIMITS. UPLAND NO STORAGE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD PAVED SURFACE, WEIGHT LIMITS SE,8ACK', OUT OF VIEW IN SIDE OR AND NON- NuTORIZED EQUIPMEI -T REAR YARD AREAS. IS CONSIDERED STORAGE. ONTARIO NONE. NONE. FONTANA NONE. CANNOT BLOCK THE'PUBLIC RIGH`i' -OF -WAY (SIIEWALK). RIALTO NONE. PAVED SUFFA"E, ONE TON WEIGHT LIMIT FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. CHINO GROSS WEIGHT OVER 2000 POUNDS, PAVED SURFACE, WEIGHT LIMIT 72 HOURS MAXIMUM IN FRONT OR FUR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. EXPOSED YARD AREAS. NORCO REAR YARD ONLY, WITH A LIMIT WEIGHT LIMIT FOR COMMERCIAL ON THE AMOUNT OF YARD AREA VEHICLES, PERMITS CAN BE USED FOR STORAGE. OBTAINED FOR OWNERJOPERATION. MONTCLAIR NONE. PAVED SURFACE, WEIGHT LIMIT FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. CLAREMONT SIDE OR REAR YARD ONLY, MUST PAVED SURFACE, WEIGHT LIMIT BE BEHIND A 5 FOOT HIGH VIEW F1R COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. OBSCURING FEMC OR GATE. EXHIBIT • i �� 10 11 12 21 3 14 1S 16 17 is s9 2 21 22 23 2s 25 26 2t CITV ArT9ANQr C.ALI'OMNiA III ORDINANCE. NO. AN ORDINAE OF TH3 CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFC)P,;IA, AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE RIVERS$Dr£ MUNICIPAL C00£ F3Y RDDJSNd SECTION 19.68.060? AMENDING SECTIONS 19.69.020 AND 19.69.040? AND DELETING SECTION 19.70.1 3 TO REGULATE MOTOR VEgICLE REPAIR IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 19. 8Y ADDING 0 AN SECTION 19.74.052? BY AMENLIZNd ?ECTIONJ 19.74.060 A.MC 19.74.150? AND BY DELETING SECT )NS 19.70.180 ANU 19,70.182 TZ REGULATE FRONT PARx!v 19 d YARDS AND STREET SIDE YARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. The City Ccuncii of the City of Rivera,ds dons ordain a. follows: MIsctien 14 Chapter 18.68 .t the 1Riverside Municipal Cod is hereby amended by adding thereto a now section 19.68.060 to read as follows: 19.69.060 Rzf -'AIR, t hINTED ANCb OR OVEMJL Or MOT VEHICLES. Rspazt 9f motor vehicles is any residential aona shall be limited to the 1'ollew!aga as Motor vehicle repairs 4ce- urging in any frorc or street side yard, or in any area visible to public street shall occur only On a 'legal dri area Or parking spaes and shall be limitod to minor repair of no more than one vehic3,s at a time Minor repairs to any one vehicle shall not exceed two days in any thirty day. period. 24inor repairs reo ionaiude a tuna ®up, brake r®Fair, hose and tan belt pYae.s.nto electrical system repair, fuel system se air and siailar work gergormsd on a motor ve Lela. minor repair does not include any engine overhaul or dismantling, drive train repair, suspension repair, upholstery, bodywork, re$inishi of trams work. cond ucted in a completely enclosed garage or A rea yard area enclosed by t' high lsneing. on properties aith_no completely enclosed garage or Tes o tT access Tssgeo to "tha sser yard is not possible, a raryy se permit must be obtained per Section 19.69.020) permitting tht+•repair work. C. Major motor vehicle repair outside of a eompl9tely snclamod garaga shall be limited to one vehiCls and ®r topair at a tiuer. CA) 1, �,18 1' d ychieZe r epairs shall be It -ited to those vehicles registered at the occ"rs. address I +here the repai 3 u e- All parts, tocle and equipment relating to motor vehicle repair Shall bs, stored in a complete enclosed buz.ldinq. 5 Sectir' 21 Section 19.69.030 eg thM Riverside 6 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows$ 8 "19.69.030 TEMPORARY USES us PZ&XTTED. Temporary sis•ahall be Permitted "wins a Temporary Use permit ua. elsecifed in the table below which indicates temporary s�taF 9 permitted, each allowed the Bones in which the use is , thet maximum number ZO of days each use is allowed each calendar year on each property, occurrences each LIse is the maximum number 11 e a110e ',ee in each calendar year on each property, and the City -agencies 0', termite 12 ca must approve ®aria the each occurrence. Temporary uses are not P public right- of -tea.. 13 3 i se— oti_on 3s Section 19 .69.040 of the Riverside Municipal 14 C04e ie hereby amendef? to read ac follows$ 15 16 "19.6 ":040 FILING pan. A filing fee to lass permit application in a tabiishe by City C the aacuut by City Council resolution sham be Filing an SIPPlication. li The fee shall be in additiors to any other rcquirad foes such as for business tax, temporary utility 16 pnrmits, buildinq peraits, site. No fee will ® charged for nOn -coRIS vial 19 residential cones." act r ®aide or vehicle repair i 26 Seer Section 19.70.162 of the RIVOrside Municipal 21 Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. 22 Sect, -.®t Chapter 19.74 of the Riverside Municipal Code 23 is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Section 19.74.032 to 24 read as lollowst 25 '19.74.032 OFF- STREXT PAR INO 2R9 dill b�T AND STREET SIDE YARDS. Except as 26 rovided in this section and in Section 19.74.060 of thf s soliet landscaped fry, street 27 g and aids yard setbacks shall not be rased off- street parking of for the vehicles TV RTTOAN or for off - street parking @Y Atvttait0@ - � 2 CALIFORNIA I spaces, turning or maneuvering aisles. Howwver, ent• rc shall be permitted to 3 and exit drives, as a means of ingress and a rear t 2 calf- street parking spaces, d r landscaped front and street aide yard Setbacks." 4 section 6i Section 19.74.060 of the Riverside Municipa; 5 Code is hereby amended to read as follows$ "19.74.060 PARKINd AND �°,Si MANEUVERING iN FRONT YARD AREAS OF SINGLE FAHZLY.,RDE=AL AND e2•$ Z�ANffiEF. 7 (1) PermittSd Locations of Parking and N,aneuvering Areas. Parking and maneuvering areas in Ere 8 yard areas of single family rssidsntial and R -2 Zones to all eatialea, inciurline� motorized and lion- motorized 9 retreat onasl vehicles, &MIl be limited to the space 1Q within a carport or garage plus a paved drivers; between such garage or cazpart and the street gram which it is servsd, not exceeding the width of the garage. In 11 ad paved for foplO"ing front and side yard areas may ale. 12 be Parking and r�argeuvering of vehicles. 13 A- house with Attacked tfarag ®a The space between the Qrivzway sesvtng the garage and the 14 nearest side ;property line, with much paving ermittsd to extend as:�ar as the rear o! the 15 residential structure, such space not to exces twenty feet in width beyond the drivoway servi ;t 16 garage. (ass riguzes 1 and 2.) 17 E• Horse With Detaches! Garage, Served* by (Adjacent 6eresta The $Pace b4twssn the driveway ar 18 t tho \s U04r4st aid* property line, extending as far an tws ty�gsI t inswi�dthgbOvandhthe driveway oserving tr 19 garage. i8se Figure 3.) 20 C. lto�se With Detached Garage served From an 1 21 7 Allsys A space, not OxCeedinq twenty feat in wilt -:- adjacent to a side property tine. duah of in sides! may extend no further than thy® space between the 22 street and the rear of the house. in ®fellation of such a driveway is subject to approval of a driveway 23 curb cut by the Public Works D Figure 4,) e,Paatment. (gee Z4 i 25 D. Circular frontage and at Drivese A mouse with one street least 100, 26 with two circular street drive. of Width, or trcntagss' may be carved any house by a 21 Circular drive and 3h addition, tht Upaaa the nearest interior between the; aids. prCpesty line may be paved, Provided this addit ' na CITY ATTOI.146Y RIVERSIOC -30 CA61 M mt^ (,(� lI z F ='ing does not exceed twenty feet in width beyonc the point from the nearest paint of the circular driveway and the interior ids sins Property 3 line, nor extend further than they di between the strac and the rear of the 4 residence. No circular drive will bDirectorefor itwoudrivewaypap Works nines ®thetl?e Figure S.) 4i (See 5 6 E. Special Requirem,1nts for Driveway Exts� -gior in Street Side Yard Areitm, ,Wher_s ' the area propGSe for driveway expansion is a street side 8 yard, the Portion oP the driveway behind the front rotbtck must be lc"Ofted fr®m the adjoining street by a 6' 'high solid fence or wall. (ir Exceptions to Paving Restrictions. The Planning Dirac Exceptions shall have 10 the authority to restrictions. cO grant excspti*mg to the paving location restrietiane, consistent with Il t:ho purposes of this section, where rpeeial circunstances relating to propert configuration, ZZ tezrtin, landscaping or structure locatio make adherence to the paving location 13 rseUri4ticne of th section impractical. Any such dOCision by the Planning Director may be 14 appealS4 to the Scacd of Adainistrativo Appeals and Zoniag Adjustment by applying variance. f�= a minor qP 15 (3) ton- COafozainq Rights. Anon - paysd drivex. lsgaliy established priow 26 to the adoption of this code section is'not subject to the paving roau$reASnts os thit Section unless 17 the use and maintenance of such driveway lapse® for period of one year or 18 Moro or.unless the use served by the driveway is expanded. 19 (4) Landscaping of Front Yards. All front yarc area@ other than thus ,pscmittsd to bs 20 paved by this section shall be lands; aped. 21 (3) Parking Oki Front Yard Landscaped Areas. Parkinq on any portion of a front 22 Yard, other than the paved pasking Gross Psrnitted by tl.74.060(l) and {Z) os non- conforaing driveway permitted by , Prohibited. 19.94.080(3), 2) �3 2s (6) Rsgistr;ticn and Vehicle Condition. R11 v$Nielez parked outside of BS a comysietsly enclosed shall be currently and legally registered except as aqa provided for by @tats law 26 and shall be in an operable anal mcv*&bla condition Within one hour. Motorized vehicles. rocreationel vehicles, shall be Movable under their ow their owe Power. Boats and other 27 non - motorised vehicles, such as trailers, shall be novable by a towing vehicle Customarily used for the ARk type of Vehicle being towed." ttv t4YORr.Qv VeA9106 —4- ca ktrti E 7 8 9 10 11 12' 131 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CITY ATTOAhgV 1N V I NSICIT CAW'01INIA 1 Section 7a Section 19.74.1S.- Of the Riverside Munic 2 Cods is hereby amended to read as followst l 3 ('19.7¢.150 MAY:TTENANCS All off street parking spaces AND USE OF gARKt21G SPACES. chapter Shall be maintained fornghardsaixatianiatdthe ( im rov"Ont f— use ra uirin such Y this areas must be used excluaiv:l areas. Such spaces an, of passenger automobile$ oY light ' rtthe ektemporary Parking manufacturer's grass vah%ra. pounds, and may not be used far#eht ratingd paa,0o0 repair Of motor vehicles. for as provided in sections trash 10.es# la and %0.45.020. Pedestrian walkways; tre�h Inc %oa�:rea, laadtcaping, parking structures a;_a parmittg,j signs and lights, soweverp may be placed in suc area•," see ei� any 8l 64otion8 19.70.180 and 29.'0.182 o: the Riverside Municipal Code are hereby dsl•t•d in chair entirety. Sec— ction -98 The, City Clark shall certify Of this ordinance and cause the adoption in a newspaper of general circulation 11% accordance With Seat do 414 ®g the Charter Of the City Of Riverside. This ordinance shall b•com.- elf act on the 30th day after the date Vt itx adoption. ADOPTED by tiro City Council and "gnsd by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this day at ayos • Y o vets • Atteat �11 ty C es o t ® tY ® vmrac • KG/05100 v��ss LA TAW 4' SQLID GAR. FINCB Ago. It iTAIAT ta46iAB .'0$YARD `" 4' X90' VAX r sw* / f e' A.'luo Rea. it 4TABIT SBONVARD s CAPI, $tAt2r MAX, 4' S®LJD 4' $CLIO m0;,sLp- 41A, (01 R3C. f1 ST14seT A 64l , t"' OYAftlly CAR' f ®RYARC 9t0 L EYAAtD 9TAEAT' � "o ALLEY 4' SQLID GAR. FINCB Ago. It iTAIAT ta46iAB .'0$YARD `" 4' X90' VAX r sw* / f e' A.'luo Rea. it 4TABIT SBONVARD s CAPI, $tAt2r MAX, J. d N BB G A 0 A J@@yy C ppC C k A •� G v ! C M q .Ai C'd b A C e r N C w 7 u 5 w dl b b AOL a � pO� App L •r 6 ® 4 .w � � Y. sa 60 CE4p' aC � _CC IN a'. 0, A u . � ° •w .w ®u .. Y e e T � C .d -"1 ..'�i9 a� C•n 4A O •n bA �r Yd. 4.~iY� � � C C < 4 <Nik 6~i Qti4 M016z 16 mtp4 s O w .y .r .,i • 96 at4` 4 4 4 a Ob 6 Id N y at ua b kUY Pt M ~ 0e b Y M � 4 d3 h h h N .ni4f h M M Q yo u C° e ■°L N W!V �. •�QeQ� �4i d -jut 6 I® -4 t s �a :m O J ya71 y tl miMQVp .g9i�ViaCqpp�1 3� YY Q N MNR Y® YY N '��+� �0t4A YO'N 10 Mtl►eg PIS L4 r 0 ' •w It M f� 4 .� M w t Y tl a w ;y y b b M LeiCY!y "�Ra1 V t •tl y • 02 '�Oi n �tl a� lf� bq M4�j by 4fi. � AYA 8.1� u uuotl a..Vv.��' F T-1 { 830G.O10 NANNING AND ZONING i { Yi.:4.J1J Ordinance No. 527 became effective is insuffi. j cicnt to meet the rec uiremonts for the use garages or carports may be located in with'which it is associated, or where no such the front yard, subject si appF Further erj parking hsc been provided, said building or the Planning commission. Further , I p g providers that: structure may be altered or enIarged, or such "'— use may be extended provided additional OIL SAr required front yard oc rid automobile parking spaces are provided to Y butting a s reef aTi9frii'oEbt i meet_ the standards for said use in conformity used foe parking space for automo- with the requirements set forth in this part, .bile-$. a3:ucks, .mailers, or other ve- i for the enlargement, extension or addition hicles and boats, excepting as proposed. provided herein. .010 3toragq of vehicles; general. No motor .012 Covered perking. Where a garage 1 `vehicle shall be stored or parked in any or accessory building is located in a fzone except in an entirely enclosed required side or rear yard the space or 'arpbrt other than in the I'M" setback provisions of the zone in and "A" Zones, subject to conditional which located shall apply. 1 use permit requirement, ae provided In .020 Vehicle access. There shall be vehicu- i Chapter 903, "Zoning Procedures," lar access from a ,dedicated and Im- proved ;unless said vehicio L capable of move. proved street or alley to arki3 off-street ment under its own power. p,g facilities on the pro 1 arkh perty re- .020 Parking exceptions; Beneral. The park- q g such parking, and all parking i ing•requirements for any zone shall be spaces shall have adequate provisions j deemed to . be fulfilled as to any for ingress and egress cs ffollo. e; property which is included in a duly .021 If a lot has vehicular access on an organiz -d "'P," perking zone. allay, there shall be provided as a All businesses situated within the Upland minimum pedestrian access way, Par: ing and 'Business Improvement Area recorded as such. ten (10) feet from which are assessed and contribute to said the street frontage to the rear i improvement fund in the mcnner prescribed buIIding site of sites. A gate may be - by this code shall be relieved of providing the canstructeA at the front of the . number of off- street parking space require- building line. Said gate shall have ments IJy the following amounts: Zone a minimum width of five (5) feet A- 100 11.b; Zone B-10 %; Zone C-5%. and shall be permitted only in conjunction with an additional five See: 9406.020. Residential parkins re- (5) teat of easily removable fence or qulrements— General. wall with supporting pasta designed �seept v may provided by the stand. to lift out or otherwise provide a tan -foot wide unobstructed pas - aids of the' residential zone in which sageway i n case of an emergency. i located, the provisions of this section shall The • pedestrian access niay be apply for all residential parking spaces cowed. provided an eight (a) foot andIar arose. high clearance is maintained. 010 Required location of parking spaces. .022 If vehicular access Is by way of a i 1 All parking spaces she!l be located to driveway parailol with a side lot thi rear of the front setback line on the line, theWshall ke an access way. came siti ns the main building except recorded " such, t:ca (10) feet from in mountain areas or hillside lots where the street frontage to the rear VV , 3u'K ',sz � yQ Cis ) C2•uG� �. �iu�.c , c�— �.tc•z� ...c. � 6. Retirement Homes (coct'd) Welfare, as a "Residential Care Home, foe the Aging". the Planning Commission may approve a ratio of one (1) space per dwelling unit, or room, with at least one -half of she total covered (in a garage or carport), with sufficient ooen area provided in addition to the required outdoor living area to permit the normal number of spaces as required for standard multiple family dwellings. A plan showing the possible parking layout In this open area shall be submitted *,o and approved by the COMM13310n, 7. Restaurants One (1) apace for each three (3) permitted to occupy the establishment by the occupancy provisions of the Building Code. 8. Retail Sales when primary One (1) space for each 2,000 square feet. sales area is out -of- doors. 432 JOINT USE AND COMlWON PARMNC FACILITMS The Planning Commission may permit the joint trss of parking facilities to meet standards for certain uses under the following eonditionsl the A. Up to one -half of the parking facilities required for a : ~imarily daytime use may be OL used to meet the requirements of a primarily nighttime se and up to one -half of the parking fa�ilities required for a primarily nighttime u : may be used to meet the arrange neat hall comply with Subsection3 2-Provided below. that such reciprocal parking B. The parking facilities required for a primarily daytime use may be used to permit up to 80% of the requirements for a church or school auditorium subject to requirements set forth in Subsection 432 -C Below. C. The parties concerned shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the building or uses for which the joint use is proposed and shall evidence agreement for such use by a proper• legal instrument, to which the City is a party. 433 STORAGE No vehicles incapable of movement under their own power (Including trailers, boats, camper shells and disabled motor vehicles) and no other materials or objects shall be stored or placed within any parking space; except that trailers and boats may be stored provided that th within residential spaces not wi *hIn the required front or street -side setback areas, e screening requirements of Chapter 3, Pert 3 are met, any, except for vehicles being serviced in automobile service stations. (Rev.Ord.89 -22 - to /30139) 4/3-2 F. Industrial Wastes Any Industry requiring disposal of chemicals or industrial waste into the sanitary sewer system will be required to obtain approval from the County Sanitation District, 535 OUTSIDE STORAGE All outside storage shall be located at "the •irtterior side3 or-tho -rear of -buildings. No such storage shall be permitted in the front or street side setback areas. All outside storage must be appropriately screened by a solid wall and /or landscaping, said screening to be approved by the Architectural Commission. 536 ilETRIMENTAL AND VNSICWTLY CONDITIONS A;1 buildings, structures, yards and other improvements shall be maintained in is manner which Is compatible with and which does not have a detrimental affect on ,adjacent or nearby property. As examples of such conditions, and not by way of llmitatlon, the existence of any of the following shall be deemed to be a detrimental and/or unsightly condition: A. Dilapidated or deteriorating or unrepalred structures, such as fences, roofs, screen . doors, doors, garage doors, walls, chiidrevs awing sets and play structures, storage sheds, shade structures, and other Improvements. Be Lumber$ junk, trash, or debris. C. Objects or equipment such as automobile parts, fu: iture, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, cans, containers or similar items which are ab- idoned, discarded, unused, or stored outdoors. 0. Excavations over 18 inches deep. Be Any vehicle parked or stored either In The street, or In a location on private property which is visible from the street or visible Pram neighboring properties, and which lacks an engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshields or any other part necessary for legal ar safe operation an public streets. F. Any vehicle parked or stored either In the street, or In a location on private property which is vlslbls from the street or visible from neighboring properties, and which is not currently licensed or registered. C. Swimming peals, or any other accumulation of water, which contains stagnant water, visible algae growth, or which provides a breading gjound for Insects or vermin. He Any vegetation which; 1. Is diseased, dead, or in danger of falling. 2. is an unmaintained lawn or weed area which is over one f1) root in height. 3. Presents a fire hazard by reason of Its dry condition. (Rev.Ord.99 -3, 2128 /g9; Ord.89 -7, 4/23/89; Ord.89 -19, 9/12/89 Ord.99 -22, 10/30/89) *� I L✓ I. Any structure, other than patic furniture or a trellis or simiiiar structure that is 1 placed in the area commonly referred to as the "front yard" area, which is over three feet in height, and which hts not been authorized by a building permit, variance, conditional use permit, or the like. 537 NEICir1BO RHOoo PROTECTION A. Nv -trailers, boats, camper shells, .disabled vehicles, or other vehicles incapabia of 1 movement under their own power or not currently licensed for use on public street., or motor homes, shall be parked, stored or allowed to remain in any required front or street side setback area. Except in legally established sales agencies for such vehicles, such vehicles may only be parked or stored in a garage or rear or interior side Yard with a solid fence or wall not less than live (3) feet high, or other manner of storage approvGJ by the Director of Community Development, separating the vehicle from the public right -of -way in such a manner that the vehicle does not constitute I visual nuisance to the neighboring properties. B. No commercial vehicles exceeding a one (1) ton rating shall b2 parked or stored in any residential district, except during construction or normal deliveries. C. No building materials, machinery, or other materials or equipment used In or for a business shall be stored outdoors on any lot in any residential district, except during construction of the lot. D,- No person shall park any vehicle on any landscaped or unpaved area in the front or street side set back area, or on cay vacant parcel, a :ept with the prior written approsai of the Director of Community Development. i1Rev.Ord.89 -5, 2/23/89; 5/3- 12 Ord.89 -7, 4/23/89; Ord-8949, 9/12/39; Ord.89 -22, 10/30/39) :8,53.040 I. Enclosed Garage and Carport Dinienilons. the minimum interior dim ±fusions of a single -car covered carport or garage shall be ten feet ir . width and twenty feet in depth. In calculaune minimum parking space dimensions, the width of vertical corner supports shall not be included. 2. Setbacks. Parking spaces der structures may not encroach into the required front yard setback. All parking spaces from ins onto a dedicated street shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the Public right -of -way. %V ten parking areas are adjacent to required front or side yard setbacks, such parking areas shall be screened or partially screened from view fror" the public right -of -way unless otherwise approvedd, by the development review committee. 3. Driveway. The minimum width of driveways for access to on -site parking and circulation areas shall be thirty -two f *t in width. This minimum width may be reduced subject to approval by the development review Comm ttee. An uv bstructed clearance of twenty feet in width and thirteen feet six inches in height -chall be maintained on all driveways within the development. 4. Curbs. Parking spaces shall be separated from landscaped areas by minimum six - inch -high concrete curbs. 5. Landscaping Requirements. The following landscaping provision shall apply within the required parking facilit n for multiple- family residential projects: a. Four or fewer residential units on a single legal lot: as approved by the planning di3'ectoe b. Five or more residential units on a single legal lot: as required in Section 18.58.030 (K). C. General Residential Standards. Unless otherwisespeeifred, the followingstandArds shall apply in all residential zones: ,.� 1. Standard Parking Space Size. Minimum dissensions for an off-street residential parking space shalt be trine feet in width and twenty feat in depth and shall have a minimum vertical clearance of not less than six and one -half feet. 2. Handicapped parking. For required handicapped panting, the space size shall be in agreement vdth the provisions of Section 18.38,030 (k3). 3. Tenders Parking. Tandem parking is prohibited, except in mobilehome development (M1HD) zones. 4. Location, Required parking facilities Stall be located on the same legal property as the residence to be served. S. Lease or Rental of Spence. N. 0 property ownershell lease, rentor make available to others the use of parking spaces required by this swdon unless otherwise provided by law. G. Special Vehicles. Requirements forthe parking or storing cf sp€ W vehic.:s shall be as follows: a. The parking or storing of vehicles, camper shells. boaw, trailers, recreational vehicle -i or similar vehicles on )awns, landscaped areas or other unpaved surface open to public view i, prohibited. b. Net truck& delivery vans, tractors, backhoes or other commercial vehicles exceeding a one -ron rated castAnScapacity and used primarily in a trade or business shall be puked or stored in a residential zone. 7. P&ving. All parking area and driveways shall be surfaced and Maintained with asphaltic concrete, cement or otrher permanent impervious surfacing material which is acceptable to the city engineer, and shall be maintained in good order thereafter S. Drainage. All parking facilities shall be graded and provided with permanent stormwater drainage facilities which are acceptable to the city engineer. Access. Each darkling space shall be accessible from a street or alley. 372.3 .a:,I,o . -M! KI -�* 1� . t t . i i s r Y a ORDINANCE No. S&-45g AN ORDINAgt'E. OF TIM CLTT COUNCIL OF T8g CITT OF MONICLAIR -DCINC SECTION 4- 4,1027, ARTICLR 10 OF LEAP= 4 OP TITU 4 AND StMOUS 9- 4.219.2, 9- 4.235.1 AND 9- 4.257,2 OF TIM MONTC.AIR MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MM PRODIEITION oP 7EIIICLES PAR62Ix ON LAWAS Ok DIEM UNPAVED SURFACES TR CITT COUNCIL OF Ta CIST OF H7T=AIR DOES GXDAIN ti 701SON51 SECTION T. AM_NDMn'yT OF CODE$ A. Seetion 4.4.1027 Of Article 10 of Chapter 4, of Title 4 of the Montclair Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:. ,Section 4- 4.1027. Parking Prohibited an Lawns ssd other Uapaved Surfaces: 6 pas.�anl v hick;, including but not Limit. - �eautomabiles,- trucks, motor.�hpmes, , campers., io:— storea any �Crailer,._camper' yshall,,bost or orher.sisd.lar.squigmitic upod i y°lawn'ar "other unpried surface p dlying, v_ithin .soy front yard: or street turner .side yard build.np_satbatk,r. .�within any residential zoned area or other zonedjproperty being used prlmarilyw aa• rsaldener.'. (b) No proparty oover shall permit the parking of any vehicle, includir, !brit not .`.iaitsd ca automobiles, trucks, motor homes, campers, nor Permit the storage of any miler, tamper shell, boat, or other similar equipment upon any lawn or other unpaved surface lying within any front yard or straec corner side yard building setback, 11thin any residential zoned area or other zoned property being used primarily to a residence. (c) No person shall use or permit the use ow their property of a landscaped or unpaved arts for access to a parki ..r storage area for any automobile, truck, motor hose, tamer, trailer, camper shell, boat, or other similar equipmenc whom said Access falls within any front yard c- itreac corner side yard building set back, within any residential zoned area or other toned oroperty being used primarily as a residence. An exception may be granted in chose cases where said access is so infrequaot as to taupe no discernible affect on the landscaping within any front yard or street corner side yard building eat back. (d) The aforementioned provisions of this section shall not be construed to permit the paving or hard - surfacing of front yards or atraet corner aide yards in excess of the minimum landscaping and ,21sum pavement Provisions of Section 9- 4.103(J -2) of the Montclair municipal Code. (a) The aforementioned provisions of this station shall not be construed to prohibit Cho parking of vehicles on laws or other unpaved surfaces for the vurposes of washing, making emergency repairs, or on -site construction when @aid parking doev not exceed a total of three hours within say conmecutive 24 -hour time period. ''. Sectlooe 9.4.219.2, 9- 4.275.1 and 9- 4.257.2 of Article 2 of Chapter 4, of Teets! 9 of the Montclair Municipal Code are hereby added as follow I Sectiam 9- 4.219.2. Drivemmy, "Driveway' shall mean a hard - surfaced vehicle access, parking arcs or ;&eking apron on private property improved by means of asphalt, concrete, cement, laved brick r- block which is generally ,let to contour and is substantially is*arvious. It shall not include pervious alternatives including, but not 11elted to, gravel, loose atone, or slag. Section 9- 4.235.1. Landscaped Area. 'Landscaped areas shall mean unpsvtd arose which are improved by weans of law or other ground cover including shrubs, Crass and the like and which may include hard - surfaced areas and /or decorative rock, bark, and the owlMUws N0. R9..4sR i E 11 L t like not exceeding twenty percent of he total landscaped area, . which are an intendedcamplesencary aspect of a landscape deli'.... Section 9- 6.257.2. Pavesne,_ "Pavement" and "paving" shall mean an Brea tu'roved by the laying or covering with a material sv:h as asphalt, eonarete, d�msnt, layed brick or block so as to farm o substantially flat, hard, and level >urfsts. _^ S°_CT104 II. SEMASILITY -fie City Council of the City of Montclair hereby declares that should any section, sentence, wori, or clause of this ordinance be declared for any reason cc be invalid, it is the Lucent of the Council that it would have Passed all ocher provisions of this chapter independent of the eLiminacioa here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION. III. PENALTY If any rerson shall violate any of the provLilons of this ordinance, he shel� be deemed guilty of infraction, an and upon conviction thereof, shall be our..shabla by fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in Cho County Jail for a perlo? of not more than six (6) concha, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Such person shall be darned guilty of a separate offense for ever? day during such port'cn of which ans violation of this ordinance is committed, concLnued, or permitted by such parson and shall be punishable therefore as provided ,by this ordinance. SECTION Io. EF:�;. TIVE DAR This ordinance shall to @a effect and be in force on April 15, 1989. SECTION V. PUBLICATION The City Clark of Cho City of Montclair shall Cause this ordinance to be oublishad in Cho Daily Report at least coca within fifteen (13) days after its passage. APPSOM AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 198 mayor ATTEST: City erx- I, Margaret A. Crawford, City Clerk of the City of manCtlair, DO PEST CEtTIPY that the foragoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 88 -658 of said City which was introduced at a regular gseting of the City Council held on the 19th day of Sepceeber 1988, and finally passed Doc lass than five (5) days thereafter an the 19th day of December, 1988, by follww1up co.wics the you, AYESS Eaton, Hackett, Paulitt, Lawman, Rhinshart NOESI None ABSTAIP: None ASSENT: None ` Margaret A. to or J City Clerk 1 i x..31 CtDM9= NO. 9"58 L t LIA Montclair Police Department PARKING VIOLATION • �+�° M Zt. N+mw tcersafsya nor Aye Myy Cm rya �' f3oaL! -rtA! 1 'PaORk WCOM a _�QQd% a9nw /rg4/! //= A P� afR M*&W to azow w att bm .. _ �y� an M batam TNl �•7 Tff% an of 1 .o.2T 10 r 1 c� 3.6 aVSti7gCtYJ1@ - • • 9" of Deft aoaeaarcs tr!''a9a'�ad ow�r. 449aa Cr :Malt ay 1,'i ' vnYfOn, C7xCk a Y a VV=b S qa a C1a aataeu b Op OE aW . c 0 M" 0o a�coPeaa a otna R NO CLAIR POLICE O�W Moo., Stti BttM° Stott.l bw i CP live& 00 NOT SEW CASH. To, tr a wrt ax?ffvr m .+nsroe Cr ati Po" C+Ibm Cww, FJ+ar t.Ttadtt -307A . s . - FNUME M APPEAR 1 - •,Fsk" b lim baA at soassi u ew"A;W awo, wt's me* acb wmd tae ' _ _ _• 1 ma n,r avq of wmao iogvagK- pn the COMMw" a mow %W Z.s (stern :• 1 41103 a me CalftrAs Van ete Coat - C. �• •• MUNICIPAL COOS VEM=E CME p W ewe ar ti a E. 4000A ew wad tsD& nt»r • ii� D:4-lr too3lL P,rkod oar ►iu�s it 5200 2 Plbu woe (Fqr a RR) - " !1 44AO04A For Sake an Rpwr,'tY _ ❑ 5204 Vda P4g Tabu Pio C • -:p 4RaL •4,10 CaynM Yon. ini '' (a 22500.1 do t+arido0 in Fro tares a .'. _ Zxw - .. - -p 4= 4.trnsc can ��+ n 22502= p wly c sep CP— ZOM Wa 4 t*L , = cien ,( rKx b 11 ad Will pM1017Lk*WTkM2W •p22514NpftM toldyet1S y 9- "sPb"PspG�ty Q271SS5aiiCaPRogS if Bel� • •BAIL. ri %J7�,�� _'_ - 'fr.y:ei�� ®G. •Plod of Canacaon w J OFIRRIMM COPY_ :L i L G Ll 4.. G LIA C YARD REQUIREMENT r'y oF' C H/,i O Chapter 20.50 shall be so located thereon that the YARD REQUIREMENT59 mull. mum distance between dwellings which Side to one soother shall be less Sections: x0.50.010 Front yard, through lot. not than ten feet, and the minimum distance of detached dwellinss in all other cases shall 0,50.020 Yards required on major or not be less than fifteen feet. 2 0.05.030 secondary stints or highways. Detached dwelling or group B. The front yard and rear yard requirements for lots in the zone in which such dwellings dwellings, are located shall also be complied with. 20.50.040 Gmpen, house trailers znd (Ord. 87.6 $ 1 Exh. A (part), 1987.) boats. 20.50,f'c^ Yards for churches, institutions, clubs, or similar uses. 20.50.040 pen. house MUM and boats. 3 0,50,060 LUCation of detached accessory ampen and house trailers shall noc he building, one story, occupied as living quarters within the city 20.50.071) Location of detached accessary except within the bp-tndaries of a designated buddlit),s, more than one story, and approved trailer park, B. 20.50,080 Coe krsance of nonconforming Campe -m, house traders, bolts, motor homes side` yrrds upon enlargement of and all vehicles having a gross vehirFle weight exis'ing structures. nd ee•+e er mo••re, PIL aW rn' Veht r. Code, es,ail not b^ siorec: within the rcgutred frontage seeds 20.50.010 Front yjid. through lot. At each end of a through lot, there shall be a front yard of the depth required by this title for the zone in which each deeded or existing street frontage is located: provided, however, that one such front yard may serve as a required rear Yard. tOrd. 87-6 j 1 Exh. A (Fart). 1967,) 20.50.020 Yards required op major or secondary streets or highways, In all zoncs, every bulking hereafter er"ied on a lot which abuts any street or highway as shown on a street or highway plan approved by the commission or council shat[ provide and maintain a front or side yard, as the sass may be. havutg s depth of noc less than that required to conform with the propNd fumm line of such street or highway as desWated y,, msolu• clan of the city caunciL (Old, 310 f 1 Exh. A (pan). 1987,) 20.50.039 Detached darvUhM or group dwelling. Except in the RDS. RD14, and RD20 zones, the fol.owytg standards shall be met: A. Detached dwellings or group dwellings erected and maintained on the same lot + C'Imc ..i•, 522 art — c_ back tat t co c Storage Mall Fear' continuous) n the same location for more that seventy -two hours. (Ord. 87.6 § 1 Exh. A (part), 1987.) 30.50.050 Yards for churches, institutions, chbs. or similar uses. A. In the A and RDI, RD_. RN. RD4,5, and RD4.5A zones, every building erected, instiittucionror� other similar useeshall be located at least twenty -rive feet from the lot or boundary line of adjoining property in an A or RD zone: except that front set. backs shall be fifteen feet in an RD20 zone, B. In the A and ROL RD2, RD3, RD4,S ar.d RD4.5A zones every building, enlarged or used for a church, library. museum. club or lodge shall be located at least fifteen feet from the side lot lines: C. In the RDS. RD14 and RD20 zones the multiple-family residential development standards shall be met. (Ord. 97-6 3 l E.Ytt. A (pr,!t), 1987,) 1�_ a:3 GLAWRO fib' Jun 0� �� RL) 4 fax a.".oia NUISMCIL f�.�. C, Sach send every rsns of folbwins i conditions or acts is hwvft declared to be a nuisance: .0116 Motor vehid". ftibrs, ; C catnpet9, bests. or other mobile equipment panted on front lawns or Boat yard areas as defined in 'title 18 of this Code, exsiuft, driveways.- the maizttanaace .zf which 9UW be doomed to be as irniraction. 13 q� - -5� Ras, Gr7 y 0 ffw✓rNCrTo 911-0.10 Park4n,1c . 2arkin•3 shall con ply ou:e 1ne in Article 960., Parking with the Male trailers, campers and caats s^al'7eaeaprnhibited an allhlandB� soaped areas within ..e :coat one -half of the to (a) oversize; vehicles say be parked on private 4n all yard areas except :, front n the required property aid setback and in any exterior side yard sezoaek. 5 (o) Se. %tra_:ers, t:ai_ers or campers nriy be parked an the dr :veway apron, or o a raved area between `ne 3riveway and the nee- eanyside propertj* line prov;ded that they do not project debris and p y tnac :re area is Kept once of trash, parts. (o) COmmercia.: •Iveri ;zed vehicles or spacial purpose ma- �� _ cr.i nes sha:1 oe p:n.^io.ted in any yard area. (Ord. 2837, 16 Jul 86) 9730.36 HOME OCCUPATIONS. CONDITIONS. Home occupations may be permitted in enobiiehorn ;arks, and in Rl, M. R3 and R4 districts provided the following conditions are met: (a) Business shalt be restricted to one room in the dwelling and all materials, supplies, equipmen- products, or facilities shall be stored and kept therein. (b) Garages shall rot be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles. (c) No person residing off the premises shall be employed. (d) There shall be no display of merchandise, projects, operations, signs, or nameplates of any kin visible from outside the dwelling. ,e) The appearance of the dwelling shall not be alte:d, nor shall the business be conducted in manner t,3 indicate that the dwelling or its premises is used for a non- residenttal purpose, whetht by colors, materials, construction, lighting, windows. signs, sounds or any other mears whatsoever. (f) The occupation wall not increase pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. (g) The occupation shall not require the use of commercial vehicles for delivery of materials to c from the premiset. ) No commercial vehicle or equipment used in conjunction with the occupation shall be parke vernight on the street or in any yard area of the premises. (i) The occupation shall not create noise, odor, dust, vibration, fumes, or smoke readily detecte at the t-3undaries or the parcel on which it is situated, and shall not create any Asturbance whit adversel, affects electrical, ;ppliances located on adjacent properties. (j) All applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code shall be met. E 90=o-?n U!'*s __ize stdicles Any vehicle which exceeds twenty -five (25) feet I., length, sewn (7) feet in width, or seven (7) feet i-t height, •matcrixed or nonmotorized. Oversize vehicies include, but are not limited to trucks, buses. truck tractors. trailers, campers. and recreational vehicles. is well as any equipment or machinery regardless of size. X2336 -6/86) 12/89 C . 5.5' tC 114t Page 3: GE=NERAL CON :ROLS C17'Y OG /J�W/p�i�?' G3F.�4�M RESIDENTIAL Chapter 10.10 20.10.050 PARKING A. Storage or parkins spare for the parking of automobiles off the street shall be provided in any residential district as follows: 1. Not loss than one and one-half parking spaces for each dwelling unit, 2. Not less than three parking spaces for any structure can. twining 2,000 square fast or more, exclusive of areas dcvo(ad to parking and open space, unless the structure is a single - family dwelling, 3. Not l0kaa than one covered, independently accessible parking space for each two guest rooms in any rooming house. 4. Not less than one independently accessible parking space for each two Quest rooms in any hotel. 5• Not less than one Sndspendsntly accessible parking space for each guest unit ': any motel. Parkins spaces required fb- ether uses allaw4d in any residential district not sat forth above shall be determined by the Pla!mins Commis sto,n B. Parking of aut;aoMiles on the roof of a building in any residential district is t=ot allowed. C• In addition to the above noted parking standards, the following Parking controls shall dlso apply: 1. For each dwelling unit there shall be at least one covered parkins space. 2. For each dwelling unit, there shall be at least one indepen- denely accessible parking space. 3. Tandem parking up to a maximum of two cars Permitted. in depth shall oe 4. Parkins in side yards shall be permitted; provided, however, that structural encroac%,ments shall not be permitted, except as noted in this section. When three parking spaces are provided across the rear of a lot less than 30 feet 10 inches yvlds, one gsrsge wall may encroach into the requiL►,` <.je yard setback. Its distance from tl�s property line shali be not less than 26 inches plus the gmunt (if .any) that chs width of the lot exceeds 30 fact. The sub*tandard side yahe created thereby shall have a clear passesse�ay 26 Inches wide, unobstructed by fences, utilitM meters, hose bibs, or any other appurtenances which cou11 interfere with use of the p9s80Eswny by emergency personnel or equipment. El 11 Page 33 - cK GE.bEPAL aoNrr�Ls �1 _ 3 RESICW.IAL S. Parking Chapter 20,10 ' i Sn frorsr Yards $hall be partiicted on orivaysYs from of garagsa that in eat b &ck at least ntnateea f +st from Ch frees property li+a; provided, however, the_ strwatwral eneroaohsants sha,.l nnc tie ptroiteed. It n She one covered parkink AN urge shell be included in Ch* gross floor ehsr is requicud for each d•�alling ateaa read area. 8ow4v4r, the following not be included in rya gross floor arse; i_ attar parking spaces which are open an at Iaast :.to Iidca• or open oh -0aa aids and sae and; and 3' when= Y -fivoe square fast of storage area adjacent to or s Of a parking space n a lot laps than thirty +two P.avldad that ro foot wide. Vovidad that three plumbing is located in said area, and across on, °g spas era prov :dad and 02 the or aid& by aide g. Subject W rho ptovirio,ts of Chapter --".x.23, structures whist yore in "'stare" or urger construction on Ordinance. the effective data of and vhie$ da not Provide the required number of spaces. at be this required parking without Parking eesdaa fOrlaaltered l ap providing addit±onaI i Kinoe alteration* such as the remodeling of eziatirs build. i image what* no a4dittonal living aP4" is Fr"Gosd; and 2. Miaar additions to existing buildings, such a* the ean- stsvation of bathrooms, cla*ats and hallways, sion of existing r ar the excan• 1980.) roots ward. lg7b t 7, 1981: Ord, 1816 [ 1. 1 �1 _ 3